Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > New respect for Medieval arms! Reply to topic
This is a standard topic  
Author Message
Dustin Faulkner




Location: BOERNE, TX
Joined: 20 Jul 2008

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 118

PostPosted: Fri 12 Jun, 2009 2:27 pm    Post subject: New respect for Medieval arms!         Reply with quote

Hello :

I just wanted to share a sobering new appreciation for medieval arms. I have seen the effects of medieval weapons upon skulls & other bones in books. Recently, there has been a new television series here in the USA titled "Deadliest Warrior." Basically, two types of historical warriors are pitted against each other, weapons are demonstrated, and a computer program determines who would have the edge (pun intended) in a duel.

Hopefully, new epsiodes are being made because they're playing reruns now. I saw one episode for the third time (William Wallace vs. Shaka Zulu) and noticed a Scottish claymore chopped off three heads during one swing! The third head even had it's jaw flying off too! The claymore looked very much like Hanwei's. Later, a war hammer turned a skull into powder and tiny shattered pieces. It's back spike deeply penetrated another skull.

It all gives me a headache! More seriously though, the effects of these weapons makes me thankful I live today - not back then. I suppose it's more easy to watch someone fall from being shot. I can't imagine watching someone's brains splatter everywhere in front of me because of a war hammer, or watch them be eviscerated with my own sword. I'd love to learn how to use a sword or polearm, but the skill needed to expertly wield such weapons makes me thankful for firearms. Even if we all knew how to really use a sword or polearm, there's always someone better than you. Honestly ... I don't think I could survive a medieval battle - or any pre-firearms battle. Gunpowder has been a great equalizer.

How anyone survived a medieval battle like Towton is beyond my imagination. How anyone survived even during times of medieval peace is beyond my imagination. Many of us collect replica medieval weapons. A fortunate few can afford originals. They are obsolete, but I keep in mind you can still kill someone with them. After all, armies still train with knives today.

Whenever I finally get to visit a museum with a medieval arms collection, I'll make it a point to remember what viloent times those were. I suppose you were very fortunate to be a skilled fully armoured knight. At least you had a chance. Oh well ... I'm must go read Christian Tobler's German longsword books now!

Sincerely,
Dustin Faulkner

DUSTIN FAULKNER
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Jon Wolfe




Location: Orlando, FL
Joined: 01 Aug 2007

Posts: 56

PostPosted: Fri 12 Jun, 2009 3:07 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Modern weapons haven't made warfare any less grizzly, just easier. If they had some of those ballistic gel torsos around any of the explosives that were set off, the effects would be more devastating than the more ancient weapons that were tested.
View user's profile Send private message
Christopher VaughnStrever




Location: San Antonio, TX
Joined: 13 Jun 2008
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 382

PostPosted: Fri 12 Jun, 2009 4:46 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

This topic has been beaten to death here. Long story short, the show has potential, however they destroy just about all of the authentic historical value there could be.
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...st+warrior

On another note, I live in San Antonio, TX very close to Boerne. Dustin; If you would like we can meet up and I can let you see the armour I have. I'll suit you up in the armour if you like. Total weight is around 90lbs of plate, maile, and padded arming garment.

here is a link to what I have, about half way down the page
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...;start=308

Experience and learning from such defines maturity, not a number of age
View user's profile Send private message
Dustin Faulkner




Location: BOERNE, TX
Joined: 20 Jul 2008

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 118

PostPosted: Fri 12 Jun, 2009 9:55 pm    Post subject: Meeting up         Reply with quote

Hello Chris:

Sure! I'd be delighted to meet a fellow myArmoury.com enthusiast. You seem more "plugged" into this stuff than I am. I figured I was on my own here in Boerne. I've always wondered what it's like to wear armour. Your offer would be a rare opportunity. Where was that Renn. Fair? Doesn't look like Texas.

I thank you.

Sincerely,
Dustin Faulkner
Boerne, TX

DUSTIN FAULKNER
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Gabriele A. Pini




Location: Olgiate Comasco, Como
Joined: 02 Sep 2008

Posts: 239

PostPosted: Fri 12 Jun, 2009 11:48 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Personally I think that in the pre-modern war there was a sort of sense of eroic that was lost for Europe during WWI. Not that the weapons weren't deadly, or that when there was to storm a wall, or stop a horses charge, the stuff really hit the fan, but in general there was the sensation that the valour of the arms, or of the drill or of the brotherood between soldiers, can keep you from die.

This thinking method was shattered during WWI: the new efficency of the machine-gun, the more accuracy of rifles and artillery give a new meaning to survival. It wasn't a brave hearth, or a strong arm that could save a man, but only the capacity to dig and stay low (and there was a huge Darwinism Selection betwenn the officials who could reject the old valours and dress as common soldiers and the ones who couldn't).

I don't propose that wars in the medieval era were a joke, or some sort of sport: far from it. War was ever a disgrace, but even in the evil there is a graduation.
Think to the dopplesoldier, the man that in the 16th century gained double wage by going to the front of the battle: who would ever volounteer int WWI to go first in an assault? The "War to stop all the Wars" was really to stop "all the Heroes"...

So the weapons of the pre-moderns eras were truly terrifing, but there were ever a chance to affront them and survive. If the evaluations are to be credited, a 10% casuality rate was the standard in a pre-modern battle. From here the use of the decimation for the cowards, but during WWI a lot of soldiers prefered to affront the decimation than a battle.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Bruno Giordan





Joined: 28 Sep 2005

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 915

PostPosted: Sat 13 Jun, 2009 2:50 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

ever seen uncensored pics of modern warfare wounds???

And yes, modern warfare usually decimated the best and brightest,as the braver volunteered and the cowards and slicker wheeler-dealers maneuvered to get exemptions or to get assigned to non-combat units.

Surely ww1 and 2 have had a negative impact on the male population of Europe
View user's profile Send private message
Christopher VaughnStrever




Location: San Antonio, TX
Joined: 13 Jun 2008
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 382

PostPosted: Sat 13 Jun, 2009 1:56 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dustin, im going to have a garage sale this up comming saturday. I live in the center of san antonio, Im 5 minutes from the zoo - in Olmos Park Send me a PM
Experience and learning from such defines maturity, not a number of age
View user's profile Send private message
Dustin Faulkner




Location: BOERNE, TX
Joined: 20 Jul 2008

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 118

PostPosted: Sun 14 Jun, 2009 12:19 pm    Post subject: Hey Chris         Reply with quote

Hope your garage sale went well. How can I contact you?
DUSTIN FAULKNER
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Ryan J. Kadwell




Location: Queensland, Australia
Joined: 12 Mar 2009

Posts: 25

PostPosted: Tue 16 Jun, 2009 1:03 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

As a soldier, I think it doesn't matter what era you live in - good chance you can get pretty well buggered.
Geoffrey: You fool! As if it matters how a man falls down!

Richard: When the fallís all thatís left, it matters a great deal.
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Adam Rudling




Location: Coventry, England
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 34

PostPosted: Tue 16 Jun, 2009 1:48 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Ryan - you might have a point but really you are talking about the Navy .... Wink
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Christopher VaughnStrever




Location: San Antonio, TX
Joined: 13 Jun 2008
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 382

PostPosted: Tue 16 Jun, 2009 8:26 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

dustin, log in to check your PM (private messages) You can come over during the sale and try it on then (This comming saturday)
Experience and learning from such defines maturity, not a number of age
View user's profile Send private message
Nathan F




Location: ireland
Joined: 24 Dec 2008

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 141

PostPosted: Tue 16 Jun, 2009 10:51 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
And yes, modern warfare usually decimated the best and brightest,as the braver volunteered and the cowards and slicker wheeler-dealers maneuvered to get exemptions or to get assigned to non-combat units.


dunno if im allowed to say this but george bush and national gaurd come to mind when the brave fight and the well the rest are left behind.
personally i think what war now lacks is skill it once was that any man who trained to be the best could work hard and one day be the best. now with the advent of guns you are able to teach a child how to use the most high tech assault rifle in an afternoon and challenge the best trained soldier you can throw at him just look at vietnam or more recently the Somalia debacle.
war is never something people should have to see but at least medieval warfare gave you a slight chance to out do someone due to you skill and the carpet bombing of civilians never occures yes massacres and rape but they did not leave potentialy deadly explosives in the ground for the next 100+ years.
also who ever thought up deadliest warrior should in my book be slapped no historic accuracy at all. thats all i will say they didnt do any research and i dont know where the weapons "experts" came from it was insulting really.
but the people on here will tell you all you need to know on that stuff.

for here starts war carrion birds sing, and grey wolves howl
View user's profile Send private message
Gabriele A. Pini




Location: Olgiate Comasco, Como
Joined: 02 Sep 2008

Posts: 239

PostPosted: Tue 16 Jun, 2009 11:38 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

To Nathan F.: Sorry, but I think my english is a bit rusty. Can you repeat with some more points and commas? Thanks!
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Nathan F




Location: ireland
Joined: 24 Dec 2008

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 141

PostPosted: Tue 16 Jun, 2009 1:37 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

sorry i am very bad at doing that when online.
i dunno if im allowed to say this. but george bush and national gaurd come to mind, when the brave fight and the well the rest are left behind.
personally i think what war now lacks is skill, it once was that any man who trained to be the best could work hard and one day be the best. now with the advent of guns you are able to teach a child how to use the most high tech assault rifle in an afternoon and challenge the best trained soldier you can throw at him. just look at vietnam or more recently the Somalia debacle.
war is never something people should have to see. but at least medieval warfare gave you a slight chance to out do someone due to your skill and the carpet bombing of civilians never occurred. yes massacres and rape but they did not leave potentially deadly explosives in the ground for the next 100+ years.
also who ever thought up deadliest warrior should in my book be slapped. no historic accuracy at all. thats all i will say they didnt do any research and i dont know where the weapons "experts" came from it was insulting really.
but the people on here will tell you all you need to know on that stuff.
also if i can offer you any information i would be glad to help.
its at least good that one person wants to pursue learning from a result of this show.

for here starts war carrion birds sing, and grey wolves howl
View user's profile Send private message
Ryan J. Kadwell




Location: Queensland, Australia
Joined: 12 Mar 2009

Posts: 25

PostPosted: Wed 17 Jun, 2009 2:31 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Nathan F wrote:
sorry i am very bad at doing that when online.
i dunno if im allowed to say this. but george bush and national gaurd come to mind, when the brave fight and the well the rest are left behind.
personally i think what war now lacks is skill, it once was that any man who trained to be the best could work hard and one day be the best. now with the advent of guns you are able to teach a child how to use the most high tech assault rifle in an afternoon and challenge the best trained soldier you can throw at him. just look at vietnam or more recently the Somalia debacle.
war is never something people should have to see. but at least medieval warfare gave you a slight chance to out do someone due to your skill and the carpet bombing of civilians never occurred. yes massacres and rape but they did not leave potentially deadly explosives in the ground for the next 100+ years.


I apologise in advance if this seems off-topic, but I patently disagree with the above statement. Being in the services today, as I am sure would have been the case in the middle-ages, isn't and wasn't some sort of quest to become the greatest warrior, beyond an individual's personal goal or aspiration (whether it be wanting to be an excellent bowman or a sniper who can improve his grouping at 800m). I think that's a little bit of cross-contamination of concepts between MAs and common infantry tactics.

I certainly don't think war now is something that 'lacks skill', and that is something I think a lot of people on this board who has experienced military service can certainly attest to. To say that a child equipped with a high-tech military assault rifle can defeat the 'best trained soldier' is a bit of a sweeping error. At best, a child with a gun is a dangerous thing. Especially if that weapon is one of those durable and easy to use ex-Soviet Kalashnikovs. (Today's modern weapons and advanced weapons are amazingly complex and advanced - so, if a kid can figure out how to use one of those, he or she is off to a good start.)

But a soldier not only knows how to fire his weapon, but knows how to operate it safely in order to not cause damage to the weapon itself, kill himself, his team-members, or cause damage to property or equipment. In short, a kid can fire a gun. But it takes training for someone to employ the weapon to achieve it's desired effect.

On top of that, a trained soldier knows and understands the principles of fire-and-movement, camouflage and concealment, covering arcs of fire, enfilades and defilades, dead ground, splash-points, first-catches, leading a target, suppressive fire ... I can go on and on all day.

Then comes the weapon itself; would a child know how to safely carry out the immediate action drills if his/herweapon has an obstruction in the body? If a round is not fired, does he/she know why? What the differences is between a hard-struck and a soft-struck round, and what the implications of either are? Which part of the weapon needs the oil, and which bits need the graphite powder? I daresay, no.

In an afternoon, you can teach a child to probably load and fire a weapon. Against a well-trained soldier, depending on the circumstances, for the kid to win he/she would probably want to make that first shot the kill shot. Otherwise, it's light's out. So, that portion of your assertation is not born out with reality.

Your comments regarding AP mines and cluster-bomb munitions is indeed a valid one, but thankfully you counterweighed that with how unpleasant it was for civilians back in medieval times. I will add, however, that at least there are now international laws prohibiting the use of certain weapons (even though not everyone is a signatory of them), there are international courts to prosecute persecutors of war crimes such as genocide and deliberate targeting of civilians, prisoners of war have rights, and medical personnel, vehicles or installations (whether from NGOs like Red Cross/Crescent/Star, Doctors Without Borders, or even uniformed medics) are doctrinally not mean to be targeted or impeded. I'm not proposing that the world is perfect, and that everyone obeys those rules, or even that everyone who does breach those rules are tried and punished, but it is probably a damn sight better than what it was like even 100 years ago.

I apologise if this post has steered this conversation off track, so please allow me to steer it back ON track!

A child with an AK-47 these days is dangerous. Probably in the same way that a child with a dagger back in the old days is dangerous too. In fact, it is very dangerous that any kid should hold a weapon without proper training and, of course, respect for the weapon that are in their hands. Is a child as effective in either context? Not as much as someone with training and responsibility - and those without either don't tend to last very long in the company of an opponent who is moreso.

So, in conclusion, regardless whether a soldier has a sword and shield, or an F-88S Austeyr with an M203 GLA fitted, their skill and proficiency with the operation and employment of those weapons determine their effectiveness on the battlefield, whether that battlefield is Agincourt or Oruzgan Province.

Thank you.

Geoffrey: You fool! As if it matters how a man falls down!

Richard: When the fallís all thatís left, it matters a great deal.
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Nat Lamb




Location: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 15 Jan 2009
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 385

PostPosted: Wed 17 Jun, 2009 7:18 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I have to (mostly) concur with Ryan, the idea that "guns have taken the skill and honor out of warfare" is pretty wide of the mark.
My only real disagreements with Ryan's post are that the "Quest to become the greatest warrior" did exist, but was not a personal one, but rather one dictated by birth, if you were born into a certain class (in certain time periods), there was a great deal of presure to be able to best oponents on the field of battle, but that the majority of armies were made up of pretty minimally trained levies, professional soldiers dont really come on to the scene till the "middle ages" have well and truly passed. My other quibble (and it is a 3rd decimal point kind) is that imo the diference in skill between a kid with an AK and a trained soldier isn't really their "skill at arms" (not saying you arent a better shot, just that it isn't where the impressive diference lies), it is in the seccondarry skills that alow a soldier to utilise that skill in a tactical and sttrategic maner. Quite frankly, it is the "profesionality" of soldiers (my only experience is with the Australian Army and Navy, so I will be clear that I am only talking about them, though I can't imagine the Airforce are slack in this regard) that impresses me, and the mindset of a good soldier seems more like that of a good lighting technician than a martial artist (thats a compliment btw), maintaining their own equipment, monitoring their own wellbeing as an important part of a unit, avoiding "steyer eye", navigating, monitoring ammo etc. Its a bit like the Roman Legionary, he wasn't that much better a "fighter" than his barbarian oposite number, but he also new how to do his part in making or breaking camp, keeping the latrines usable, maintaining defences etc.
Hope this made sense, it is laer than I realised.
View user's profile Send private message
Ryan J. Kadwell




Location: Queensland, Australia
Joined: 12 Mar 2009

Posts: 25

PostPosted: Thu 18 Jun, 2009 12:14 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Thank you Nat, I probably should have applied the whole 'quest' thing much more generally to the common foot-soldier of either period.

And I cannot resist the assertation that RAAF ADGies like to compare themselves to CDO units, and not the up-weaponed SECPOLs that they really are. Moohoohahahhaa (>flamesuit on!<)

Okay, I take full responsibility of this derailment.

Geoffrey: You fool! As if it matters how a man falls down!

Richard: When the fallís all thatís left, it matters a great deal.
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,689

PostPosted: Sun 05 Jul, 2009 4:18 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Nat Lamb wrote:
the majority of armies were made up of pretty minimally trained levies, professional soldiers dont really come on to the scene till the "middle ages" have well and truly passed.


Um...this is patently not true. Medieval rulers who had limited resources tended to go for small, elite armies rather than large masses of untrained peasants. Professional soldiers were also a common feature in medieval warfare, too; mercenary knights and men-at-arms were a ubiquitous feature of medieval conflicts, not to mention non-chivalric mercenaries like Brabancons and various crossbow companies.

(Fortunately these mistakes don't weaken the idea that medieval men-at-arms were under some sort of pressure to excel in arms. They're just irrelevant to the main point of the argument.)


Quote:
My other quibble (and it is a 3rd decimal point kind) is that imo the diference in skill between a kid with an AK and a trained soldier isn't really their "skill at arms" (not saying you arent a better shot, just that it isn't where the impressive diference lies), it is in the seccondarry skills that alow a soldier to utilise that skill in a tactical and sttrategic maner.


I'd also say that this is not entirely true. Ryan has listed many things that do signify a difference in personal skill-at-arms between a properly-trained soldier and a boy with an AK; just to repeat his partial list:

Quote:
fire-and-movement, camouflage and concealment, covering arcs of fire, enfilades and defilades, dead ground, splash-points, first-catches, leading a target, suppressive fire


if we dismiss these as "tactical" skills instead of "skill at arms," then we'd also have to do the same to a medieval man-at-arms's appreciation of footwork and reach, of horsemanship, of blind spots created by the presence of fortification features (such as the merlons on a battlement). In short, in one-on-one combat, I'd expect that the odds are heavily in favor of the well-trained infantryman just as it used to be in favor of the man-at-arms raised from childhood to the profession of arms (as opposed to the rifle-bearing child and a peasant with a pitchfork, respectively).
View user's profile Send private message
Nat Lamb




Location: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 15 Jan 2009
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 385

PostPosted: Sun 05 Jul, 2009 9:26 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

@Lafayette
Fair cop on your first point, I made a sweeping generalisation that in its brevity and breadth contained false information. I should really stop doing that Blush

As to you seccond point, I admit the distinction is a little accademic, I was treating "accuracy" as the weapon skill with modern weapons. I meant this in the sense that I might practice with a rifle and be just as good a shot at the range as a profesional soldier, but I know that in an actual running gun battle my effectivenes would not be in the same ballpark (hell, not even playing the same sport). Skill with a rifle can be taught in isolation from small unit tactics more reasonably than one could learn swordsmanship without footwork and reach. The Horsemanship and blind-spots are perfectly analogous though, so good point.

Quote:
="Bruno Giordan"
And yes, modern warfare usually decimated the best and brightest,as the braver volunteered and the cowards and slicker wheeler-dealers maneuvered to get exemptions or to get assigned to non-combat units.


I am not sure that that is quite fair. Some of those in non-combat roles are there as a result of pre existing specialised training rather than cowardice. Allan Turing won WW2, from a non combat role, and he was a long way from a coward.
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > New respect for Medieval arms!
Page 1 of 1 Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2018 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum