Absolutely true, a rapier is not going to cut flesh like a sword. Slash? yes. Cut through? No.
Actually, just thought I'd let people know you can cut jugs with a rapier.
Bob
Oh, here is a sword type that I think could have been used by Conquistadore made by MRL
http://www.museumreplicas.com/WebStore/ShowLa..._L_000.jpg
Naturally this is a lower cost piece but looks decent at the price: Also might be good as a second or even third sword representative of what might have been used. Being not expensive it would be less of a familly treasured possession but one could play with it without concerns about damaging a real antique.
Also more of a battle type sword than the side sword as mentioned previously.
Just mentionning options at the lower end of the price range that are still not just wallhangers.
http://www.museumreplicas.com/WebStore/ShowLa..._L_000.jpg
Naturally this is a lower cost piece but looks decent at the price: Also might be good as a second or even third sword representative of what might have been used. Being not expensive it would be less of a familly treasured possession but one could play with it without concerns about damaging a real antique.
Also more of a battle type sword than the side sword as mentioned previously.
Just mentionning options at the lower end of the price range that are still not just wallhangers.
| Craig Peters wrote: |
| The other thing is that I don't think milk jugs or even detergent jugs are particularly good indicators of a rapier's capacity to cut. Simply put, they aren't the same as human flesh, and even objects that are not at all made for cutting could probably deal a fair amount of damage to such targets. I'm not saying that a rapier can't lacerate human skin, but other than stinging and hurting like anything, I don't think such a cut will ever be serious. The other thing to consider is that we have sources that cite cases of antique rapiers snapping, and I don't think a rapier blade is well suited to handle the stresses of cutting flesh targets. |
I'm not sure I agree on that point - detergent jugs are quite a bit more resistant to laceration than the hide of a human, evfen if they have less cross-sectional density. A full-on cut to the face, throat, or the sinews of a limb would be awfully debilitating - the length and distribution of inertial mass over the length of the blade just makes it a less convenient and more time consuming movement than the preferred thrust under most circumstances. So far as durability is concerned, unless you're trying to use abosulte brute force to hew through a femur or or a piece of flesh armored with steel plate, any properly tempered blade shouldn't have trouble surviving the encounter.
Josh,
A cut to the face or neck might indeed be debilitating, but mostly due to the sensitivity of these areas. In general, test cuts against meat have indicated a lack of effective abiltiy for the rapier to cut. In the one modern case where a rapier was used to cut against a person, it caused relatively little pain and discomfort: http://www.mindspring.com/~aedan/treatise.htm
A cut to the face or neck might indeed be debilitating, but mostly due to the sensitivity of these areas. In general, test cuts against meat have indicated a lack of effective abiltiy for the rapier to cut. In the one modern case where a rapier was used to cut against a person, it caused relatively little pain and discomfort: http://www.mindspring.com/~aedan/treatise.htm
Folks,
This thread was not started to discuss what a rapier can or can't cut. If you want to discuss the cutting ability of rapiers, make a new thread.
This thread was not started to discuss what a rapier can or can't cut. If you want to discuss the cutting ability of rapiers, make a new thread.
looking at the calderon company website (Thank you for posting that by the way whoever you are) http://mywebpages.comcast.net/calderon/equipment.htm I noticed this line that has mentions the use of axes,
"He [Juan de Carranza] carried in his hands a battle-ax that had fallen to his lot from the spoils and booty that the Indians had taken that morning from the crossbowmen. The ax belonged to Captain Juan Páez, and being the weapon of a captain of crossbowmen the blades (Note the plural ‘blades') were well sharpened and it had a haft more than half a fathom long (over three feet), very smooth and polished."11
"On seeing the infidels enclosed, the Governor commanded all the men on horseback, since they were better armed than the footsoldiers, to dismount and, with shields for their defense and axes for destroying the gates (most of them having brought axes with them), to attack the town like valiant Spaniards and do all their power to gain it."10
Interesting to say the least especially because that axe in the first quote would have been a big freaking axe! :surprised:
"He [Juan de Carranza] carried in his hands a battle-ax that had fallen to his lot from the spoils and booty that the Indians had taken that morning from the crossbowmen. The ax belonged to Captain Juan Páez, and being the weapon of a captain of crossbowmen the blades (Note the plural ‘blades') were well sharpened and it had a haft more than half a fathom long (over three feet), very smooth and polished."11
"On seeing the infidels enclosed, the Governor commanded all the men on horseback, since they were better armed than the footsoldiers, to dismount and, with shields for their defense and axes for destroying the gates (most of them having brought axes with them), to attack the town like valiant Spaniards and do all their power to gain it."10
Interesting to say the least especially because that axe in the first quote would have been a big freaking axe! :surprised:
| James Martin wrote: |
|
Interesting to say the least especially because that axe in the first quote would have been a big freaking axe! :surprised: |
When many people think or talk of these armies and the conquest of the New World, they seem to talk more about guns then anything else. Guns this, guns that, and they make it out like the Spanish armies in the New World were like the British Redcoats firing platoon volleys, and that the gun was all important.
Of course, we know it wasn't like that at all, sure the musket played it's part, and the cannon as well, but even so it was more like a medieval army then anything else, and in a medieval army, a battle axe isn't at all out of place. According to my (admittedly limited) information, the mounted lancer played a more important role then the musketeer.
Of course, you know all that, but sometimes when you read something like this, it helps to remind yourself of it and shake off the subconscious programming of 'gun gun gun.'
| George Hill wrote: | ||
When many people think or talk of these armies and the conquest of the New World, they seem to talk more about guns then anything else. Guns this, guns that, and they make it out like the Spanish armies in the New World were like the British Redcoats firing platoon volleys, and that the gun was all important. Of course, we know it wasn't like that at all, sure the musket played it's part, and the cannon as well, but even so it was more like a medieval army then anything else, and in a medieval army, a battle axe isn't at all out of place. According to my (admittedly limited) information, the mounted lancer played a more important role then the musketeer. Of course, you know all that, but sometimes when you read something like this, it helps to remind yourself of it and shake off the subconscious programming of 'gun gun gun.' |
Oh yes I agree, I mean they were still using matchlocks. And I know that those things can be terribly unreliable in inclement weather, the fuse could get damp from humidity, and I believe that I read that they had a hard time making more gun powder so they would have definately made every shot count. Not only that but fighting with indians who would just be swarming and all over you in a second would have definately made the carrying of a blade mandatory.
| George Hill wrote: | ||
When many people think or talk of these armies and the conquest of the New World, they seem to talk more about guns then anything else. Guns this, guns that, and they make it out like the Spanish armies in the New World were like the British Redcoats firing platoon volleys, and that the gun was all important. Of course, we know it wasn't like that at all, sure the musket played it's part, and the cannon as well, but even so it was more like a medieval army then anything else, and in a medieval army, a battle axe isn't at all out of place. According to my (admittedly limited) information, the mounted lancer played a more important role then the musketeer. Of course, you know all that, but sometimes when you read something like this, it helps to remind yourself of it and shake off the subconscious programming of 'gun gun gun.' |
It was also the morale and whole "European warfare vesus Native American" style of warfare that made a big difference. The Europeans were out for conquest and conversion, but mostly with the first wave of explorerers, loot and booty. The Native Americans fought for captives, coup or for other limited objectives. On one side you had European explorers who would do any sort of morally repugnant thing, like kill off civilizations, to win their prize and glory. On the other you had the Native Americans who could couldn't conceive of that level of motivation nor its causes. In this context, the Aztecs didn't stand a chance.
To stay on topic though I will also point out that one side having metal weapons helps when fighting a side that doesn't. :-)
| Bryce Felperin wrote: |
|
It was also the morale and whole "European warfare vesus Native American" style of warfare that made a big difference. The Europeans were out for conquest and conversion, but mostly with the first wave of explorerers, loot and booty. The Native Americans fought for captives, coup or for other limited objectives. On one side you had European explorers who would do any sort of morally repugnant thing, like kill off civilizations, to win their prize and glory. On the other you had the Native Americans who could couldn't conceive of that level of motivation nor its causes. In this context, the Aztecs didn't stand a chance. To stay on topic though I will also point out that one side having metal weapons helps when fighting a side that doesn't. :-) |
Let's not throw around strong words like "Morally Repugnant" about things we know relatively little about.
Also, cutting out the still beating hearts of children on a daily basis sounds pretty bad too. Wouldn't you call that "morally repugnant"? Noone has a monopoly on doing horrific acts.
| Bryce Felperin wrote: |
|
It was also the morale and whole "European warfare vesus Native American" style of warfare that made a big difference. The Europeans were out for conquest and conversion, but mostly with the first wave of explorerers, loot and booty. The Native Americans fought for captives, coup or for other limited objectives. On one side you had European explorers who would do any sort of morally repugnant thing, like kill off civilizations, to win their prize and glory. On the other you had the Native Americans who could couldn't conceive of that level of motivation nor its causes. In this context, the Aztecs didn't stand a chance. To stay on topic though I will also point out that one side having metal weapons helps when fighting a side that doesn't. :-) |
I wouldn't say it was so much motivation or evn equipment that made the Spainish able to run over the natives, nor was it germs or morally ugly things, no, I've always felt it was that the Spainish had the 'art of war' and the natives.... well.... didn't.
Now, I am not saying they didn't know how to fight, or that they didn't understand the idea of tactics,which they certainly did.
I would say they never really understood how to manage a major field battle the way that European cultures did. Nor did they truely understand troop formations, nor concepts of combined arms, archers vs this, cavalry vs that, etc. The Chinese certainly understood these concepts, and so did the Turks... I make mention of this so no one will point out that these weren't exclusively European ideas.... But the Aztecs and the Incas didn't really have these ideas. Of course, they can't really be held to any scorn for having no idea how to fight against cavalry, (a pivotal issue here) as they had never seen it before.
Page 3 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou 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 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum