Author |
Message |
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
Posted: Tue 19 Feb, 2008 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here's what Silver wrote about the pairing:
The sword & target together has but two fights, that is the variable fight, & the close fight, for the close fight, the number of his feet are too many to take against any man of skill having the sword & buckler, & for the variable fight although not so many in number, yet too many to win the place with his foot and strike home. The sword & buckler man out of his variable, open & guardant fight can come bravely off & on, false & double, strike & thrust home, & make a true cross upon every occasion at his pleasure. If the sword & target man will fly to his guardant fight, the breadth of the target will not suffer it, if to his open fight, then has the sword & buckler man in effect the sword and buckler to the single, for in that fight by reason of the breadth, the target can do little good or none at all.
Make of that what you will.
|
|
|
|
Bram Verbeek
|
Posted: Tue 19 Feb, 2008 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
A roman shield is held in a different way than a target (As I remember, a target is strapped to the arm, and a roman shield is held on outstetched arm with a horizontal grip), so some of the analogies won't work. Also, "the breadth of the target will not suffer it" wouldn't hold true to a roman shield in many cases.
I would go for a soliferrum. This iron javelin would have many of the characteristics of a pilum, being capable of punching far through the shield (and, if translated, it means "only iron" so those characteristics would be enhanced further). I think I would also go for a falcata, while its chopping power is often overstated, it is a nice and gruesome weapon, and perfectly usable with a large shield. The reason the romans did not adopt this weapon but the other spanish short sword, is not because of the effectiveness, but because of the cost. A falcata is a very complex weapon to make (cross-sections can be viewed in this thread http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=2729), while a gladius hispaniensis can be made fairly easy. Every review I read about a modern day falcata is lyric about its chopping power, and surprised about the amount of thrust still possible. A roman gladius is a dream to thrust, but nearly useless in the cut (if there is more than bare skin seperating blood and air), a celtic long sword is not balanced, so would move slower, many have poor thrusting points and when two combatants have large shield, the attacking distance would soon become too close for such a long blade.
So, in short: a corynthian helmet, a roman hamata, a roman curved early scutum (or another curved large shield gripped in the center. A bronze-plated shield might better deflect pila, but a wooden shield can be bigger with the same weight, I think this would be more effective), a handfull of soliferra and a falcata might be able to hold the roman off (you might want to add greaves and bracers). I'd attack fingers and toes if the roman has a rectangular shield, and fingers and nose with an older shield. (a rectangular shield is smaller and lighter, so it would be easier to feint someone into blocking his vision and attacking the lower legs, with a larger shield this would take longer, so not only has the miles time to reconsider, you might just have time for a quick jab in the face) And of course, since you have a falcata, chops should not be avoided.
Alternatively, but somewhat less plausible, a gothic full plate and a pollax, or a warhorse, great lance and a warhammer and the aforementioned gothic armour.
Alternatively, but again somewhat less plausible, a B17 superfortress and some men at the turrets, and clusterbombs, with lasers on their heads. (sorry for this part)
I recall something about the persians, some quote like "And he ordered his men to advance, but they showed their feet were nailed to the ground by persian arrows, and their arms were nailed to their shields by persian arrows" This was (probably differently worded) done by a philosoher that was against the constant warring, so it could be twisted
|
|
|
|
Shayan G
|
Posted: Tue 19 Feb, 2008 11:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
That's quoted in my post above, from Plutarch's "Life of Crassus." Other accounts corroborate this, the historicity of that aspect of the battle, though not 100% certain, seems well enough reported that it seems likely to have occurred as has been described. Moreover, the fact that the Parthians relied primarily on horse-archers for their initial assault, and the fact that they won the battle, would necessitate a certain degree of effectiveness on their archers' part.
Cheers!
Shayan
|
|
|
|
Bill Tsafa
Location: Brooklyn, NY Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 599
|
Posted: Tue 19 Feb, 2008 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Going on memory here, so I apologize if I get anything wrong. I believe George Silver wrote around 1600 and worked mostly with a broadsword against unarmored combat in a civilian setting for Gentlemen. I question how applicable his methods would be in a battlefield situation with mail or leather armor, helmets, greaves and large shields. If anyone has any Silver references to battle situations, please correct me. My knowledge of Silver is weak. I am rapier-man rather then a broadsword-man. I know for sure that the rapier is useless on a battlefield. I also know that the rapier and broadsword were contemporaries. In the mind of Silver they were also rivals.
No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
Posted: Tue 19 Feb, 2008 2:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | I believe George Silver wrote around 1600 and worked mostly with a broadsword against unarmored combat in a civilian setting for Gentlemen. |
Yes, that's all true.
Quote: | I question how applicable his methods would be in a battlefield situation with mail or leather armor, helmets, greaves and large shields. |
This topic is about a duel, which is the main type of fighting Silver addressed. He didn't give much advice on how to defeat armor, but referenced it at various points.
Armor wasn't specified by the original post. Assuming the Roman has his classic defenses, is the challenger evenly matched? Are they to wear the same armor?
Halberds, partisans, and two-handed swords seem to have at least held their own against swords and targets on 16th-century European battlefields. Such troops commonly wore about as much armor as your stereotypical Roman soldier.
|
|
|
|
Bill Tsafa
Location: Brooklyn, NY Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 599
|
Posted: Tue 19 Feb, 2008 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for confirming the impression of Silver's fight that I had. I don't want to get off topic so I will open up another thread more specific discussion to Silver's fight.
No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
|
|
|
|
Shane Allee
Industry Professional
Location: South Bend, IN Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Posts: 506
|
Posted: Tue 19 Feb, 2008 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bram Verbeek wrote: | A roman gladius is a dream to thrust, but nearly useless in the cut (if there is more than bare skin seperating blood and air), a celtic long sword is not balanced, so would move slower, many have poor thrusting points and when two combatants have large shield, the attacking distance would soon become too close for such a long blade. |
I don't get a chance to post much around here anymore, but somethings just need to be addressed. This is just way over generalized and totally inaccurate. If you look at the beginning of the la tene period the celtic sword was if anything more of a thrusting weapon with a very acute point, high medial ridge line, and maybe a 22-24" blade at max. By the time you get to the la Tene III period sure you have some pure cutting swords without points, but the other end of the spectrum is the "sword of spheres" who's only use would be to make people kababs. Between those extremes there all manor of tip and blade shapes and styles. If these are not balanced then some of us are making ourselves a whole lot more work then we need too for one. Second, I would hardly thing that they would also be the swords that layed the foundation for hundreds of years to follow if not balanced. The sword style continued, the smiths continued, and the centers of manufacturing continued for a very long time.
Shane
|
|
|
|
Alex Oster
Location: Washington and Yokohama Joined: 01 Mar 2004
Posts: 410
|
Posted: Wed 20 Feb, 2008 8:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Though this is another katana vs rapier loaded question, i have to chime in.
I agree with hvy warhorse and lance at full gallop. That was well thought up.
everything else is pure speculation and opinion. No way to know, no way to proove. No modern test could ever solve the question due to too many variables, and even if it were redone somehow, individuals would still find faults in the test to proove their opinion right.
Its just like the overly inflated ego's of martial arts guys in the US saying whos style is better. Though this hasn't gotten there yet, all should be aware that it is much better to recouont what ~was~ used and what ~has~ given them trouble than to point out what you think is better (and argue it).
just my thoughts this am,
The pen is mightier than the sword, especially since it can get past security and be stabbed it into a jugular.
This site would be better if everytime I clicked submit... I got to hear a whip crack!
My collection: Various Blades & Conan related
|
|
|
|
Bram Verbeek
|
Posted: Wed 20 Feb, 2008 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
I am sorry I did not point it out, what I meant were the aproximately 1 meter long swords, if I recall correctly, those were not real fine thrusters, the shorter swords were (antennae leaf blades are only an instance). These were also the swords the gladius hispaniensis were modelled after (well, modelled after one string of these swords). If I do not mistake greatly, the grip and "pommel" were often made out of organic material with a metal full width tang. This does not thicken towards the end of the blade, and organic materials are a whole deal lighter than metal, so it would be very hard to balance a bit of metal (for instance, the broadening of a leaf-blade) in front. The rapiers would be dedicated thrusters as well, and due to their thin blade very light, but these were of an earlier period.
|
|
|
|
Shane Allee
Industry Professional
Location: South Bend, IN Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Posts: 506
|
Posted: Wed 20 Feb, 2008 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
First off ask any good sword maker when the balancing process of a sword takes place and they will tell you it starts well before hilting. The blades thickness, profile taper, type of distal taper, and amount of distal taper all factor into how the blade balances, the hilt is the final step in making the sword balance. For some reason people don't understand or want to accept that organic hilts can be balanced, but there is over a thousand years there with the la tene to the beginning of the viking age when the long bladed organic hilt was the choice weapon for many people.
One of the biggest problems people make with the swords of the la tene is trying to define the period by one type of sword. You just can't do it, there is far too much change and innovation going on for that to be possible. Sure the sword of spheres started before the la tene, but they stayed around. The sword of spheres or "Epées à rognons" as I have also seem them called can be seen in the LT D1 period totally in iron/steel with no organics at all. Also from this period there are blades that look like 14th-15th century cut and thrust blades.
To deal with romans I'd stick with what I know best.
La tene shield
three barbed pilum like javelins
bayonet spear
la tene III sword or falcata
Shane
|
|
|
|
Bram Verbeek
|
Posted: Thu 21 Feb, 2008 12:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, Distal taper is very important (though I recall that some iron age blade profiles actually thickened near the forte, a Mindelheim type sword), and when looking, I found that some later swords seem not to have much more mass past the hand than celtic swords. Some had cast on iron pommels that seem to dwarf later pommels. Grunlingen types also were smaller and thus lighter. (so, I agree)
But these swords are just post-bronze age. Later swords seem to be more graceful (also with a little less leaf) and with a more acute point, the thick, cast on pommels seem to disappear. I also am not saying that a heavier sword is all bad, or that pointy is the only way to go, if that were so, I'd have chosen a xiphos or a leafblade instead of a falcata. It is just that I have experienced that it is hard to attack someone with a long blade when they are protected by a very large shield, and a hamata would make it harder still.
And, please note that in the original post, I only tried to say that one type, being the long blades, would not suit me. All manner of antenna swords and antropomorphic swords were shorter and would thus be better suited to my style of swordplay.
I hope we can get back to discussing how to take on romans
|
|
|
|
Bennison N
|
Posted: Thu 21 Feb, 2008 2:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
A strong possibilty for defeating a single Roman Legionary is using Indian Kalaripayattu with a shield and Urumi or Chattaval as weapons. Kalaripayattu is very old, and may have been around during the Roman Era. I don't know. These weapons, however, would render a Roman shield useless. The range would be good against a Gladius, and the pure psychological effect would work very well in your favour.
Another good Indian weapon would be a Pata. These are designed for use against armoured cavalry, and would certainly be rather effective against Roman armour.
"Never give a sword to a man who can't dance" - Confucius
अजयखड्गधारी
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Zuiderwijk
Industry Professional
|
Posted: Thu 21 Feb, 2008 4:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
From my small amount of forging experience, I'd say the opposite is true. A straight edged sword with a diamond cross-section takes quite a bit of skill and effort to do right. A straight is difficult to get straight, while a curved line is easy to keep curved. It's pretty difficult to keep the midline of the diamond cross section in the center and straight, while at the same time keep the edge straight, as well as get the thickness right over the length of the blade. A falcata is primarily a curved knife with a triangular cross-section, which is pretty easy to forge. The real difficulty and labour is in the decorations of the hilt, such as the frequent occuring chain links, the metal bolsters, and the decorative inlays. The lines and fullers are generally fairly crude on falcatas, so they're not difficult to do. But on the whole, I'm pretty sure that a simple functional falcata is a lot easier to do then a gladius. Just because something looks simple in shape, doesn't mean it's easy to make (usually quite the opposite).
Quote: | Every review I read about a modern day falcata is lyric about its chopping power, |
Yeah, but keep in mind that all reproductions are fat, overweight examples, with a very different edge geometry. Original falcatas, were thin, light, curved kitchen knives from hell
Quote: | and surprised about the amount of thrust still possible. A roman gladius is a dream to thrust, but nearly useless in the cut (if there is more than bare skin seperating blood and air), |
From what I've learned so far, they were gruesome cutters. There's even leafbladed examples, which may suggest that the cutting power was pretty important. The thing to keep in mind with the gladius is that they were very short range weapons, which is why the blade lengths had to be kept short, so they could be used well enough when there's very little room. But short length doesn't mean that they're trusting only weapons.
I personally think that the best bet for choice of weapons to defeat a Roman legionaire is to use the same weapons as the Romans used themselves. The Romans were a military civilization, and they knew very well what they were doing.
|
|
|
|
Peter Bosman
|
Posted: Thu 21 Feb, 2008 4:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jeroen Zuiderwijk wrote: | The Romans were a military civilization, and they knew very well what they were doing. |
Actually Jeroen, this is a good reason NOT to try and beat them and their own game with their own weapons
peter
|
|
|
|
Bram Verbeek
|
Posted: Thu 21 Feb, 2008 6:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
I thought the risers would be a lot of work, but then, I have never made one, nor did I make a gladius (and, relooking at the pictures, I had the most complex in mind, bigger pictures show more of a triangle, this was the picture I thought ofhttp://www.myArmoury.com/talk/download.php?id=3608). I said useless in cutting, I should have said not optimized for cutting, but I thought it was not really as good as contemporary blades.
I agree on using mostly roman arms to defeat them, if you are not allowed to go wholly to an other time frame. The curved scuta are very good at deflecting missiles, the gladius is a very good thruster, it could get you that stab to the face or have a chance to do damage through a subarmalis or lightly covered area (though I stand by my decision for the falcata, but this is more out of preference and because of the psychological effect), and pila are murder against someone behind a shield. A roman helmet with its large cheekplates offers a lot of protection, even though the fit would often be less than optimal, and a hamata is primarely a good form of mail (punched and rivetted links of small diameter. I would add a right leg greave and right arm bracer though. The quality would decrease in later periods, but I would feel good in a republican soldier's outfit.
and Peter, romans were so well equipped because whenever they would stumble on something they could use, they had no qualms in changing their warfare to make use of it, originally the armies were not unlike greek armies, with argive shields bronze helmets without cheekpieces and spears, comparing that to late republican army is a world of difference. It would be a problem that the average roman soldier was very well trained in using his equipment, so you would have to be very well trained indeed.
|
|
|
|
Otto Karl
Location: Ulm, Germany Joined: 05 Dec 2007
Posts: 15
|
Posted: Thu 21 Feb, 2008 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, ok boys: what is best to do the job: swords, axes or polearms?
|
|
|
|
Bill Tsafa
Location: Brooklyn, NY Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 599
|
Posted: Thu 21 Feb, 2008 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, the Greeks almost beat them with their shields and spears... so I might give that another try... but if I was betting money, I would go with the sword & shield and go toe to toe with them. I think Sword & Shield is the best weapon form for battle.
No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
|
|
|
|
M. Eversberg II
|
Posted: Thu 21 Feb, 2008 9:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If we're against a single legionary, I think I will go with lance charge.
M.
This space for rent or lease.
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
Posted: Fri 22 Feb, 2008 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Doug Lester wrote: | From what I understand, I'd say that any period hand weapon would be appropriate. What made the Romans so formidable was not their weaponry but their discipline and tactics. |
I very strongly agree with this. If you want to beat a Roman legion, the best way is not to look for a wonder weapon but to train your troops to match or exceed their degree of discipline.
As for fighting a single Roman legion...I don't see any restrictions to the effect that it has to be a one-to-one fight--only that there's one legionary on the opposing side--so I'd always choose to mob the legionary along with several friends regardless of what weapons we have. It's a time-honored and battle-proven trick and definitely much more effective than relying solely on a weapon match-up.
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
Posted: Fri 22 Feb, 2008 6:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Matthew Amt wrote: | We *think* that the Romans added cross-bracing to their helmets, and additional bits of armor such as greaves and laminated armguards to at least some troops, in response to the falx. But we don't know that for certain, since such items show up in Britain, Spain, and Syria, where the falx was unknown. Maybe such extra pieces of protection were just thought as good things to have in general, even if they were inspired by the falx. In any case, the Romans DID conquer Dacia, so the falx didn't stop them. |
Hmm...one good counter-theory about the Roman development of the manica is presented here: http://www.romanarmy.net/manica.htm , while the ocrea (greaves) don't need a Thracian explanation since they were already present among the Roman legions all the way back when they were still hoplite-style spearmen--and never quite fell out of fashion, or at least not among the wealthier men.
|
|
|
|
|
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
|