[ot] What happens when a sword hits chainmail?

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

This Happens!

 

[jgbrowning]

I've been reading a book about medieval war, from "Medieval warfare source book: warfare in western christendom" by david nicolee..
A study analyzed bone-damaging wounds on 582 skeletons from the mass graves at the battle of visby, 1361, and got this information about wounds (they said flesh wounds were impossible to determine and crushing wounds were a lot harder do to being buried for so long)

Cuts to the humerus: 6.71% of the total
Cuts to the radius: 3.35% of the total
Cuts to the ulna: 4.88% of the total
Cuts to the femur: 12.2% of the total
Cuts to the tibia: 56.4% of the total!!!
Cuts to the fibula: 16.46% of the total.

thats 85.06% of the total bone-wounding injuries to the LEGS!

makes you re-think medieval combat... well it at least made me re-think medieval combat.


Joe b.

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30063&highlight=medieval+combat

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Having fought SCA and live steel it does not surprise me that 80% of bone injuries are to the leg. Leg shots are both easier to pull off and generally have less protection. A shield is great for protecting the upper body but provides much less coverage to the lower legs. If you are defending with a sword you run into the same thing as it is much easier to defend your upper body with a sword rather than your legs. Additionally head and body protection came first in armoring if you have limited resources. This results in many lower status people lacking in good leg protection.

 

[shurai]

What about skull-shots? Where the skulls hard to measure because they'd been crushed by the years? I also notice that there's no mention of any other bones beyond in the arms and legs. What about the vertebrae of the neck and the ribs?

In any case, it's worth noting that you can kill a man in all sorts of unpleasant ways without breaking any of his bones. For instance, I believe very few thrusts to the chest will damage the bones enough to be noticeable, although 'notches' in some cases ought to be visible. In some cases even cuts to the chest won't cut the ribs, if done properly.

-S

 

[Xeriar]

What about skull-shots? Where the skulls hard to measure because they'd been crushed by the years? I also notice that there's no mention of any other bones beyond in the arms and legs. What about the vertebrae of the neck and the ribs?

-S

In a massive battle with a lot of people, do you really want to stick your sword (or any peircing or slashing weapon, really) in what amounts to an inch of rock? Plus any helmet involved... Beyond the fact that it's the easiest to defend.

If your weapon gets stuck in combat you're in trouble, plain and simple. Bashing people over the head was generally a bad idea. A lot of protection goes to the brain on all sorts of levels.

The torso isn't as bad, but can have similar problems. In the mock combats I was in I usually got people's arms first (I'm rather tall) - I could only get to the torso if they weren't paying attention (which would probably not be so likely if our lives were at stake .

 

[Zaruthustran]

This Happens!

Nice! Note that the butted mail didn't hold up well at all, but the riveted mail did okay (maybe losing a ring or two).

-z

 

[shurai]

In a massive battle with a lot of people, do you really want to stick your sword (or any peircing or slashing weapon, really) in what amounts to an inch of rock? Plus any helmet involved... Beyond the fact that it's the easiest to defend.

There's always the face and neck, which are both relatively difficult to armor and much more fragile compared to the skull. Also, although the skull and helm or cap gives good protection to the head in terms of actually penetrating in to the brain, fractures and concussions are certainly viable goals, and plenty debilitating. See my above post regarding knocking on a guy's head with the pommel of your sword.

Also, I'm pretty sure that the torso is easier to defend than the head, all told. In a good middle guard position it's easier to defend the torso than the head, garaunteed, though I'll grant that evading certain cuts at the head is easier than the torso. It's even easier to defend the arms, which are more exposed but also the fastest parts of your body and very easily protected by your weapon or shield.

If your weapon gets stuck in combat you're in trouble, plain and simple. Bashing people over the head was generally a bad idea. A lot of protection goes to the brain on all sorts of levels.

You're absolutely right about stuck weapons and trouble, but I have to disagree with you otherwise; bashing in the head was a huge tactic in just about every kind of melee I can think of, unless what I've read and been taught is completely wrong. The Japanese used to attack the top of the head all the time, 'drawing butter' was the nickname that one of my sword instructors told me about. An attacker can stop his attack and snap the blade out as part of the cutting action, or even better draw the blade out by pulling before it has the chance to stop.

The torso isn't as bad, but can have similar problems. In the mock combats I was in I usually got people's arms first (I'm rather tall) - I could only get to the torso if they weren't paying attention (which would probably not be so likely if our lives were at stake .

Personally speaking, I know that even if armored the head is an excellent target. In most of the simulated combats I've been involved in, the head, inner shoulders, and neck have all been prime targets. Going for any particular target has its risks, of course, but the head and neck are pretty fragile and full of vitals. All this and it is an extremity!

And I don't know where you're getting this about the torso. To get a good cut, you have to expose the torso one way or another.

-S

 

[jgbrowning]

What about skull-shots? Where the skulls hard to measure because they'd been crushed by the years? I also notice that there's no mention of any other bones beyond in the arms and legs. What about the vertebrae of the neck and the ribs?

-S

sorry, it was just a study on wounds to limbs... they dont provide any other information.

more stuff

http://www.churchmousewebsite.co.uk/visby.htm


joe b.

 

[Ace]

From what little is known about mail armor the general consensus is it is impossible to cut with a sword if made properly.

The armor was always and I mean always worn with a padded gamrment usually called a gambeson or an asketon depending on size and construction

Modern mail armor is what they called "butted" the links are pressed together with pliers. This armor can be "ripped" open with a strong blow.

It is the fastest to make and the only kind you will commonly see for sale. It was never worn in Medieval europe as main protectiona

Better armor is riveted and will not break on anything but a strong repeated cut to the same location.

It will disperse most of a blow along the links and into the padding. Any solid blow will hurt like blazes but it won't cut you and thats what matters

Note The best armor was welded together, this was later stuff and pretty rare. Magic armor in D&D would be welded (and sung with spells too) It was very strong stuff

Now there were several other kinds of mail including the 6 in 1 mentioned earlier, double mail and other sorts. They were fairly uncommon.
About 90% of the mail you would see is 4 in 1 or international mail

ALso note that mail users almost always had shields, they might not have carried them but they were used. Not only were they cheap and effective but mail armor stops serious injury but if you are hit you will still be hurt

After plate armor became common it was strong enough that shields were needed less and weapons were often 2 handed, Longswords-- Bastard Swords--- Poleaxe and so on had to hit hard to penetrate high quality plate

Now Plate cam in different grades-- In D&D terms munitions issue would be normal

Higher grades made of better steel and better contruction would have bonuses to AC (up to about +2) and if fitted, reduced movement penalties and incresed maximum dex bonuses

Whew

OK, two last bits

Rapiers are useless against armor

They were dueling weapons used on opponents who at most had a "buff coat" of leather.
Rapiers came into existnence in the last 100 years of plate armors reign and were rarely seen on the battle field

IRL it was next to impossible to hit a chink in the armor while your opponent is stabbing you in the face with his hand and a half sword

Mail was outdated as a defense by the time rapiers came around although occasionally a mesh mail glove called an arming glove. It was basically a meat cutters glove and could be used to ward and catch rapiers and maybe daggers

Also note rapiers and similar weapons were mainly used with a second weapon such as a dagger

The Estoc was an unusual weapon, a edgeless sword well described earlier as a big awl.
It was used 2 handed and gripped in front in front of the handguard (Ricasso) and thrust like a spear.

It could pentrate armor (sometimes) or hit joints and go through weak spots, unlike a rapier I migt add

A fight between two estoc men (or pole axe guys sometimes) would like a wrestling match by armored men with crowbars

 

[Enkhidu]

A study analyzed bone-damaging wounds on 582 skeletons from the mass graves at the battle of visby, 1361, and got this information about wounds (they said flesh wounds were impossible to determine and crushing wounds were a lot harder do to being buried for so long)

Cuts to the humerus: 6.71% of the total
Cuts to the radius: 3.35% of the total
Cuts to the ulna: 4.88% of the total
Cuts to the femur: 12.2% of the total
Cuts to the tibia: 56.4% of the total!!!
Cuts to the fibula: 16.46% of the total.

If this data is from the battle of Visby, the it's probably worth noting that the Visby Coat of Plate was unearthed from the same battlefield gravesites. To give you an idea of what the armor was like, think of wearing a sort apron - one that comes down to mid thigh. If you were to make that apron out of heavy leather and then back it with either steel plates or saddle leather plates, you would have a good idea of what the armor looked like. Also, by 1361, vambraces and rebraces (lower and upper arm guards, sometimes but not always connected by an elbow cop) were becoming more common even among footsoldiers. If you add this basic set of armor together with a shield and helmet, you'd see that the lower legs were the only thing left uncovered.

Kind of makes sense now, doesn't it!