Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Armour Piercing Swords? Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next 
Author Message
Russ Ellis
Industry Professional




Joined: 20 Aug 2003
Reading list: 42 books

Posts: 2,608

PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2007 12:17 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Sam T. wrote:

Do you actually swing the weapon like a golf club? Isn't that very slow and the enemy can stab you in the process? I was talking about merely chopping and thrusting, not to such an extreme degree. Because your hand is on the very end of the long lever, very far from the head you have to use more force to be able to move the head to the same degree.



Have you ever tried it? I would recommend the experiment.

TRITONWORKS Custom Scabbards
View user's profile Send private message
Sam T.





Joined: 20 Dec 2006

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2007 12:23 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Russ Ellis wrote:
Sam T. wrote:

Do you actually swing the weapon like a golf club? Isn't that very slow and the enemy can stab you in the process? I was talking about merely chopping and thrusting, not to such an extreme degree. Because your hand is on the very end of the long lever, very far from the head you have to use more force to be able to move the head to the same degree.



Have you ever tried it? I would recommend the experiment.


No, I have no pratical experience with weapons. I'll just take your word for it here. So why were some Western knights armed with very short warhammers that have spikes on them for defeating armour?
View user's profile Send private message
Russ Ellis
Industry Professional




Joined: 20 Aug 2003
Reading list: 42 books

Posts: 2,608

PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2007 12:26 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Sam T. wrote:

No, I have no pratical experience with weapons. I'll just take your word for it here. So why were some Western knights armed with very short warhammers that have spikes on them for defeating armour?


You don't necessarily need a real pole arm. All you need is a short stick and a long stick of about the same diameter. Try hitting a target with them. You will discover that the longer lever does require more force to get in motion but that that longer lever also delivers a lot more force to the target. I was pretty shocked the first time hit (and obliterated) a target with a roncone.

As for short and long weapons... have you ever tried to swing a poll axe from a horse? Happy

TRITONWORKS Custom Scabbards
View user's profile Send private message
Nicholas Zeman





Joined: 09 May 2005

Posts: 57

PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2007 12:47 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

This seems to be one of those subjects that are always controversial in the realm of weapons, warfare, and armor. First of all we need to ask ourselves what circumstances we are looking at:

1. One on One combat (judicial duel, etc...)
2. Campaign Warfare (cavalry, mounted warfare, infantry, troop movements, formations, breeches and so forth)

Now what kind of weapons were common in these circumstances:

1. Polearms: spears, halberds, pollhammers, pollaxes
2. Impact weapons: Axes, maces, war hammers
3. Swords: single handers, longswords, 2-handers (Great Swords, War Swords)

Armor:

1. Plate Harness
2. Chain mail
3. Lamellar
4. Hybrid of previous types (breast plate, arming jacket, lamellar and chain mail mixes)

Depending on the period all of the above could apply. Cutting weapons were not very useful against heavier armor, even chain mail was a pretty good defense against all but the most committed cuts. Thrusting actions were good against chain mail, especially with a reinforced or very tapered tip, and spears, thrusting swords, picks, lances, spikes on pollaxes, etc... were developed for this function. Plate mail is even harder to get through, you either need a huge amount of force to literally puncture it (pollaxe spikes and the like were probably capable of actually puncturing the plates themselves, but this is a matter of debate and the guy isn't usually going to stand there and let you spike him) or you need something capable of getting between the plates or in the small crevices and uncovered areas like the armpit, groin, behind the knee, underneath the wrist, and so on, and even these were usually covered by chain mail so we are back to the previous step. If you have a heavy impact weapon, a halberd, pollaxe, pollhammer, or mace, you can then disable the armored opponent by either screwing up the articulated joints of the armor or just breaking bones, causing contusions, or smashing the skull apart through the helmet. Even with these fearsome weapons there was a lot of grappling, joint locks, and throws going on coupled with a heavy dagger (usually a rondel) to poke through the gaps in plate and through the underlying chain mail. A knight or man at arms in full harness was not invincible, but he was impervious to a lot. Not everyone could afford or even wanted to wear all that armor, however, and there were plenty of people running around much more lightly armed and armored. Of course, we are leaving out arrows and crossbow bolts out for now, which were a huge part of warfare during this period.

Warfare from the Dark Ages to the Renaissance was a mutable and constantly changing entity, and there was a serious arms and armor race on as technology and craftsmanship was pushed to the limits to counter one another. Most of the manuscripts and treatises regarding combat during these periods made distinction between combat in warfare and in the street or for duels, and much of that was based around the vulnerability of the opponent (what armor he was or wasn't wearing) as well as the circumstances surrounding the combat. What worked for a knight in the 13th Century was not really well suited to the 15th Century, and so on.
View user's profile Send private message
Max von Bargen




Location: Stanford, CA
Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Reading list: 10 books

Posts: 144

PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2007 12:50 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Sam T. wrote:

Do you actually swing the weapon like a golf club? Isn't that very slow and the enemy can stab you in the process? I was talking about merely chopping and thrusting, not to such an extreme degree. Because your hand is on the very end of the long lever, very far from the head you have to use more force to be able to move the head to the same degree.


Oh no, one certainly does not swing a weapon like a golf club. I was simply using it as an illustration of the physical principle that swinging an object at a point farther from the actual impact imparts more force into whatever one is whacking.Happy You do need to use more force to swing it, but you get a lot more force out of it to justify your use of additional force.

Sam T. wrote:

In the Knight and Blast Furnace, Williams said that mail is very labour intensive to make. And don't you have to tailor mail for each individual as well?


Mail is very labour-intensive to make, I didn't mean to dispute that. But as far as I know, a full plate harness is even more labour-intensive. I think you are right in that you need to tailor mail for each individual, but in making a full plate harness, the tailoring is much more specific to the individual. As I said, I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure full plate is more expensive than mail. Simply look at the current pricing of reproductions of mail hauberks and plate harnesses. Mail hauberks can cost at least up to maybe $2000 at most, but I've seen some plate harnesses go as high as $18000, and probably more, and in these days, labour is the main cost-determinant. As I said, it would be nice if someone else more knowledgeable about plate armour could pitch in.

Max

Edit: I've just checked up with some of my sources, they seem to agree that plate harnesses are more expensive than mail.
View user's profile Send private message
Sam T.





Joined: 20 Dec 2006

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2007 3:31 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I'm talking about situations on the battle field only. Because individual duals doesn't matter since they can't bring down a country or lose a war.

I always thought that martial arts isn't important. certainly you can't have a bunch of peasants in plate armor and equate that to the knights, but I thought that training was simple and the basic methods and techniques are easily learned if one has the physique. And the rest are all fancy moves that aren't useful at all. Like chopping a board in karate. If a bunch of billmen stood together with the training to keep in formation, attack and block reasonably well then an acrobat can't jump onto their heads and do flips and take everyone out like in the kung-fu movies. At least the historians don't give that kind of impression.
View user's profile Send private message
Kel Rekuta




Location: Toronto, Canada
Joined: 10 Feb 2004
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 616

PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2007 9:23 pm    Post subject: Re: Armour Piercing Swords?         Reply with quote

Max von Bargen wrote:


Hmmm . . . I think I may have been using the term in a bit too general a sense too. I seem to recall "men-at-arms" in one source meaning a cavalryman but of slightly less status than a knight, and that was what I was using.

Max


- Knights were men at arms; not all men at arms were knights. In the era of full plate harness, it seems few were as the social standard was very expensive to maintain.

Man "at arms" = vocation that required substantial offensive and defensive equipment plus the training to use them in battle.

Knight = social status related to wealth, birth and political usefulness of an individual. Generally drawn from the noble class who maintained themselves through military might.

An excellent discussion of these terms and their misuse in academic studies may be found in Constance Bouchard, - "Strong of Body, Brave and Noble": Chivalry and Society in Medieval France. Cornell University Press, 1998.
A very good read if a bit brief. Ms. Bouchard has a brilliant command of social structure in the medieval period. Her knowledge of armour and weapons is sadly dated however. Thankfully she spends no more than a paragraph on the topic.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Steven H




Location: Boston
Joined: 10 May 2006

Posts: 545

PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2007 10:47 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

A man in full plate harness may be very nearly invincible against a sword, but on the field of battle will almost never meet an opponent using a sword against him. Swords were, in battle, sidearms for almost all troop types. A halberd or pollaxe will decimate a man in plate as will a lance or pike hit. Hence the preference for polearms in battle. Except for the rare helmet type that provides full cervical spine stabilization a solid hit with any big lever will incapacitate or kill. Regardless of whether or not it is spiked, bladed, or blunt.

If you're asking about battlefield realities then the sword plays a very minor role. In most battles, most of the casualties were from missile weapons. In melee most of the casualties were from polearms.

A full articulated plate harness might be very expensive but wasn't necessary to make a person hard to kill. The Graz Armoury has hundreds (or is it thousands, I don't know) of 'munitions-grade' armour, to be handed out to town militia as needed. And that's fairly complete suits of plate. And a breastplate can be made in a few hours by a skilled armourer. A hauberk can be made in two months by a skilled armourer. Fifty to one hundred times as long to make. Custom fitted plate might be as expensive as mail but off-the-rack partial plate, corselet type gear would be cheaper (I assume).

As to the armour vs. weapon arms race I suggest reading this thread on social and economic factors in armour development.

Battlefield skill is different than but related to judicial duel/tournament type skill. But skill still has its advantages. Most especially in terms of timing and distance. With good control of and technique with timing and distance then consistently ending an opponent with a single hit and no protracted engagement was quite possible. This skill requires the simple techniques and physique to use and a lot of practice. But almost all soldiers were professionals or semi-profressionals at martial arts (starting some time in the high medieval period).

And of course disciplined soldiery was essential. If your pikes ran before the horses charged them then no amount of skill or gear would help win.

Kunstbruder - Boston area Historical Combat Study
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
R. D. Simpson




Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Reading list: 4 books

Posts: 61

PostPosted: Sat 06 Jan, 2007 7:34 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Sam T. wrote:
I always thought that martial arts isn't important. certainly you can't have a bunch of peasants in plate armor and equate that to the knights, but I thought that training was simple and the basic methods and techniques are easily learned if one has the physique. And the rest are all fancy moves that aren't useful at all.


If that were the case, I don't think we would have seen the move in the later middle-ages and renaissance away from the feudal system to a greater reliance on professional soldiers. That is, if training was so simple, it would have made much more sense to simply pull large groups of men off the streets or farms for periods of military service than to actually pay to maintain professional soldiers.

Gloria Virtutem Sequitur
View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis




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

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Sat 06 Jan, 2007 8:48 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Max von Bargen wrote:
Hmm . . . as far as I know, plate armour was not cheaper than mail. It was significantly more expensive, not least because each suit needed to be tailored for each individual. Perhaps making a breastplate or something might be cheaper than making a mail hauberk, but making a fully articulated plate harness was extremely expensive and was only affordable by the elite of the elite. Of course, I'm no expert, and I may quite possibly be wrong, but I seem to have gathered a very different impression. Perhaps someone else who knows more about the predominance of plate armour could weigh in?


I'd agree with this. Partial plate armor was often much cheaper than mail since ordinary plate could be worked relatively easily with water-powered hammers, and they were often made a bit on the large size ("one size, too large for all") since any discrepancy could be adjusted relatively easily with the use of internal padding. Padding to fit, of course, was also quite common with mail.

Full suits of plate, however, simply had to be fitted. There are some parts that won't quite work properly if they're not well-fitted--the cuisse and the rerebrace, for example. This is why cheaper munitions-grade armors generally had those upper-arm and upper-leg defenses replaced by light arms and tassets made of overlapping lames and covering only the outer/front half of the body part. Greaves, sabatons, and articulated gauntlets were also usually not included in a cheap partial suit of plate since they a) also needed to be fitted and b) were among the most complex parts to produce.

Just count the parts in a gendarme's personalized full suit of plate and a Landsknecht or Swiss first-ranker's half-plate. The difference is quite astounding.

Sam T. wrote:
Do you actually swing the weapon like a golf club?


No, you don't--you'd need to swing longer weapons with your arms much straighter. And a beginner would not be able to do it at very considerable speeds, but an experienced practitioner could usually do it with great celerity. If you ask the people in European martial arts study groups, I bet none of them would ever tell you to look at the sword or the pole-weapon's head because the weapon itself usually moves far too fast for the eye to follow. Not fast enough to be invisible, but fast enough to be nearly untrackable especially when things get up close and personal.

Sam T. wrote:
'm talking about situations on the battle field only. Because individual duals doesn't matter since they can't bring down a country or lose a war.

I always thought that martial arts isn't important. certainly you can't have a bunch of peasants in plate armor and equate that to the knights, but I thought that training was simple and the basic methods and techniques are easily learned if one has the physique. And the rest are all fancy moves that aren't useful at all. Like chopping a board in karate. If a bunch of billmen stood together with the training to keep in formation, attack and block reasonably well then an acrobat can't jump onto their heads and do flips and take everyone out like in the kung-fu movies. At least the historians don't give that kind of impression.


"Martial arts" in the sense of great personal combat skill was not strictly necessary, but a fighting man skilled in martial arts was a great deal more effective than one that wasn't--if only for the fact that he would have had a better sense of balance, timing, and distance. After all, "simple training" and "basic methods" were relative. Men-at-arms had some right to scoff at such simplistic training since, after all, they had gone well past that stage in the years-long, intensive personal training they would have had before they saw their first armed encounter. The training of these men-at-arms, too, were not limited to personal skills but often also included mutual coordination skills that made them a great deal more disciplined than all but the best-drilled common soldiers, quite contrary to the popular image.

What really mattered from training was the confidence it instilled in the troops. It might have been possible to reasonably drill a bunch of peasants or townsmen in basic postures, attacks, and defenses as well as rudimentary group drills, but the sight of opponents who wielded their weapons with skilled abandon, kept their formation much better than the levies could, and knew how to conduct ruses and feints whether on the group or the personal level would certainly unnerve the less well-drilled levies.

Steven H wrote:
If you're asking about battlefield realities then the sword plays a very minor role. In most battles, most of the casualties were from missile weapons. In melee most of the casualties were from polearms.


I wouldn't say so. Most casualties in hand-to-hand combat (I'm very reluctant to use the term "melee," since it implied a chaotic mingling that didn't seem to have happened in most ancient and medieval battlefields) were from being struck in the back. The tendency was that for missile combat to be more deadly in terms of absolute casualties but hand-to-hand combat to be more decisive since a defeat in missile combat could be redressed by either hunkering down or charging out to meet the enemies while a defeat in hand-to-hand fighting definitely had to end in a retreat and not rarely a rout. Most of the deaths in the majority of pre-modern battles happened during the pursuit of fleeing enemies, not in the battle as such, and in these cases it's often difficult to divine what kind f weapon caused the damage because the corpse of a fleeing soldiers was likely to have received more than one strike.
View user's profile Send private message
Steve Grisetti




Location: Orlando metro area, Florida, USA
Joined: 01 Mar 2004
Likes: 9 pages
Reading list: 28 books

Posts: 1,812

PostPosted: Sat 06 Jan, 2007 9:07 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

R. D. Simpson wrote:
Sam T. wrote:
I always thought that martial arts isn't important. certainly you can't have a bunch of peasants in plate armor and equate that to the knights, but I thought that training was simple and the basic methods and techniques are easily learned if one has the physique. And the rest are all fancy moves that aren't useful at all.


If that were the case, I don't think we would have seen the move in the later middle-ages and renaissance away from the feudal system to a greater reliance on professional soldiers. That is, if training was so simple, it would have made much more sense to simply pull large groups of men off the streets or farms for periods of military service than to actually pay to maintain professional soldiers.

Keep in mind that another important factor in choosing professional soldiers over pulling people off the streets/farms is the economic effect. If you pull people away from farms and other work, it becomes difficult to sustain a long campaign, or station troops in foreigh garrisons because their regular work stops, and the economy loses crops and other products that these people would have produced at home.

"...dismount thy tuck, be yare in thy preparation, for thy assailant is quick, skilful, and deadly."
- Sir Toby Belch
View user's profile Send private message
Sam T.





Joined: 20 Dec 2006

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Sat 06 Jan, 2007 11:50 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I didn't mean that training was not important, I was referring to those who thinks that men of the Medieval West were going to be slaughtered by the Asian martial arts. The Hollywood type, where ShaoLin monks with their fist styles and sticks can beat up the medieval European troops. The Samurais were more agile than the knights and will slaughter the knights like in a kung-fu movie. On a Renaissance battle field with massed pikes and guns, there was no place for nimbleness and agility. After studying Chinese military history, I really think that the common Chinese soldier appropriately armed was superior to the "martial art masters" who used very un-practical weapons.
View user's profile Send private message
Ben C.





Joined: 01 Dec 2006

Posts: 65

PostPosted: Sat 06 Jan, 2007 2:11 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Sam T. wrote:
I didn't mean that training was not important, I was referring to those who thinks that men of the Medieval West were going to be slaughtered by the Asian martial arts. The Hollywood type, where ShaoLin monks with their fist styles and sticks can beat up the medieval European troops. The Samurais were more agile than the knights and will slaughter the knights like in a kung-fu movie. On a Renaissance battle field with massed pikes and guns, there was no place for nimbleness and agility. After studying Chinese military history, I really think that the common Chinese soldier appropriately armed was superior to the "martial art masters" who used very un-practical weapons.


I think you are confusing exhibition style performance martial arts that are often seen in movies with the martial arts that were actually used and applicable to real combat. Wrestling and boxing are both martial arts that have long been an important part of combat training in many cultures going back as far the ancient greeks all the way to modern times. Most cultures with a strong martial history have some type of grappling/wrestling and striking styles associated with them.

Breaking boards and flashy dance-like routines look good for TV and for making money but they do not represent the training or style of martial arts that were used for real combat. They are a much more modern development and in recent years the lack of actual fighting skill among "masters" of these styles has caused a fair amount of controversy in the industry. However it's important to understand that the martial arts used by Japanese samurai were actually quite similar to the martial arts employed by European knights and far different from the mess you see in fantasy martial art films.
View user's profile Send private message
Sam T.





Joined: 20 Dec 2006

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Sat 06 Jan, 2007 9:17 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Ben Condon wrote:

I think you are confusing exhibition style performance martial arts that are often seen in movies with the martial arts that were actually used and applicable to real combat. Wrestling and boxing are both martial arts that have long been an important part of combat training in many cultures going back as far the ancient greeks all the way to modern times. Most cultures with a strong martial history have some type of grappling/wrestling and striking styles associated with them.

Breaking boards and flashy dance-like routines look good for TV and for making money but they do not represent the training or style of martial arts that were used for real combat. They are a much more modern development and in recent years the lack of actual fighting skill among "masters" of these styles has caused a fair amount of controversy in the industry. However it's important to understand that the martial arts used by Japanese samurai were actually quite similar to the martial arts employed by European knights and far different from the mess you see in fantasy martial art films.

I don't know about Europe but the "dance-like routines" existed in China since the very ancient times. They would be performed by a selected few who were able to perform those and they held shows and competitions during the festivals and major parades and shows. I don't know exactly what they looked like or if they look anything similar to what's shown on TV but those martial art systems do have the same names as in the kung-fu films.

So what is real martial arts like? From the Classical Chinese military manuals I see that they were relatively simple. So I assumed that it required not much training, like a few months to a year at most for a very fit and muscular man. From the views of the historians like Williams and Victor Hanson, people were fighting side by side so what kind of martial arts was designed for that? Like on the actual ancient battlefield, with the massed Mongol horsemen, Western shield walls etc... All of these websites like myArmoury all have demonstrations of only two or a few men.
View user's profile Send private message
Mikko Kuusirati




Location: Finland
Joined: 16 Nov 2004
Reading list: 13 books

Posts: 1,080

PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2007 12:22 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Sam T. wrote:
But isn't your hand further away from the head of the weapon? That means that you are swinging the long stick holding to a very short end.

Think of the forehand as a fulcrum, or pivot point. The rear hand applies force that makes the weapon rotate around the fulcrum. The further away from the fulcrum that force is, the more leverage it has (ie. the slower and more powerfully it works - naturally, you need to hit a proper balance here, as the impact energy of a blow is defined by speed and mass with no regard to things like leverage). This is why you place your hands further apart on a long, heavy weapon like a zweihänder than with, say, a light bastard sword.

If you don't mind getting technical, there's a nice article on the physics of swordplay over at ARMA: http://www.thearma.org/spotlight/GTA/motions_and_impacts.htm

"And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."
— Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum
View user's profile Send private message
Mikko Kuusirati




Location: Finland
Joined: 16 Nov 2004
Reading list: 13 books

Posts: 1,080

PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2007 12:31 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Sam T. wrote:
I always thought that martial arts isn't important. certainly you can't have a bunch of peasants in plate armor and equate that to the knights, but I thought that training was simple and the basic methods and techniques are easily learned if one has the physique.

Do not mistake "simple" for "easy". Fighting is a simple thing, indeed, but hard to do well... just like any other art, really.

"And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."
— Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum
View user's profile Send private message
Mikko Kuusirati




Location: Finland
Joined: 16 Nov 2004
Reading list: 13 books

Posts: 1,080

PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2007 12:48 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Sam T. wrote:
[So what is real martial arts like?

To cite Bruce Lee, "learn all you can, and use whatever works for you".

More than anything else, real martial arts are about awareness, and control - of yourself, the opponent, the situation.

Quote:
From the Classical Chinese military manuals I see that they were relatively simple. So I assumed that it required not much training, like a few months to a year at most for a very fit and muscular man.

Ah, but it takes constant practice just to stay fit and muscular. Not to mention keeping your reflexes honed, so you respond instantly and in the right way when needed. And, of course, there is no such thing as too good - you can't stop at being merely good enough: what will you do when faced by someone larger and stronger than you, or who's trained harder, is plain better-equipped, or brought more friends?

Naturally, these are not great concerns when raising as large number of militia as possible in as short a time as possible: then you just do the best you can in the time you can afford. Like a few months to a year. And you likely won't be happy with it, but it's what you have to work with so you'd better just hope the neighbouring realm's peasants can't afford to train three months a year... Happy

Quote:
From the views of the historians like Williams and Victor Hanson, people were fighting side by side so what kind of martial arts was designed for that? Like on the actual ancient battlefield, with the massed Mongol horsemen, Western shield walls etc... All of these websites like myArmoury all have demonstrations of only two or a few men.

Shieldwalls and storming a trench are martial arts, just as well as jabs and pressure points. And all take extensive training to do well.

"And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."
— Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum
View user's profile Send private message
Vincent Le Chevalier




Location: Paris, France
Joined: 07 Dec 2005
Reading list: 15 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 870

PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2007 3:31 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Mikko Kuusirati wrote:
Sam T. wrote:
But isn't your hand further away from the head of the weapon? That means that you are swinging the long stick holding to a very short end.


Think of the forehand as a fulcrum, or pivot point. The rear hand applies force that makes the weapon rotate around the fulcrum.


In fact I'd say the rear hand is actually the fulcrum in cutting motions. It does not really change your definition of leverage, however. But it allows for some interesting analogies.

For example, it can be shown that the weapon is mechanically equivalent to one mass in your rear hand, and another one located at the rear hand's pivot point. When swinging the weapon, the behaviour is the same as that of this pendulum, and is mainly driven by its length. I tend to think that this length offers a good evaluation of the speed with wich the weapon tracks in cutting motions.

This length is a function of how the weapon is balanced. For a sword, it's generally between half and two third of the sword's length. For impact weapons such as maces and warhammers, it will get nearer to the length of the weapon. I believe that's why those weapons are generally shorter than swords, a greater length would slow them down.

Slowing down the swing could be a way to accumulate more energy in the weapon, but is not really acceptable beyond certain limits because it exposes you to various counters.

The advantages of weapons such as warhammers against plate armor, I think, lie not in an additional energy behind the blows but rather in how the energy can be used. Since there is more mass behind the impact point, it will be less easy for the plates to redirect the blow. And even if they do, the elastic impact will probably disturb the fighter much more, throwing him off balance.

Regards

--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Peter Bosman




Location: Andalucia
Joined: 22 May 2006

Posts: 598

PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2007 3:54 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Szabolcs Waldmann wrote:
Thanks for reading Wink

Szab


..and thank you for writing.
Bottom line is that none of us here use these techniques for daily survival. The extremely limited experience I have with dummies and game has been an eyeopener and I have no doubt a thinking opponent fighting for hís life would upset everything because of a key-factor you mention. The opponent himself, his brain, his skill, his will to live too.....
I guess this is why even within a limited time frame the range of weaponry is so vasty varied.

Peter
View user's profile
Peter Bosman




Location: Andalucia
Joined: 22 May 2006

Posts: 598

PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2007 4:09 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Sean Flynt wrote:
Estoc cross sections vary, with the most extreme being square and quite thick. These also were acutely pointed, and I'm not sure they were intended for directly attacking plate. My understanding is that these blades are meant to exploit the small gaps in armour (including sights and between bevor and visor) and, perhaps, break through the mail links protecting some of those areas. To attack plate directly, you'd likely want a more robust, reinforced point like those seen on some axes, halberds and spears. And, yes, halfswording would be very helpful, considering the size of the gaps to be exploited and the force required to drive the point deep enough to break or deform mail rings (the point wouldn't have to be very deep to cause grave injury to groin, armpits, eyes, throat, brain, etc).

See this thread and take special note of the discussion on page 2.
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=7292&start=0

Also, keep an eye on this site's content updates. Maybe something on estocs will turn up!


I found an importer who has the 'english' estoc. As suspected it is limited in it's use and very much like a short lance. Íf you stick it into something at anything worthy to be called speed you will need to let go if you want further use of your wrist.
I have since been given a late type orininal sabre that is also represented by the Patton model. Although it's use it somewhat compaireable the efect is vastly different an d you can keep hold of it. I still would prefer a handfull of spears though and the sabre as a backup.



The auction mentioned elsewehere also offers two rondel type daggers that are of mail-piercing design being sturdy spikes without even a hint of a cutting edge.

Peter
View user's profile


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Armour Piercing Swords?
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