medieval weapons discussion

Nivarion · Oct 17, 2008

well i looked at the fantasy quiz, and i was surprized on how many questions there were about fighting in a medieval world. so after a quick (and breif) check of the index, i decided to make this thread so that we can educate eachother on true combat.

i fence, shoot archery, sometimes bow hunt, and take part in recreated medieval battles all of the time.

so a few things im going to say before i post and start.

a two handed sword is often thought of as big and massivly heavy. two handed swords where heavier than most other swords, but by very littel. now i can easily (ill ad it to the misspelled, cause i know i did) hold a two hander one handed. the reason they were two handed, is that the fulcrum energy of the tip, could harm the wrist without the other hand to balance it. it was not the wheight that made it a two hander, but the length.

all of the swords could be quick, if used proporly.

most soldiers had little to no training, as sadly the europeans didn't have an effective training system in place.

Arrows are another subject completely. At close range an arrow can be aimed directly, and is rather acurate. im not sure on this number, as i have never used a long bow, but i have heard that a long bow can have a pull to 100-120 pounds

now that means that from a few dozen yards that arrow is hitting with 100 velocity pounds per wheight, all on a small sharp tip. this increases the strength of the impact.
im not sure of the full force
i know that a .22 hits with about 600 pounds of force, and will go through a plate like one in a breast plate.

on a totaly different matter, plate mail is a type of armor.
it was origionally called plate and mail, and only had a short life span in relation to other types of armor. it was a suit of chain mail, with some plates, normaly a chest plate, helmet, and pauldrons (add that one too)

oh yea, and a sword that weighs more than 2 or 3 pounds is a show weapon, it would tire you too quickly to fight with it.

Sarpedon · Oct 17, 2008

Nivarion; I don't think that what you are thinking in terms of 'plate mail' is what most fantasy afficianadoes think when they hear that term. I think the quiz, and people like zornhau, are reacting to the legions of D&D trained fantasy people, who view these things as different alternatives for armor quality, rather than a sequential development of top of the line armor.

The person who gets his knowledge of armor from D&D would think that you can walk into a medieval armorer, and have a choice between a norman-style full suit of chain for the low low price, a suit of 'plate mail' for more money, or a suit of 'full plate' for a lot of money. In reality, each of these three things were at different times the top-of the line choice of armor, and replaced one another as the science of armoring proceeded. You could no more get a norman style suit of chain mail in a 15th century armorer than you can get a model T at a Ford dealership today.

I honestly don't know what your 'plate and mail' armor would have been called at the time it was in use, though I know quite well what you mean by the term.

Its interesting what you say about the damage to the wrist from hand position on the sword. At my longsword class we were discussing the difference in hand position between longsword and kendo. One of the guys at my club is also taking kendo classes, and was surprised by the difference in the hand position. This of course led us to consider that our hand positions might not be correct.

geardrops · Oct 17, 2008

Sarpedon said:
Nivarion; I don't think that what you are thinking in terms of 'plate mail' is what most fantasy afficianadoes think when they hear that term. I think the quiz, and people like zornhau, are reacting to the legions of D&D trained fantasy people, who view these things as different alternatives for armor quality, rather than a sequential development of top of the line armor.

The person who gets his knowledge of armor from D&D would think that you can walk into a medieval armorer, and have a choice between a norman-style full suit of chain for the low low price, a suit of 'plate mail' for more money, or a suit of 'full plate' for a lot of money. In reality, each of these three things were at different times the top-of the line choice of armor, and replaced one another as the science of armoring proceeded. You could no more get a norman style suit of chain mail in a 15th century armorer than you can get a model T at a Ford dealership today.

I honestly don't know what your 'plate and mail' armor would have been called at the time it was in use, though I know quite well what you mean by the term.

Its interesting what you say about the damage to the wrist from hand position on the sword. At my longsword class we were discussing the difference in hand position between longsword and kendo. One of the guys at my club is also taking kendo classes, and was surprised by the difference in the hand position. This of course led us to consider that our hand positions might not be correct.

I did kendo (before a neck injury, but I'll be taking it back up in the new year, pending my MS courses don't overlap). What's the difference in grip?

In kendo, we are taught to hold over the top of it, so that we can put strength into the downward cut. Your wrists must rest above the tsuka (grip) so that when the blade would strike, you could put strength into the cut and the weapon would not fall from your hands.

I'm curious how this differs from a European two-hander

Sarpedon · Oct 17, 2008

Well the fellow was commenting on what he called the excessive pronation (or was it supination) of the hand; basically, rather than the hand being held straight from the wrist, it was held at an angle outward. The difference seemed to be related to the differing shape of the crossguard, but we wondered whether the kendo grip was better over all. It certainly was less comfortable, but since when is that important in fencing?

geardrops · Oct 17, 2008

Sarpedon said:
Well the fellow was commenting on what he called the excessive pronation (or was it supination) of the hand; basically, rather than the hand being held straight from the wrist, it was held at an angle outward. The difference seemed to be related to the differing shape of the crossguard, but we wondered whether the kendo grip was better over all. It certainly was less comfortable, but since when is that important in fencing?

It's not entirely uncomfortable (I never felt any pain or discomfort during hours of practice, and this comes from someone with tendinitis and carpal tunnel in both wrists) so much as it's kind of unnatural. My right hand had a tendency to slip to the side (which anybody I sparred with took great joy in exploiting--I often came home with my right hand bruised to all hell in spite of my kote).

It certainly is a good grip when you manage the strike, because you can put your full strength into the cut without having to waste it on keeping the damn thing in your hands. Sort of how you push down over the top of a knife when you're slicing through something particularly hard to cut.

I'm not sure what role the crossguard would play in the grip, as I haven't held many western swords. I've only done, like, a day's worth of foil fencing and nothing outside of that. I do not know enough about swords to offer much outside of my own personal and limited experience

And I believe it'd be pronation

Sarpedon · Oct 17, 2008

It would be the fact that the crossguard gives more protection to the hand than the tsuba may affect what the hand position is. I think I'll try practicing my longsword in the kendo grip for a bit and see how it is different.

Nivarion · Oct 18, 2008

well i found some math for a long bow.

i was off of the pull of the longbow by 60+ pounds. it was roughly 68lbs of pull. (though i don't really believe it)
arrow velocity is roughly 133.7fps (quite good compared to the 200-260fps of a bullet) and an arrow is roughly 2.5 ounces

2.5x133^2= 44222.5 oz 44222/16=2763 WHAT?

thats more than a .22 bullet hits, did i do that math right?

.06x350^2=7350/16=459.6lbs (low end .22)
.34x2700^2=2478600/16=154912.5 (low end 30-06)

so any way, you can see the power of these weapons

Dgullen · Oct 18, 2008

medieval longbow pull was about 45-80 kilos apparently, anc could penetra up to 1.4 mm armour. This is a good article:

http://technology.newscientist.com/channel/tech/mg13818763.800-the-longbows-deadly-secrets.html

In the era it was worn, plate was simply called that - plate. Chain mail simply called mail, a coat of mail or a coat of fence.

A great book on the sword in Europe is R. Ewart Oakeshott's 'The Archaeology of Weapons'. Out of print for many years it's recently been republished. It's regarded as a definitive work nd we;; worth getting hold of if you hve more than a passing interest.

Phoebe H · Oct 18, 2008

Nivarion said:
a two handed sword is often thought of as big and massivly heavy. two handed swords where heavier than most other swords, but by very littel. now i can easily (ill ad it to the misspelled, cause i know i did) hold a two hander one handed. the reason they were two handed, is that the fulcrum energy of the tip, could harm the wrist without the other hand to balance it. it was not the wheight that made it a two hander, but the length.

I think it depends on exactly what kind of 2-handed sword you are using. What you're talking about sounds like what I think of as a hand-and-a-half -- you *can* use it one handed, but usually don't

The zveihanders I've seen, on the other hand, really are massive. They're also funtionally more like big bars of metal than swords, as they're used more for wailing away on armored opponents than truly slashing opponents. I drilled with them a bit, but didn't much like them.

My personal preference is mace and shield. They're not subtle, but then neither am I.

Ariella · Oct 18, 2008

The other day I created an annotated bibliography of sources about late medieval combat and its context. It's geared toward people who study Fiore dei Liberi's fifteenth-century martial arts system, but much of it will be useful to writers as well.

http://uoft.aemma.org/bibliography.php

zornhau · Oct 19, 2008

My two hander has a 52" blade and weighs under 6 lbs.

I won't even comment on the "plate mail" potted "history", except to say that historical terms for armour are not well documented, and that there are some good reputable books on the history of armour. Please come back when you've read one of these.

As for:

"most soldiers had little to no training, as sadly the europeans didn't have an effective training system in place. "

Where did you get this from? This is in fact most not true for so many reasons.

Firstly, many armies were made up of professional soldiers. They most certainly had proper training because... well, we actually have the manuals, which people like me use to train with. Active knights, in particular, usually went down the page-squire-knight route.

Secondly, the amateur soldiers - the militias - seem to have met and trained from time to time.

Thirdly, all classes, especially those elegible for the militia, seem to have practiced some sort of martial art which easily translated to the battlefield. For example, the 15th century English were keen on the sword and buckler.

Darzian · Oct 19, 2008

My head's spinning.

Mr Flibble · Oct 19, 2008

Thirdly, all classes, especially those elegible for the militia, seem to have practiced some sort of martial art which easily translated to the battlefield. For example, the 15th century English were keen on the sword and buckler.

And of course there is the reason every village has a green - it was a law ( statute 1363, commanding that all able bodied men had to practice archery on sundays and holidays ( all other sports being forbidden) and that's where they used to hold their practices. Normally just by the pub...

.[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Practice at 'the butts', usually located near the local parish Church, which was the centre of most social activity during medieval times, was initially a voluntary occurrence in all English & Welsh towns and villages as men, young and old, would test their bow kills at regular weekly meetings.

Then in [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]the late 1470 - someone invented an early form of what we might call cricket and in 1477 Edward IV found it necessary to ban this game because it began interfering with regular archery practice. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A Statue imposed by King Henry VIII and written by the King in the 6th year of his reign (1515) was an amended, more specifically detailed version to replace an earlier Royal Statute of 1363:

Item: Whether the Kinges subjectes, not lame nor having no lawfull impediment, and beinge within the age of XI yeares, excepte Spiritual men, Justices etc. and Barons of the Exchequer, use shoting on longe bowes, and have bowe continually in his house, to use himself and that fathers and governours of chyldren teache them to shote, and that bowes and arrowes be bought for chyldren under XVII and above VII yere, by him that has such a chylde in his house, and the Maister maye stoppe it againe of his wages, and after that age he to provideb them himselfe: and who that is founde in defaute, in not having bowes and arrowes by the space of a moneth, to forfayte xiid.. And boyers for everie bowe of ewe, to make two of Elme wiche or othere wood of meane price, and if thei be founde to doe the contrarie, to be committed to warde, by the space of viii daies or more.[/FONT][/FONT]

In fact this law is still in place. Crap, better get my son a bow!
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]

redpbass · Oct 19, 2008

Phoebe H said:
The zveihanders I've seen, on the other hand, really are massive. They're also funtionally more like big bars of metal than swords, as they're used more for wailing away on armored opponents than truly slashing opponents. I drilled with them a bit, but didn't much like them.

I don't know about that. I remember seeing a video of some short guy* a few years ago 'going through the motions' with a big zweihander and he seemed to do just fine.

*Then again, everyone looks short when holding a sword that big.

Sarpedon · Oct 20, 2008

There are plenty of swords around that were never intended to be used. They are symbols of civic authority and were carried in front of the mayor, king, or whatever, on ceremonial occasions. These swords were often larger than were practical for combat. All the better to see them.

Zoombie · Oct 21, 2008

Wow, this stuff is really fascinating!

Now I just need to adapt medieval combat to fighting giant bugs and my story will be perfect.

zornhau · Oct 21, 2008

Go - describe the bugs and how they fight, and we'll work out how to fight them with medieval tech...

Mr Flibble · Oct 21, 2008

Now I just need to adapt medieval combat to fighting giant bugs and my story will be perfect.

Starship Troopers in the 1400s? keeeewl.

slobbit · Oct 21, 2008

Sarpedon said:
Well the fellow was commenting on what he called the excessive pronation (or was it supination) of the hand; basically, rather than the hand being held straight from the wrist, it was held at an angle outward. The difference seemed to be related to the differing shape of the crossguard, but we wondered whether the kendo grip was better over all. It certainly was less comfortable, but since when is that important in fencing?

Comfort is important when you're holding something for a very long time. The thing to note about the grips used in Japanese Sword Arts is they are not static -- the kendo shinai is not "held" like that. The hand position does not start pronated, and if one cuts katate (one-handed) it will in fact remain quite straight. But when cutting morote, the hands do rotate on the hilt through the cut so the ending hand position lines up diagonally from the first index finger joint to the outside wrist. Look at your palm, touch your thumb to your little finger. See that fold? That lines up along the spine of the hilt at the completion of the cut.

I've no idea how necessary this rotation would be in a straight blade or in thrusting with such. Also, no idea how this would feel on various western hilts. The tsuka evolved in tandem with this technique, so its design compliments the motion.

Sarpedon · Oct 21, 2008

Now I just need to adapt medieval combat to fighting giant bugs and my story will be perfect.

Go for the segments! Stab stab stab! Throw beer in the spiracles! Flip it on its back! Cut off the antennae! Deafen it by stabbing its knees! Jamb an apple between the wing covers!

cdoctor13 · Oct 21, 2008

It's a myth generated via tons of fantasy lit, novles and role playing that weapons were heavy. They weren't heavy or excessive bulky. Most weighed under four pounds. The reasons for this were two fold: One materials weren't cheap so in instead of mass, swords were crafted to hurt and kill. Second, children were generally taught to use a sword from a young age--something like seven or eight and someone so young aint gonna wild a ten pound sword.

redpbass · Oct 21, 2008

Honestly, a ten pound sword would be huge, not to mention thick.

Anyway, here's an interesting article about medieval swords' weight.

Also, here's one on two-handers that I found interesting.

That whole site's full of interesting stuff, but I can't speak for its objectivity ;D

zornhau · Oct 21, 2008

No these guys know what they're talking about - though I and others might differ on their interpretation of the original manuals.

Cybernaught · Oct 21, 2008

An interesting article on the English Longbow and its pwnage at the Battle of Agincourt:

http://www.longbow-archers.com/historyagincourt.htm

Mr Flibble · Oct 21, 2008

Doesn't tell you about the V sign though does it

That our most favoured hand signal should come from our ancient enmity of the French...

medieval weapons discussion

Brony level >9000

Good thing I like my day job

Good thing I like my day job

Brony level >9000

Ustom Ser Itle

...

Swordsman

To-to-to-ron-to

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble

Dragon of the Multiverse

Swordsman

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble

Swordsman

Decker

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble