| Author |
Message |
|
Timo Nieminen
|
 Posted: Tue 07 Sep, 2010 9:50 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| James Arlen Gillaspie wrote: | | If memory serves, the majority of depictions of helm cleaving occur in the context of mounted combat. The forces involved in mounted combat are FAR beyond those involved in foot combat. The combined speeds of two horses moving past each other can be as high as 60 MPH, which means we are talking energies like a car wreck, before anyone even swings a weapon. The war saddles of the time helped to transfer some of the momentum of the horse into the blow. This is what makes those little light- weight horsemen's maces into effective weapons. If anyone has done simulations involving sword cuts at these speeds, steer me to them! |
As a rough guess (horse at 72 km/hr, stationary swing of the sword with energy 100J), one would have about three times as much energy in a blow delivered from the moving horse. That's only counting the extra energy due to the sword moving with the horse + rider, ignoring any further transfer of energy from the rider during the impact.
Even worse for the receiver if both parties are moving towards each other at speed.
An extra 200J might indeed matter. If no useful tests have been done yet, this sounds like it calls for a horse, a rider, some armoured pumpkins, and a potentially expendable sword.
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
   |
 |
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Wed 08 Sep, 2010 1:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well even if it didn't increase the odds of cutting armour it would certainly increase the odds and intensity of blunt trauma or concussions.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Johann M
Location: London Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 27
|
| Posted: Wed 08 Sep, 2010 2:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Adam Smith wrote: | | It is extremely unlikely if even possible that the people who weild the weapons in modern day tests do so with the strength, ferocity and experience of ancient professional warriors? |
Sorry but that's bull...I understand the point that you are trying to make, but I respectfully disagree with your assessment.
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Wed 08 Sep, 2010 6:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Johann M wrote: | | Sorry but that's bull...I understand the point that you are trying to make, but I respectfully disagree with your assessment. |
Modern warriors may have the same strength and ferocity as period warriors, but they don't have the same level or type of experience. We moderns have not grown up in a culture where we see swords used regularly from an early age. We generally don't start learning the sword arts at young squire age. And we don't use them in battle with deadly intent. Plus, we're recreating the arts largely from texts and pictures with a decent amount of time having passed where the martial art was not practiced much at all. Period warriors had the advantage of a more unbroken chain of learning, more connected to the realities of real use.
So I think it's possible that modern warriors can approach the strength and ferocity of period warriors. There may even be some of equal or greater skill than period warriors. But period warriors were experienced in ways modern warriors can not be.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
 |
|
|
Anders Nilsson
|
| Posted: Wed 08 Sep, 2010 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Thomas R. wrote: | I
Secondly: even if you don't cut through maille, you can hurt your opponent so badly with a sharpened sword, that his skin lacerates and blood is spilled. I have seen some youtube videos (I think it was Clements Arma doing the tests) in which porkskin bursted after a hit onto maille and padding.
Thomas |
Sounds like an interesting test. Do you have the link?
Anders "Nelle" Nilsson, Instructor Angermanna Mnhfs
To train martial arts without fighting is like slalom without snow.
|
|
 |
|
|
Johann M
Location: London Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 27
|
| Posted: Wed 08 Sep, 2010 7:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chad Arnow wrote: | | Johann M wrote: | | Sorry but that's bull...I understand the point that you are trying to make, but I respectfully disagree with your assessment. |
Modern warriors may have the same strength and ferocity as period warriors, but they don't have the same level or type of experience. We moderns have not grown up in a culture where we see swords used regularly from an early age. We generally don't start learning the sword arts at young squire age. And we don't use them in battle with deadly intent. Plus, we're recreating the arts largely from texts and pictures with a decent amount of time having passed where the martial art was not practiced much at all. Period warriors had the advantage of a more unbroken chain of learning, more connected to the realities of real use.
So I think it's possible that modern warriors can approach the strength and ferocity of period warriors. There may even be some of equal or greater skill than period warriors. But period warriors were experienced in ways modern warriors can not be. |
And you are sure no modern human can come even close to this standard? Are you implying that you are 100% certain of this. Sorry, but no, I still disagree. I agree that it is simplistic to assume that any of us here could match the standard set by our medieval ancestors, yet it is equally simplistic to assume that absolutely no one in the world could. Dealing in absolutes is a wasteful practice.
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Wed 08 Sep, 2010 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Johann M wrote: | | And you are sure no modern human can come even close to this standard? Are you implying that you are 100% certain of this. Sorry, but no, I still disagree. I agree that it is simplistic to assume that any of us here could match the standard set by our medieval ancestors, yet it is equally simplistic to assume that absolutely no one in the world could. Dealing in absolutes is a wasteful practice. |
Right. Absolutes are often not productive. But I'm pretty sure no modern swordsman has fought in a real pitched medieval battle or judicial duel. Probably 100%.
I think it's also not controversial to say that modern warriors don't usually start their training before their teens being taught by warriors who likely have seen combat themselves. Period warriors who started young would also likely have seen significant combat before age 20. Modern warriors don't usually face life or death situations with a sword in their hands and certainly probably not at ages our ancestors did.
There are warriors today who can likely match the skill of period warriors, as I said above. But I don't know of many (if any) who have fought in a real battle, with sharp swords, with death on the line. So if you have a period warrior and a modern swordsman of equal physical skill and training and pit them against each other, I'm still going to put my money on the guy who has fought in battle with death on the line, not the physically skilled modern guy who hasn't. Doesn't mean the period guy will win, but it's a safer bet.
I'm not trying to take away from modern swordsmen. But they/we didn't grow up in a culture where swords and real, violent combat were near to everyday life. We haven't fought in real battles or trained with people who are medieval campaign veterans. Experience still counts for something, right?
I disagree with the idea Adam Smith put forward that modern warriors can't match the strength and ferocity of period warriors. But I do believe there is an easily verifiable experience gap.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kel Rekuta
|
| Posted: Wed 08 Sep, 2010 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jeff A. Arbogast wrote: |
As you are, Peter. I see your opinion is as undented as ever. But I will persist. Let me ask you this question-do you utterly dismiss the account of Robert the Bruce cleaving Sir Henry Bohun's head in half with his axe, helm and all? There are many accounts of this, and many witnessed the event. Robert did bust his axe-haft doing it, so it must have been one heck of a wallop, since I can't imagine a King using an axe with a crack in it's handle, especially right before a battle was to begin. I would assume that he was either unaware of a hairline crack somewhere, or he simply busted it outright when he nailed poor glory-seeking Sir Henry. But by all accounts his head and helm WERE split in half. |
Barbour's "The Bruce" is the only source of the story and it was written some sixty years later. At least two generations after the event.... Whatever else you might have read is based on that and there have been a LOT of spins on it, especially since Walter Scott's romantic revival of medieval history studies. Don't be so confident in the ground under your feet on this topic.
Apparently there is a literature professor at Madison Wisconsin that has made a career out of debunking the story. I've never read his work, don't even know his name. Perhaps someone else has heard of him?
|
|
|
|
|
Craig Peters
|
| Posted: Wed 08 Sep, 2010 8:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
There is some evidence from the 12th century regarding sword pathology in chronicles. An often overlooked source is Usama ibn Munqidh's Book of Contemplations, which mentions several wounds received by both Crusaders and Muslims from swords. One thing that is notable is that nearly every single sword wound mentioned by Usama was from a blow struck to the head. Remember that at this time, the great helm did not exist yet, so the wounds must have been inflicted to men who were not wearing helmets, or to part of the face not adequately protected by nasal helmets. Similarly, in Gerald of Wales' treatise on Wales, he mentions a knight who is slain by a sword blow that managed to catch him on an unprotected part of his neck.
What these two examples, and undoubtedly others that I am not aware of, indicate is that sword blows seem to have been delivered to the head against armoured knights and muslim warriors. This provides very good evidence to suppor the idea that mail armour was impervious to sword strikes. Certainly, it is not unreasonable that blunt force trauma from sword blows could have lead to the death of some knights, and it is a possibility that cannot be discounted. Nevertheless, it is telling that the description of actual deaths from sword blows seem to indicate that knights and warriors did not waste their time striking blows to mail armour, and instead went for the head or face.
From this, then, we have a plausible explanation for Robert the Bruce splitting open the man's face with his axe, especially if his opponent was wearing an open-faced helmet like a bascinet, and the Bruce partially caught the man's exposed face, and partially struck the helmet as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kel Rekuta
|
| Posted: Wed 08 Sep, 2010 9:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig Peters wrote: |
From this, then, we have a plausible explanation for Robert the Bruce splitting open the man's face with his axe, especially if his opponent was wearing an open-faced helmet like a bascinet, and the Bruce partially caught the man's exposed face, and partially struck the helmet as well. |
Yes this a fair argument Craig but unfortunately flawed by the source. Barbour's description depicts deBohun, a leader in the vanguard, a fully armed knight of the period mounted on a destrier, charging with lance. It would be a stretch to have him in the open faced bascinet that became popular a couple decades later. We'll never know though because eyewitness accounts of incident don't exist.
We cannot rely on Barbour for accurate details of kit as he calls his work a "romance" internally. It is heroic fiction that didn't find a substantial audience outside of his immediate circle. By comparison Blind Harry's Wallace a century later was reprinted numerous times by his contemporaries and for further two hundred years. I think you would have a very difficult time using "Wallace" as a primary source for military studies. So too should we be more critical of Barbour's work, written as it was decades after the fact.
I love the story, always will. I just can't accept it as gospel anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adam Smith
|
| Posted: Wed 08 Sep, 2010 1:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Johann M wrote: | | Adam Smith wrote: | | It is extremely unlikely if even possible that the people who weild the weapons in modern day tests do so with the strength, ferocity and experience of ancient professional warriors? |
Sorry but that's bull...I understand the point that you are trying to make, but I respectfully disagree with your assessment. |
You might be mistaking my comment as a negative remark with regards to a modern day swordsmans stature or physique but that was not my intension. Modern swordsmen probably spend much more time in front of a computur discussing the subject than actually training. For the ancients it was a way of life, when not training they were confronted with live armoured targets that fought back. The one chance they got to strike may have been the only one so their experience combined with adrenaline may have landed blows much more powerfull than we can understand.
I dont believe they were hurculean but do believe that pound for pound they were much stronger and tougher than we can imagine. Their years of training and fighting would of devoloped muscle groups and motor nurons undreamed of by modern enthusiusts.
What about diet? the junk that most people consume today both knowing and unknowingly did not exist then not to mention that even most of the well to do probably consumed what we would consider frugal now.
The ancients had to ride, walk, run and climb when they wanted to get somewhere. They had to edure hunger, thirst, cold heat and pain that most of us never will know.
I must agree with Nathan that a modern day enthusiust of the sword would not last long if they were matched against an ancient .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy V. Krause
|
| Posted: Wed 08 Sep, 2010 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just to put another possible variable to this idea of period knights or men-at-arms (those bearing swords) at least in the High Middle Ages being "ferocious".
I believe that though the knight certainly received training from a very early age in the use of arms and horsemanship, his time in "deady conflict" may have been very rare- maybe once or twice in a lifetime for many. Indeed, we hear of many higher status soldiers hanging back from the fight and going out when opportune. Also, the chivalry afforded to opponents of the same noble class (those carrying swords) is legendary. Often times- maybe most times- those of higher class were taken prisoner for the ransom and not killed. A religious order (the Mercedians) was founded purely to fund the rescue of Christian prisoners. Perhaps when the situation looked dangerous a knight or lord may even throw down his arms knowing that he would be taken as prisoner.
I am posting this to disassemble the notion that the warriors of old were constantly or regularly in the ferocious battles we see on the silver screen. You know- men turning here and there loping of arms and heads seemingly without fearing death. Also, how could so many swords have such a long life if they were constantly being employed?
Plus- I just always resist the "romantic" that's just me. 
In short though training was exhaustive, deadly combat may not have been.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adam Smith
|
| Posted: Wed 08 Sep, 2010 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Once or twice in a lifetime eh? well thats a new one for me. Whats with the "silver screen", I thought we were debating if the wounds depicted in the Mac bible can be justified.
Last edited by Adam Smith on Wed 08 Sep, 2010 4:39 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Jeff A. Arbogast
|
| Posted: Wed 08 Sep, 2010 4:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kel Rekuta wrote: | | Jeff A. Arbogast wrote: |
As you are, Peter. I see your opinion is as undented as ever. But I will persist. Let me ask you this question-do you utterly dismiss the account of Robert the Bruce cleaving Sir Henry Bohun's head in half with his axe, helm and all? There are many accounts of this, and many witnessed the event. Robert did bust his axe-haft doing it, so it must have been one heck of a wallop, since I can't imagine a King using an axe with a crack in it's handle, especially right before a battle was to begin. I would assume that he was either unaware of a hairline crack somewhere, or he simply busted it outright when he nailed poor glory-seeking Sir Henry. But by all accounts his head and helm WERE split in half. |
Barbour's "The Bruce" is the only source of the story and it was written some sixty years later. At least two generations after the event.... Whatever else you might have read is based on that and there have been a LOT of spins on it, especially since Walter Scott's romantic revival of medieval history studies. Don't be so confident in the ground under your feet on this topic.
Apparently there is a literature professor at Madison Wisconsin that has made a career out of debunking the story. I've never read his work, don't even know his name. Perhaps someone else has heard of him? |
I'm NOT sure of the ground under my feet. That makes me at least intellectually honest, if nothing else. If I was sure I wouldn't have posed the question to Peter in the first place. I am aware that to some, nothing short of 8 X 10 glossies of the event, dated and signed by the Bruce himself, would suffice, and probably not even then. But since that's not possible, all we can do is make our best guess, based upon whatever evidence, real or literary, exists. No one has convinced me yet that this deed was impossible. Difficult, sure. Impossible? Not to my mind. Supposedly, Bohun was fully armored, charging on his war horse with his lance lowered. The Bruce was not even dressed for battle, riding a palfrey. He awaited Bohun calmly, and at the last minute deftly turned his horse, reared up in his stirrups, and with all his might smashed his axe down on Bohun's helm, splitting both head and helm and breaking his axe in the process. Now what's so hard about believing that? I sure don't have any problem with it. This wasn't some puny hatchet the Bruce was using either. It was probably pretty darned heavy. I've seen a few of these weapons myself when I lived in Europe, and these things aren't toys. Narrated years after the event doesn't disqualify the story either. Heinrich Schliemann discovered Troy, Mycenae AND Tiryns with nothing but a copy of Homer's Iliad, mocked and ridiculed all the while. Even tales dismissed as fantasy (as the Iliad was) can contain a lot more truth than you think. So don't just dismiss these stories out of hand because no one made a video of this event back on June 14th, 1314. That's just taking the easy way out.
A man's nose is his castle-and his finger is a mighty sword that he may wield UNHINDERED!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adam Smith
|
| Posted: Wed 08 Sep, 2010 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Maybe the professer from Madison Wisconsin should publish his own story of the events on that day. Then All those who dont believe an axe can split a helm would find it more histoically accurate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy V. Krause
|
| Posted: Wed 08 Sep, 2010 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Adam Smith wrote: | | Maybe the professer from Madison Wisconsin should publish his own story of the events on that day. Then All those who dont believe an axe can split a helm would find it more histoically accurate. |
What is up with your tone? Why so snarky? Folks around here really don't post like this. . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Fuller
Industry Professional
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada Joined: 13 Nov 2005
Posts: 49
|
| Posted: Wed 08 Sep, 2010 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is one of those arguments (sorry, "discussions") that ends up going around in circles indefinitely. At the end of the day, the best we can do simply agree to disagree. Jeff, you and I know all about this!
James Gillespie makes an excellent point; charging on horseback would increase the force of the blow considerably, but enough to cut through all that iron, is still anybody's guess. I had another look through the Mac. Bible, and it turns out that the majority of the confrontations that involved helm splitting was when one side was in retreat - which would negate Jame's argument about force increased by speed of horse, at least in the case of those specific images. However Jeff, I still wonder if it would be enough to split helm and skull. I'll have to give you points for the Bruce/DeBohoun (sp?) story, although I would lean more on the side of Kel, since there are a lot of apocryphal stories about medieval knights performing amazing feats of arms, and a story meant to make a king look good in the eyes of his subjects sixty years after the fact is a little suspect. Do I deny that the Bruce did it? No. But it is possible that the story may have been embellished a bit.
Adam - I have to wonder a bit about your knowledge of this subject. I don't mean to criticize you or belittle you, but you have made several statements that appear to be lacking in expertise. You state that medieval metal was full of fatigue and brittleness, when any medieval armourer would know that a heat and slow cool would normalize the iron and eliminate these problems. An examination of authentic armour proves that it is extremely well made, even given the lack of scientific knowledge and use of modern techniques.
You then say that no modern re-enactor would be able to match the skill and ferocity of a medieval warrior, but keep in mind that not everyone on a medieval battlefield was a professional soldier. Many were there to fulfill their feudal obligation, and were more adept at farming than fighting. Indeed, a medieval battlefield looked more like a chess board than anything else, with the majority of combatants being "pawns". Even knights were not all skilled warriors, which leads me another point you made; that you hadn't heard that many knights only participated in one or two conflicts throughout their lives. This is not inaccurate. Battles were rare events, and knights didn't run around fighting all day and feasting all night. Combat may have been more frequent during conflicts like the Hundred Years War, but overall, full scale pitched battles were rare events, even during the HYW. Indeed, during the 13th and 14 th centuries, many knights opted out of their feudal obligations by paying "Shield Scuttage", which meant that they didn't have to serve their requisite forty days a year. The money was then used to pay mercenaries to serve in their place.
Chad makes the point that no one in modern times has ever entered a conflict with swords where they are fighting for their lives. I would say that Hank Reinhardt has; not with swords, but with knives. He told me numerous tales of his youth where he was in a knife fight, and the guy he was fighting was intent on killing him. The fight usually ended when blood was drawn, for some reason that was enough for them to realize what they were doing and stop. I'm also sure that there may be some WWII veterans who engaged in hand to hand combat with nothing more than a bayonet; surely this would qualify. All I can say is I'm thankful that I've never had to experience such a thing; the Hastings battle re-enactment was real enough for me!
I guess what I'm saying Adam, is not every medieval soldier was highly trained and skilled. Many would be, and they would definitely be more than a match for the majority of modern swordsmen, but many more would not be, just like the way there are a lot of people today who drive cars; many are skilled drivers, but I'm sure you'll agree that many, many more should never, ever get behind the wheel of a car (even though they do on a daily basis)!
Getting back to the subject of this thread; I'm still not convinced that it's possible to split a 13th c. great helm with a sword. What do I base my opinion on? Thirty years of experience making armour, among other things. If anybody wants to perform some tests, I would be happy to provide the helm, mail coif, steel under cap, and arming cap. You provide the swords, and we'll have to find someone who is comparable in skill and strength to a medieval knight. I can think of only one person; Hank Reinhardt, and unfortunately, he passed away a few years ago. But this doesn't mean that there's not someone else out there that would fit the bill.
OK, I'm done; I've said too much already.
Peter Fuller
|
|
|
|
|
Craig Peters
|
| Posted: Wed 08 Sep, 2010 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kel Rekuta wrote: | | Craig Peters wrote: |
From this, then, we have a plausible explanation for Robert the Bruce splitting open the man's face with his axe, especially if his opponent was wearing an open-faced helmet like a bascinet, and the Bruce partially caught the man's exposed face, and partially struck the helmet as well. |
Yes this a fair argument Craig but unfortunately flawed by the source. Barbour's description depicts deBohun, a leader in the vanguard, a fully armed knight of the period mounted on a destrier, charging with lance. It would be a stretch to have him in the open faced bascinet that became popular a couple decades later. We'll never know though because eyewitness accounts of incident don't exist.
We cannot rely on Barbour for accurate details of kit as he calls his work a "romance" internally. It is heroic fiction that didn't find a substantial audience outside of his immediate circle. By comparison Blind Harry's Wallace a century later was reprinted numerous times by his contemporaries and for further two hundred years. I think you would have a very difficult time using "Wallace" as a primary source for military studies. So too should we be more critical of Barbour's work, written as it was decades after the fact.
I love the story, always will. I just can't accept it as gospel anymore. |
Given this new information, I would say that you have a very legitimate criticism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Johann M
Location: London Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 27
|
| Posted: Thu 09 Sep, 2010 1:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chad Arnow wrote: | | Johann M wrote: | | And you are sure no modern human can come even close to this standard? Are you implying that you are 100% certain of this. Sorry, but no, I still disagree. I agree that it is simplistic to assume that any of us here could match the standard set by our medieval ancestors, yet it is equally simplistic to assume that absolutely no one in the world could. Dealing in absolutes is a wasteful practice. |
Right. Absolutes are often not productive. But I'm pretty sure no modern swordsman has fought in a real pitched medieval battle or judicial duel. Probably 100%.
I think it's also not controversial to say that modern warriors don't usually start their training before their teens being taught by warriors who likely have seen combat themselves. Period warriors who started young would also likely have seen significant combat before age 20. Modern warriors don't usually face life or death situations with a sword in their hands and certainly probably not at ages our ancestors did.
There are warriors today who can likely match the skill of period warriors, as I said above. But I don't know of many (if any) who have fought in a real battle, with sharp swords, with death on the line. So if you have a period warrior and a modern swordsman of equal physical skill and training and pit them against each other, I'm still going to put my money on the guy who has fought in battle with death on the line, not the physically skilled modern guy who hasn't. Doesn't mean the period guy will win, but it's a safer bet.
I'm not trying to take away from modern swordsmen. But they/we didn't grow up in a culture where swords and real, violent combat were near to everyday life. We haven't fought in real battles or trained with people who are medieval campaign veterans. Experience still counts for something, right?
I disagree with the idea Adam Smith put forward that modern warriors can't match the strength and ferocity of period warriors. But I do believe there is an easily verifiable experience gap. |
I don't disagree with your position at all...I just can't stand broad sweeping statements that are hard to prove yet are held up as indisputable fact.
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Thu 09 Sep, 2010 5:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Johann M wrote: |
I don't disagree with your position at all...I just can't stand broad sweeping statements that are hard to prove yet are held up as indisputable fact. |
I'm pretty sure I never called anything I said indisputable fact. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough about it being my opinion.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
This is a standard topic