Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > usage of the Duke Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next 
Author Message
Randall Pleasant




Location: Flower Mound, Texas
Joined: 24 Aug 2003

Posts: 333

PostPosted: Thu 08 Nov, 2007 1:30 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Robin

I should have been more clear in my post but I was pressed for time (I'm at work). When I said "some weapons" I was indeed referring to the war hammer. Not surprizingly, the tests did show that even the poorest mail offers good protection against sword cuts. I do not have pictures avaible to post but a few years back ARMA member George Tuner made some mail that the ARMA DFW study group was never able to damage using Type XIIa and Type XIIIa swords. At the time we did not have a Type XVa (or similar) sword for the test but I do think a sword such as a Type XVa would have busted through the mail enough to cause a serious injury.

Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
View user's profile Send private message
Robin Smith




Location: Louisiana
Joined: 23 Dec 2006
Likes: 4 pages
Reading list: 17 books

Posts: 746

PostPosted: Thu 08 Nov, 2007 3:14 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Randall Pleasant wrote:
I do not have pictures avaible to post but a few years back ARMA member George Tuner made some mail that the ARMA DFW study group was never able to damage using Type XIIa and Type XIIIa swords. At the time we did not have a Type XVa (or similar) sword for the test but I do think a sword such as a Type XVa would have busted through the mail enough to cause a serious injury.

I would assume you mean thrust through the maille, correct? If not, it would seem quite a stretch for an XVa to CUT thru when a more dedicated cutter like the XIIIa couldn't do it. It certainly could get through with a solid thrust however...

A furore Normannorum libera nos, Domine
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Randall Pleasant




Location: Flower Mound, Texas
Joined: 24 Aug 2003

Posts: 333

PostPosted: Fri 09 Nov, 2007 1:50 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Robin

Yes, neither thrusts or cuts made any significant damage to the mail made by George Turner.

Trying to take part in a disucssion while at work is a real pain. WTF?! Big Grin

Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
View user's profile Send private message
Simon G.




Location: Lyons, France
Joined: 02 Jun 2008

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 238

PostPosted: Sat 28 Jun, 2008 5:12 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Sorry for resurrecting this old thread, I know it's bad netiquette, but...

I read through it (by chance) and I thought about something, a new direction for (perhaps) answering the original question (which is of interest to me, 'cause I'm a - newbie - Baron owner) :

How about usage of that kind of great swords against horses, not men ?

As far as I know (and I recall the case being recorded regarding several battles), the average knight's goal was not merely defeating his enemy - it was capturing him and getting a nice ransom in the process. So killing him may not be the best option (although they certainly had to prioritize quite often when on the battlefield, better loose a potential ransom and kill the guy than loose a potential ransom and... be killed by the guy). To that effect, killing or severely wounding the enemy's horse seems to be a good idea. That way, your target may be thrown to the ground, perhaps trapped under his horse, knocked out, or at the very least, vulnerable for some time, until he gets up.

At that moment, some footman could chime in (because, while footmen are much overlooked by mediaeval sources, knights, or the knights' swords, did not work alone), get to the guy while he's still down, and threaten him with a much less nice weapon, but at point-blank range, where anything could work against mostly any armour, you just have to find a crack, something easy to do when the opponent's not moving... I know that later in the Middle Ages (not during the mail age, though, as far as I know) there were specialized "ransoming" daggers, that were called (in French) "miséricorde" (mercy) or "prie-à-dieu" (pray-to-god) - because if the guy on the receiving end refused to surrender for ransom (in essence, to cry "mercy !"), he would get an express trip to the knights' paradise...

It seems to me (with my VERY limited knowledge on actual sword usage) that a great sword (XIIa, XIIIa...) could be used to great effect against a horse, the latter being unarmoured during that period (excepting special cases like Byzantine cataphracts - and even later, horse armour was, to my knowledge, an expensive luxury not available to anyone). Again, if not killed the horse could at least be severely wounded and therefore "out of order" (if it did not throw his knight down by rearing, but I do not know how that is likely). Too bad we cannot ask Michael Edelson to perform some other helpful tests on a live horse without being arrested for animal cruelty... Wink Big Grin

A follow-up question to my hypothesis : does anyone know about a period fighting manual dealing specifically with fighting against a horseman, and with attacking his horse ? That would confirm what is only a mere supposition based on some (still much lacking) historical knowledge. Let me know what you think about this whole horse-killing matter (and before you ask, no, I am not a horse steak enthusiast ! Razz )
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Doug Lester




Location: Decatur, IL
Joined: 12 Dec 2007

Posts: 167

PostPosted: Sat 28 Jun, 2008 10:24 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Reading these discussion, I started thinking back to the video "Myth of the Sword" that shows Reinhardt cutting through unpadded mail covering a large pork roast laying on a chopping block. Is the difference, you think, the fact that the roast was supported by the ungiving block? Would this not represent a person laying on the ground or maybe fallen back against something like a tree? Comments?
View user's profile Send private message
Michael Edelson




Location: New York
Joined: 14 Sep 2005

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 1,032

PostPosted: Mon 30 Jun, 2008 7:35 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Doug Lester wrote:
Reading these discussion, I started thinking back to the video "Myth of the Sword" that shows Reinhardt cutting through unpadded mail covering a large pork roast laying on a chopping block. Is the difference, you think, the fact that the roast was supported by the ungiving block? Would this not represent a person laying on the ground or maybe fallen back against something like a tree? Comments?


I'm pretty sure that was butted mail, which is essentially worthless. However, if you put good riveted mail on a hard unyielding block, you may actually bust some links with a sword (and damage your sword). That test would have nothing to do with reality though.

On another note...some people here may have missed my updates to the jack tests...I tried cutting a jack with two XIII's, a Duke and an Atrim Legacy line. Both swords performed quite poorly against the jack, though both could get through a 10 layer jack with a tip cut.

Jacks (multi layered as opposed to padded textile defences), as far as I know, were not contemporary to the XIII's and XII's, however, and it is possible that the transition from padded to layered defense may have been at least partially responsible for the decline and eventual disappearance of these swords.

New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com

Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Steven H




Location: Boston
Joined: 10 May 2006

Posts: 545

PostPosted: Mon 30 Jun, 2008 1:41 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Michael Edelson wrote:
I'm pretty sure that was butted mail, which is essentially worthless. However, if you put good riveted mail on a hard unyielding block, you may actually bust some links with a sword (and damage your sword). That test would have nothing to do with reality though.

Not nothing . . . it demonstrates the value of knocking your opponent to the ground before hitting them Laughing Out Loud

Cheers,
Steven

Kunstbruder - Boston area Historical Combat Study
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Michael Edelson




Location: New York
Joined: 14 Sep 2005

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 1,032

PostPosted: Mon 30 Jun, 2008 5:36 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Steven H wrote:
Michael Edelson wrote:
I'm pretty sure that was butted mail, which is essentially worthless. However, if you put good riveted mail on a hard unyielding block, you may actually bust some links with a sword (and damage your sword). That test would have nothing to do with reality though.

Not nothing . . . it demonstrates the value of knocking your opponent to the ground before hitting them Laughing Out Loud

Cheers,
Steven


Yeah, if you're opponent works out so much that his body is hard as a board. You know...like me. Happy

New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com

Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Chase S-R




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 31 Jan 2008

Posts: 166

PostPosted: Mon 30 Jun, 2008 5:56 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Look at the test cutting done in SECRETS OF THE VIKING WARRIOR on National Geographic.

[quote]
Indeed, experiments undertaken by the Royal Armouries in Leeds have shown that when chain armour is outfitted on a free-flowing dummy, effectively mimicking the human body in motion, as it would be in a military engagement, it is almost impossible to penetrate using any conventional medieval weapon. Sword slashes are deflected, with spear, sword and arrow thrusts effectively stopped by the ring defenses. Even bodkin arrows are unable to penetrate the chain armour in these experiments. When layers of leather, felt or even cloth undergarments are added to the chain armour, the protection is even better. The results of these experiments are confirmed by the injuries recorded on medieval skeletons which have been excavated near battlefields or in medieval cemetries. These skeletons almost exclusively have wounds only to the head or limbs, the torsos remaining protected by armour. Taken from Kelly DeVries, "Medieval Military Surgery", Medieval History Magazine, Vol 1 is 4, December 2003.


this seems a bit of an over statement
also I don't know if I would trust anything from someone who calls mail "chain armour" Wink just a joke Happy

Charles Stewart Rodriguez
View user's profile AIM Address
Steven H




Location: Boston
Joined: 10 May 2006

Posts: 545

PostPosted: Tue 01 Jul, 2008 7:01 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Michael Edelson wrote:
Steven H wrote:
Not nothing . . . it demonstrates the value of knocking your opponent to the ground before hitting them Laughing Out Loud

Cheers,
Steven


Yeah, if you're opponent works out so much that his body is hard as a board. You know...like me. Happy


Well, I thought the test in question was meat on a stump with cloth and mail over it. Which is similar to a body on the ground. Which is the point I was trying to make. Not a great test, sure, but illustrative of the advantage gained by wrestling the opponent to the ground first.

Cheers,
Steven

Kunstbruder - Boston area Historical Combat Study
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Michael Edelson




Location: New York
Joined: 14 Sep 2005

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 1,032

PostPosted: Tue 01 Jul, 2008 7:21 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Steven H wrote:
Michael Edelson wrote:
Steven H wrote:
Not nothing . . . it demonstrates the value of knocking your opponent to the ground before hitting them Laughing Out Loud

Cheers,
Steven


Yeah, if you're opponent works out so much that his body is hard as a board. You know...like me. Happy


Well, I thought the test in question was meat on a stump with cloth and mail over it. Which is similar to a body on the ground. Which is the point I was trying to make. Not a great test, sure, but illustrative of the advantage gained by wrestling the opponent to the ground first.

Cheers,
Steven


Yes indeed, that was the test that Hank did. However, I meant an actual hard block right under the mail...if you just put mail on a roast and put that on the block, you're not cutting through rivetted meail unless it's total crap. Even directly on a wood block you won't cut through it, though you may break a link or two.

New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com

Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Steven H




Location: Boston
Joined: 10 May 2006

Posts: 545

PostPosted: Tue 01 Jul, 2008 9:38 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Michael Edelson wrote:

Yes indeed, that was the test that Hank did. However, I meant an actual hard block right under the mail...if you just put mail on a roast and put that on the block, you're not cutting through rivetted meail unless it's total crap. Even directly on a wood block you won't cut through it, though you may break a link or two.


What I remember was the mail being undamaged but the meat being severely damaged. Which is informative for the amount of damage done through mail.

<sigh> I may be remembering a different video though.

Cheers,
Steven

Kunstbruder - Boston area Historical Combat Study
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lafayette C Curtis




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

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Sat 05 Jul, 2008 6:14 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Michael Edelson wrote:
Jacks (multi layered as opposed to padded textile defences), as far as I know, were not contemporary to the XIII's and XII's, however, and it is possible that the transition from padded to layered defense may have been at least partially responsible for the decline and eventual disappearance of these swords.


Hmm...wasn't there a revival of the XIII/XIIIa in the late 15th and early 16th centuries? These revival swords would have been perfectly contemporary with jacks, though I'm not sure how effective they would have been against them. (Ah, the joys of ambiguity in the English language....)
View user's profile Send private message
Michael Edelson




Location: New York
Joined: 14 Sep 2005

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 1,032

PostPosted: Mon 07 Jul, 2008 9:10 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Lafayette C Curtis wrote:
Michael Edelson wrote:
Jacks (multi layered as opposed to padded textile defences), as far as I know, were not contemporary to the XIII's and XII's, however, and it is possible that the transition from padded to layered defense may have been at least partially responsible for the decline and eventual disappearance of these swords.


Hmm...wasn't there a revival of the XIII/XIIIa in the late 15th and early 16th centuries? These revival swords would have been perfectly contemporary with jacks, though I'm not sure how effective they would have been against them. (Ah, the joys of ambiguity in the English language....)


Yes there was, but if I recall correctly those were old swords, maybe rehilted, maybe not. I'm not sure that anyone actually made XIII's in the 15th and 16thC. What would be the point?

New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com

Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

PostPosted: Mon 07 Jul, 2008 9:13 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Michael Edelson wrote:
Yes there was, but if I recall correctly those were old swords, maybe rehilted, maybe not. I'm not sure that anyone actually made XIII's in the 15th and 16thC. What would be the point?


Because their customers asked for them? Because they might be effective on some level? Happy Not everyone on the battlefield would be clad in armour, especially in warmer areas (Spain and Italy) where armour might be uncomfortable to wear in the summer heat. Plate would have been less widespread in areas where the warriors were poorer: inter-clan warfare in some parts of Scotland, for instance.

The rise in professional armies (like Landsknechts and Swiss pikemen, etc.) and increased infantry use meant fewer people in cap-a-pie plate as the 16th century dawns. A Type XIII blade or its later cousin, the Type XX, might be more effective then than it would have been 100 years before.

Happy

ChadA

http://chadarnow.com/
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Michael Edelson




Location: New York
Joined: 14 Sep 2005

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 1,032

PostPosted: Wed 09 Jul, 2008 8:06 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Chad Arnow wrote:
Michael Edelson wrote:
Yes there was, but if I recall correctly those were old swords, maybe rehilted, maybe not. I'm not sure that anyone actually made XIII's in the 15th and 16thC. What would be the point?


Because their customers asked for them? Because they might be effective on some level? Happy Not everyone on the battlefield would be clad in armour, especially in warmer areas (Spain and Italy) where armour might be uncomfortable to wear in the summer heat. Plate would have been less widespread in areas where the warriors were poorer: inter-clan warfare in some parts of Scotland, for instance.

The rise in professional armies (like Landsknechts and Swiss pikemen, etc.) and increased infantry use meant fewer people in cap-a-pie plate as the 16th century dawns. A Type XIII blade or its later cousin, the Type XX, might be more effective then than it would have been 100 years before.


I dont' know much about the rest of Europe, though I imagine it wouldn't have been too different, but your typical German (HRE actually), Itallian and Burundian professional soldier in the 15th century was almost fully armored. Not full plate harness, but some combination of jack, mail, brigandine, breastplate, gauntlets, sallet, etc. Many also had leg harness of some sort, be it textile, plate, or whatever. Essentially, it would be difficult to kill a common soldier with a XIII. The great weakness of textile armor, the thrust, would not be an issue with a XIII, since it couldn't thrust through a paper bag if there was a pair of Hanes underwear over it.

So I can see reusing older swords for economic reasons, but actually making new XIII's? I don't know. Plus I've never seen a XIII dated to the 15th century.

New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com

Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

PostPosted: Wed 09 Jul, 2008 9:19 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Michael Edelson wrote:
So I can see reusing older swords for economic reasons, but actually making new XIII's? I don't know. Plus I've never seen a XIII dated to the 15th century.


Oakeshott talks about them. Also, our Type XIII spotlight shows one and says:



Quote:
From a Private Colection, found in Bohemia
Dating circa 1480-1510, this sword is a good example of the revival of the Type XIIIa near the end the end of the 15th century. It remains in amost perfect condition with only surface corrosion and having its original wood, cord, and leather grip. The blade has a Cross Fourché of inlaid latten and a stamped "twig"—a common mark on blades from the late 13th-16th centuries.


Happy Happy

Happy

ChadA

http://chadarnow.com/
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Michael Edelson




Location: New York
Joined: 14 Sep 2005

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 1,032

PostPosted: Wed 09 Jul, 2008 10:10 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Well I guess there's something I'm missing then, or, there's no accounting for taste. I fail to see why that should change in any century. Happy

I've always glossed over that one because it looked multi-fullered.

Is there any mention of why these things gained popularity...or equally important...where?

The fact remains that a sword like that would be of little use in a late 15th battlefield, at least compared to newer designs. Perhaps it gained popularity as a hunting sword, like a two handed messer?

New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com

Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

PostPosted: Wed 09 Jul, 2008 10:38 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Michael Edelson wrote:
I've always glossed over that one because it looked multi-fullered.

Is there any mention of why these things gained popularity...or equally important...where?

The fact remains that a sword like that would be of little use in a late 15th battlefield, at least compared to newer designs. Perhaps it gained popularity as a hunting sword, like a two handed messer?


I'll look through my books for more examples and text. Maybe you can, too, and see what you can come up with.

Oakeshott considered some Type XX blades to be relatives of Type XIII(a), even with their different fuller configuration. They clearly date from the 15th century. A sword like Albion's chieftain wouldn't have been out of place in its time/location and Albion dates it to the 15th century or so. A number of Scottish 2-handers are awfully similar to Type XIII's, except they're usually on steroids... Happy A bunch of those are even later than the 15th century.

Don't let multiple fullers throw you off by the way. There is a Type X we show in our spotlight with multiple fullers, plus another Type XIII, a Type XIV, and others with multiple fullers.

Honestly, I doubt they're as useless as you think. You could argue that they were made as experiments and then discarded as useless and I couldn't prove otherwise. Or it could be said that some or all were old swords simply re-hilted for sentimental or ceremonial purposes. I couldn't totally disprove you there either. But I tend to believe the people who grew up around weapons and warfare as part of their daily life half a millennium ago know some things we don't (yet). Happy

Happy

ChadA

http://chadarnow.com/
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Michael Edelson




Location: New York
Joined: 14 Sep 2005

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 1,032

PostPosted: Wed 09 Jul, 2008 11:40 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Chad Arnow wrote:
But I tend to believe the people who grew up around weapons and warfare as part of their daily life half a millennium ago know some things we don't (yet). Happy


That line of thinking is a double edged sword, however, no pun intended.

It is because we don't grow up around these weapons in use that we don't really know what to expect from them. People today expect swords to perform in unrealistic ways, and ways that the type in quesiton was not designed to perform. Who knows why and how a particular sword was used in a particular period? Maybe some mercenary captain said "Hey, see those XIII's in that church basement? I bet they'd be real good at bringing down horses..let's get a bunch of 'em together and rehilt 'em!"

Or maybe they were used as hunting weapons (they'd be great against boar), or for some other purpose we don't even know about. Or maybe it was more important to just own and wear one than to actually use it, in which case you could just get whatever type floated your boat, you could afford, or had lying around you grandfather's attic.

Most importantly, we have to remember that though these people grew up around swords, the fencing knowledge that floats freely around the internet was not exactly availbale at medievalgoogle.com. Most people then, as today, were complete morons, and worse, they had what we would consider a total lack of education. Many (most?) were illeterate. So just because we know that a XV can exploid gaps in armor and harass someone in mail, maybe most of them didn't. Or maybe that kind of fighting was only used in judicial duels. There are a lot of variables.

The best example of this are absolutely crappy medieval swords...if these people knoew so much about swords, why did they make such garbage along with some truly magnificent weapons? Dodge Aries K, anyone?

Bottom line...the more things change, the more they stay the same.

I will check my books about this, though, as the use of XIII's in the XV century was always something I was interested in.

New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com

Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > usage of the Duke
Page 2 of 3 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next 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