[Mackenzie Cosens]

Randall:

Many people who study Fiore believe that the dagger is the foundation weapon of the system. If it is the foundation weapon of the system then lesson it teaches are applied to all weapons in the system. If this true then I believe the section I quoted does apply to battlefield scenarios, since I hold to the opinion that Fiore's art would be as valid on the battle field as it would be in the lists.

But I think we can agree that running off on the battle field with nothing but a dagger would be rather loony if not a ballsy thing to do.

I don't think anyone is claiming that a dagger penetrates armour, the translations says something like armour is useless against it , and in my own opinion you attack the places the armour isn't or is is weak and the dagger is very fast and it is speed that makes is so difficult to defend against. But I think this is common knowledge.

Yes, Fiore show us how to defeat a dagger attack with a sheathed sword, he also show defend against as sword attack with a dagger, multiple attackers even. As long as they attack you one at a time.

Fiore does like sexy language, or at least the translations I have read suggest so, I envy your skill to read it in the original language. I am not sure it is so much a sales pitch as an interesting read, but I am bias because Fiore was the first historic sword master I read.

[Randall Moffett]

Mackenzie,

I would not argue against it being foundational. I think every one has to create a system that is for them useful. That said I think in some ways because perhaps it has a number of rather complicated but similar positions to other weapons and the thought of starting students with poll axes is just scary in many ways.

I do agree that many of his training can transition well into battle he was not writting of this. Look at his dagger section and almost the entire time it is one on one fighting, many of which he states are not good in armour, though some work for both or as he states better in armour. It is also note worthy that so many of his attacks with dagger seem to rely on getting to the guy before his sword is drawn. First how likely is that to work in battle where men, my guess at least, have weapons in hand by the melee and two seems to indicate you will find life hard once that weapon is out.

I think avoiding armour is a fine way of defeating armour, the gent in armour whether dead or injured is still defeated. But trying to wrested a guy to a place to do this in a battlefield to me seems unlikely as the most effective way of doing this. I have seen two handed poll axes, halbards, bills and maces literally send the force needed to shatter or crack a cow skull through ballistic gell, through a 3mm helmet.

I think he likely was the first historic sword master that left this much behind for us, but remember this is what gets their name out and puts them in interest over others and ultimately puts food on the table. If he did not have something to set him apart from other men teaching these arts then he'd starve and have to go back to doing what other men of his class did. I still think the issue remains that he is not stating that any are best, though I had forgotten about the poll axe missing and being useless granted. Considering he has several ways to repose from a miss I am rather surprised he says this but I will have to look at it again.

I have to admit learning latin and spanish made it so reading much of his work was easier but there are some real dictionary worth words in there that took some looking to find. Yet it is the only weapon that as the original poster asked can penetrate armour according to Fiore.

Not sure what Silver has to say about the hook or any other weapons ability to penetrate armour. That has been far too long in the past for me to remember.

RPM

[Robert Rytel]

Nobody said flail yet? I'm disappointed.

[Mark Gates]

Has anyone considered the humble flail? In my opinion, the flail, if the user is well trained can deliver massive damage primarily due to the potentially enormous forces of acceleration involved. In the heat of close quarters combat with a heavily armoured opponent, a well connected attack from a flail would cause a significant amount of blunt force trauma.

Just imagine another scenario, a mounted knight at speed landing a flail attack struck with force and momentum would be devastating.

On the other hand, it is arguable a flail would be difficult to aim accurately due to the disconnected feel of the ball and chain design and its rather poor defensive capabilities.

[Bartek Strojek]

Flail striking part doesn't really hit with that immense force - due to hinged connection the very end of it can achieve pretty high velocity, but at the same time there just isn't enough mass behind it.

There's no direct connection to the arm and the rest of the weapon, so the momentum during the blow is limited by the mass, and it has a lot of give due to flexibility of the chain/rope.

So actual effects of flail strikes are somehow difficult to predict, don't think anyone had performed really serious experiments.

[Mackenzie Cosens]

I just looked at the tread heading "Which Was The Most Lethal One Handed Anti Plate Weapon?", and my choices don't fit because they are two handed. Spear, at least late 14C early 15th C form, appear to be mostly used two handed as would Silvers staff weapons. The one handed requirement would technically disqualify pole-axe too. And although I like the dagger, I think Randall arguments have enough merit to pick something different. How about a single handed war-hammer?


http://www.myArmoury.com/review_aa_wham.html

Although looking at San Romano images makes me think, warhorse couched lance (its only held in one hand ) and lots of similar equipped friends might be the way to go.

If you allow that cuirassier are wearing plate then perhaps a close range pistol shot, would work.

[Ryan S.]

I think war hammer is the best answer, because it is actually "anti-plate" (and one handed), other weapons may defeat the enemy with out breaking the plate, but I don't know what else will break the plate. wait, do lances count as one handed?

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

One of the authors Sydney Anglo surveys wrote apparently wrote that cavalry hammers could penetrate armor but tended to get stuck afterwards. Bertrandon de la Broquière estimated that a Turkish cavalry mace could kayo through a helmet if swung freely (this could mean multiple blows). The mace was one of the three iconic knightly weapons in sixteenth-century France, though I know of no evidence to indicate that horsemen preferred it over the sword.

Infantry in the age of plate virtually never used one-handed maces or hammers to my knowledge.

[Chase Bolling]

How would the following weapons if forged with proper weight distribution to do the job fare against an opponent in plate armor?

[Bartek Strojek]

None of those really has 'spike', geometry that would be very well suited to actually trying to break trough solid plate. Flat, broad protrusions that concentrate the energy, but it's still spread along quite a lot of the lenght of the edge.

Which is understandable, since they're some more 'fancy' variations about swords/choppers.

Balancing them way down the blade would certainly give option of some very hard swings, but would also obviously limit all other handling options.

[Chase Bolling]

Spikes have a tendency to get stuck I was looking at these weapons more for blunt trauma beatings and denting armor.... more like the flanges or knobs on a mace the the spike on a hammer although I would like the see some top spikes on the kora, mondo sword and boumali gbaya so that they can utilize the thrust. Furthermore your other options for facing armored combatants (maces and hammers )wouldn't handle like feathers anyway.So I'm not fully interested in retaining sword like handling if it means the ability to be effective against more types opponents.

[Timo Nieminen]

For the African swords you show, to turn them into even remotely effective anti-armour weapons, you'd have to turn them into completely different weapons. Changing the weight distribution wouldn't be enough; you'd have to make them much heavier.

With the Tinker falchion, moving the CoM away from the hilt by lightening the pommel won't help - you won't get any more rotational inertia about the grip (you'll get a little less, making it less effective).

The kora (the bottom one, the Nepalese one) is the closest to what you are after of the historical ones. I wouldn't trust it to pierce plate far enough to do anything useful. Might make a small puncture. But you don't have a narrow spike, you have a wide (and thin) spike. The width makes it take a lot of energy to drive in far enough to be effective, while the thinness makes it likely to crumple.

Now, you can imagine weapons in the approximate shape of historical ones, with the weight and weight distribution of a warhammer, and they'll strike with the same energy as a warhammer (ignoring that a blade-shaped haft might have to be so thin to get a warhammer weight distribution that it would be too flexible). But the blade-like penetrators aren't very good. Yes, it would work better plate than hitting with a sword, but not as well as it could for that weight and weight distribution. I think it wouldn't work well enough.

Better is a square-section spike (or triangular-section). With a moderate weight behind the spike, it will be usable one-handed (with a lot of weight, it won't be). At this point, you have a one-handed warhammer. These aren't very heavy, and they shouldn't be, or nobody will stay around long enough to be hit.

Want more effective? Go two-handed. Two-handed hammers (still not heavy - the long haft lets you get a lot of speed), or other spiked polearms (the points on bills go straight through thin armour that stops swords - haven't tried one on heavy armour). Want more weight? That will make it easier to pierce the armour, if the target stays there to be hit. Get a sledgehammer, drill a hole in the head, and put in a spike. Hard steel, triangular or square section, long and thin. Hit armour, drive in spike up to the hammer face. Not the most practical of weapons.

The same idea - two handed force and some mass - works with thrusting as well. Lots of polearms, the godendag, the estoc.

If you're after blunt trauma through plate, then you don't want spikes/blades - those will make it more likely that your weapon gets stuck. If you want to inflict blunt trauma with minimum weight, put the weight at the end of the haft. Thus, mace. Hit as fast as you can - a horse will help here.

Want more mass? Use two hands. Sledgehammer without a spike. A heavy iron bar (e.g., the Japanese tetsubo). Too heavy, and you won't hit a live target.

A 1kg steel ball isn't very big. Stick that on the end of a haft, and you have a one-handed mace. Even with a ball rather than flanges, you're still striking with a small object.

The brief summary is:

- Square/triangular section penetrator is better than a blade-like penetrator.
- Too little weight means not enough energy
- Too much weight means its impractical as a weapon (but good against armour)
- Spikes/flanges won't help much, if at all, with blunt trauma through plate.

(Warhammers that a plausibly one-handed seem to vary in weight from 600g to 2200g, and maces from 900g to 1700g. Maybe the heavier warhammers are two-handed, but they're not long-hafted polearms. About 1.3-1.5 kg is common for both - about the weight of heavy one-handed swords, but more weight towards the striking end. These are all European.)

[Chase Bolling]

I've read that the bill was highly effective as a poll arm, would it have any worth as a hand weapon or against armor outside the obvious value of being able to hook and pull to the ground?

[Gary Teuscher]

Mackenzie Cousins wrote:

[Robin Smith]

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

[Gary Teuscher]

[Timo Nieminen]

[Michael Harley]

Degrees of lethality? Which one kills you the most dead?

Yeah, yeah, I'm a pedantic so-and-so.

[Chase Bolling]

Lol Michael I just wanted to settle an argument between me and my jarhead buddy... not which one kills you the most dead but which has a better chance of killing the person fastest I guess.