| Author |
Message |
|
Mart Shearer
|
 Posted: Sun 31 Jan, 2016 10:22 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Dan said that "a winter coat will stop cutting attacks" (emphasis mine). Since I have been repeatedly challenged whether I agree with this statement, I will say that it is incorrect. A winter coat can stop cuts, as proven by the news articles I provided. There are various styles, types, and thicknesses of winter coats. There are various styles of edged weapons with various degrees of sharpening. There are various cutting attacks, including some of which are not well delivered. We know that cloth armors were trusted, and many of them were constructed of a few layers of fabric with loose fill, which is exactly how some winter coats are made.
On the other hand, calling the statement ridiculous is also extreme.
Consider it another way:
"A hammer will drive a nail."
versus
"A hammer can drive a nail."
Most people will not consider the first statement ridiculous, as they know how to hammer nails into wood. But it is imprecise, as a light hammer may not be able to drive a nail, or a weak person may not be able to drive a nail, or you can't drive a nail into 12 mm steel plate with a 24 oz. hammer, or someone without skill can't even hit the nail...etc..
There is a fine line between having to add all the qualifiers and making a ridiculous statement. If Dan had said all winter coats will stop cutting attacks, or a winter coat will stop all cutting attacks, it would have been ridiculous, but his statement seems reasonable, if imprecise, based upon the presented evidence. If Dan had said a winter coat can stop a cutting attack, it shouldn't have even been an issue to derail this thread.
ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
Last edited by Mart Shearer on Sun 31 Jan, 2016 3:10 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
  |
 |
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Sun 31 Jan, 2016 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks Mart and Sean. Yes I meant to say that a winter coat can stop a sword cut. The gist of my statement is that proper armour was designed to stop points, not edges. Up until the development of firearms, spears and arrows were the primary threat on a battlefield, not swords. Anything that can stop an arrow or spear will have no trouble at all stopping a sword cut.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
|
|
|
|
|
Eric S
|
| Posted: Tue 02 Feb, 2016 5:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | The gist of my statement is that proper armour was designed to stop points, not edges. Up until the development of firearms, spears and arrows were the primary threat on a battlefield, not swords. Anything that can stop an arrow or spear will have no trouble at all stopping a sword cut. |
Dan, once again you make a blanket statement that is just not accurate, there was armor specifically designed to defend against swords and armor that was specifically designed to defend against spears/arrows, often these armors were worn at the same time, in addition not all armor was meant to be worn on a "battlefield".
One example is armor worn by samurai during the Edo period in Japan (1600s to 1800s), many examples exist that were NOT meant to defend against arrows or spears, it was worn to defend against swords. In a society were samurai men wore two swords and did not usually carry a gun, bow or spear why would they wear armor meant to defend against arrows/spears??????
|
|
 |
|
|
Nat Lamb
|
| Posted: Tue 02 Feb, 2016 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Eric S wrote: | | Dan Howard wrote: | | The gist of my statement is that proper armour was designed to stop points, not edges. Up until the development of firearms, spears and arrows were the primary threat on a battlefield, not swords. Anything that can stop an arrow or spear will have no trouble at all stopping a sword cut. |
Dan, once again you make a blanket statement that is just not accurate, there was armor specifically designed to defend against swords and armor that was specifically designed to defend against spears/arrows, often these armors were worn at the same time, in addition not all armor was meant to be worn on a "battlefield".
One example is armor worn by samurai during the Edo period in Japan (1600s to 1800s), many examples exist that were NOT meant to defend against arrows or spears, it was worn to defend against swords. In a society were samurai men wore two swords and did not usually carry a gun, bow or spear why would they wear armor meant to defend against arrows/spears?????? |
Not quite sure what your point is here. By including the term "threat on a battlefield" Dan is obviously talking about battlefield armour, talking about armour for a different scenario is not a counter example, it is a red herring (which might address the OP question, armour made from red herrings and given to a fall guy so that they are attacked instead, maybe?)
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Todeschini
Industry Professional
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Tue 02 Feb, 2016 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've seen measurements according to which horn is about as good for armour as the best rawhide (boiled, hard-surfaced rawhide).
A turtle's shell is bony. The horny plates (scutes) covering the outside are basically the same as horn.
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Tue 02 Feb, 2016 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Eric S wrote: | | Dan Howard wrote: | | The gist of my statement is that proper armour was designed to stop points, not edges. Up until the development of firearms, spears and arrows were the primary threat on a battlefield, not swords. Anything that can stop an arrow or spear will have no trouble at all stopping a sword cut. |
Dan, once again you make a blanket statement that is just not accurate, there was armor specifically designed to defend against swords and armor that was specifically designed to defend against spears/arrows, often these armors were worn at the same time, in addition not all armor was meant to be worn on a "battlefield".
One example is armor worn by samurai during the Edo period in Japan (1600s to 1800s), many examples exist that were NOT meant to defend against arrows or spears, it was worn to defend against swords. In a society were samurai men wore two swords and did not usually carry a gun, bow or spear why would they wear armor meant to defend against arrows/spears?????? |
You are ignoring where he says that good armor was made to stop points. Also, how the hell does the statement that armor was designed to stop swords mean that is was specifically meant to stop edges? You can thrust will many different types of swords. Also, could you pull up examples of armor speciffically designed to worn on the streets? Most societies, people walked the streets unarmored. The fact that armor can can withs and points can withstand points is simple physics, points are more efficient as concentrating energy and pressure. Show us some proof.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gregg Sobocinski
|
| Posted: Tue 02 Feb, 2016 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think too many people on this topic are thinking Medieval and not Stone Age, as the topic specifies. This armor is not going to face a metal sword, or if it does, the smith work and metal quality will be poor. Surely, shell armor would crack, but so would the attacker's edged or pointed weapon. Just as repairing butted mail after being stuck was part of post-battle routine, why wouldn't shell armor repair also fit this routine?
Weight would be the biggest issue, so the crab shells are more appealing to me. Although as a fantasy world, the shells could be more porous and lighter. Any chemists out there who would come up with a lighter material than calcium to make shells?
If this is a tropical world, I'm guessing heavy clothing wouldn't be very practical. Have there ever been successful rope armors in tropical areas? It sounds uncomfortable, but it would be a material similar to coconut husks.
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Tue 02 Feb, 2016 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sean Manning wrote: | | Well, I try to base my opinions on people who have seen a thing happen rather than just reasoning about it. |
McBane explicitly considered the cut less dangerous than the thrust; it wasn't just about the hat, napkin, or other clothing. Various other martial artists also took this position, while others, such as George Silver, argued the the opposite. As I wrote, the debate raged for the entire time swords saw common military and civilian use. Folks on both sides had direct experience. I recommend that anyone who's interested survey the material and make their own conclusions. Practical tests can be good too, but I'm certainly not up to the standards of most historical warriors/soldiers/swashbucklers.
I find Silver's position more consistent with the weight of the evidence than McBane's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ronald M
Location: vancouver bc canada Joined: 06 Oct 2015
Posts: 66
|
| Posted: Tue 02 Feb, 2016 11:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
book sounds great can i see it when youre done (send us a link or title or smt)
id say using a shield from one of the dog sized shells (layered 2-3) and making armor our of diffeent sized ones like large ones goin down the center of the body or as the solid bit of the breasplate and have smaller ones to make a kinda chainmail on the bendy bits on the humanoids body
smiley face 123? no? lol yeah well im here cause i like...swords and weapons and stuff obv
|
|
 |
|
Eric S
|
| Posted: Tue 02 Feb, 2016 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | Sean Manning wrote: | | Well, I try to base my opinions on people who have seen a thing happen rather than just reasoning about it. |
McBane explicitly considered the cut less dangerous than the thrust; it wasn't just about the hat, napkin, or other clothing. Various other martial artists also took this position, while others, such as George Silver, argued the the opposite. As I wrote, the debate raged for the entire time swords saw common military and civilian use. Folks on both sides had direct experience. I recommend that anyone who's interested survey the material and make their own conclusions. Practical tests can be good too, but I'm certainly not up to the standards of most historical warriors/soldiers/swashbucklers.
I find Silver's position more consistent with the weight of the evidence than McBane's. |
Many swords were obviously not meant for thrusting, highly curved Indo-Persian shamshirs certainly were cutting swords, but some forum members are eurocentric, they sometimes tend to ignore the weapons and armor of non european cultures.
|
|
|
|
|
Eric S
|
| Posted: Tue 02 Feb, 2016 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Japanese kikko armor is very similar in size and shape to tortise shell segments. Armor could be made with individual tortise shell segments laced together much like kikko armor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Wed 03 Feb, 2016 7:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Sir Abbot, I don't think this is useful to the debate, The term, more dangerous is broad one and Danis applying something narrower. Something can be dangerous reasons other the effiecency it can transfer force and pressure. Force insitantce the ease of defnding the attacker and attacking at the same time, ease of getting around defenses, ability to do disarments, actions which easier handle multiple opponents. What Dan is simply the ease certain thrust or cutts compromise certain protective matriels, which a less broad statement that what is more a more dangerous form of attack.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Wed 03 Feb, 2016 7:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Eric S wrote: | | Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | Sean Manning wrote: | | Well, I try to base my opinions on people who have seen a thing happen rather than just reasoning about it. |
McBane explicitly considered the cut less dangerous than the thrust; it wasn't just about the hat, napkin, or other clothing. Various other martial artists also took this position, while others, such as George Silver, argued the the opposite. As I wrote, the debate raged for the entire time swords saw common military and civilian use. Folks on both sides had direct experience. I recommend that anyone who's interested survey the material and make their own conclusions. Practical tests can be good too, but I'm certainly not up to the standards of most historical warriors/soldiers/swashbucklers.
I find Silver's position more consistent with the weight of the evidence than McBane's. |
Many swords were obviously not meant for thrusting, highly curved Indo-Persian shamshirs certainly were cutting swords, but some forum members are eurocentric, they sometimes tend to ignore the weapons and armor of non european cultures.
|
Where as that certainly a sword build almost entirely for cutting, you can still stab with Tulwars and shamsirs, just as long as you don't try to stab straight. Also, using "typical Dan" and some people's agruments are a result of Eurocentricism doesn't help your agrument, it just adds incivility to the debate. No one as attacked you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeffrey Faulk
|
| Posted: Wed 03 Feb, 2016 7:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gregg Sobocinski wrote: | | If this is a tropical world, I'm guessing heavy clothing wouldn't be very practical. Have there ever been successful rope armors in tropical areas? It sounds uncomfortable, but it would be a material similar to coconut husks. |
See the Kiribati armour posted on the first page. That's basically what that is.
|
|
|
|
|
Eric S
|
| Posted: Wed 03 Feb, 2016 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Philip Dyer wrote: | | using "typical Dan" and some people's agruments are a result of Eurocentricism doesn't help your agrument, it just adds incivility to the debate. No one as attacked you. |
Philip, no one is "attacking" me?, isnt that what you and others are doing are doing here by trying to defend Dan, which is perfectly ok with me as I am always willing to explain my reasons, sorry that I think that Dan should be much more careful in making statements, Dan already had to admit that he mispoke originally and he ended up changing his statement and removing parts of it. Dan has been making these kinds of statments for a long time on several different forums and I have and will continue pointing these types of statements out every time I see one, why...because Dan is an author and a well known contributor to several different forums over many years, and some people seem to actually believe what he posts even it is highly inaccurate, which is not a good thing. Dan often posts personal opinions like they were proven facts and when confronted he usually stays silent and lets other people defend his words (as you and others are doing here).
Before | Dan Howard wrote: | | There is no point inventing armour that can only stop cutting attacks. Pretty much anything can stop cutting attacks; a winter coat will stop cutting attacks. Proper armour will stop points - primarily spears and arrows. |
Now | Dan Howard wrote: | | The gist of my statement is that proper armour was designed to stop points, not edges. Up until the development of firearms, spears and arrows were the primary threat on a battlefield, not swords. Anything that can stop an arrow or spear will have no trouble at all stopping a sword cut. |
Ok, now lets see how much better this newly thought out statement is....
Point #1: Dan removed this part "There is no point inventing armour that can only stop cutting attacks." which was is a good part to remove because there are armors developed specifically to stop cutting attacks, I have already provided one example of this (Many types of Edo Period samurai armor...look it up!!).
Point #2: Dan removed the part were he says that "Pretty much anything can stop cutting attacks", which was a good part to remove since I can think of many things that would not stop a cutting attack, like the cake I am eating, and ice cream, they would not stop a cutting attack (sarcastic remark).
Point #3: Dan started his newly revised statement by saying that "proper armour was designed to stop points, not edges". What exactly is "proper armor"?? Can someone explain what "proper armour is, is there some kind of "improper armour" (perhaps winter coats?).
Point #4: Dan thankfully removed the part about "winter coats", he then added a new statement "Up until the development of firearms, spears and arrows were the primary threat on a battlefield, not swords". .......My problem with this new statement is this... when and were does Dan consider firearms to have been developed, in China or possibly in Europe? | Quote: | | the Chinese were manufacturing firearms using bamboo tubes and stones as projectiles in 904 |
| Quote: | | The first firearms, ca. 1350, called "hand cannons" or "hand gonnes," were essentially miniature cannons designed to be held by hand or attached to a pole for use by individual soldiers. They were loaded and fired in the same manner as the full-size cannons |
Does this mean that after firearms were developed swords then became the "primary threat" on battlefields?
Part#5 :Dan actually got this part right "Anything that can stop an arrow or spear will have no trouble at all stopping a sword cut." now this statement is defendable, proving that if Dan actually posts an accurate statement I will agree with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Wed 03 Feb, 2016 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Eric S wrote: | | Philip Dyer wrote: | | using "typical Dan" and some people's agruments are a result of Eurocentricism doesn't help your agrument, it just adds incivility to the debate. No one as attacked you. |
Philip, no one is "attacking" me?, isnt that what you and others are doing are doing here by trying to defend Dan, which is perfectly ok with me as I am always willing to explain my reasons, sorry that I think that Dan should be much more careful in making statements, Dan already had to admit that he mispoke originally and he ended up changing his statement and removing parts of it. Dan has been making these kinds of statments for a long time on several different forums and I have and will continue pointing these types of statements out every time I see one, why...because Dan is an author and a well known contributor to several different forums over many years, and some people seem to actually believe what he posts even it is highly inaccurate, which is not a good thing. Dan often posts personal opinions like they were proven facts and when confronted he usually stays silent and lets other people defend his words (as you and others are doing here).
Before | Dan Howard wrote: | | There is no point inventing armour that can only stop cutting attacks. Pretty much anything can stop cutting attacks; a winter coat will stop cutting attacks. Proper armour will stop points - primarily spears and arrows. |
Now | Dan Howard wrote: | | The gist of my statement is that proper armour was designed to stop points, not edges. Up until the development of firearms, spears and arrows were the primary threat on a battlefield, not swords. Anything that can stop an arrow or spear will have no trouble at all stopping a sword cut. |
Ok, now lets see how much better this newly thought out statement is....
Point #1: Dan removed this part "There is no point inventing armour that can only stop cutting attacks." which was is a good part to remove because there are armors developed specifically to stop cutting attacks, I have already provided one example of this (Many types of Edo Period samurai armor...look it up!!).
Point #2: Dan removed the part were he says that "Pretty much anything can stop cutting attacks", which was a good part to remove since I can think of many things that would not stop a cutting attack, like the cake I am eating, and ice cream, they would not stop a cutting attack (sarcastic remark).
Point #3: Dan started his newly revised statement by saying that "proper armour was designed to stop points, not edges". What exactly is "proper armor"?? Can someone explain what "proper armour is, is there some kind of "improper armour" (perhaps winter coats?).
Point #4: Dan thankfully removed the part about "winter coats", he then added a new statement "Up until the development of firearms, spears and arrows were the primary threat on a battlefield, not swords". .......My problem with this new statement is this... when and were does Dan consider firearms to have been developed, in China or possibly in Europe? | Quote: | | the Chinese were manufacturing firearms using bamboo tubes and stones as projectiles in 904 |
| Quote: | | The first firearms, ca. 1350, called "hand cannons" or "hand gonnes," were essentially miniature cannons designed to be held by hand or attached to a pole for use by individual soldiers. They were loaded and fired in the same manner as the full-size cannons |
Does this mean that after firearms were developed swords then became the "primary threat" on battlefields?
Part#5 :Dan actually got this part right "Anything that can stop an arrow or spear will have no trouble at all stopping a sword cut." now this statement is defendable, proving that if Dan actually posts an accurate statement I will agree with it. |
*sigh* If you can't understand the difference between attacking someone's argument or defending a person's points and attacking a person, you shouldn't be arguing. Forum isn't a place to start feuds, if you have beef with Dan, talk to him about over private message. Also, accusing people of being intellectual sheep in another basing on people. You are the only accusing people of inherent bias and implying that someone is intellectual coward is attacking a person. I'll admit that you brought that the last statement is vague. Good bay, Eric.
|
|
|
|
|
Eric S
|
| Posted: Wed 03 Feb, 2016 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Philip Dyer wrote: |
Where as that certainly a sword build almost entirely for cutting, you can still stab with Tulwars and shamsirs, just as long as you don't try to stab straight. |
Philip, your statement is just not accurate, while you can stab with most tulwar without to much effort, many shamshir are so radically curved it is virtually impossible to stab/thrust with one, they were not meant for stabbing/thrusting, and people who carried such curved swords would also carry a smaller, straighter sword such as a yatagan for stabbing. As I am writting this I have in front of me the swords shown below, with a radically curved shamshir the blade is very sharp, and with the way the handle is orientated you would not be able to thrust/stab without being extremely awkward in your attempt to say the least.
I took this photo to help you visualize what I am talking about.
#1.The top sword is an ottoman yatagan, this is a short sword that could both cut and stab/thrust quite easily.
#2, Second down from the top is an Afghan khyber knife, this is a straight short sword meant for hacking, it could easily stab/thrust as well.
#3. Third down from the top is a fairly short, mildly curved, Indian tulwar, this is a cutting sword that can be used if necessary for stabbing/thrusting without to much effort.
#4. Fourth down from the top, this is a radically curved Afgan pulwar, this sword is a pure cutting sword and it was not meant for either stabbing or thrusting, as I just tried what you suggested before taking this photo I can assure you that trying to stab/thrust with this or any other similar sword would not be a good idea. An afghan warrior would have had a smaller, straight khyber knife for stabbing/thrusting or possibly a pesh-kabz or karud.
#5. Fifth down from the top, this is a staight bladed Circassian/Caucasian shashka sword, with what appears to be a European blade. This sword can certainly be used for both cutting and stabbing/thrusting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Wed 03 Feb, 2016 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Eric S wrote: | | Philip Dyer wrote: |
Where as that certainly a sword build almost entirely for cutting, you can still stab with Tulwars and shamsirs, just as long as you don't try to stab straight. |
Philip, your statement is just not accurate, while you can stab with most tulwar without to much effort, many shamshir are so radically curved it is virtually impossible to stab/thrust with one, they were not meant for stabbing/thrusting, and people who carried such curved swords would also carry a smaller, straighter sword such as a yatagan for stabbing. As I am writting this I have in front of me the swords shown below, with a radically curved shamshir the blade is very sharp, and with the way the handle is orientated you would not be able to thrust/stab without being extremely awkward in your attempt to say the least.
I took this photo to help you visualize what I am talking about.
#1.The top sword is an ottoman yatagan, this is a short sword that could both cut and stab/thrust quite easily.
#2, Second down from the top is an Afghan khyber knife, this is a straight short sword meant for hacking, it could easily stab/thrust as well.
#3. Third down from the top is a fairly short, mildly curved, Indian tulwar, this is a cutting sword that can be used if necessary for stabbing/thrusting without to much effort.
#4. Fourth down from the top, this is a radically curved Afgan pulwar, this sword is a pure cutting sword and it was not meant for either stabbing or thrusting, as I just tried what you suggested before taking this photo I can assure you that trying to stab/thrust with this or any other similar sword would not be a good idea. An afghan warrior would have had a smaller, straight khyber knife for stabbing/thrusting or possibly a pesh-kabz or karud.
#5. Fifth down from the top, this is a staight bladed Circassian/Caucasian shashka sword, with what appears to be a European blade. This sword can certainly be used for both cutting and stabbing/thrusting.
|
Okay, most Tulwars, pulwars, shamsirs. Matt Easton owns it avid antique sword collector and seller, he runs vintage sword shop in London and tours museums for his videos, scholagladatoria, and he made videos on how to thrust with highly curved Blades like Pulwars and Tulwars. #5: just by going by blade shape alone, that blade could easily be Japanese. Also, the first sword you post before the list in closer to curvature of the tulwar than the pulwar.
|
|
|
|
|
Eric S
|
| Posted: Thu 04 Feb, 2016 1:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Philip Dyer wrote: | | Okay, most Tulwars, pulwars, shamsirs. |
A word or two added to a statement can make a difference in how accurate it is.
Not really to accurate | Quote: | | you can still stab with Tulwars and shamsirs, just as long as you don't try to stab straight. |
Much more accurate | Quote: | | you can still stab with "most" Tulwars and shamsirs, just as long as you don't try to stab straight. |
In this statement you are not stating a fact but a personal opinion, way more accurate unless you know for sure you have the facts to back up what you are stating. | Quote: | | in my opinion, you can still stab with "most" Tulwars and shamsirs, just as long as you don't try to stab straight. |
| Philip Dyer wrote: | | Matt Easton owns it avid antique sword collector and seller, he runs vintage sword shop in London and tours museums for his videos, scholagladatoria, and he made videos on how to thrust with highly curved Blades like Pulwars and Tulwars. #5: just by going by blade shape alone, that blade could easily be Japanese. Also, the first sword you post before the list in closer to curvature of the tulwar than the pulwar. |
Philip, I could use a piece of broken glass to stab as well but its not the best thing to use, do you have a link to Matt Eastons videos showing him thrust with highly curved blades??? I do not see any similarity between the shashka (sword #5) and a Japanese sword blade, below is a comparison between the shashka and a 650 yr old Japanese tachi sword. I personally think the shamshir I showed is way more curved than the tulwar and is closer to the pulwar in shape. I have added some additional images showing various blade curves including a very long yatagan with a concave blade curve (top image).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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