| Author |
Message |
Joachim Nilsson
|
 Posted: Thu 21 Apr, 2005 6:29 am Post subject: Re: battle |
 |
|
| Scott H. wrote: | I may be wrong, but it appears to me that the third man, at right, lands two decent blows against the leg of the armoured man. The second blow especially appears to hit from behind where there isn't any plate. I think that the knight would have lost his left leg in this melee.
Again, I may be wrong, and if I am please point out what I missed. Thanks.
Cool video!!
Scott |
I witnessed that fight in person and I think I noticed the same thing as you. However Nisse, the guy in the armour, claims he didn't feel anything. If this is true I don't know. All I know is that there's a lot of prestige comming into play when people don their brand new suits of armour...
|
|
 |
 |
|
David R. Glier
|
| Posted: Thu 21 Apr, 2005 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
You *do* have to get around that pesky fan. That's why they're there. Tugging on the fan does not take a leg off. 
|
|
 |
|
|
Mac West-Poss
Location: Charlotte, Vermont Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Thu 21 Apr, 2005 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
That video was quite interesting, that guy ,must be pretty tough  . Taking an armoured foe off a horse would be quite a challenge, you could get a wicked long spear and try and get it to pierce or just hook onto the armour to knock him off of the horse then as some have said you will own him with any weapon you can get.
Another way to get an armoured foe down is to use rocks to rattle the brain, I was watching a documentary last night about the Emile Griffith story where a person had died in boxing from the rattling of the brain. Now I'm not saying you would have to take off the guys helmet and start unmercifully punching him, but you could toss a rock at his head that would make quite a loud sound and possibly knock him off his guard then have your friends do the dirty work of finishing him off.
Patience is the essence to life. If you acquire patience on your journey through life, then you have all the answers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edward Hitchens
|
| Posted: Fri 22 Apr, 2005 1:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Now I'm not saying you would have to take off the guys helmet and start unmercifully punching him, but you could toss a rock at his head that would make quite a loud sound and possibly knock him off his guard then have your friends do the dirty work of finishing him off.[/quote]
Very true! It would disorient him. That would almost be like sticking your head inside a bell, right? It would sure put me out of the equation!  -Ted
"The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest." Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bruce Wilson
|
| Posted: Tue 24 May, 2005 1:59 pm Post subject: Re: Lethal strike against armor? |
|
|
| Anton de Vries wrote: | | Lance Karsten wrote: |
And how would you kill somebody in full plate?
|
I just couldn't resist. Sorry.  |
Must have missed this the first time around!
What sort of length pole would you mount that on - and is anyone out there making a good period reproduction these?!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Fults
|
| Posted: Tue 24 May, 2005 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Did not seem like the initial attacks in the video were well coordinated. Everone advanced on a narrow front. Not sure the later ones were that coordinated either, but it did seem to show vulnerability as the unarmored folks started to use more space. Seems like the gent in plate had problems keeping track of everyone and just locked in on one target. Not much consolation for that person, but it seemed the other two people could, or should have, really exploited the situation if determined to do so.
"The goal shouldn’t be to avoid being evil; it should be to actively do good." - Danah Boyd
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcos Cantu
|
| Posted: Tue 24 May, 2005 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
What about using a hammer with a backspike? Would the hammer be able to put enough of a dent in the armor that it would be pressing into the flesh underneath? The backspike shouldnt have too much of a problem puncturing plate armor should it? I've always figured that different armors called for different weapons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. R. Reynolds
Location: Ramona, CA Joined: 07 Dec 2004
Posts: 123
|
| Posted: Tue 24 May, 2005 7:54 pm Post subject: Re: battle |
|
|
| Scott H. wrote: | I may be wrong, but it appears to me that the third man, at right, lands two decent blows against the leg of the armoured man. The second blow especially appears to hit from behind where there isn't any plate. I think that the knight would have lost his left leg in this melee.
Again, I may be wrong, and if I am please point out what I missed. Thanks.
Cool video!!
Scott |
Just a casual observation. Three blows were struck to the leg by the man on the right. The first one clearly hit plate and you can hear it strike in the video. That's why they wore armour. Blow number two, even though it landed where there was no armour I would not count as effective because there is no serious body movement behind it as the pole wielder was ducking a sword blow by his armoured opponent at the same time. Also the blow would be impeded by the fan plate as already mentioned in another post. The third and final shot landed while the armoured man was moving away from the impetus of the pole weapon. My two cents worth.
Bill
"No matter who wins the rat race..........they are still a rat."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Wilson
|
| Posted: Thu 26 May, 2005 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
I seem to remember this one battle in history where a bunch or men in full armor were marching over a bridge, and so the other guys all hid under this bridge with pikes. And when the guys in armor walked over... STICK! right up the rear. I don't think that many suits of armor have much protection right around that area. But yeah, the guys with the pikes won the battle, so it must have worked.
! 4/\/\ n0t \/3ry 0Ld, 8u7 !'LL 7ry t0 k33p up.
|
|
 |
|
Chad Sonderberg
|
| Posted: Thu 26 May, 2005 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As a student of the teachings of Liechtenauer, I feel obligated to put in my 2 cents.
First off, defeating an opponent in plate is impossible with a slashing attack. You must use piercing and blunt force attacks to deal any damage. Normally by the 14th and 15th centuries (the period of the armor above), longswords and bastard swords were the standard sword being implimented. Against armored opponents, these swords would be wielded in the "half-sword" style allowing for precise aim and added power during a thrust.
Spears were also a traditional weapon for these time periods and can be weilded proficiently against an armored opponent with deadly results. Though a swordsman still has an advantage over a spear or polearm if they are knowledgable in proper polearm counterattack techniques.
As for disabling an armored oppenent, there are many ways to do this with ease. The first being to strike the hands of your opponent with the tip, otherwise called a Krumpua. This technique is performed from the standard right shoulder position against an opponent swinging from his right side. This technique simply involves stepping to your right and swinging (vertically) at your opponents hands. This has the added bonus of blocking your opponent's attack.
Grappling is a very important part of historical warfare. An armored opponent is weakest when pinned due to his added weight and lack of his weapon. Also disarms can be made against armored opponents just as easily as unarmored opponents.
By the way, mail is not easy to penetrate. Do you think it would have been used for 2000+ years if if couldn't stop a blade? Also, it is not easy to knock over a fully armored opponent. A full plate High Gothic Harness weighs between 60 to 75 pounds, which is evenly distributed over ones entire body. A properly trained individual wearing correctly made armor can do summersaults in full plate without much discomfort.
All my information regarding techniques is taken from "Secrets of German Medieval Swordsmanship" and "Fighting with the German Longsword." My knowledge of armor comes from personal experiences and researched statements by members of the Arador Armor Library.
A.C.S.
Lebend mit Ehre, Sterben Sie mit Dignität.
|
|
 |
|
|
Aaron Schnatterly
|
| Posted: Thu 26 May, 2005 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chad Sonderberg wrote: | | Also, it is not easy to knock over a fully armored opponent. A full plate High Gothic Harness weighs between 60 to 75 pounds, which is evenly distributed over ones entire body. |
Not sure I agree with this one... It's been my personal experience that a full harness isn't evenly distributed, rather a larger portion of the weight is actually placed above the individual's center of gravity. This relocates the CG of the armoured individual towards the head, making him slightly easier to topple. Of course, these folks were accustomed to changes like these and the effect would be lessened by experience and adjustment of stance...
-Aaron Schnatterly
_______________
Fortior Qui Se Vincit
(He is stronger who conquers himself.)
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Sonderberg
|
| Posted: Thu 26 May, 2005 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Of course, these folks were accustomed to changes like these and the effect would be lessened by experience and adjustment of stance... |
Not only would it be dependent upon experience and adjustments of stance, but also the stance itself. Most pictures and vidoes of modern swordsmen depict a stance that centers their gravity in a way that fails to balance their bodyweight correctly. Also, weight distribution can be dependent upon the weapon wielded and whether he/she is using a shield. Also, the action of "stepping" itself is normally incorrect as the position and direction of ones feet are important to the distribution of ones weight.
I've had problems training people to stand properly because it looks and feels odd until you are use to it. Compare the images in recovered fighting manuals and compare those to what you see most modern fencers using. I can bet you most of the modern fencers will appears stiff legged, straight backed,flat-footed, and narrow stance. Also, the action of "stepping" itself is normally incorrect as the position and direction of ones feet are important to the distribution of ones weight. Its ammazing people don't damage their knees and ankles more than they do. 
A.C.S.
Lebend mit Ehre, Sterben Sie mit Dignität.
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Grisetti
|
| Posted: Thu 26 May, 2005 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chad Sonderberg wrote: | | ...I can bet you most of the modern fencers will appears stiff legged, straight backed,flat-footed, and narrow stance. Also, the action of "stepping" itself is normally incorrect as the position and direction of ones feet are important to the distribution of ones weight.... |
This is an interesting observation. Such an unstable and unready stance is inconsistent with any kind of martial arts (e.g., judo, boxing, etc.) or sport (soccer, baseball, etc.) training, and suggests to me that these are individuals with limited experience in physical activities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alberto Dainese
|
| Posted: Fri 27 May, 2005 1:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chad Sonderberg wrote: |
I've had problems training people to stand properly because it looks and feels odd until you are use to it. |
Hi Chad,
How do you 'stand properly?
Sani!
Alberto...
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Sonderberg
|
| Posted: Fri 27 May, 2005 6:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
My stance is very similar to what Christian Tobler teaches, except I us a slightly wider footing giving me better balance and power, and stand slightly bent over to lower my center of gravity.
If standing in a right sided stance:
Left foot facing towards enemy.
Right foot at a 45 degree angle to my left foot, toes facing the same direction as my chest.
Footing is slighty wider than my shoulders with my right foot about 8-10 inchs to the right on my left foot.
I stand on the balls on my feet.
Knees bent depending on forward or backward weight distribution which should always be around 65% to 35% ratio.
Back bent slightly inward to lower my center of gravity.
The bending your back and wider than normal stance is what seems to feel odd to people.
A.C.S.
Lebend mit Ehre, Sterben Sie mit Dignität.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alberto Dainese
|
| Posted: Sun 29 May, 2005 11:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks Chad, it sounds quite familiar.
Sani!
Alberto...
|
|
|
|
|
Chuck Russell
|
| Posted: Mon 30 May, 2005 9:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aaron Schnatterly wrote: | | Chad Sonderberg wrote: | | Also, it is not easy to knock over a fully armored opponent. A full plate High Gothic Harness weighs between 60 to 75 pounds, which is evenly distributed over ones entire body. |
Not sure I agree with this one... It's been my personal experience that a full harness isn't evenly distributed, rather a larger portion of the weight is actually placed above the individual's center of gravity. This relocates the CG of the armoured individual towards the head, making him slightly easier to topple. Of course, these folks were accustomed to changes like these and the effect would be lessened by experience and adjustment of stance... |
im i'll disagree here. case in point i was fighting (wasters) with the knight of my group. he was in full plate, i was in lighter kit made up of jack, arms, helmet and some mail. he wasa tank to hit and move around. tried to grapple and he said it is very easy to plant one's self in all that plate and not move if he didnt want to. now he only out weights me 15 lbs when not in armour and i'm 215 lbs, but i ran and slammed into him and bounced to the ground.
|
|
  |
|
|
Aaron Schnatterly
|
| Posted: Mon 30 May, 2005 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chuck Russell wrote: | | im i'll disagree here. case in point i was fighting (wasters) with the knight of my group. he was in full plate, i was in lighter kit made up of jack, arms, helmet and some mail. he wasa tank to hit and move around. tried to grapple and he said it is very easy to plant one's self in all that plate and not move if he didnt want to. now he only out weights me 15 lbs when not in armour and i'm 215 lbs, but i ran and slammed into him and bounced to the ground. |
Has a lot to do with stance and reaction... I was looking only at the actual distribution of the weight of the armour across the body in comparison to the normal distribution of mass in the body in my original post.
-Aaron Schnatterly
_______________
Fortior Qui Se Vincit
(He is stronger who conquers himself.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. R. Reynolds
Location: Ramona, CA Joined: 07 Dec 2004
Posts: 123
|
| Posted: Mon 30 May, 2005 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Edward Hitchens wrote: | | Let's say your armored opponent is on horseback and you're on foot. |
First you take out the horse. THEN you gang up on the guy in armour.
 Attachment: 120.92 KB
Bill
"No matter who wins the rat race.......they are still a rat."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aaron Schnatterly
|
| Posted: Mon 30 May, 2005 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting painting. Thanks for posting it! Of notice to me were a number of things.
First, the guys on either end are using the blunt side of the axes - probably makes dents that really make armour difficult to breathe in.
Next, the guy second from the left, who appears to be finding just the right chink to slip that dagger into.
Finally, there's the fourth guy, who seems to be putting his finger over the peep hole.
Don't think this one's going the way the knight intended...
-Aaron Schnatterly
_______________
Fortior Qui Se Vincit
(He is stronger who conquers himself.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a standard topic