Author |
Message |
Edward Hitchens
|
Posted: Thu 08 Mar, 2007 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Randall Moffett wrote: | Piercing is a whole different can of worms that if you do a search you will find vast quantities of debate on as well. Needless to say, the majority of men in that time would have looked for weak spots like joints, gaps or visors or soft spots that were left uncovered as it had less disadvantages to overcome.
|
Indeed, but a thought just occurred to me: It's worth noting that a man dressed in plate armor would be aware of that. While fighting, he'll try to give extra attention to not allowing his opponent to strike his armor's vulnerable areas (like the joints). Surely, he would know that his armor is not invincible and has vulnerable spots that an opponent could exploit. Thus, he would train to act accordingly.
For instance, if I were an armored knight, any maneuver where I'd have to extend my arms fully is one I would execute sparringly. If my arms are extended, then my armpits and sides of my torso are exposed. A well-aimed sword thrust could pierce me where my cuirass & backplate meet and possibly strike my heart or lungs. Any blow to either or both of these organs is a killing one.
"The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest." Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
Posted: Thu 08 Mar, 2007 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Edward Hitchens wrote: | Indeed, but a thought just occurred to me: It's worth noting that a man dressed in plate armor would be aware of that. While fighting, he'll try to give extra attention to not allowing his opponent to strike his armor's vulnerable areas (like the joints). Surely, he would know that his armor is not invincible and has vulnerable spots that an opponent could exploit. Thus, he would train to act accordingly.
For instance, if I were an armored knight, any maneuver where I'd have to extend my arms fully is one I would execute sparringly. If my arms are extended, then my armpits and sides of my torso are exposed. A well-aimed sword thrust could pierce me where my cuirass & backplate meet and possibly strike my heart or lungs. Any blow to either or both of these organs is a killing one. |
While it's certainly true that a knight would learn to carefully guard the gaps in his harness, you do have to extend your ams to strike most kinds of blows, else your blows are weak an ineffectual. One trick is to extend your arms only when your opponent can't attack those specific targets. This is done primarily in two ways: First, by "following your blow", meaning that you attack with your arms first and only step after the attack has begun. In that way your attack comes into your opponent's range first and he must defeat your attack rather than attacking you (although there are techniques to get around that, such as voiding and thrusting with a spear--Harnischfechten isn't safe). The second way is to respond to attacks in such a way that your opponent can't act while you're doing your counter; an example is to stay "am Spiess" or "on the spear" when you perform certain spear counters.
Remember, too, that most targets with the exception of the face and palms of the hands are covered by mail. This mail will prevent any "easy" attack from having effect and this gives you time to counter the attack even after it's in place. For example, if you are fighting halfsword and your opponent thrusts into your armpit he must wind his hilt up under his armpit (in effect couching it like a lance) and then use his entire body to drive his point into the mail voiders in your armpit. One counter to this is to thrust into the palm or into the back of the cuff of his gauntlet (one or the other must be open depending upon how he holds his sword) to push his weapon out of your armpit. Now, if the thrust to the armpit was such an effective technique you would never have time to react--you'd just die. It *is* an effective technique--one of the best--but it takes time to do because of the mail voider covering it.
None of this is certain, of course, but the masters have left us instructions for how to deal with most of it.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
Glen A Cleeton
|
Posted: Thu 08 Mar, 2007 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lennon R. Clotild wrote: | Below is a 15th century depiction of a melee, showing a breastplate being penetrated by a sword.
Any thoughts on this? |
It looks more like the fellow was targeted where his armour might be vunerable, not the breastplate proper. Also of note is a shield stopping a sword point. Wouldn't it have made sense for the artist to show that piercing it, if the other is meant to show the sword point actually poking through plate?
Also of note is others looking for a good face shot.
Just a couple of thoughts ;)
edit
Actually, the more I look at the illustration, the more it seems to depict futility. The fellow drawing blood with a sword is getting poked by his adversary's spear. The fellow, bottom right, has an expression as if to say "oh dear, bread and beer" he can't get to soft spots. Our other less armoured swordsman, with the look of sheer intensity, is wide open to the other spear/lance that just skewered another beside him.
Cheers
GC
Here's a neat plate, I don't remember the context of why I bookmarked it but it is in my bookmarks for one reason or another. I think I just liked the composition of the drawing.
http://www.electricscotland.com/history/images/dundee_armour.jpg
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
Posted: Thu 08 Mar, 2007 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't know Glen, myself looking at the illustration looks like it is penetrating through above the fauld where as far as I can see looks solid. There are tons of pieces of art with men being pierced by melee weapons. I suppose the real question is how accurate are they.
I always figured trying to piece through a shield a bad idea as it will get wedged possibly and you lose you weapon while your enemy is fine.
Nice plate. what is the context? is it ECW?
RPM
Here are two of random pierceness from the cotton nero E's.
Attachment: 74.97 KB
Attachment: 106.13 KB
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
Posted: Thu 08 Mar, 2007 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
one more. I am sure there are hundreds more but in the end it comes out to what you interpret the artists accuracy or what his meaning was as well....
RPM
Attachment: 64.85 KB
|
|
|
|
Glen A Cleeton
|
Posted: Fri 09 Mar, 2007 5:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Randall Moffett wrote: | I don't know Glen, myself looking at the illustration looks like it is penetrating through above the fauld where as far as I can see looks solid. There are tons of pieces of art with men being pierced by melee weapons. I suppose the real question is how accurate are they.
I always figured trying to piece through a shield a bad idea as it will get wedged possibly and you lose you weapon while your enemy is fine.
Nice plate. what is the context? is it ECW?
RPM
Here are two of random pierceness from the cotton nero E's. |
Could the penetration shown actually be to the side though? yes, it is hard to dechipher art at times.
The Dundee plate I had found in an article about the Jacobites at Killecrankle, 1689.
http://www.electricscotland.com/history/killiecrankie.htm
Even in written material, accounts vary and that plate seems somehow contrary to other descriptions of Dundee's mortal wound. There is mention at the end of this tell.
http://www.clan-cameron.org/battles/1689.html
As an aside, and I'm likely to hear some "hoot, nay mahn!!" is regarding the pistols shown in the plate and my persistent (if misguided) believe that the heart symbology of arms and armor relates to the Catholic church.
Also interesting are descriptions of leather field pieces in the first link and leather armour mentioned in the second.
Way of track from swords vs medieval plate but an example of how both written and depicted history can vary.
Cheers
GC
|
|
|
|
Allen Andrews
|
Posted: Fri 09 Mar, 2007 7:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think this is an interesting thread, especially because of the plates that have been posted showing the various battles and weapons. I don't feel qualified to comment on the matter, but I did want to post an excerpt from Peter Johnsson's information about the "Dane", which is Albion's upcoming type XVIIIe:
"Even if a sword cut can never really be expected to cleave armour, a blow from a blade with the mass and stiffness of these swords would still deal terrible damage, stunning or perhaps even killing. The point could conceivably penetrate the thinner parts of plate armour with a good hit, but thrusts would naturally be aimed at gaps and openings, where only mail and/or padding was the protection."
" I would not snare even an orc with a falsehood. "
Faramir son of Denethor
Words to live by. (Yes, I know he's not a real person)
|
|
|
|
Sean Flynt
|
Posted: Fri 09 Mar, 2007 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Since the original question concerned cutting plate armour, it's worth noting that these illustrations show only successful stabbing attacks against plate--lance, spear, dagger, Oakeshott Type XV....Plate was effective against cuts. If it wasn't, why would people spend so much and so hinder themselves when their lives were on the line? Why did thrusting weapons become so common?
It's worth noting, too, that the development of firearms technology forced armourers to rethink plate armour. They realized that hardened steel plate, though, ideal for defense against edged weapons, was more easily defeated by firearms than was softer plate. Just before the demise of plate armour, some armourers experimented with what scholars now refer to as "duplex armour," with hard outer layer to stop edged weapons and soft inner layer to stop shot.
See this thread for more info:
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...ght=duplex
-Sean
Author of the Little Hammer novel
https://www.amazon.com/Little-Hammer-Sean-Flynt/dp/B08XN7HZ82/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=little+hammer+book&qid=1627482034&sr=8-1
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
Posted: Fri 09 Mar, 2007 8:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | Quote: | "Push of pike" was clearly a common method, but we have to keep in mind that it wasn't really continuous fighting. Like in any form of hand-to-hand fighting, the two lines would probably draw back from each other after a few minutes or two and pause to catch their breaths, effectively creating a lull where the firearms could come back into action--and where champions or officers might get the time to engage in single combat between the lines. |
I think that depends on the period. Fourquevaux and Smythe wrote that pikemen basically hurtled into each other, dropped their pikes, and drew their swords and/or daggers to continue the fight at close range. Halberdiers, a rank or two behind the pikemen, waded in to help them out. Later on, though, pikemen seemed less inclined to close, letting the guns do their work. |
Regardless of whether they fought with pikes or dropped them in favor of shorter weapons, it is likely that the pikemen were not remarkably different from earlier or later hand-to-hand fighters in that they wouldn't have been able to sustain hand-to-hand combat without a pause for more than just a few minutes. Lulls would probably have existed all the same regardless of the type of weapons used--and the sporadic exchange of insults and fire that entailed.
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
Posted: Fri 09 Mar, 2007 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sean,
The poster asked about piercing damage later in the thread.
I worked with armour for a while and I was just impressed by the pure thickness of some of the later breastplates. Once on the weight did not really bother me really. I have heard about the later uses of heat treating but have not seen enough study done on it to make me think it is conclusive really as a general change. It would be interesting if so indeed. I just cannot imagine a gun penetrating many of those late breastplates and helmets. Of course their is the heavy cavalry stories from the ECW where the men are firing point blank at them and doing no damage at all but these are fthe last before armour gets discarded, albeit piece by piece.
RPM
|
|
|
|
Jeff Hughes
|
Posted: Fri 09 Mar, 2007 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
1. as my wife is a artist i would think these are painted more from memory than actual reference. i doubt any painter had a easle out on a hilltop during a battle. so in the fray it would hard to pinpoint the strike it would be more like he saw some one hit in the head area,torso or legs. not the exact penatration point.
2. i am not well educated in sword technique but i always assumed. the cutting strikes from a sword on plate was more to unbalance, daze or otherwise put one self in a advantageous position to then thrust a open gap or soft spot in the defenses.
3. does any one know the foot lb's of pressure it take to pierce say 18,16,14 gauge steel and is it even possible for a man of average size say 5' 10" 175 lbs to exert that kind of force. im sure any blacksmith here could tell you more about the amount of force it takes to form unheated steel with a heavy hammer. and that is with perfect placement of metal and a hard surface to strike on unlike that of a man.
any of you with more knowledge please chime in
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
Posted: Fri 09 Mar, 2007 9:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
First of all, there is a HUGE variance in thickness of plate armour.
Cheap munition grade armour might be thin enough to be pierced with a particularly sucsessfull polearm/spear attack.
Those with enough money to order custom pieces, would of course make sure that the plate was just thick enoug to defeat the arms of the day.
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
Posted: Fri 09 Mar, 2007 10:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Regarding Dan's comment about the few people in the world that can reproduce good mail, I'd like to add that even cheap riveted mail is, unless it's a really bad example, swordproof in almsot every respect. I have been able to break open rings with a type XV thrust, but it was a monumental effort and not something I think I could reproduce if my opponent were not completely stationary and infinitely patient.
As for artwork... today, with the flow of information exceeding anything that has ever been possible in history, we have a severe disconnect between artists (movie producers, writers, painters) and the reality of what our weapons do to people, vehicles, etc. Why would we expect this disconnect to have been less when there was no internet, telephones, global mail or even printed books?
Artwork is often about drama, and blood is dramatic. If you are painting a battle scene between armored knights and you want to add drama, you will add blood, whether it is realistic or not. And, just as most of us do not complain when people get shot and fly 20 feet in a movie, the patrons of medieval art would likely have preferred drama to realism.
I believe that as these artworks are some of our greatest links to the past, we are tempted to use them as more than they were...we want them to be photographs and/or accurate chronicles of past events, when they were just art, created to entertain, amuse and decorate the homes of wealthy patrons.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
Eric Myers
Location: Sacramento, CA Joined: 23 Aug 2003
Posts: 214
|
Posted: Fri 09 Mar, 2007 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Michael Edelson wrote: |
As for artwork... today, with the flow of information exceeding anything that has ever been possible in history, we have a severe disconnect between artists (movie producers, writers, painters) and the reality of what our weapons do to people, vehicles, etc. Why would we expect this disconnect to have been less when there was no internet, telephones, global mail or even printed books?
Artwork is often about drama, and blood is dramatic. If you are painting a battle scene between armored knights and you want to add drama, you will add blood, whether it is realistic or not. And, just as most of us do not complain when people get shot and fly 20 feet in a movie, the patrons of medieval art would likely have preferred drama to realism.
I believe that as these artworks are some of our greatest links to the past, we are tempted to use them as more than they were...we want them to be photographs and/or accurate chronicles of past events, when they were just art, created to entertain, amuse and decorate the homes of wealthy patrons. |
FYI: I'm quoting Michael's text, but I intend this towards a much larger, and non-specific audience.
Way too often, period art seems to be used in way too arbitrary a manner. If it illustrates a current belief then it is cited as proof, if it contradicts a current belief then excuses are made based on speculations about attitude and mindframe of the period. I see that happening here.
Looking at the images that have been posted on this thread, and knowing there are lots of other similar ones, I think it is somewhat disingenuous to claim that armor just couldn't be thrusted through. Alternative conclusions might include such things as there being more low grade armor around, or that more than just the openings were vulnerable. If you think a painting is accurate enough to show people looking for face shots, then you pretty much need to acknowledge that the sword through the breastplate can't be that far-fetched.
To address some of Michael's specific points, movies are not paintings, and most movie goers today haven't seen people get shot in real life so they have no real comparison to make, though even if they did they might not complain because that sort of exaggeration is a style of storytelling we are familiar with in general, if not in the exact specific details. Much early art also uses exaggeration, as opposed to outright fantasy.
</rant>
Regards,
Eric Myers
Sacramento Sword School
ViaHup.com - Wiki di Scherma Italiana
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
Posted: Fri 09 Mar, 2007 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | Regardless of whether they fought with pikes or dropped them in favor of shorter weapons, it is likely that the pikemen were not remarkably different from earlier or later hand-to-hand fighters in that they wouldn't have been able to sustain hand-to-hand combat without a pause for more than just a few minutes. Lulls would probably have existed all the same regardless of the type of weapons used--and the sporadic exchange of insults and fire that entailed. |
Probably, but I don't know about guns coming back into play in the middle of melee. I guess it would depend on the composition of the forces in question. Note that serious pike clashes could kill the men of both sides in great numbers. In the encounter between Swiss and landsknecht pikemen at the battle of Novara, Florange reported that only six of the three or four hundred men in the landsknechts' first rank survived.
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
Posted: Fri 09 Mar, 2007 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Using artwork as something other than what it was intended to be is just as bad as using it in an arbitrary manner.
There is also this belief that while most people today have never seen anyone shot or otherwise killed with their own two eyes that medieval people saw this on a daily basis. Many records of manorial justice survive that show that murder was just as rare (or common) then as it is today. Decades seperate famous battles, and while many less than famous battles were far more frequent, I woudl argue that the 20th century was by and large the most bloody century of all time, yet how many people have most of us seen killed on the battlefield?
There is a tendency, when studying history, to try to see a period through the major events of that period...most dinosaur movies end with the meteor impact...a sinlge day in a period spanning hundreds of millions of years. Most medieval movies either focus on an epic battle, the black death or other major historical event, forgetting that most people in the middle ages lived lives of routine and drudgery, just like most of us do today. Except we have better food.
As for swords piercing armor, there are simple ways to find out. While the more hard core among us would cry out for period metallurgy, I would contend that using mild steel as a test medium would give us results that are accurate enough to form a general opinion. Take an 18 gauge mild steel breastplate, such as can be bought on ebay for 120 dollars, and see if you can thrust through it with a sword. 18 gauge is generally considered the thinnest possible option for useful armor, and if you can't thrust through that, then I'd say the sword piercing armor debate is settled.
Is it possible that some really junky armor was made in the middle ages that could be pierced with a sword? Sure it is, but I doubt such armor would have been anything other than an oddity, considering who purchased armor for much of that period.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
James Barker
Location: Ashburn VA Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 365
|
Posted: Fri 09 Mar, 2007 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hey guys
Just saw that you are talking about swords going through armor from manuscripts. As an artist who studied art history I worn you not to take these images at literal. The images often represent battles from the bible where men did get killed all the time but did not actually wear the kind of armor they are depicted in. Basically you have an iconic representation of a historic battle staring modern (for the time of production) troops.
Now chronicles tend to be more of the realistic side, lances, spears, axes, and polearm doing their job.
Lets not forget artists not soldiers create these images, what do they know about combat. Look at what fencing masters had to say on the subject, who better than soldier to tell us how armor really worked.
James Barker
Historic Life http://www.historiclife.com/index.html
Archer in La Belle Compagnie http://www.labelle.org/
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
Posted: Fri 09 Mar, 2007 1:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
James,
As someone who has studied Art History to some extent I would say it not to use art as long as you understand its context. The majority of the pictures I posted were of 100 Years War battles. I would doubt that most artist were so far removed from war they would not have heard stories fairly detailed accounts of what took place in battle as most had brothers and fathers involved as soldiers.
The chronicles are often wrote by the same people or people in the same circles as the one who drew the artwork, why are they then more reliable? Both are mediums to convey the artists theme. I would guess most chroniclers were monks and other clergy. I thend to have the same belief on chronicles as artwork. Know the context and account for it.
As far as the fighting manuals. I do not think most of the were professional soldiers per se. It seems training intended more for one on one fighting in the medieval period not battle scenarios.
RPM
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
Posted: Fri 09 Mar, 2007 1:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Randall Moffett wrote: | As someone who has studied Art History to some extent I would say it not to use art as long as you understand its context. The majority of the pictures I posted were of 100 Years War battles. I would doubt that most artist were so far removed from war they would not have heard stories fairly detailed accounts of what took place in battle as most had brothers and fathers involved as soldiers.
The chronicles are often wrote by the same people or people in the same circles as the one who drew the artwork, why are they then more reliable? Both are mediums to convey the artists theme. I would guess most chroniclers were monks and other clergy. I thend to have the same belief on chronicles as artwork. Know the context and account for it.
As far as the fighting manuals. I do not think most of the were professional soldiers per se. It seems training intended more for one on one fighting in the medieval period not battle scenarios. |
While some would disagree that the manuals were intended for single combat only, I do happen to agree with you that they were. However, the ability to penetrate armor doesn't change when you're in single combat. What worked for one--in terms of the ability to penetrate armor--certainly worked for the other, and the masters are universal in their advice not to try to breach plate. That tells us something important.
Moreover, some, at least, of the fencing masters *were* professional soldiers. Fiore de Liberi claims to have been one (of course he makes a lot of questionable claims) and Paulus Kal *certainly* was.
Chronicles were *not* always, nor even usually in the period we're discussing, written by clergy or those who moved with them. Froissart, certainly our most important (if admittedly flawed) source was someone who rode with men at arms--who visited them and took their stories. The Chandos Herald lived his entire life among fighting men and witnessed most of the scenes he wrote about. Clerics and monks wrote early histories and some of the romances, it's true, but in the later middle ages--the age when the plate armor we're discussing became the norm--many chroniclers were first-hand witnesses of the deeds they recounted.
Finally, in spite of your argument that the people drawing the pictures would have drawn what was, to them, realistic, I offer all of the 14th-century images drawn of the Hundred Years War that depicted the major battles therin--Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt...--being fought *on horseback* in spite of the fact that most of the participants were afoot (except at Crecy where the French attacked ahorse).
I'll add a snippet of a picture supposedly recounting the Battle of Crecy to this post--I believe it's from one of the ones you posted earlier. In it we see all the combatants are all ahorse, and yet the English started on foot and stayed on foot long after dark. If this picture can be in error in such a gross way, why not also in its depiction of how men were wounded? And why can't those figures showing punctures through armor be merely artistic license to let the viewer know the blow had been effective and not shrugged off by the armor (as I suggested in an earlier post)?
Attachment: 65.57 KB
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
Posted: Fri 09 Mar, 2007 1:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Michael Edelson wrote: | Regarding Dan's comment about the few people in the world that can reproduce good mail |
Actually there are quite a few people making decent mail today (riveted and welded) and a lot of it is pretty good regarding its ability to resist damage (note this doesn't include much of the stuff coming out of India/Pakistan). My point was that very little of it has much in common with historical examples. Only a handful of people can make an accurate replica of a museum sample. In order to have any idea how effective historical armour was, we need accurate replicas to test.
I agree wirth Hugh that any illustrations showing heavy armour being cut or pierced is simply a way of illustrating a "telling blow"
|
|
|
|
|
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
|