Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Different sharpness on different edges? Reply to topic
This is a standard topic  
Author Message
Mario M.




Location: Croatia
Joined: 31 Mar 2016

Posts: 107

PostPosted: Sun 01 May, 2016 9:13 pm    Post subject: Different sharpness on different edges?         Reply with quote

Greetings,

something of a "showerthought";

as seen in pictorial depictions and read in textual descriptions, medieval swords were used against helmets and armor just as they were against unarmored targets.

Is there any evidence of double edged swords having one edge sharpened for cutting and the other either blunt or not as sharp for the purpose of hacking/cleaving hard surfaces?

Meaning, the swordsmen would flip and switch to whatever edge seemed more suitable for that strike?

Perhaps even differences noticeable in the cross section?


Best regards,

Mario

“The stream of Time, irresistible, ever moving, carries off and bears away all things that come to birth and plunges them into utter darkness...Nevertheless, the science of History is a great bulwark against this stream of Time; in a way it checks this irresistible flood, it holds in a tight grasp whatever it can seize floating on the surface and will not allow it to slip away into the depths of Oblivion." - Anna Comnena
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mikko Kuusirati




Location: Finland
Joined: 16 Nov 2004
Reading list: 13 books

Posts: 1,084

PostPosted: Mon 02 May, 2016 2:33 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

No. You can't cut armor with a sword, no matter what your edge is like. A more robust edge is less severely damaged by contact with the opponents' arms and armor, of course, but will still not cleave through helmets or anything. There are plenty of helmets in museums pierced by the points of maces, hammers, bolts and such things, but not a single one I know of cut by a sword - lots of dents and such, sure, but no penetrating cuts. Plenty of modern tests with swords and helmets, too, documented on YouTube and other places and freely available for viewing, and you never see a helmet cut through like in the Maciejowski Bible, awesome as it looks there. It just doesn't happen in reality.

Remember, according to the vast majority of our own textual and pictorial sources, shotguns can launch a man-sized target clean off the ground and several yards back. Happy

And no, there isn't any historical or archaeological evidence for purposely different sharpening on the different edges of a two-edged sword. Doesn't mean it never happened, but it certainly wasn't a trend.

"And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."
— Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum
View user's profile Send private message
Paul Ballantyne





Joined: 19 Oct 2015

Posts: 27

PostPosted: Mon 02 May, 2016 4:44 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Most double bladed swords eg arming sword, longsword are very agile and are designed to be used long edge or short edge, they are not the clumsy sharpened metal bar that most movies and television shows love to show.

They are quick, agile and a high degree of skill involved to transition form the various guards into the attack, and the follow through. Where you hold the hilt, with what grip, moving the balance and immediately moving your hands on the sword combined with you correct footwork is off critical importance. Both long and short sides of the blades would have been employed to attack. I advise you check out H.E.M.A. to gain a better understanding or just how advanced european martial arts were, there are plenty of highly skilled and knowledgeable trainers out there.

Armour is very effective against swords, thats why it was used for so long, you dont try hit the opponents armour you try to bypass it to target unarmored or at least the targets weak spots. Hitting plate armour with an arming or long sword is likely to blunt or damage your sword, so you target his weak spots or less armoured spots eg behind his knees, his bend in his elbows, visor slot, groin. These areas have to be less armoured to allow the person to move, even so they were still armoured by padding and maille, but could be damaged by a thrust, especially the slender point of the 14th and 15th centurys sword design. Special techniques such as half swording were indeed developed for this very reason.

You dont try to hack at a targets shield, to try to by pass the shield to attack the opponent, its exactly the same with an armoured opponent. you try to bypass the armoured parts of your opponent, of course in combat plans dont always work out so you take advantage of any chance you can.

Swords generally speaking were secondary weapons on the Medieval battlefields. Pollaxes, longspears, halberds, bills etc were the main weapons against armoured especially plate armour.

As for the art of the time, its about as reliable as todays media is - sometimes accurate - sometimes not - and sometimes twisted to suit the views or propaganda of the persons interests.
View user's profile Send private message
Mario M.




Location: Croatia
Joined: 31 Mar 2016

Posts: 107

PostPosted: Mon 02 May, 2016 7:37 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Mikko Kuusirati wrote:
No. You can't cut armor with a sword, no matter what your edge is like.


Well, you kinda can(somewhat);

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G56HyxVkTPo

Perhaps I phrased myself wrongly, I did not mean cut the armor itself, I meant hack at enemies wearing armor to deliver blunt trauma.

You can still deliver a heck of a blunt trauma with an early/high medieval sword because they usually aren't as tapered as their later counterparts, meaning the velocity combined with the mass in the blade is more than enough to cause trauma if you hit the helmet or someone with a lighter padding(which was very common before the late medieval period), either standalone gambeson or with mail.

A sword tip can achieve mighty velocities and it also allows you to strike from a quite larger distance than a one handed axe or mace.


Mikko Kuusirati wrote:
And no, there isn't any historical or archaeological evidence for purposely different sharpening on the different edges of a two-edged sword. Doesn't mean it never happened, but it certainly wasn't a trend.


Alright, thank you for the information.

Paul Ballantyne wrote:
As for the art of the time, its about as reliable as todays media is


Indeed, but there are also textual descriptions stating swords hurting skulls through helmets and hurting people in armor(though, there are also those who depict armor as being invulnerable).

It was merely a thought on my end, since a sword was the primary weapon after the lance for the majority of mounted warriors in the Middle Ages, I would assume that they themselves would very often encounter situations where they would have to use those swords against armored persons.

Especially since some sources state even common sergeants being completely covered in high quality armor as early as the 12th century, for example the crusader spearman being covered in "double mail" in the stories of Usama ibn Munqidh, who was also, incidentally, defeated by a swordsman(though, the sword failed to wound him).

“The stream of Time, irresistible, ever moving, carries off and bears away all things that come to birth and plunges them into utter darkness...Nevertheless, the science of History is a great bulwark against this stream of Time; in a way it checks this irresistible flood, it holds in a tight grasp whatever it can seize floating on the surface and will not allow it to slip away into the depths of Oblivion." - Anna Comnena
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mikko Kuusirati




Location: Finland
Joined: 16 Nov 2004
Reading list: 13 books

Posts: 1,084

PostPosted: Mon 02 May, 2016 8:21 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Mario M. wrote:
Perhaps I phrased myself wrongly, I did not mean cut the armor itself, I meant hack at enemies wearing armor to deliver blunt trauma.

For that you'll want a mace, not a sword. Happy

The blade of a regular medieval sword is just not a very good bashing weapon, regardless of the edge geometry, it's too fragile, too flexible and the mass distribution is all wrong - of course a solid whack on the helmet will still ring your bell, true enough, and if that's the best shot available to you you should naturally take it, but there are far too many far more effective things you can do for it to be a good Plan A, you know? The primary rule for dealing with armoured opponents is to go around it - you cut and thrust at the person inside through weak spots and outright openings rather than bash at the strongest parts of their armour with a weapon not designed for that.

Quote:
You can still deliver a heck of a blunt trauma with an early/high medieval sword because they usually aren't as tapered as their later counterparts, meaning the velocity combined with the mass in the blade is more than enough to cause trauma if you hit the helmet or someone with a lighter padding(which was very common before the late medieval period), either standalone gambeson or with mail.

You can, but you need a whole lot of luck in addition to all your effort for even a solid blow on armour to be incapacitating, and having thicker edges on your sword doesn't help any. It's seriously better to just avoid the armour altogether, unless you happen to have a proper anti-armour weapon like a mace, hammer or heavy polearm of some sort (and even then putting a pointy bit through their eye is better than just wailing on their helmet with it).

Quote:
A sword tip can achieve mighty velocities and it also allows you to strike from a quite larger distance than a one handed axe or mace.

Still doesn't do much against armour, though, or rather against an armoured opponent - remember, merely damaging the armour doesn't get you anywhere, you have to damage the person wearing it so they'll stop trying to damage you! The proper way to use a sword tip against armour is in a thrust, preferably half-sworded, through some opening like the visor (or exposed face should you be so lucky), the armpits, the groin, the back of the knee...

Mail is somewhat less forgiving with blunt trauma than plate, of course, but just bashing straight at it with brute power is still decidedly suboptimal - unless your weapon is actually designed for that. Which a sword is not.

Paul Ballantyne wrote:
Indeed, but there are also textual descriptions stating swords hurting skulls through helmets and hurting people in armor(though, there are also those who depict armor as being invulnerable).

Well, a weighty blow on the head will hurt whether your helmet is cracked or not... the armour may be vulnerable but the human inside is soft and squishy. Happy

"And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."
— Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum


Last edited by Mikko Kuusirati on Mon 02 May, 2016 8:29 am; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
Mario M.




Location: Croatia
Joined: 31 Mar 2016

Posts: 107

PostPosted: Mon 02 May, 2016 8:29 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Mikko Kuusirati wrote:
For that you'll want a mace, not a sword. Happy


Then why did most armored men use swords instead of maces well into the 14th century?

Even during the late medieval period, we see maces only rising in popularity, but never replacing swords.

I believe you are severely underestimating the blunt impact capabilities of a sword(especially an early/high medieval taper one).

“The stream of Time, irresistible, ever moving, carries off and bears away all things that come to birth and plunges them into utter darkness...Nevertheless, the science of History is a great bulwark against this stream of Time; in a way it checks this irresistible flood, it holds in a tight grasp whatever it can seize floating on the surface and will not allow it to slip away into the depths of Oblivion." - Anna Comnena
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mikko Kuusirati




Location: Finland
Joined: 16 Nov 2004
Reading list: 13 books

Posts: 1,084

PostPosted: Mon 02 May, 2016 8:31 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Mario M. wrote:
Then why did most people use swords instead of maces well into the 14th century?

Because most people did not wear armour most of the time.

"And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."
— Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum
View user's profile Send private message
Jeffrey Faulk




Location: Georgia
Joined: 01 Jan 2011

Posts: 578

PostPosted: Mon 02 May, 2016 8:41 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Mikko Kuusirati wrote:
Mario M. wrote:
Then why did most people use swords instead of maces well into the 14th century?

Because most people did not wear armour most of the time.


I will concur.

The majority of sword training was for unarmoured combat, in a civilian context. There was a certain amount of 'harnisfechten', but again, civilian duelling context... and you see pollaxes and other staff weapons just as much as swords when the armour comes out, as those are weapons that are actually appropriate for fighting armour. Note that the vast majority of fight-books depict unarmoured combat for the most part.

In actual warfare, your typical armoured knight would first have used a lance on the charge, and then once the lance was splintered or discarded, switched up to a mace or hammer on horseback (leaving a hand free to control the horse), and if afoot, a staff weapon of some sort. The sword would only have come out against unarmoured opponents or when precision attacks were required.
View user's profile Send private message
Mario M.




Location: Croatia
Joined: 31 Mar 2016

Posts: 107

PostPosted: Mon 02 May, 2016 8:54 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Mikko Kuusirati wrote:
Because most people did not wear armour most of the time.


But those who did fought other people in armor and they still overwhelmingly preferred the sword for most of the high medieval period.


Jeffrey Faulk wrote:
The majority of sword training was for unarmoured combat, in a civilian context.


Jeffrey Faulk wrote:
Note that the vast majority of fight-books depict unarmoured combat for the most part.


I would stick to battlefields, dueling is not really important here, especially considering literally all surviving manuals are from the late medieval period.


Jeffrey Faulk wrote:
In actual warfare, your typical armoured knight would first have used a lance on the charge, and then once the lance was splintered or discarded, switched up to a mace or hammer on horseback


Would he though?

From my understanding, he would switch to a sword the vast majority of the time, not an axe or mace.


Jeffrey Faulk wrote:
The sword would only have come out against unarmoured opponents or when precision attacks were required.


Source?

Are you stating that those men had a lance, then a hammer/mace and then after that the sword?

“The stream of Time, irresistible, ever moving, carries off and bears away all things that come to birth and plunges them into utter darkness...Nevertheless, the science of History is a great bulwark against this stream of Time; in a way it checks this irresistible flood, it holds in a tight grasp whatever it can seize floating on the surface and will not allow it to slip away into the depths of Oblivion." - Anna Comnena
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Jeffrey Faulk




Location: Georgia
Joined: 01 Jan 2011

Posts: 578

PostPosted: Mon 02 May, 2016 10:26 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Oh, you're talking high medieval? My mistake.

Well I'm not as familiar with that particular context. However, note the following:

--The technique of battle for people who wore armour in the High Medieval era was largely mounted combat. Basically, if you were on a horse, you were going to be wearing armour. If you were on foot, chances were good you weren't wearing armour. Thus you were an easier target for a sword.

--The majority of soldiers in battle would have not worn armour, or if they had any, it would only be a helmet. Shields were more common. Padded fabric armour is possible, but it's obviously not quite as effective as metal. Again, easier target for a sword, especially with the momentum imparted by being on horseback giving extra force to a cutting blow.

--One of the earliest fight-books we have, I.33, does not portray *any* armoured combat-- it's sword-and-buckler work without any armour. It supposedly originates from the late 1200's-- 13th century-- and can be solidly placed within the 14th with ease.

--John de Joinville describes a battle where apparently the (I want to say) Germans were wearing specially tough armour; I can't recall whether it was early plate or reinforced mail. Anyway, he mentions that the way they defeated their opponents was to take their swords and thrust into their armpits, where the armour was weaker. That supports my assertion that they were using their swords for more precise attacks. Certainly they could have been more coarse with their use of the sword, but they had the training and ability to use them in a more innovative fashion.
View user's profile Send private message
Mario M.




Location: Croatia
Joined: 31 Mar 2016

Posts: 107

PostPosted: Mon 02 May, 2016 10:46 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jeffrey Faulk wrote:
Oh, you're talking high medieval? My mistake.


No, I am merely stating that late medieval dueling treaties aren't really that reminiscent of battlefield sword usage throughout the medieval period.


Jeffrey Faulk wrote:

--The technique of battle for people who wore armour in the High Medieval era was largely mounted combat. Basically, if you were on a horse, you were going to be wearing armour. If you were on foot, chances were good you weren't wearing armour. Thus you were an easier target for a sword.


That is not really true, loads of infantry in the medieval period had armor, textile or metal.


My question was answered though, so there is little to discuss further.

I am disappointed though, that there is basically no comparison tests that can be found online that shows the amount of energy delivered by a one handed arming sword.

My own XI sword certainly feels it would either knock out or even murder anyone who got hit by me through a skullcap.

The amount of energy a one handed straight sword delivers to a target is severely underestimated in my opinion.

With a cast blow, the tip reaches velocities that allows the sword to even outperform war axes on hard targets;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MX8j5CQRaaw

“The stream of Time, irresistible, ever moving, carries off and bears away all things that come to birth and plunges them into utter darkness...Nevertheless, the science of History is a great bulwark against this stream of Time; in a way it checks this irresistible flood, it holds in a tight grasp whatever it can seize floating on the surface and will not allow it to slip away into the depths of Oblivion." - Anna Comnena
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Philip Dyer





Joined: 25 Jul 2013

Posts: 507

PostPosted: Mon 02 May, 2016 11:29 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Mario M. wrote:
Jeffrey Faulk wrote:
Oh, you're talking high medieval? My mistake.


No, I am merely stating that late medieval dueling treaties aren't really that reminiscent of battlefield sword usage throughout the medieval period.


Jeffrey Faulk wrote:

--The technique of battle for people who wore armour in the High Medieval era was largely mounted combat. Basically, if you were on a horse, you were going to be wearing armour. If you were on foot, chances were good you weren't wearing armour. Thus you were an easier target for a sword.


That is not really true, loads of infantry in the medieval period had armor, textile or metal.


My question was answered though, so there is little to discuss further.

I am disappointed though, that there is basically no comparison tests that can be found online that shows the amount of energy delivered by a one handed arming sword.

My own XI sword certainly feels it would either knock out or even murder anyone who got hit by me through a skullcap.

The amount of energy a one handed straight sword delivers to a target is severely underestimated in my opinion.

With a cast blow, the tip reaches velocities that allows the sword to even outperform war axes on hard targets;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MX8j5CQRaaw

First of all, we see depictions of maces, flails and axes in high medieval combat. Secondily, a knight would often remove their helmet , exposing their coif and skullcap when engaged in hand to hand combat, so the face was exposed. Second, it is explicitly stated that Auto hood is very thin gauge metal, like paper thin. Second, he has done tests on helmets with his sword and he has that the worse he has done is severe headache. If you are pumped up in adrenaline is probably going to ignore that. Second, the hit would have extremely precise to do anything at because rounded or conical helmets are good at deflecting shots. Thirdly, the sword would have been more popular because knights wanted to ransom other knights, not necessarily capture them. The lower armored or unarmored infantry was the ones they would kill and a sword is perfectly fine for that. Finally, double edged swords were high status weapons with certain ethos around them, sometimes artists would depict people using them when they were using something else.
View user's profile Send private message
Mario M.




Location: Croatia
Joined: 31 Mar 2016

Posts: 107

PostPosted: Mon 02 May, 2016 11:37 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Philip Dyer wrote:

First of all, we see depictions of maces, flails and axes in high medieval combat.


I did not say they were not there, it is just that swords are more prevalent, must be for a damn good reason.


Philip Dyer wrote:
Second, it is explicitly stated that Auto hood is very thin gauge metal, like paper thin.


Again, I am not claiming swords cut through armor, that video merely shows impact performance against hard surfaces.

Philip Dyer wrote:
Second, he has done tests on helmets with his sword and he has that the worse he has done is severe headache.


How do you get that?

Most of his sword hits to the head "target" resulted in the head being smashed in from the impact, even the Mike Loades one results in the neck being broken from the impact;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h0e0NSwYNg


Philip Dyer wrote:
If you are pumped up in adrenaline is probably going to ignore that.


I will try and get my hands on a testing tool to measure the impact delivered by a cast blow, I am sure that the results will change peoples mind as to what degree one handed sword swings could deliver blunt trauma.


Philip Dyer wrote:
Second, the hit would have extremely precise to do anything at because rounded or conical helmets are good at deflecting shots.


So?


Philip Dyer wrote:
Thirdly, the sword would have been more popular because knights wanted to ransom other knights, not necessarily capture them.


Strawman.

Why did they use lances then?


Philip Dyer wrote:
Finally, double edged swords were high status weapons with certain ethos around them, sometimes artists would depict people using them when they were using something else.


This is true, however, does not change the fact that they were still in widespread use, more than specialized anti-armor sidearms.

I am not arguing that they were amazing with dealing against armor, merely that they are underestimated as such.

“The stream of Time, irresistible, ever moving, carries off and bears away all things that come to birth and plunges them into utter darkness...Nevertheless, the science of History is a great bulwark against this stream of Time; in a way it checks this irresistible flood, it holds in a tight grasp whatever it can seize floating on the surface and will not allow it to slip away into the depths of Oblivion." - Anna Comnena
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Philip Dyer





Joined: 25 Jul 2013

Posts: 507

PostPosted: Mon 02 May, 2016 12:07 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Firstly, Mike loades at to use two hands on the weapon it order to pull that off percussive hit and he telegraphed, allot. Second, swords are very easy to wear in everyday life, maces, axes and flails aren't. Most people don't go to war all the time and most of war is scouting, raiding farmland for food, guard duty and walking around. Thirdly, lances were used to target infantry as well as fellow horsemen and you actually see it the late high medieval period the most well off infantry wearing mail shirts, along with a open face helmet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qHpoeYyfl0&list=PLCpYM0jg1d5MgDe30tjs7JhPDc7f7RC_j&index=5 In the mid to end of the high medieval period, a well off Knight could afford to wear a coat of plates over there mail, protecting them from lance blows to the chest.
View user's profile Send private message
Mario M.




Location: Croatia
Joined: 31 Mar 2016

Posts: 107

PostPosted: Mon 02 May, 2016 12:12 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Philip Dyer wrote:
Second, swords are very easy to wear in everyday life, maces, axes and flails aren't.


Hah, how is an axe or mace difficult to wear on the belt?

Also, how does it even matter in any way?
We are not talking about civilian combat.



Philip Dyer wrote:

Most people don't go to war all the time and most of war is scouting, raiding farmland for food, guard duty and walking around.


So you are just continuing one strawman at a time?

Philip Dyer wrote:
Thirdly, lances were used to target infantry as well


Irrelevant.

Cavalry engaging cavalry was usually done lance vs lance.



Philip Dyer wrote:
as fellow horsemen and you actually see it the late high medieval period the most well off infantry wearing mail shirts, along with a open face helmet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qHpoeYyfl0&list=PLCpYM0jg1d5MgDe30tjs7JhPDc7f7RC_j&index=5 In the mid to end of the high medieval period, a well off Knight could afford to wear a coat of plates over there mail, protecting them from lance blows to the chest.


What does that have to do with anything?

“The stream of Time, irresistible, ever moving, carries off and bears away all things that come to birth and plunges them into utter darkness...Nevertheless, the science of History is a great bulwark against this stream of Time; in a way it checks this irresistible flood, it holds in a tight grasp whatever it can seize floating on the surface and will not allow it to slip away into the depths of Oblivion." - Anna Comnena
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Philip Dyer





Joined: 25 Jul 2013

Posts: 507

PostPosted: Mon 02 May, 2016 12:56 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Mario M. wrote:
Philip Dyer wrote:
Second, swords are very easy to wear in everyday life, maces, axes and flails aren't.


Hah, how is an axe or mace difficult to wear on the belt?

Also, how does it even matter in any way?
We are not talking about civilian combat.



Philip Dyer wrote:

Most people don't go to war all the time and most of war is scouting, raiding farmland for food, guard duty and walking around.


So you are just continuing one strawman at a time?

Philip Dyer wrote:
Thirdly, lances were used to target infantry as well


Irrelevant.

Cavalry engaging cavalry was usually done lance vs lance.



Philip Dyer wrote:
as fellow horsemen and you actually see it the late high medieval period the most well off infantry wearing mail shirts, along with a open face helmet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qHpoeYyfl0&list=PLCpYM0jg1d5MgDe30tjs7JhPDc7f7RC_j&index=5 In the mid to end of the high medieval period, a well off Knight could afford to wear a coat of plates over there mail, protecting them from lance blows to the chest.


What does that have to do with anything?

It not that simple to just cleanly separate civilian from military combat because sidearms were private purchases for everyone. Since most of the time, you wouldn't be fighting wars, buy raiding, skirmishing, defending yourself from bandits, something easily worn in everyday life and has allot of advantages in unarmored combat, but needs higher precision in armored combat is more value for the money than something that is harder to wear and has allot of disadvantages in unarmored combat.
View user's profile Send private message
Zhenyu Li





Joined: 26 Feb 2016
Likes: 2 pages

Posts: 37

PostPosted: Mon 02 May, 2016 1:42 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

The edge with bigger angle could be strong,but that just makes
Sword not so easy to be damaged.It would not be very effective when you use it against armour. Happy
View user's profile Send private message
Zhenyu Li





Joined: 26 Feb 2016
Likes: 2 pages

Posts: 37

PostPosted: Tue 03 May, 2016 1:07 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

A lot of European sword's one edge is sharper(or slightly sharper) than another edge,but that's not because one of them would be used to cut armor.
View user's profile Send private message
Paul Ballantyne





Joined: 19 Oct 2015

Posts: 27

PostPosted: Tue 03 May, 2016 2:02 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Many modern settings especially on youtube tend to give an inaccurate or at least a highly distorted recreation in respect of melee weapons against armour.

Sometimes the maille is butted or made or inferior materials, only partial segments of armour, the armour is braced against a hard unyielding object eg tree, and my absolute favorite a full force two handed swing at the armour.

A target would have been moving, and most connected blows would have been glancing blows, much of the force would be diminished as the target would be dodging. The only full force that would be used would have been grounded targets or flanked targets that did not see the attack coming, many scholars believe today that is why they fought as a team, virtually back to back to protect against this for this very reason.

Again I recommend you search for HEMA and study even some of the vast amount of info and videos online. A full force baseball bat type swing is usually ineffective, it usually takes a lot of energy, is quite easy to parry or dodge, and once it misses is easy to take advantage off and counterattack the target, as it leaves the person open and vulnerable. This type of attack is typical of untrained novices. Again medieval swordmanship was quick, agile and above all highly skilled.

In respect of blunt trauma damage I think you over estimate its effectiveness. One only has to look and modern ballistic body armour, many modern troops or police officers have been shot and both soft and hard B.A. has contained the rounds, they continue to function and carry on the fight. They may have a huge bruise, broken ribs or other damage but the point is many continue to function and fight on. A modern 9 mm, 357 or even 7.62m round delivers a huge amount of energy.

Whilst we are on the subject, if you know a soldier is wearing kevlar,, you dont aim for the armour hoping to blunt trauma hit to death, you aim for an unarmoured target, eg head, hips arms etc. The same does for medieval warriors, you BYPASS the armour.


Finally re the effectiveness of the mace v a sword. Lets look at the cons and pros of the two weapon systems in a general setting.

1. A mace is usually shorter than most sword - evening an arming sword usually had a blade of 30", a large advantage, a longsword typically had a 37" blade - an even bigger advantage .

2. A mace case swing - a sword can cut, slice, thrust, parry, riposte, or attack with the pommel - all with a high degree of skill and much faster than a lumbering swing of a mace.

3. A sword has many grades of workmanship - distal taper, balance, steel quality all geared towards once of the most advanced weapon systems of the medieval period. A mace was unbalanced (it had to be tip heavy to function properly), slow, ineffective to parry and incapable of effectively thrusting.

4. Arming sword, longswords, messers etc have crossguards to protect the hands and most of the training in these weapons emphasis e protecting your hands , a mace has no protection. If your enemy cant hold their weapon all they can use if harsh language.

Maces and clubs were used in medieval times - but I believe for a specialist role. They were cheap, carried usually as a secondary weapon once the target was incapacitated or at least at a great disadvantage. A trained swordsman against a trained person person with a club, I know who I would put my money on.
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Different sharpness on different edges?
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 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum