Post/Author/DateTime	Post
MasterRookie 06-28-05, 01:51 PM	Shouldn't Blugeoning weapons ignore the AC bonus of chainmail or chain shirts. Historically the mace could shatter bones right through chainmail. Is there a rule about this in the Arms and Equiptment manual.
Merestil Haye 06-28-05, 02:01 PM	The problem with this is, where do you stop? If you go down this route, you need to compile a table of just how each type of armour interacts with each type of attack, and then remember to apply it every time one of your monsters tries to bash the stuffing out of a PC, and every time a PC tries to attack an NPC wearing armour. It was a variant rule in 2nd edition, and hardly anyone ever used it because it was too much of a pain to remember to apply the modifiers. As for 1st edition, the rules had a chart for how every weapon interacted with every different type of armour, and that chart took up a whole page. Please, keep it simple and do not return to the over-complicated ways 3e rejected for good reason.
Elthbert 06-28-05, 02:15 PM	I loved the first edition chart and held on to it steadfastly until 3rd edition, however, 3rd edition has numerous bonuses and penelties to add up already, it is just too complicated to do in the current system. To your direct question No because Chain armour has significant padding under it, several layers usually and arming coat etc. A suit of chian would essentially have a suit of padded armour under the chain.
MasterRookie 06-28-05, 02:22 PM	But historically an abbat's mace would kill a chain mail protected person with a single blow. Its simply not effective enough to grant full ac against blugeoning damage. There should atleast be a penalty of two or three points of AC.
ajmastrean 06-28-05, 02:22 PM	HP is not a direct relationship to how much blood you have left, how many bones are not broken, or how much muscle is left untorn/bruised etc...it is not a concrete value of your physical health. It is an abstract concept encompassing luck, strength, fatigue, and skill, among other things. AC is not a direct relationship to how many Newtons a particular armor can absorb/withstand before transfering various forces to your body (and lowering your HP). It is an abstract concept encompassing the armor's hardness, flexibility in combat, ability to deflect/soften blows, among other things. Attack Rolls/Damage are not a direct relationship...are you getting my point yet?! These things are not like the real world where we can quantify how dead someone is and how well a certain armor fares against a certain weapon. Too many rules, too many inconsistencies and balance issues.
MasterRookie 06-28-05, 02:27 PM	I'm really not convinced by that. At all. We can't measure that in real life either. There's no such thing as measureing how dead someone is in real life if someone's dead they're dead. Like you said its relative so shouldn't there be a relative measurment of how good a mace is at harming a chain mail girded oponent.
Elthbert 06-28-05, 02:35 PM	But historically an abbat's mace would kill a chain mail protected person with a single blow. Its simply not effective enough to grant full ac against blugeoning damage. There should atleast be a penalty of two or three points of AC. Okay first everything that ajmastrean said above is correct. Secondly do you mean an abbot's mace as in a mace wielded by an abbot? Where do you get this idea, what is your source? I can't think of any historical document which talks about a mace ever killing anyone in oneblow unless it discribes a head hit, in which case it is the helm at fault not the armour, chain mail was the prefered armour for about 700 years, it was so because it was emensly effective, and yet the mace did not show a huge upswing in use until after the heyday of Chain, the mace was prefered once plate came into fashion. I'm not trying to be condsending I just really want to know where you are getting this Idea, then maybe I can find it and properly adress your question.
Elthbert 06-28-05, 02:40 PM	I'm really not convinced by that. At all. We can't measure that in real life either. There's no such thing as measureing how dead someone is in real life if someone's dead they're dead. Like you said its relative so shouldn't there be a relative measurment of how good a mace is at harming a chain mail girded oponent. Convinvced or notthat is the nature of the D&D system, if you would like a more realistic combat system I would recomend palladium, they have a role for every swing, plus a role for every parry or dodge, it is much more realistic but it also takes about 4 times as long to run a combat. That being said we certianly do have methods of measurintg over all utility of an armour in combat, chain was the armour of choice for 700 or so years, thats a pretty good endorsement.
Vaelan 06-28-05, 02:40 PM	I'm really not convinced by that. At all. And you certainly shouldn't be, since the "abstraction" ploy is completely irrelevant to your point. Shame on you, ajmastrean. There aren't any rules for it because not many people really care about the interactions between different types of weapons and armor. I prefer the simplicty of the system as it is written in this case.
Elthbert 06-28-05, 02:41 PM	If you really want to complain you should be complaining aboutthe completly unrealistic crapiness of the Shield in D&D.
MasterRookie 06-28-05, 02:41 PM	From a lecture at the higgins armory museum in Wooster. The abbat always carried a mace because they vowed never to spill a drop of blood. With a mace they're able to safely give last rights on the battle feild and defend themselves because a mace wouldn't draw blood per se just shatter bones. If you want proof take some chain mail put it over your hands then hit them with a hammer. The bones in your hands will be quite broken. At the lecture in question it was implied that the mace helped bring about the end of chain mail because knights started to use it as well as Abbots. Perhaps my classes are wrong but that is what I've been told. perhaps I exhagerated a bit when I said they would kill with a single blow. But they were more effective then swords.
tarkin 06-28-05, 02:43 PM	And historically, a dagger was almost USELESS against someone in full plate. And Saps did not work against someone wearing a Helmet, but pretty much ignored other armor. etc. etc. etc. Check Unearthed Arcana for more info on variant combat rules. They might have something you like. Basically, D20 simplified combat, but is fairly good at being reasonable.
MasterRookie 06-28-05, 02:44 PM	If you really want to complain you should be complaining aboutthe completly unrealistic crapiness of the Shield in D&D. how so? Whats the problem?
Elthbert 06-28-05, 02:51 PM	From a lecture at the higgins armory museum in Wooster. The abbat always carried a mace because they vowed never to spill a drop of blood. With a mace they're able to safely give last rights on the battle feild and defend themselves because a mace wouldn't draw blood per se just shatter bones. If you want proof take some chain mail put it over your hands then hit them with a hammer. The bones in your hands will be quite broken. At the lecture in question it was implied that the mace helped bring about the end of chain mail because knights started to use it as well as Abbots. Perhaps my classes are wrong but that is what I've been told. perhaps I exhagerated a bit when I said they would kill with a single blow. But they were more effective then swords. Chian was an anti sword armour system, you are correct in that instance that is because a sword is in many way's a far superior weapon to the mace, Now I have never been to the higgens armoury but I think there is some exageration here by the lecturer, as I said the properly girded suit of chainmail ( or properly just "mail")would have had a lot of padding under it, A LOT of padding, and this helped absorb blows, Catholic priest in general are forbidden to spill blood, and in the Middle Ages those Churchmen who where fighting ( like Bishop Odo at Hastings) did use blunt weapons, sometimes it was a mace sometimes it was a club, this is where 1st edition Clerics got there blunt weapon only restrictions, but that restriction was just that a restriction, no one thought thatthe mace was a superior weapon agianst chain or in fact the mace would have been the weapon of choice of the age, it wasn't, the Ax the Spear and the sword where the weapons of accendance during the age of chainmail, the mace didn't come into it's own until Plate, andthen ften it was flanged in such a way as to make it a semi-peircing weapon, one that would not have been used by a Priest.
Elthbert 06-28-05, 02:58 PM	how so? Whats the problem? A shield is awesome in the hands of a trained person, I mean just awesome, way more useful than a +1 or +2 to ac would indicate, a good shieldmen is something to see, even a buckler ( a real buckler notthe D&D thing which is more like a targe) can stop blow after blow after blow, the buckler was often used by people with no armour and I garantee that it didn't just makethem 5% less likly to be hit, but more like 60 or 70% less likly to be hit ( there are places a buckler cannot gaurd).
MasterRookie 06-28-05, 03:01 PM	Chian was an anti sword armour system, you are correct in that instance that is because a sword is in many way's a far superior weapon to the mace, Now I have never been to the higgens armoury but I think there is some exageration here by the lecturer, as I said the properly girded suit of chainmail ( or properly just "mail")would have had a lot of padding under it, A LOT of padding, and this helped absorb blows, Catholic priest in general are forbidden to spill blood, and in the Middle Ages those Churchmen who where fighting ( like Bishop Odo at Hastings) did use blunt weapons, sometimes it was a mace sometimes it was a club, this is where 1st edition Clerics got there blunt weapon only restrictions, but that restriction was just that a restriction, no one thought thatthe mace was a superior weapon agianst chain or in fact the mace would have been the weapon of choice of the age, it wasn't, the Ax the Spear and the sword where the weapons of accendance during the age of chainmail, the mace didn't come into it's own until Plate, andthen ften it was flanged in such a way as to make it a semi-peircing weapon, one that would not have been used by a Priest. I'm sure there's plenty of debate about this by historians. At any rate no matter how much padding is used a mace is still more likely to get through chain mail then a sword since the mace has more kenetic force. I refure you to my hammer experiment.
Elthbert 06-28-05, 03:02 PM	And historically, a dagger was almost USELESS against someone in full plate. And Saps did not work against someone wearing a Helmet, but pretty much ignored other armor. etc. etc. etc. Check Unearthed Arcana for more info on variant combat rules. They might have something you like. Basically, D20 simplified combat, but is fairly good at being reasonable. Well there were places that a dagger could get in a guy with full plate , but a rapier was completly useless, agianst him , full plate was friggen scary, a man in full plate could simply chew thropugh lesser equiped opponants and contray to myth he could do summersaults, climb onto his horse, get up if he was knocked down, all that good stuff. Full plate is nerfed seriously in D&D
Elthbert 06-28-05, 03:10 PM	I'm sure there's plenty of debate about this by historians. At any rate no matter how much padding is used a mace is still more likely to get through chain mail then a sword since the mace has more kenetic force. I refure you to my hammer experiment. but a mace doesn'thave more kenetic force at it's point of impact, a sword is a wedge a cutting sword particularly is a wedge with a fairly high mechanical advantage. a mace will deliver more neutons of force but nowhere near the same force to a particular point. Furthermore, armour doesn't fit you like a sheet of chian laid over your fingers, the human body gives and moves with a blow, your hand on a table does not. Additionally, the padding under that suit of chain distributes the force( no padding in your hammer experiment) over a wide area of the body a sword blow which cuts through the chian is likely to cut through the padding as well, which is one reason why cutting weapons where used more agianst it.
MasterRookie 06-28-05, 03:22 PM	on the contrary. The sword having a longer blade will have a much smaller point of impact and force unless the weilder uses it in a thrust. The entire mace head contacts the body with all its force. The sword only contacts with a portion of its kinetic force. The sword was made for slicing and cutting thats why chainmail was used in the first place, to prevent damage to internal organs. The sword is not designed for breaking bones. The mace is. By your reasoning a blunt sword should be better then a mace. If you don't agree do a few tests yourself. If you feel my sources are wrong I'm sure the Higgins Armory museum has a website that you can e-mail. I did not metion anything about a table and I did not say that the chain mail had no padding. Test it out on some animal bones. Its not a perfect recreation but it will give you a general idea.
MasterRookie 06-28-05, 03:26 PM	Well there were places that a dagger could get in a guy with full plate , but a rapier was completly useless, agianst him , full plate was friggen scary, a man in full plate could simply chew thropugh lesser equiped opponants and contray to myth he could do summersaults, climb onto his horse, get up if he was knocked down, all that good stuff. Full plate is nerfed seriously in D&D A dagger would work but a Rapier wouldn't? That doesn't make sense. The rapeir would have greater reach and equal piercing potential. Lets not forget early rapiers where huge, often as big as longswords.
Elthbert 06-28-05, 03:30 PM	on the contrary. The sword having a longer blade will have a much smaller point of impact and force unless the weilder uses it in a thrust. The entire mace head contacts the body with all its force. The sword only contacts with a portion of its kinetic force. The sword was made for slicing and cutting thats why chainmail was used in the first place, to prevent damage to internal organs. The sword is not designed for breaking bones. The mace is. If you don't think so do a few tests yourslef. If you feel my sources are wrong I'm sure the Higgins Armory museum has a website that you can e-mail. I did not metion anything about a table and I did not say that the chain mail had no padding. I have done these test myself, Mail was developed to prevent slices which it does extremly well, and cutting blows which it does moderately well if the links hold then virtually no damage will be done to the undercoat or the person beneath, if however they are sheared through then the person underneath is in trouble. A sword strike is far more powerful than you seemto realize particurly a cutting sword, with it's high mechincal advantage, a curved sword is even more so.
Elthbert 06-28-05, 03:35 PM	A dagger would work but a Rapier wouldn't? That doesn't make sense. The rapeir would have greater reach and equal piercing potential. Lets not forget early rapiers where huge, often as big as longswords. It makes prerfect sense the length of the rapier is what would limit it, a dagger can get in places like under the armpit where one will never be able to get one's rapier. As for Rapiers being huge and as big as a longsword, well a longsword is about 4 feet long, I think you mean an arming sword ( which is what D&D cals a Longsword) now there was a trentd to getting really long rapier blads butthat wasn't early on that was in the late 1500's the Rapier was well established by then. The Rapier is absolutly useless agianst an armoured opponant, it was a civilian weapon and was use d by civilians.
Elthbert 06-28-05, 03:40 PM	If you want proof take some chain mail put it over your hands then hit them with a hammer. The bones in your hands will be quite broken. So you didn't doing this experement with padding will not result in broken hands, I have had my unarmoured hand hit by a hammer and the bones didn't break ( hurt like hell though) if your hand can move with the blow your bones will probably be fine espeacially with armour on.
MasterRookie 06-28-05, 03:41 PM	It makes prerfect sense the length of the rapier is what would limit it, a dagger can get in places like under the armpit where one will never be able to get one's rapier. As for Rapiers being huge and as big as a longsword, well a longsword is about 4 feet long, I think you mean an arming sword ( which is what D&D cals a Longsword) now there was a trentd to getting really long rapier blads butthat wasn't early on that was in the late 1500's the Rapier was well established by then. The Rapier is absolutly useless agianst an armoured opponant, it was a civilian weapon and was use d by civilians. Under the arm was one of the most popular places to attack. Thats why armor suits have a circle to protect that spot. A rapier certainly could get under the arm.
MasterRookie 06-28-05, 03:45 PM	I have done these test myself, Mail was developed to prevent slices which it does extremly well, and cutting blows which it does moderately well if the links hold then virtually no damage will be done to the undercoat or the person beneath, if however they are sheared through then the person underneath is in trouble. A sword strike is far more powerful than you seemto realize particurly a cutting sword, with it's high mechincal advantage, a curved sword is even more so. Oh a sword is powerful no question. Particularly the Katana which could (with a very skilled weilder and proper forging) slash through ordinary metals. Did your experiment include maces. What do you mean cutting blows? Are your refuring to thrusts?
Elthbert 06-28-05, 03:46 PM	Under the arm was one of the most popular places to attack. Thats why armor suits have a circle to protect that spot. A rapier certainly could get under the arm. Have you ever fought with a rapier, or had any serious martial training with one? You try and get under the arm with one while that guy in full plate just rips that nice little rapier out of your hand, an unarmoured hand can easily grab and holed a rapier, a rapier is a nasty deadly weapon but only because it is capable of quick lethal thrust, if you get the point of your rapier off line with an opponant you are about to be dead, the plate armoured knight has no wory about your little poker he is going to walk up an kill you as your rapier glances off his armour, you will never get a shot at under his arm, a dagger on the other hand is short enough that one can lose witht he armour wearer and thrust while grappling with him.
MasterRookie 06-28-05, 03:49 PM	So you didn't doing this experement with padding will not result in broken hands, I have had my unarmoured hand hit by a hammer and the bones didn't break ( hurt like hell though) if your hand can move with the blow your bones will probably be fine espeacially with armour on. Okay thats a normal hammer. Yes those hurt but don't crush your bones. Perhaps I should have just said mace. A mace can do quite a bit of damage. Even more so if your hands are in the open. Think of it this way. Its vertually impossible to crush a large stick by hitting it with a blunt object. It will take many blows to smash through a stick against hard pavement. But if the stick is held above ground and struck the wood bends and the stick snaps. So being held out would actually make bone breakage more likely.
Elthbert 06-28-05, 03:50 PM	Oh a sword is powerful no question. Particularly the Katana which could (with a very skilled weilder and proper forging) slash through ordinary metals. Did your experiment include maces. What do you mean cutting blows? Are your refuring to thrusts? I mean a cutting blow as opposed to a draw cut or slice, a blow with the proper blade placement ( 45 degrees) from the elbow or shoulder. And yes I have done experiments with maces, warhammers, and military picks. And the katana was not all that awesome much of that is myth, I'd take a 14th century longsword over 16th century Katana anyday of the week.
Elthbert 06-28-05, 03:52 PM	If you want good overview and historical discussion of weapons go here http://www.thearma.org/.
MasterRookie 06-28-05, 03:53 PM	Have you ever fought with a rapier, or had any serious martial training with one? You try and get under the arm with one while that guy in full plate just rips that nice little rapier out of your hand, an unarmoured hand can easily grab and holed a rapier, a rapier is a nasty deadly weapon but only because it is capable of quick lethal thrust, if you get the point of your rapier off line with an opponant you are about to be dead, the plate armoured knight has no wory about your little poker he is going to walk up an kill you as your rapier glances off his armour, you will never get a shot at under his arm, a dagger on the other hand is short enough that one can lose witht he armour wearer and thrust while grappling with him. Yes I've been taking fencing for over a year. Unarmored hand, is that a joke? Your hand would get sliced rapiers are sharp. Thats why the Epe has a shape edges on the tip so you can't grap it. At any rate the bastard sword weilding full armrored man "walks" up to a fencer. The fencer dodges to the right in a circle as the enemy makes his perdictable attack and stabs the knight under the arm from the side. Your chances aren't much worse with a rapier then with a dagger.
MasterRookie 06-28-05, 03:57 PM	I mean a cutting blow as opposed to a draw cut or slice, a blow with the proper blade placement ( 45 degrees) from the elbow or shoulder. And yes I have done experiments with maces, warhammers, and military picks. And the katana was not all that awesome much of that is myth, I'd take a 14th century longsword over 16th century Katana anyday of the week. Cool. Why, when, was this just a personal study. How'd it work. When comparing maces two swords did you factor in average weight. BTW you can't look at the Katana's capability based on your own attacks. Only a trained martial artist could cut through a metal weapon or medium sized tree with a Katana. I have seen it done.
MasterRookie 06-28-05, 03:57 PM	If you want good overview and historical discussion of weapons go here http://www.thearma.org/. What part, what links.
MasterRookie 06-28-05, 04:02 PM	In defense of the Katana Blade. http://www.swordarts.com/tameshigiri.html
Elthbert 06-28-05, 04:06 PM	Yes I've been taking fencing for over a year. Unarmored hand, is that a joke? Your hand would get sliced rapiers are sharp. Thats why the Epe has a shape edges on the tip so you can't grap it. At any rate the bastard sword weilding full armrored man "walks" up to a fencer. The fencer dodges to the right in a circle as the enemy makes his perdictable attack and stabs the knight under the arm from the side. Your chances aren't much worse with a rapier then with a dagger. Okay don't take this the wrong way but comparing fencing to combat is like comparing baseball to combat, fencing is a game, it is athletic and requires skill but is not martial. The Rapiers edges are not sharp ( although that wouldn't matter much which I will explain in a second) they are anything but sharp, the cross section of a rapier makes them extremly poor at cutting, they are made for thrusting and have a thick cross section which allows them to penetrate flesh with very little force. you arn't going to knick yourself playing with your rapier. That being said even a cutting blade can be grabed by an unarmoured hand, years ago when I was learning John clements had me do some cutting with a sword so that I and everyone know it was sharp, and proptly demonstrated wthat one could grad a sword and hold it and not be harmed, so long as yopu hold it tight and don't let it move, I am a big guy about 225 then, Clements is not maybe 150, He grabed the sword and I pulled him all around after a good 30 secs of me pushing and pulling he let go his skin wasn't even broken, I have since done this as have many others, there is no Ki power needed only a stready hand and a strong grip.
Arishem 06-28-05, 04:09 PM	Shouldn't Blugeoning weapons ignore the AC bonus of chainmail or chain shirts. Historically the mace could shatter bones right through chainmail. Is there a rule about this in the Arms and Equiptment manual. We'll i know this will sound condicending, but i truely dont mean it to. D&D isnt a historical acurate portrayal of fighting in MANY other ways than this. You really cant try to make that connection for 1 part and ignore every other single glaring difference. The way fighting in this game works is for ease of use, not so much to be true to real life.
Elthbert 06-28-05, 04:17 PM	What part, what links. Start with these http://www.thearma.org/terms4.htm http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm http://www.thearma.org/essays/thrusting_vs_cutting.html
MasterRookie 06-28-05, 04:18 PM	Okay don't take this the wrong way but comparing fencing to combat is like comparing baseball to combat, fencing is a game, it is athletic and requires skill but is not martial. The Rapiers edges are not sharp ( although that wouldn't matter much which I will explain in a second) they are anything but sharp, the cross section of a rapier makes them extremly poor at cutting, they are made for thrusting and have a thick cross section which allows them to penetrate flesh with very little force. you arn't going to knick yourself playing with your rapier. That being said even a cutting blade can be grabed by an unarmoured hand, years ago when I was learning John clements had me do some cutting with a sword so that I and everyone know it was sharp, and proptly demonstrated wthat one could grad a sword and hold it and not be harmed, so long as yopu hold it tight and don't let it move, I am a big guy about 225 then, Clements is not maybe 150, He grabed the sword and I pulled him all around after a good 30 secs of me pushing and pulling he let go his skin wasn't even broken, I have since done this as have many others, there is no Ki power needed only a stready hand and a strong grip. If such a grab is effective against longswords then that portion of your argument is void anyway. At any rate the tip of the rapier was sharp on the sides to prevent grabing or atleast make it harder. When Clements grabed the sword was it in the middle of a slice. Grabing a sword and holding it is one thing. Grabing a moving one from the air is quite another.
Elthbert 06-28-05, 04:29 PM	If such a grab is effective against longswords then that portion of your argument is void anyway. At any rate the tip of the rapier was sharp on the sides to prevent grabing or atleast make it harder. When Clements grabed the sword was it in the middle of a slice. Grabing a sword and holding it is one thing. Grabing a moving one from the air is quite another. No it doesn't. No it wasn't in the middle of a slice, if it had been in the middle of a cut I would have cut his hand in half, but a rapier never is used for slicing, not ever, it is used for thrusting, and a rapier can be grabed in mid thrust, that was a common tactic in the 16th century you might gt light cuts on ones hand from the moving rapier but not anything serious. Beating a rapier with the hand, disarming a rapier with the hand all are quite simple to do, the Rapier was never used to effect on the battlefield because it is only dangerous on the point, it can only threaten one person at a time, and cannot penetrate armour. That is simply how it is, like it or not. this is a 16th century manuel on the topic of the rapier and the short sword ( which in England was what D&D calls a longsword, i.e. an arming sword) http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/GSilver.htm
Elthbert 06-28-05, 04:29 PM	If such a grab is effective against longswords then that portion of your argument is void anyway. At any rate the tip of the rapier was sharp on the sides to prevent grabing or atleast make it harder. When Clements grabed the sword was it in the middle of a slice. Grabing a sword and holding it is one thing. Grabing a moving one from the air is quite another. And it wasn't a long sword, it was a cut and thrust, more like a D&D longsword than a real longsword.
MasterRookie 06-28-05, 04:40 PM	This whole argument wasn't really fair. I'm a fifteen year old kid. I'm not sure exactly what you are but you've definitely got more knowledge and resources at your disposal then me. If you'd just said so in the beggining I would have just accepted whatever you say. Out of curiosity. Have you ever had an expert in martial arts break techniques try them out on different types of armor.
Elthbert 06-28-05, 04:48 PM	I'm a History and Science teacher with 11 years of training in weastern maritial arts. My wife is well trained in several Japanese arts and i have a dear friend who has trained in numerous eastern arts, for your part I will say that you are fairly articulate for 15, I wasn't trying to make you feel foolish or anything, just let you know what is really what. I hope you stay interested in swords and in D&D just don't exprect o much from the system, it is a good system ( I am still not sure If I like it more than 1st edition) it isn't as realistic in combat as say palladium, but it is quick has a certian elegance to it. D&D is supposed to be heroic fantasy not nitty gritty combat. If you want nitty gritty play rifts, its as gritty as it gets.
Willie the Duck 06-28-05, 08:00 PM	This whole argument wasn't really fair. I'm a fifteen year old kid. I'm not sure exactly what you are but you've definitely got more knowledge and resources at your disposal then me. If you'd just said so in the beggining I would have just accepted whatever you say. I think we all guessed that about two posts in. The problem with that defense is You're the one that stuck your neck out! so I can't feel any sympathy for the fact that you lost your head in this argument. You decided to make a thread, proposing a rules change. You based on poorly backed up historical knowledge, couldn't back it up, didn't really understand the basic physics involved (a sword hitting with only a portion of its striking surface doesn't mean it only inflicts a portion of its kinetic force, it means it inflicts the full force over a smaller area, giving a much higher point of impact force), and actively lied to try and keep up the facade (you've seen a katana cut through a tree, right...). If you don't have the knowledge, try asking instead of asserting something that might not be right. That said, don't "just accepted whatever you say" either. A lot of people on these boards completely misrepresent their knowledge base (deliberately or not, every mid belt martial artist would like to think they are combat experts). Just because someone asserts something with conviction or declaring their expertise is not enough to defer to their knowledge. Make people back themselves up with credible references.
Kullak-Kobold Sorcerer 06-28-05, 08:41 PM	Shouldn't Blugeoning weapons ignore the AC bonus of chainmail or chain shirts. Historically the mace could shatter bones right through chainmail. Is there a rule about this in the Arms and Equiptment manual. Actually, chain mail diffuses the energy from the blow. Padding is worn underneath to further reduce the impact. Yes, it is possible to break bones while wearing chainmail, and that is what rolling a successful hit in D & D is replicating. When a person is wearing armor, an unsuccessful to hit doesn't mean you didn't strike your opponent. It means you didn't damage your opponent. Lot's of things occured historicly. Short bow arrows almost never killed a person in a full suit of double link chain. The most common injury to soldiers was to their ankles (less or no armor, 75% of the Romans/Roman enemies unburied had broken ankles. While the opponent fell over from a broken ankle, he was speared to death.) The system isn't perfect, but when you ignore magic, mithril, and all other factors, it replicates things fairly well.
Kullak-Kobold Sorcerer 06-28-05, 08:50 PM	If you want proof take some chain mail put it over your hands then hit them with a hammer. The bones in your hands will be quite broken. This arguement is flawed bacause chainmail was not worn over hands for a reason. The bones are much smaller. Plated gauntlets or a basket hilt was used to protect your hands.
Kullak-Kobold Sorcerer 06-28-05, 08:53 PM	And historically, a dagger was almost USELESS against someone in full plate. Actually, there was a battle in which peasents attacked French Knights. The only Knight who died was pulled off his horse and stabbed with a dagger through the eye slit of his helment.
Centauri 06-28-05, 09:02 PM	D&D isnt a historical acurate portrayal of fighting in MANY other ways than this. You really cant try to make that connection for 1 part and ignore every other single glaring difference. The way fighting in this game works is for ease of use, not so much to be true to real life. You're absolutely right, but when it comes down to it that's not what these people are discussing. They're much more interested in how much damage a well-aimed post can do to a person's ego.
MasterRookie 06-29-05, 12:44 AM	I think we all guessed that about two posts in. The problem with that defense is You're the one that stuck your neck out! so I can't feel any sympathy for the fact that you lost your head in this argument. You decided to make a thread, proposing a rules change. You based on poorly backed up historical knowledge, couldn't back it up, didn't really understand the basic physics involved (a sword hitting with only a portion of its striking surface doesn't mean it only inflicts a portion of its kinetic force, it means it inflicts the full force over a smaller area, giving a much higher point of impact force), and actively lied to try and keep up the facade (you've seen a katana cut through a tree, right...). If you don't have the knowledge, try asking instead of asserting something that might not be right. That said, don't "just accepted whatever you say" either. A lot of people on these boards completely misrepresent their knowledge base (deliberately or not, every mid belt martial artist would like to think they are combat experts). Just because someone asserts something with conviction or declaring their expertise is not enough to defer to their knowledge. Make people back themselves up with credible references. Seen as in seen footage of it. I did not lie. If you belived I meant I'd actually scene demonstrations in person then you misunderstand. I was incorrect it was not a tree anyway, it looked like a tree, its actually some sort of pole made from baboo. My point was if he'd just said who he was then I would have listened. At any rate I was misslead by what should have been an equilly reliable source. Okay so don't assert why it doesn't sound logical but don't accept what people say. *Confused*.
MasterRookie 06-29-05, 12:48 AM	I'm a History and Science teacher with 11 years of training in weastern maritial arts. My wife is well trained in several Japanese arts and i have a dear friend who has trained in numerous eastern arts, for your part I will say that you are fairly articulate for 15, I wasn't trying to make you feel foolish or anything, just let you know what is really what. I hope you stay interested in swords and in D&D just don't exprect o much from the system, it is a good system ( I am still not sure If I like it more than 1st edition) it isn't as realistic in combat as say palladium, but it is quick has a certian elegance to it. D&D is supposed to be heroic fantasy not nitty gritty combat. If you want nitty gritty play rifts, its as gritty as it gets. Okay thats cool. Perhaps then you can tell me the point of a mace. If the weapon was inferior to the sword did it have any merit besides cost efectiveness. If that. The myth of the mace being superior against chainmail is really common. Is it simply that so many people assume it to be true based on what seems likely. Oh and my breaking question. Ever tried it or seen it tried.
MasterRookie 06-29-05, 12:54 AM	You're absolutely right, but when it comes down to it that's not what these people are discussing. They're much more interested in how much damage a well-aimed post can do to a person's ego. Ego. I don't have an ego. I'm a high school sophmore with low self esteme and mild depression.
MasterRookie 06-29-05, 01:19 AM	Start with these http://www.thearma.org/terms4.htm http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm http://www.thearma.org/essays/thrusting_vs_cutting.html Wow what a great site. This isn't actually what we were arguing about but its fun to read. Sounds like its all both ways. Both articals of eastern verses western say the same thing, its all about the combatant. Sort of like the old saying "there are many paths up the mountain but all can see the moon when they reach the top". One point to make in the Rapier vs Katana essay. If both combatants were complete and utter novices who's entire knowledge of sword combat consisted of watching tv the Katana would probably win since the person using the rapier would probably try to us it as a cutting sword. This is purely speculative but an amusing thought. Is there anything good here about a ninja vs Samurai or other oponents. I can't think of a european equivalent. I couldn't find an expert on Eastern Martial arts when looking through the panel of consultants. Do you know of other historical combat sites like this one. I gather fromt the fact that the Clements fellow you mentioned wrote one of the articals that your affiliated with this group. Its not very objective to only offer sources that your directly connected to. I think I'm sort of asking a lot of info at this point but since the web is such a difficult resource to use (If I did a google search about a mace verse's chainmail the only thing that would come up is this thread, if that), I'd really like to know of other websites like this one.
Rulebook 06-29-05, 01:50 AM	im not entierly versed in weapon vs armor studies, but I do know one thing. If i was a samurai type person, and a guy in full plate attacked me, i wouldnt fight him. oh, i'd be sure that my sword could cut into his armor, theres no doubt about that... i'd worry about his armor ruining my ungodly expensive sword as i cut him. and with maces... its plate you dont want to be in around those things. Rapiers wouldnt be all that effective against a guy in full plate. Well, unless you're just really good with a rapier, but then ANY weapon you're that good with would work equally well. Full plate leave too small of openings. against the more common forms of plate armor though, it'd prolly work well enough. of course, if we're getting into a discussion about the usefulness of middle ages armors, i'll have to go with the one weapon that equalized them all... artillery. cant beat guns baby!
spyderfreek 06-29-05, 01:51 AM	There was a simultaneous argument going on about swords involving rapiers and how they are not sharp. Were you using true rapiers or fencing rapiers? And is there truely a difference between the epee, the rapier and the foil? I ask because I was of the understanding that the epee and the foil were strictly thrusting weapons with squared blades that were extremely flexible. The rapier was a long thin blade that was sharp enough to cut, maybe not armor, but definately flesh or cloth. If I am mistaken then feel free to correct me, but I make this point because I also took fencing and was trained with a foil/epee and know from first hand that while it is a game, it is has a great deal of basis in the true art of fencing that was practiced during the dark/middle ages and is a martial art form. A quick footed fencer with a well forged rapier can be just as deadly as an armored knight with his longsword or mace. Calling fencing only a game is like saying that the UFC is just a sport and has no real basis in a street fight.
Watchman 06-29-05, 04:19 AM	I think the point in why a good dagger is actually semi-workable against full plate and a rapier pretty much isn't is the fact that daggers tend to be employed up close and personal at grappling ranges. A short, pointy weapon capable of punching through the mail the defense of armpits and suchlike was by necessity delegated to, getting through the visor, under the lowed edge of the helmet or whatever depending on the exact setup of the armour involved, makes for one nasty weapon in the hands of someone who knows how to do it. Knights dueling on foot in full plate would always have a dagger or two as backup weapons and for use if things got really up close and personal, for example. A rapier, being about a meter long, is obviously a fair bit less useful at nose-to-nose ranges. You'd generally have to get in a good thrust into the armpit or maybe the visor to get past the armour, and obviously enough Mr. Ironmongery also knows this and will take steps to make this as difficult as possible. And he can virtually ignore any attack you're not making at the few openings his harness has... When it comes down to it, rapiers were civilian dueling weapons for streetfighting and self-defense. They were made for virtually unarmoured people to kill other virtually unarmoured people in tavern brawls, street fights and the like. People carrying them would rarely indeed have been confronted with plate-wearing opponents, although mail of various qualities all the way up to the fairly rapier-resistant "fine-link" variety seems to have been fairly common among street fighters. On the battlefield contemporaries of the rapier carried rather heftier, often "hand and half" swords (usually favoring the thrust) and the real "armour-cracker" weapons tended to be polearms, maces, warhammers and estocs. Now as for the mace, it actually did have a tactical purpose in medieval combat - usually related to pulverizing shields that get in the way, breaking bones through most armour and cracking skull through most any helmets. All that momentum and leverage the things had quite simple made them rather difficult to stop with about anything, and when it comes down to it a broken arm is for most intents and purposes as good as an amputated one. Dark Ages and early Medieval combatants don't seem to have been overly particular to it, though. But then again all they had to deal with was mail, which although quite good overall can still be dealt with properly employed spears and sword and particularly axes and so on without resorting to more specialiced "nutcracker" weponry. The Middle Easterners, always avid employers of some more substantial types of armour such as lamellar and laminate, were always rather keener on that sort of weapons. Around 'Abbasid times the Arabs even had a curious weapon best described as a meter-long iron bar with a sword grip - very heavy, rather clumsy, quite expensive in the metal-poor Middle East (you could make about three swords out of the iron that went into one of these things), and duly restricted to warriors both wealthy and unusually strong, but by contemporary accounts prone to pulverizing just about anything that got in the way and apparently powerful enough to have on at least one occasion knocked the opponent's saddle, rider and all, right off the horse when a missed swing hit the saddle cantle instead. Although as usual the chroniclers are to be taken with some amount of salt. Once the Europeans also took to heavier armours in large scale they too started taking an increased interest in maces - to the degree where it was often a knight's primary weapon in a mounted melee against his peers once the lances were discarded. A well-made mace had enough power to deform the tempered steel plates and visors and could fairly easily cause serious concussions and other "blunt trauma" through greathelms too, nevermind the possibility of snapping the opponent's neck on a head hit even if his helmet held. Most maces incidentally had an assortement of knobs, spikes, flanges or similar protrusions. Aside for a certain degree of decoration, the main purpose of these was to focus the impact of the weapon to a smaller area.
jasper 06-29-05, 09:56 AM	But historically an abbat's mace would kill a chain mail protected person with a single blow. Its simply not effective enough to grant full ac against blugeoning damage. There should atleast be a penalty of two or three points of AC. historically no all members of religious orders use maces. Second if it was a wonder weapon dropping men in blow don't you thing Peter peasant, Melvin merchant, Kerry knight would notice and pick up one. They were not stupid their tech base was just not as advanced.
Drachasor 06-29-05, 10:44 AM	And historically, a dagger was almost USELESS against someone in full plate.Actually, there was a battle in which peasents attacked French Knights. The only Knight who died was pulled off his horse and stabbed with a dagger through the eye slit of his helment. That sounds "almost useless" to me, if that's how far they had to go to get an effective dagger attack (and they only got 1 guy). -Drachasor
TelinArtho 06-29-05, 11:18 AM	The original poster mentioned the Higgins Armory in Worcester, Massachusetts. Having been there a number of times, I can tell you that they try to present a lot of material in a very short period of time, and sometimes this information may seem to be misrepresented. MasterRookie - If the subjects of medieval weaponry and tactics truely interest you, I suggest you don't take D&D as the starting point for it. THere are plenty of accurate pieces of information out there, but very few game systems will take into account every possibility - mostly because it would be too unwieldy to really use. The armory has a number of great resources and is one of the best in the states that I have ever been to. At 15 - I think you still have plenty to learn - but the fact is you've got plenty of time. For anyone who has never been to the armory - I highly recommend it if you are ever in the area.
WhiteHarness 06-29-05, 12:16 PM	Lots of misinormation here... No, Mr. Rulebook, you could not be sure of your katana cutting through plate armour. How many times does it have to be said on this forum before it sinks into the heads of all the fanboys? Katana are notsuper weapons. They are steel just like any other sword. The Swordsmiths of the Rhineland were making pattern-welded blades in a similar fashion to the over-hyped Japanese katanakaji's methods hundreds of years before the katana was even invented. Soke Toshishiro Obata, who in 1994 set the world-record holding "kabutowari" cut. In this test, a master swordsman tries to put as long/deep a cut as he can in a helmet. http://www.shinkendo.com/kabuto.html That's right; this is the record-setting cut -- a measly 13 centimeters. All that BS about armour being completely cut in two by katana is hype perpetuated by moviemakers and an ignorant and credulous public. Katana could not cut through European plate armour. Period. As for what this kid learned at the Higgins: http://users.wpi.edu/~dev_alac/iqp/index.html My friend Bob is one of the lecturers at the Higgins. He runs the Company of the Wolfe Argent Living History group. http://www.wolfeargent.com/ It could very possibly have been Bob whose lecture you listened to, kid. Bob is a man with a vast amount of knowledge on European armour; he wouldn't say something stupid like "a mace would certainly kill a guy in mail armour with one blow". Why don't you read a book on the subject of armour before you go trying to sound like you know something about it, hmm?
Zennithology 06-29-05, 12:32 PM	Master Rookie- For being 15 you did very well arguing with the uncomprimizing halfwits that occupy these boards.Dont change your beliefs and become one of them because you were right to begin with... about most everything.
WhiteHarness 06-29-05, 12:42 PM	Alright Zenithology... Go ahead. Back up his claims. Especially the katana one. He was not right to begin with.....about anything. ...and neither are you. Are you serious when you state that you believe him, or do you just suffer from some sort of empathetic little-brother complex, and you hate to see us pick on him and decided to say you believe him (in spite of all the scholarly evidence to the contrary) just to make him feel better?
Bruunwald 06-29-05, 12:43 PM	There was a simultaneous argument going on about swords involving rapiers and how they are not sharp. Were you using true rapiers or fencing rapiers? And is there truely a difference between the epee, the rapier and the foil? I ask because I was of the understanding that the epee and the foil were strictly thrusting weapons with squared blades that were extremely flexible. The rapier was a long thin blade that was sharp enough to cut, maybe not armor, but definately flesh or cloth. If I am mistaken then feel free to correct me, but I make this point because I also took fencing and was trained with a foil/epee and know from first hand that while it is a game, it is has a great deal of basis in the true art of fencing that was practiced during the dark/middle ages and is a martial art form. A quick footed fencer with a well forged rapier can be just as deadly as an armored knight with his longsword or mace. Calling fencing only a game is like saying that the UFC is just a sport and has no real basis in a street fight. I'm with you. A true rapier is a long, double-edged weapon that can slash as well as thrust, but its main use is in the thrust. And despite what a certain poster loudly proclaimed earlier, fencing IS a fighting technique. Yes, it is also a sport (not a game), but it is also the term for learning the use of the rapier, dagger and saber in actual battle. And yes, indeed, you can be killed by a rapier, dagger or saber - many Frenchmen, Spaniards, Englishmen and Native American Indians could attest to that if they could get up out of their graves. An epee is primarily only a sport-fencing weapon. It has no edge, sort of a triangular blade, and a blunted end. It also has a bowl-shaped protective cup at the handle. Most true rapiers don't have that. The foil also has a circular guard, and also a blunted end and is generally intended for sport. It has a more flexible blade than the epee, which is sort of rigid. You could have a foil sharpened back in the day, but you still mainly slashed only with the tip. Having trained pretty extensively in the use of the katana, I can understand why certain posters might be boastful and prejudiced about eastern arts over western techniques. But I'll tell you what: I have a really nice rapier and I can't use it worth s**t. I might have more power with the katana, but a really well-trained fencer could put one right through my heart before my second swing. You should never underestimate someone else's abilities. As for arguments about armor and the game, I agree with another poster that it's silly to pursue them in a fantasy setting. Another example would be plate mail, which has been found to vibrate like a bell when struck with certain weapons, causing real-life internal damage to the wearer. This explains why so many medieval warriors dropped down dead hours after a battle where they seemed to have suffered no visible wounds. Their internal organs were damaged.
WhiteHarness 06-29-05, 12:54 PM	...plate mail, which has been found to vibrate like a bell when struck with certain weapons, causing real-life internal damage to the wearer. This explains why so many medieval warriors dropped down dead hours after a battle where they seemed to have suffered no visible wounds. Their internal organs were damaged. Yeah? Well, I'm glad you told me. Now I'll stop fighting in my "plate mail"(sic), since it's likely to kill me... :rolleyes: Seriously, have you ever worn a full harness of well-made, custom-fitted plate armour, Bruunwald? I do every week. Do you? If you don't, then like MasterRookie, you have no business shooting your mouth off about a subject on which you are entirely ignorant. "When thou knowest not wherof thou speakest, thy mouth is best employed in mastication". http://josh.mediumaevum.com/AA1.jpg http://josh.mediumaevum.com/KSU%20Demo%20031.jpg Can you offer me anything to back up your claim that plate armour "rings like a bell" which can kill you? Really. I want to see this piece of profound scholarship here. Produce it now. I can assure you that adequate padding muffles any ringing to sufficiently non-lethal levels. :rolleyes:
Surreal 06-29-05, 12:58 PM	If someone is swinging at me with a weapon, any armour is better than no armour. I'll take anything that can spread out the force of impact, or prevent the cut from going deeper. I'd much prefer a broken rib versus a punctured lung, uh, if I had no choice in the matter (first choice would be to run. Very quickly). About the link to those cutting videos... cutting bamboo mats is not the same as cutting trees, limbs, or through metal. Secondly, calling that sword in the videos a "katana" is a bit of a stretch from a traditional design standpoint. Thirdly, the man in the videos... well, he's not very highly spoken of in the general sword smithing community. But this isn't the place to go grumbling about such things. Lastly, a link for you: http://swordforum.com Primarily a big discussion board site with a few articles. Lots of information and good peole there. I used to be fairly active there a few years ago, but it's been a while since I've visited.
Lincoln 06-29-05, 01:03 PM	My only real experience wearing armor is from football. I do know that if hit from the side on the head with enough force (even with the proper neck braces) it would still "ring" pretty badly. Those football helmets are padded out the wazoo. And I have heard of people (no actual documentation on this)getting internal injuries from this, but never dying within hours of a football game. Also if you were that close to dying, it would be more gradual, and less dramatic than just dropping dead. (not a doctor, can be proven wrong about this, I don't think I am). Lincoln
Chaotic Nothing 06-29-05, 01:07 PM	Alright Zenithology... Go ahead. Back up his claims. Especially the katana one. He was not right to begin with.....about anything. ...and neither are you. Are you serious when you state that you believe him, or do you just suffer from some sort of empathetic little-brother complex, and you hate to see us pick on him and decided to say you believe him (in spite of all the scholarly evidence to the contrary) just to make him feel better? So, first of all, you are admitting you ARE picking on this kid, and gaining more and more confiidence every time some dumbass joins your side with some longwinded historian drivel to back him up? For shame. I agree with him on most counts, and just because you have "links" so we can see what some fat untrained english guy with a beard says about combat, it doesnt make you right. And one more thing, White Harness... A measly thirteen centimeters? Thats you dead, my friend. You wanna die?
MasterRookie 06-29-05, 01:11 PM	There was a simultaneous argument going on about swords involving rapiers and how they are not sharp. Were you using true rapiers or fencing rapiers? And is there truely a difference between the epee, the rapier and the foil? I ask because I was of the understanding that the epee and the foil were strictly thrusting weapons with squared blades that were extremely flexible. The rapier was a long thin blade that was sharp enough to cut, maybe not armor, but definately flesh or cloth. If I am mistaken then feel free to correct me, but I make this point because I also took fencing and was trained with a foil/epee and know from first hand that while it is a game, it is has a great deal of basis in the true art of fencing that was practiced during the dark/middle ages and is a martial art form. A quick footed fencer with a well forged rapier can be just as deadly as an armored knight with his longsword or mace. Calling fencing only a game is like saying that the UFC is just a sport and has no real basis in a street fight. Well the epe has a heavier blade and a flatter point. The main difference is the epe actually reprisents a real weapon while the foil is and always has been a training tool.
WVDMC 06-29-05, 01:15 PM	Okay, so you gave us a bunch of proof that we're wrong. So what? That doesn't mean anything! I'm a teenager, *****, I know everything there is to know! My grossly misinformed speculations beat your well researched longwinded hostorian drivel any day! So Chatotic *******, have any proof or citations for your claim? I guess maybe you don't understand, but they really DID fight with swords in the middle ages. You know, 'history'? They know much better than us, so "longwinded historian drivel" holds more water than "know-it-all teenager with pent up sexual frustration". You know, people today actually use REAL SWORDS, not the stainless steel BudK crap you guys probably buy and put up on your walls, and their word means a lot more than some kid on an internet forum with no real experience or proof. Doug
Elthbert 06-29-05, 01:16 PM	There was a simultaneous argument going on about swords involving rapiers and how they are not sharp. Were you using true rapiers or fencing rapiers? And is there truely a difference between the epee, the rapier and the foil? Yes I am talking about true Rapiers there is certianly a differance between the three but none of them are capable of Cutting, Rapiers are very rigid things, a stop thrust with a rapier is likely to deliver a fatal wound even with a safty tip a rapier is not safe, a good thrust can cause a serious injury even if the Rapier doesn't go in because of the saftey tip the force will it will not bend like an apee or a foil, you have to remember the evolution of these weapons, the Rapier bore the small sword, the small sword bore the eppe( origionally to practice with for the small sword) and the epee bore the foil ( for the same reason) each step is a further step from the martial weapons of the past. They became more flexable, less massive and starting with a few late rapiers ( but not early ones) have no decernable edge. I ask because I was of the understanding that the epee and the foil were strictly thrusting weapons with squared blades that were extremely flexible. The rapier was a long thin blade that was sharp enough to cut, maybe not armor, but definately flesh or cloth. If you hit hard enough or make a perfect draw cut a early rapier might cut flesh it will certianly not make a dibilitating wound, the last time I checked the theory of Rapiers name origion was that it derived from the Spanish word rascar -- meaning to scratch, it was used as an insult by spanish swordsmen who believed it to be an inferior weapon precisely because it would only scratch an opponant not cut him, it certianly is not capable of causing any serious injury on a cut.( I think this is particularly ironic since it was the Spanish who became so infatuated with it) If I am mistaken then feel free to correct me, but I make this point because I also took fencing and was trained with a foil/epee and know from first hand that while it is a game, it is has a great deal of basis in the true art of fencing that was practiced during the dark/middle ages and is a martial art form. A quick footed fencer with a well forged rapier can be just as deadly as an armored knight with his longsword or mace. Sport fencing has almost no basis in the "true art of fencing as practiced in the middle ages", it derives from a new system which came about in the 16th century and was developed for the Rapier, and it has deveated so far from that as to be virtually unrecognizable. Agian it is a game like baseball it requires skill and athletic talent, but it is not Martial. As for a fencer with a Rapier being as deadly as an amoured knight with a longsword and mace, well that depends what you mean by just as deadly, if a Rapeir kills me I am just as dead yes, but is the Rapier man just as likly to kill me No way in the 9 Hells. That is why armies where mad up of men in armour swinging longswords and maces not unarmoured fencers dancing around with rapiers. During the Crusades 300 armoured knights Charges 20,000 Saracens and routed them killing thousands( this is reported by the Arabs not the Crusaders) The Same king did it the next year with 100 knights and 30,000 Saracens, he didn't win that time but they did inflict serious casualties and the noble in charge ( I don't remember who it was off hand) was able to cut his way out with about 20 of his men. THe Armoured knight was juggernaught of death and destruction a man with a rapier just isn't. Calling fencing only a game is like saying that the UFC is just a sport and has no real basis in a street fight. Comparing Fencing to UFC is absurd, sport fencing is no where near as martial as greco/roman wrestling, it shouldn't be in the same paragraph with UFC. Sport fencing is so over ritualized that it bears little resemblence to actual sword to sword combat. I compared it to baseball for a reason, I wouldn't want a good hitter to hit me with a bat he knows how to swing a bat and probably will hit very hard, but if I am armed all that practic in a batters box won't do him much good agianst a moving opponant, sport fencing is linier, you can't even properly pass in it. It is simply not martial.
WhiteHarness 06-29-05, 01:16 PM	"Fat English Guy"? Where? How is Toshishiro Obata a fat English guy? The dude runs Shinkendo, an organization that is well thought of in EMA circles. That little 13 centimeter cut would not have resulted in the death of the wearer. For now I'll leave unaddressed the fact that he wouldn't even have the opportunity to deliver a full-on blow like that if that helmet were on the head of a man trying to kill him. How much experience do you have with armour? Yes, I posted some links. Links to actual research in the subject of this discussion. Tell me, why do you believe what he originally said? What you mistakenly perceive as "longwinded historical drivel" is what is accepted by genuine scholars in the real world as supporting evidence for one's side in a debate, my friend. Can you produce any evidence to support your side? Show me a video of a katana cutting through metal. Show me why a padded coat under mail will not protect you from a mace. Don't just sit there and say "I agree with him"; that doesn't support your conclusion at all. Offer evidence beyond yet another nameless fanboy's anime-inspired opinion...
MasterRookie 06-29-05, 01:17 PM	The original poster mentioned the Higgins Armory in Worcester, Massachusetts. Having been there a number of times, I can tell you that they try to present a lot of material in a very short period of time, and sometimes this information may seem to be misrepresented. MasterRookie - If the subjects of medieval weaponry and tactics truely interest you, I suggest you don't take D&D as the starting point for it. THere are plenty of accurate pieces of information out there, but very few game systems will take into account every possibility - mostly because it would be too unwieldy to really use. The armory has a number of great resources and is one of the best in the states that I have ever been to. At 15 - I think you still have plenty to learn - but the fact is you've got plenty of time. For anyone who has never been to the armory - I highly recommend it if you are ever in the area. Best one in the states. Its the only weapons and armor exclusive museum in the western hemisphere.
MasterRookie 06-29-05, 01:20 PM	post deleted
MasterRookie 06-29-05, 01:20 PM	Lots of misinormation here... No, Mr. Rulebook, you could not be sure of your katana cutting through plate armour. How many times does it have to be said on this forum before it sinks into the heads of all the fanboys? Katana are notsuper weapons. They are steel just like any other sword. The Swordsmiths of the Rhineland were making pattern-welded blades in a similar fashion to the over-hyped Japanese katanakaji's methods hundreds of years before the katana was even invented. Soke Toshishiro Obata, who in 1994 set the world-record holding "kabutowari" cut. In this test, a master swordsman tries to put as long/deep a cut as he can in a helmet. http://www.shinkendo.com/kabuto.html That's right; this is the record-setting cut -- a measly 13 centimeters. All that BS about armour being completely cut in two by katana is hype perpetuated by moviemakers and an ignorant and credulous public. Katana could not cut through European plate armour. Period. As for what this kid learned at the Higgins: http://users.wpi.edu/~dev_alac/iqp/index.html My friend Bob is one of the lecturers at the Higgins. He runs the Company of the Wolfe Argent Living History group. http://www.wolfeargent.com/ It could very possibly have been Bob whose lecture you listened to, kid. Bob is a man with a vast amount of knowledge on European armour; he wouldn't say something stupid like "a mace would certainly kill a guy in mail armour with one blow". Why don't you read a book on the subject of armour before you go trying to sound like you know something about it, hmm? It wasn't Bob. It was some woman. And FYI I was exhagerating. If you know Bob you probably know the person who gave the tour I was on and you can tell her that her lecture gives and inflated impression of the maces smashing power.
MasterRookie 06-29-05, 01:22 PM	Alright Zenithology... Go ahead. Back up his claims. Especially the katana one. He was not right to begin with.....about anything. ...and neither are you. Are you serious when you state that you believe him, or do you just suffer from some sort of empathetic little-brother complex, and you hate to see us pick on him and decided to say you believe him (in spite of all the scholarly evidence to the contrary) just to make him feel better? Dude I didn't make a katana claim. I said it could cut metal. It can. An expert on the web site posted said that it could cut a rapier but it is unlikely it would ever have a chance to in a duel since ther rapier would never be held at a proper angle.
Chaotic Nothing 06-29-05, 01:23 PM	"If I am mistaken then feel free to correct me, but I make this point because I also took fencing and was trained with a foil/epee and know from first hand that while it is a game, it is has a great deal of basis in the true art of fencing that was practiced during the dark/middle ages and is a martial art form. A quick footed fencer with a well forged rapier can be just as deadly as an armored knight with his longsword or mace." No, he can't, you're a ****ing dumbass. Look at the various period fighting manuals. One, there are no techniques anything like you see in modern sport fencing, and two, rapier fighting is much more of a renaissance thing, NOT the dark ages or late middle ages. And it's STILL nothing like modern sport fencing! PICK UP A BOOK YOU DUMB ****! Having "that time of the month"? You just viciously flamed several people for no reason. You make no point at all at the cost of your own dignity. I dont much care for noisy, stupid folk.
Elthbert 06-29-05, 01:23 PM	Wow what a great site. This isn't actually what we were arguing about but its fun to read. Sounds like its all both ways. Both articals of eastern verses western say the same thing, its all about the combatant. Sort of like the old saying "there are many paths up the mountain but all can see the moon when they reach the top". One point to make in the Rapier vs Katana essay. If both combatants were complete and utter novices who's entire knowledge of sword combat consisted of watching tv the Katana would probably win since the person using the rapier would probably try to us it as a cutting sword. This is purely speculative but an amusing thought. Is there anything good here about a ninja vs Samurai or other oponents. I can't think of a european equivalent. I couldn't find an expert on Eastern Martial arts when looking through the panel of consultants. Do you know of other historical combat sites like this one. I gather fromt the fact that the Clements fellow you mentioned wrote one of the articals that your affiliated with this group. Its not very objective to only offer sources that your directly connected to. I think I'm sort of asking a lot of info at this point but since the web is such a difficult resource to use (If I did a google search about a mace verse's chainmail the only thing that would come up is this thread, if that), I'd really like to know of other websites like this one. No I am not a member of ARMA I trained with John in years gone by back in the Days of HACA but I am not a Member of ARMA, John Clements is a good teacher and a Fantastic swordsman but he is a jerk. I Directed you to the Knight vs. Samuri Thread specifically because of the katana cutting through plate armour issue. The Friend on mine who is an expert on eastern arts is no longer affiliated with ARMA either. Still the Fact that I have issue with some members of ARMA on a personal level doesn't mean that there info is bad or thatthier documents shouldn't be used. I particularly recomend the manuel by Goerge Silver that I posted.
MasterRookie 06-29-05, 01:28 PM	Yeah? Well, I'm glad you told me. Now I'll stop fighting in my "plate mail"(sic), since it's likely to kill me... :rolleyes: Seriously, have you ever worn a full harness of well-made, custom-fitted plate armour, Bruunwald? I do every week. Do you? If you don't, then like MasterRookie, you have no business shooting your mouth off about a subject on which you are entirely ignorant. "When thou knowest not wherof thou speakest, thy mouth is best employed in mastication". http://josh.mediumaevum.com/AA1.jpg http://josh.mediumaevum.com/KSU%20Demo%20031.jpg Can you offer me anything to back up your claim that plate armour "rings like a bell" which can kill you? Really. I want to see this piece of profound scholarship here. Produce it now. I can assure you that adequate padding muffles any ringing to sufficiently non-lethal levels. :rolleyes: Even though your scorning at me for no reason. I must agree. A bucket helmet's ringing could certainly hurt your ears but not kill you. I think the reason so many knights "Dropped dead," as he stated is because of heat stroke a very real danger on the battle feild.
MasterRookie 06-29-05, 01:29 PM	If someone is swinging at me with a weapon, any armour is better than no armour. I'll take anything that can spread out the force of impact, or prevent the cut from going deeper. I'd much prefer a broken rib versus a punctured lung, uh, if I had no choice in the matter (first choice would be to run. Very quickly). About the link to those cutting videos... cutting bamboo mats is not the same as cutting trees, limbs, or through metal. Secondly, calling that sword in the videos a "katana" is a bit of a stretch from a traditional design standpoint. Thirdly, the man in the videos... well, he's not very highly spoken of in the general sword smithing community. But this isn't the place to go grumbling about such things. Lastly, a link for you: http://swordforum.com Primarily a big discussion board site with a few articles. Lots of information and good peole there. I used to be fairly active there a few years ago, but it's been a while since I've visited. I belive I read that the bamboo mats have the same resistance as a human femur. Or perhaps it was a lower leg bone. At any rate a Katana can sever limbs.
Elthbert 06-29-05, 01:39 PM	I belive I read that the bamboo mats have the same resistance as a human femur. Or perhaps it was a lower leg bone. At any rate a Katana can sever limbs. Certianly it can, as can a long sword or Arming Sword, or Axe or halberd, or Falchion, or numerious other weapons, that means it is metal with an edge and forged well enough not to break when it hits bone, and of course is swung hard enough to do the job, but it doesn't make it capable of cutting through metal.
MasterRookie 06-29-05, 01:40 PM	Sport fencing has almost no basis in the "true art of fencing as practiced in the middle ages", it derives from a new system which came about in the 16th century and was developed for the Rapier, and it has deveated so far from that as to be virtually unrecognizable. Agian it is a game like baseball it requires skill and athletic talent, but it is not Martial. I belive during the 16th century they still used sword combat on the battle feild. Not often since fire arms mostly replaced the sword but cavalry and comanders still caried them for when things got up close. So it has some basis in real combat At any rate I think if you found yourself in a duel you'd much rather be a champion fencer then a world series winner. I'm sure a skilled fencer could addapt his technique to be deadly in a pinch. Against a common renassaince opponent who acording to your sources would not have much experiance a well trained sport fencer would probably have a decent chance of winning.
Elthbert 06-29-05, 01:40 PM	Yeah? Well, I'm glad you told me. Now I'll stop fighting in my "plate mail"(sic), since it's likely to kill me... :rolleyes: Seriously, have you ever worn a full harness of well-made, custom-fitted plate armour, Bruunwald? I do every week. Do you? If you don't, then like MasterRookie, you have no business shooting your mouth off about a subject on which you are entirely ignorant. "When thou knowest not wherof thou speakest, thy mouth is best employed in mastication". http://josh.mediumaevum.com/AA1.jpg http://josh.mediumaevum.com/KSU%20Demo%20031.jpg Can you offer me anything to back up your claim that plate armour "rings like a bell" which can kill you? Really. I want to see this piece of profound scholarship here. Produce it now. I can assure you that adequate padding muffles any ringing to sufficiently non-lethal levels. :rolleyes: White harness where did you get your Plate made?
MasterRookie 06-29-05, 01:43 PM	No I am not a member of ARMA I trained with John in years gone by back in the Days of HACA but I am not a Member of ARMA, John Clements is a good teacher and a Fantastic swordsman but he is a jerk. I Directed you to the Knight vs. Samuri Thread specifically because of the katana cutting through plate armour issue. The Friend on mine who is an expert on eastern arts is no longer affiliated with ARMA either. Still the Fact that I have issue with some members of ARMA on a personal level doesn't mean that there info is bad or thatthier documents shouldn't be used. I particularly recomend the manuel by Goerge Silver that I posted. Oh I didn't mean to sound that way. I'm wondering if you know of other such groups that I could get some information from.
MasterRookie 06-29-05, 01:44 PM	Certianly it can, as can a long sword or Arming Sword, or Axe or halberd, or Falchion, or numerious other weapons, that means it is metal with an edge and forged well enough not to break when it hits bone, and of course is swung hard enough to do the job, but it doesn't make it capable of cutting through metal. Actually your sources said it could cut metal. Not much metal. It also said the katana was the sharpest. That doesn't mean that I think its the mythical weapon of anime legend, but its a good sword.
sfubear 06-29-05, 01:46 PM	Yes I've been taking fencing for over a year. Unarmored hand, is that a joke? Your hand would get sliced rapiers are sharp. Thats why the Epe has a shape edges on the tip so you can't grap it. At any rate the bastard sword weilding full armrored man "walks" up to a fencer. The fencer dodges to the right in a circle as the enemy makes his perdictable attack and stabs the knight under the arm from the side. Your chances aren't much worse with a rapier then with a dagger. I fenced for four years, and taught for two, I know a lot about sword play and the difference a Ľ of a second can make and the difference an inch can make, but there is just too much ground to cover for rules that would cover things like that, they do an ok job at it anyways, the rapier was made to slide and fit into the small gaps in armor, the reason armor came in disfavor in the renaissance (because a well trained man with a rapier with no armor would almost always win against a heavily armored slow moving knight) but to give you a hint at the they increased the threat range on the rapier. It is about mechanics and the time it takes to battle as is, if every time you fight you get bogged down in a hour long fight or more, people will avoid fighting more often and therefore would lose a lot of the flavor and action that makes fighting a fun part of D&D. It is about time, if this weapon and this armor don’t mix well but the armor is great against this weapon and you have four guys on each side with different weapons and different armors, you slow down the game so much it no longer remains fun. I had a DM that insisted on doing things like that, this weapon against this armor, blah, blah, blah…the problem was that I have training with about four different sword (foil or epee, saber, kendo the training weapon for the katana, and sword and dagger [My couch did historical fencing style and competitive style]) and can’t see a single way to incorporate all of this in to a fast running game that is at the same time accurate. Most people tend to think that a sword is a sword and that if you swing it or thrust it, then it doesn’t matter what kind of sword it is, sorry but it doesn’t work that way. Even then certain fighting styles don’t match up with others very well, people trained with a certain weapon may have a tactical advantage over another. And in real life size isn’t always better, a small fast weapon although more fragile then a big sword is exactly that, a fast weapon. Two people could fight and never touch blades hard enough to break the small blade and yet the guy with the smaller blade could easily control and win the fight, or it could go the other way…the point is real life doesn’t always work in a game, which is way it is a game, they do the best they can and try to keep it going at a good pace, that the best they can do.
Elthbert 06-29-05, 01:46 PM	I belive during the 16th century they still used sword combat on the battle feild. Not often since fire arms mostly replaced the sword but cavalry and comanders still caried them for when things got up close. So it has some basis in real combat At any rate I think if you found yourself in a duel you'd much rather be a champion fencer then a world series winner. I'm sure a skilled fencer could addapt his technique to be deadly in a pinch. Against a common renassaince opponent who acording to your sources would not have much experiance a well trained sport fencer would probably have a decent chance of winning. Well swords where regularly used on the battlefield by infintry well into the 1600's and far later in ship to ship actions, of course cavalry was still useing swords into the 1800's ( actually there where some still equiped with swords in WWI but I don't think they ever got to charge) but they where not useing Rapiers, they where using cutting swords. Using a Rapier on a battlefield got you killed. Agian I recomend reading the work By George Silver that I linked to earlier in this thread, the man was alive at the time and wrote about it this every issue. in a duel, if I had a small sword yeah I'd rather be a world champion fencer on the battlefield I'd rather be a world series winner. ( or more analgus, the home run record holder)
MasterRookie 06-29-05, 01:51 PM	Master Rookie- For being 15 you did very well arguing with the uncomprimizing halfwits that occupy these boards.Dont change your beliefs and become one of them because you were right to begin with... about most everything. I don't think the 11 year martial combat student/history teacher is a half wit. I'm not fully convinced of everything he's said but I feel the need to test things for myself.
Elthbert 06-29-05, 01:52 PM	Actually your sources said it could cut metal. Not much metal. It also said the katana was the sharpest. That doesn't mean that I think its the mythical weapon of anime legend, but its a good sword. Your right that was poor wording on my part, i should have said cut through Plate.
Elthbert 06-29-05, 01:55 PM	Oh I didn't mean to sound that way. I'm wondering if you know of other such groups that I could get some information from. \ There is a group in chicago, I just can't remember there name right now, I'll try to remember. But most larger groups I don't think much of, they are not serious about martial training, there is the occasional small group here and there that it worth training with but they ussually don't have much info out and about. Where do you live, I'll try and see If I can hook you up with a group in your area.
MasterRookie 06-29-05, 01:56 PM	Lots of misinormation here... No, Mr. Rulebook, you could not be sure of your katana cutting through plate armour. How many times does it have to be said on this forum before it sinks into the heads of all the fanboys? Katana are notsuper weapons. They are steel just like any other sword. The Swordsmiths of the Rhineland were making pattern-welded blades in a similar fashion to the over-hyped Japanese katanakaji's methods hundreds of years before the katana was even invented. Soke Toshishiro Obata, who in 1994 set the world-record holding "kabutowari" cut. In this test, a master swordsman tries to put as long/deep a cut as he can in a helmet. http://www.shinkendo.com/kabuto.html That's right; this is the record-setting cut -- a measly 13 centimeters. All that BS about armour being completely cut in two by katana is hype perpetuated by moviemakers and an ignorant and credulous public. Katana could not cut through European plate armour. Period. As for what this kid learned at the Higgins: http://users.wpi.edu/~dev_alac/iqp/index.html My friend Bob is one of the lecturers at the Higgins. He runs the Company of the Wolfe Argent Living History group. http://www.wolfeargent.com/ It could very possibly have been Bob whose lecture you listened to, kid. Bob is a man with a vast amount of knowledge on European armour; he wouldn't say something stupid like "a mace would certainly kill a guy in mail armour with one blow". Why don't you read a book on the subject of armour before you go trying to sound like you know something about it, hmm? Depending on the type of helmet a 13 cm cut can be quite deadly. Now this is an unlikely occurance, but the katana has other merits. Its a very well rounded weapon, good for infantry and cavalry and extremely sharp. It has its flaws but all weapons do.
MasterRookie 06-29-05, 01:57 PM	Your right that was poor wording on my part, i should have said cut through Plate. yeah that makes sense. What about chain? I imagin it could break the links with somewhat greater ease.
Elthbert 06-29-05, 01:59 PM	yeah that makes sense. What about chain? I imagin it could break the links with somewhat greater ease. on a good cut, sure it could, it might damage the edge a bit, particularly double chain but it could do it, still I'd rather face one in chain than in leather or in nothing.
WhiteHarness 06-29-05, 02:00 PM	Hey sfubear... If rapiers were, as you claim, made to slide between the gaps in armour, why did nobody carry a rapier on the battlefield? The rapier was a civilian weapon (the name comes from the Spanish "espada de ropera"...a costume sword); it was not a weapon of war. During the 16th century, while dandies carried their rapiers on Europe's streets, armoured men carried backswords, pallasches, and other, broader-bladed swords into combat. Armour alone didn't drive the evolution of the sword. Remember, even during the heyday of plate armour, no more than 5% or so of any given army would be protected by a full suit of it. Studying collegiate or olympic fencing will not give you much insight into real fencing. In the first place, the modern sport is too linear compared to the renaissance art. Go play with some SCA fencers for a while and see if you learn something. Have you ever even read a book on the subject of fencing that's older than the crap put out by Edgerton Castle or Richard Burton? Rapiers are not an anti-armour weapon. I totally reject the notion that a man with a rapier would certainly defeat a man in plate. Sfubear, have you ever worn a suit of plate, custom-fitted to your own body? I do quite often, and therefore feel like I'm qualified to make statements about its performance. Unless you own such an armour yourself, you are not. Master Rookie, It's nice to see that you are learning. I apologize for "scorning" you. You seem salvageable... ;) Elthbert, Patrick Thaden of Denton, Texas made most of my harness. www.thadenarmory.com
MasterRookie 06-29-05, 02:01 PM	"If I am mistaken then feel free to correct me, but I make this point because I also took fencing and was trained with a foil/epee and know from first hand that while it is a game, it is has a great deal of basis in the true art of fencing that was practiced during the dark/middle ages and is a martial art form. A quick footed fencer with a well forged rapier can be just as deadly as an armored knight with his longsword or mace." No, he can't, you're a ****ing dumbass. Look at the various period fighting manuals. One, there are no techniques anything like you see in modern sport fencing, and two, rapier fighting is much more of a renaissance thing, NOT the dark ages or late middle ages. And it's STILL nothing like modern sport fencing! PICK UP A BOOK YOU DUMB ****! I do belive durring the early days of fire arms infantrymen carried rapiers. Huge ones that looked like arming swords but rapiers none the less. This isn't exactly middle ages but certainly a period of swords and armor. There's no need to get angry.
MasterRookie 06-29-05, 02:04 PM	Master Rookie, It's nice to see that you are learning. I apologize for "scorning" you. You seem salvageable... ;) Yeah thanks. I think a person who isn't an expert in arms and combat at age 15 isn't exactly a shipreck, but its good to see some civility on this forum.
Elthbert 06-29-05, 02:09 PM	I do belive durring the early days of fire arms infantrymen carried rapiers. Huge ones that looked like arming swords but rapiers none the less. This isn't exactly middle ages but certainly a period of swords and armor. There's no need to get angry. No they carried cut and thrust swords or backswords of various other cutting swords but infintry never where equiped with rapiers in any numbers, officers often carried one and when they got into close combat they often died.
MasterRookie 06-29-05, 02:10 PM	Hey sfubear... If rapiers were, as you claim, made to slide between the gaps in armour, why did nobody carry a rapier on the battlefield? The rapier was a civilian weapon (the name comes from the Spanish "espada de ropera"...a costume sword); it was not a weapon of war. During the 16th century, while dandies carried their rapiers on Europe's streets, armoured men carried backswords, pallasches, and other, broader-bladed swords into combat. Armour alone didn't drive the evolution of the sword. Remember, even during the heyday of plate armour, no more than 5% or so of any given army would be protected by a full suit of it. . I belive he was thinking of banding armor worn in the final days of sword and armor combat. The gun being the primary weapon of the time, the rapier was a secondary armement. However slipping between gaps in armor seems useless against banding armor since the arm pits, crotch and eye's are vunerable.
MasterRookie 06-29-05, 02:11 PM	No they carried cut and thrust swords or backswords of various other cutting swords but infintry never where equiped with rapiers in any numbers, officers often carried one and when they got into close combat they often died. Higgins's fault again. They said the swords the banded armor display's had were rapiers.
Elthbert 06-29-05, 02:11 PM	Patrick Thaden of Denton, Texas made most of my harness. www.thadenarmory.com thank you I'll look into him, denton is drivable, not a fun drive but drivable.
Elthbert 06-29-05, 02:20 PM	Nice stuff there, how does your plate hold up? what kind of punishment does it take regularly?
sfubear 06-29-05, 02:28 PM	Hey sfubear... If rapiers were, as you claim, made to slide between the gaps in armour, why did nobody carry a rapier on the battlefield? The rapier was a civilian weapon (the name comes from the Spanish "espada de ropera"...a costume sword); it was not a weapon of war. During the 16th century, while dandies carried their rapiers on Europe's streets, armoured men carried backswords, pallasches, and other, broader-bladed swords into combat. Armour alone didn't drive the evolution of the sword. Remember, even during the heyday of plate armour, no more than 5% or so of any given army would be protected by a full suit of it. Studying collegiate or olympic fencing will not give you much insight into real fencing. In the first place, the modern sport is too linear compared to the renaissance art. Go play with some SCA fencers for a while and see if you learn something. Have you ever even read a book on the subject of fencing that's older than the crap put out by Edgerton Castle or Richard Burton? Rapiers are not an anti-armour weapon. I totally reject the notion that a man with a rapier would certainly defeat a man in plate. Sfubear, have you ever worn a suit of plate, custom-fitted to your own body? I do quite often, and therefore feel like I'm qualified to make statements about its performance. Unless you own such an armour yourself, you are not. Master Rookie, It's nice to see that you are learning. I apologize for "scorning" you. You seem salvageable... ;) Elthbert, Patrick Thaden of Denton, Texas made most of my harness. www.thadenarmory.com I wasn't saying he always would, guns and improved bows had a lot to do with the down fall of armor has well, In my war class at school, we learned that a longbow could easily go through plate, plus on top of that I did more then just Olympic style fencing did you read my whole post or did you just read some of it and assume you knew everything about armor because you have worn a suit of it once, Have I worn armor yes, I worn chain and a breastplate in a reenactment of historic combat, sorry though I forgot that because you have worn a suit of armor once that that would make you and expert, sorry you never fought in it and had an experience of the amount of energy it takes to fight in one and how fast you get tired in one. Maybe I forgot to say that I have fought all out with kendo sticks or sabers or anything else I ever did all out no rules, a lot of time, because yes you are correct fencing is very linier, but using everything you got isn’t…. I’m tired of people that have read a book and say that they know everything, or have tried something once and assumed that they must be experts on the subject because of it…. if you would have continued to read my post you would have seen that the point of it was to point out that in combat there are tons of things that can happen and that WotC ore doing the best they can and trying to incorporate all of this in to a battle system not only would require a mass amount of research or combat and armor and weaponry but would be hard pressed to fit into a combat system that was fast and accurate. But thanks for your comment you tool, go wear a suit of armor and read a book or something, or better yet get some of the real experience or the closest thing there in that you can and then come back and give me something that can stand against my argument you tool
WhiteHarness 06-29-05, 02:28 PM	I play both SCA once a week, and participate in a Living History group, which uses blunted steel weapons. The breastplate and helmet are 14ga steel with reinforcing pieces, the couters and poleyns are 16ga, and the rest is 18ga. These thicknesses approximate the thickness of a harness of this type from the period in question. The whole suit, inclusive of arming doublet and the mail bits that protect my armpits and groin, etc., weighs 65 pounds, which is on the heavy end of what an average suit like this might have weighed. It holds up just fine to the punishment it has to take. Obviously, I have to ound out a dent now and then, but if one wants to own a nice, historically accurate set of plate, one has to be prepared to do a bit mof maintenance. Patrick Thaden made the cuirass, the helmet, the cuffs on the gauntlets, the greaves, and did some work on certain other pieces. Scott Martin of Arizona made the knees and elbows, and I did the rest (rerebraces, vambraces, gauntlets apart from cuffs, much of the upper legharness, pauldrons and reinforces) myself. I'm not such a bad armourer, and I've made plenty of other pieces not pictured here, too, but I'm nowhere near the artist that Patrick is!
Elthbert 06-29-05, 02:28 PM	Higgins's fault again. They said the swords the banded armor display's had were rapiers. Well there where thrusting swords made to counter plate armour, things like the estoc, but they arn't like rapiers, more like a longsword with no edge and an extraridged blade.
WhiteHarness 06-29-05, 02:38 PM	you knew everything about armor because you have worn a suit of it once Once? See my above post, kid. I wear my custom-made suit of full plate ever week. I doubt the armour you wore was made specifically for you, much less made to exacting museum-quality standards. Note also that I make armour, and I think that lends authority to my statements about it, too. ...and don't get me started about longbows going through plate. Do you know why there are no more great English Longbow victories after Agincourt in 1415? That's right. Knights started wearing more plate. 1415 is just barely out of the "Transitional" period in armour evolution. During the Wars of the Roses, when both sides would be composed primarily of longbowmen, the only records of Lords or Knights dying from arrow wounds occur when they raise their visors to breathe or drink. Moreover, read an account of the battle of Flodden in 1513, wherein the Scots fielded a good-sized army of plate-armoured men. The Enlgish chronicler notes that "our arrows could make no impression on the Scots, so well-harnessed were they" or something to that effect. The longbow hype is almost as bas a the katana hype. It was intelligent use of the longbow, and the local terrain, that gave the English those victories, not anything intrinsic to the weapon itself. For every victory that less educated people credit to the longbow, I can find a battle in which they got torn up by heavy cavalry because of stupidity on the part of their commanders(Patay, 1429, anyone?). There are no "ethnic badass" weapons. Oh, and sfubear? Please learn to use punctuation if you want us to read your entire posts.
Elthbert 06-29-05, 02:39 PM	I wasn't saying he always would, guns and improved bows had a lot to do with the down fall of armor has well, In my war class at school, we learned that a longbow could easily go through plate, plus on top of that I did more then just Olympic style fencing did you read my whole post or did you just read some of it and assume you knew everything about armor because you have worn a suit of it once, Have I worn armor yes, I worn chain and a breastplate in a reenactment of historic combat, sorry though I forgot that because you have worn a suit of armor once that that would make you and expert, sorry you never fought in it and had an experience of the amount of energy it takes to fight in one and how fast you get tired in one. Maybe I forgot to say that I have fought all out with kendo sticks or sabers or anything else I ever did all out no rules, a lot of time, because yes you are correct fencing is very linier, but using everything you got isn’t…. I’m tired of people that have read a book and say that they know everything, or have tried something once and assumed that they must be experts on the subject because of it…. if you would have continued to read my post you would have seen that the point of it was to point out that in combat there are tons of things that can happen and that WotC ore doing the best they can and trying to incorporate all of this in to a battle system not only would require a mass amount of research or combat and armor and weaponry but would be hard pressed to fit into a combat system that was fast and accurate. But thanks for your comment you tool, go wear a suit of armor and read a book or something, or better yet get some of the real experience or the closest thing there in that you can and then come back and give me something that can stand against my argument you tool Well I have done a lot of serious training, and I have done some serious fighting as well, ( although alas I wasn't armoured at the time). The Long Bow did not end heavy Armour by the end of the 15th century the armourer had largly beaten the Long Bow, and was still ahead of the gun, armour was routinely made to be "bulletproof" ( we actually get the word from then) and this was "proven" by shooting the armour with a bullet at close range. the dent was left there to show that the suit was infact "roof agianst Bullets" It wasn't until the mid 17th century that heavy armour was no longer useful. I was never critizing D&D combat system, niether was white harness, we where both commenting that it did a good job at what it was for heroic Fantasy.
sfubear 06-29-05, 02:44 PM	:cool:
Elthbert 06-29-05, 02:51 PM	All I'm saying is that for the original argument of the thread is that the roles can't do everything and have every situation that would take place in real life and that D&D does the best they can to have every situation covered, while not taking away from the speed of the game required to maintain an environment that will keep peoples intrest during combat real weaponry can be argued all day, but to put any other flames against my statement to rest, if you are convenced that your amor will beat my rapier come to my home town wear your best suit of armor(if you have one) and let me whip up ou you for a min and see how much energy you have left compared to me as I dance around you with nothing but my epee, not all my hits will get through the gaps in your armor, but i'll hit you more then you will hit me and I'll get through enough that in real life you would be dead, granted I may be too, or would if real bleed out soo after, but arguing that in real combat this and that doesn't change that fact that WotC did there best and if you don't like then change it or come up with your own rules as to how this shoudl work If a properly trained full plate wearing guy comes after you and all you have is a rapier and no armour, RUN AWAY! If you don't you are going to die. Thats all there is to it, you should be able to outrun him, so do exactly that, because your rapier isn't even going to hurt him, it just isn't. one good hit from his weapon ( be it longsword, axe, two handed sword, etc) will simply end you, you won't bleed out after the fight you'll be looking at your disembodied limb or your crushed one if it is a mace or hammer. There is a reason armies where equiped with armour.
Bruunwald 06-29-05, 03:00 PM	Yeah? Well, I'm glad you told me. Now I'll stop fighting in my "plate mail"(sic), since it's likely to kill me... :rolleyes: Seriously, have you ever worn a full harness of well-made, custom-fitted plate armour, Bruunwald? I do every week. Do you? If you don't, then like MasterRookie, you have no business shooting your mouth off about a subject on which you are entirely ignorant. "When thou knowest not wherof thou speakest, thy mouth is best employed in mastication". http://josh.mediumaevum.com/AA1.jpg http://josh.mediumaevum.com/KSU%20Demo%20031.jpg Can you offer me anything to back up your claim that plate armour "rings like a bell" which can kill you? Really. I want to see this piece of profound scholarship here. Produce it now. I can assure you that adequate padding muffles any ringing to sufficiently non-lethal levels. :rolleyes: Well, I learned it on PBS, on Nova, from a well-respected English archaeologist. Calling me names won't change that, but then again, I haven't done the research myself, so I can't say it's 100% certain. And, no, I've worn chain, but never plate. Then again, despite your gigantic opinion of yourself, I highly doubt that what you do, however exciting, is the same as years of intense battle where people were actually trying to kill you. I suppose it's possible that fellows in that sort of situation could have suffered internal damage in the longterm, whereas your situation is undoubtedly different. In any event, I have every right to shoot my mouth, or any other organ I see fit, off, to my heart's content. You know, blasting others and claiming great knowledge is easy on the internet. Not so easy when the braggart has to actually face his opponents. I suggest a little humility until you are face-to-face with us. It will carry you further and garner you better respect. If we ever are in the same room, you can try your Intimidate check then, and we'll see how far you get.
WhiteHarness 06-29-05, 03:33 PM	Well, I learned it on PBS, on Nova, from a well-respected English archaeologist. Calling me names won't change that, but then again, I haven't done the research myself, so I can't say it's 100% certain. And, no, I've worn chain, but never plate. Okay. What was the name of the Archaelogist? I want his name. Why has nobody else in the re-enactment community ever said anything to this effect? No less a personage than the curator of armour from the Glenbow Museum in Edinburgh jousts in a suit of full plate armour, made for him by Robert Macpherson: http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=46753&highlight= Tobias Capwell doesn't die from his armour ringing, and I'd imagine he knows plenty about it, seeing as how he handles the real thing at his job every day. Then again, despite your gigantic opinion of yourself, I highly doubt that what you do, however exciting, is the same as years of intense battle where people were actually trying to kill you. I suppose it's possible that fellows in that sort of situation could have suffered internal damage in the longterm, whereas your situation is undoubtedly different. I readily concede that what I do is not the equivalent of engaging in real, life-or-death combat with archaic weapons. It is however, about as close as a modern person will get, and certainly lends a weight to my statements about the subject that is lacking in the verbal diarrhea spouted by your average D&D geek. Yes, people died from internal injuries, even through armour; it doesn't stop your insides from sloshing around. Just the same, I find the notion that those internal injuries were the result of soundwaves or reverberations when their armour was struck to be totally absurd, and without any grounding in realism or serious scholarship. More likely, these injuries resulted from simple blunt trauma. You know, blasting others and claiming great knowledge is easy on the internet. Not so easy when the braggart has to actually face his opponents. I suggest a little humility until you are face-to-face with us. It will carry you further and garner you better respect. If we ever are in the same room, you can try your Intimidate check then, and we'll see how far you get. Excuse me? "face my opponents"? You know, IMO, "calling someone out" to face you physically over an internet argument is tantamount to admitting you lost the argument and just want to hit your opponent. If you can't control your temper in a debate and have to resort to threatening physical violence, you're no more disciplined than a kindergartener who throws a tantrum because teacher won't give har another cookie. What's wrong with my "claiming great knowledge"? Demonstrably, I know more about the subject of how full plate armour performs than most here. While a couple of WMA artists and SCA fighters, and a handful of LARPers and Renaissance Fair players do hang out here, I've yet to see any of them wearing their own set of full plate, or claiming to be able to make any armour other than butted-link mail.
Elthbert 06-29-05, 03:40 PM	I've yet to see any of them wearing their own set of full plate, or claiming to be able to make any armour other than butted-link mail. sniff sniff, I'm hurt. Seriously I would have a suit, however I cannot afford a properly made suit and refuse to buy crap. I genuinly appreciate the link to the armourer, it is nice thatthere is one in Texas I could actually go and talk to.
WhiteHarness 06-29-05, 03:49 PM	Sorry, Elthbert. I didn't intend to insult any of the other fine, historically-aware folks here; if it came off sounding that way, I apologize. :embarrass Anyway... Quoth sfubear: "...if you are convenced that your amor will beat my rapier come to my home town wear your best suit of armor(if you have one) and let me whip up ou you for a min and see how much energy you have left compared to me as I dance around you with nothing but my epee, not all my hits will get through the gaps in your armor, but i'll hit you more then you will hit me and I'll get through enough that in real life you would be dead..." I have a rapier and an epee, too, and have some idea as to what they're capable of. What makes you think your rapier would be able to pierce the mail that my suit includes at those gaps in my armour? I have my own ideas as to what would happen if I had to face an unarmoured man with a rapier while I had my full plate and a bastard sword. IMO, D&D lets the lightly-armoured swashbuckler-types be a little more effective than they would have been in reality in order to appeal to the kids who watch too much japanese animation, full of ninjaz, and uber-1337 5w0rdzm3n, and k4t4n4z, and stuff. It's pop-culture nonsense, childrens' stories and tall tales, exaggerated to achieve maximum "kewlness". :rolleyes: Anime-geeks crack me up. Here are some photos of me at an anime convention in Dallas earlier this month (Don't laugh at my dinky plastic sword...): http://josh.mediumaevum.com/A-Kon%20005b.jpg http://josh.mediumaevum.com/A-Kon%20008b.jpg Notice my barely-suppressed contemptuous sneer. ;) People wore armour because it worked; it kept the sharp, pokey, hurty things out. When the gun eventually became the most commonly encountered weapon on the battlefield, they stopped wearing armour, but until then, if you could afford it, you wore it. There are even records of men who either couldn't afford it, or were too cheap to shell out the money for it, renting armour in order to accompany their lord on crusade. Armour was a lifesaver in low-tech combat, and those who could get the best did so, and more often than not, lived to tell about it.
Vahenir 06-29-05, 04:14 PM	I admit, I didn't read the whole thread. I don't really have the time, for which I apologize if I'm ignorant of anything someone has already said. But I would like to toss in my thoughts and knowledge on the original subject: No. Unless you're willing to take into account how every weapon interacts with every form of armour, then it's ludicrous to assign one weapon a bonus against one type of armour. A strong thrust from certain styles of sword can punch through mail. Hell, an estoc can punch through plate. A mace not only crushes bones and damages organs through mail armour, but it also crushes plate armour into the wearer, doing significant harm. By all accounts, bludgeoning weapons were the "uber-class" for quite awhile. I think the OGL Conan RPG models what you're trying to consider quite well - by making armour act as DR, and giving each weapon an AP (Armour Piercing) rating, representing how well it delivers damage through armour. For example, an arming sword has a lower AP (from what I remember) than a battle-axe, because axes were better at damaging armour. But hey, why not also consider how armour -takes- damage by saving you from it. I might not be able to cut -through- your armour, but I can certainly start splitting mail links - effectively ruining your armour. Not to mention a strong cut from a sword can do AS MUCH damage to your organs and bones as a mace can, without ever cutting through the mail. Mail really gets a poor representation by a lot of people that hear about how it couldn't stop an arrow (which sometimes it could), or a mace. But mail is and was excellent protection. I regularly wear a mail hauberk and chausses during sparring, and I prefer it over any other kind of armour (I'm not a big fan of plate, although it is admittedly much -more- protective). And my mail has 'saved my life' (suffice to say) quite a few times. But I've also felt the harsh blows that go right through it. There was a reason mail dominated as a form of protection for over 1000 years. If -anyone- could pick up a heavy object and kill you -- well, mail would have been discarded for something better.
Surreal 06-29-05, 04:35 PM	This weapon trumps everything... http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/corbis/DGT244/CIC0046.jpg (it's a Simpson's reference if you don't get it)
Zennithology 06-29-05, 04:43 PM	It amazes me just how many expert sword masters are on this forum.(stifles a laugh).
Surreal 06-29-05, 04:54 PM	It amazes me just how many expert sword masters are on this forum.(stifles a laugh). While it might be a stretch to call many people here experts, it doesn't really surprise me that there are a number of people here who really are knowledgeable on the subject. If we play D&D, we obviously have some interest in the genre, which can lead to further study on the subject. Or vice versa. I had an interest in historical warfare and weaponry etc. well before I got into D&D.
Vahenir 06-29-05, 04:58 PM	It amazes me that so many people have so few interests outside posting on a forum and playing D&D. It amazes me that people find is so difficult to believe that most people of human intelligence have many interests and activities that they enjoy. It also amazes me that anyone would find it hard to believe that a fair number of people that enjoy roleplaying games and sword-slinging fantasy are also enthusiasts of the re-enactment scene. It amazes me that ignorance still prevails in the 'information age.' Above all it amazes me that so many things can still amaze me.
MasterRookie 06-29-05, 05:18 PM	Well I have done a lot of serious training, and I have done some serious fighting as well, ( although alas I wasn't armoured at the time). The Long Bow did not end heavy Armour by the end of the 15th century the armourer had largly beaten the Long Bow, and was still ahead of the gun, armour was routinely made to be "bulletproof" ( we actually get the word from then) and this was "proven" by shooting the armour with a bullet at close range. the dent was left there to show that the suit was infact "roof agianst Bullets" It wasn't until the mid 17th century that heavy armour was no longer useful. ah yes the proofing mark. Sometimes a complete con made by a pistol with a smaller amount of poweder. They have an interesting suit banding of armor at higgins. It has what apears to be a proofing mark and then a real bullet hole only inchs away from it.
MasterRookie 06-29-05, 05:20 PM	If a properly trained full plate wearing guy comes after you and all you have is a rapier and no armour, RUN AWAY! If you don't you are going to die. Thats all there is to it, you should be able to outrun him, so do exactly that, because your rapier isn't even going to hurt him, it just isn't. one good hit from his weapon ( be it longsword, axe, two handed sword, etc) will simply end you, you won't bleed out after the fight you'll be looking at your disembodied limb or your crushed one if it is a mace or hammer. There is a reason armies where equiped with armour. If you keep him chasing you enough he might die of heat stroke. Or get exhausted enough to be unable to fight. I think thats what that guy keeps saying. If you've got good enough stamina you can keep the plait armored enemy moving until he can't fight. Thats not a victory in every sense but it does get the job done.
Elthbert 06-29-05, 05:25 PM	ah yes the proofing mark. Sometimes a complete con made by a pistol with a smaller amount of poweder. They have an interesting suit banding of armor at higgins. It has what apears to be a proofing mark and then a real bullet hole only inchs away from it. Oh certianly there were fakes and cons, there where also unfortunate aspects of chance where a bullet would hit a structurally weaker point of the armour. But ussually this was genuine, if if wasn't the armourer better move because the riped of and now dead or wounded mens friends and families where going to come alooking for him. Certianly also there where guns bigger than the one proofed with, but calvalry often faced pistols from other Cav, so the fact that it was done with a pistol isn't really a rip off, also remember it was normally done at fairly close range whereas on the battle field that at least the first strikes would have been from much farther away.
MasterRookie 06-29-05, 05:27 PM	Hmm perhaps this idea is based on angry customers' familys that wanted someone to blame for armor failure. The museum guide just mentioned the con.
MasterRookie 06-29-05, 05:33 PM	Sorry, Elthbert. I didn't intend to insult any of the other fine, historically-aware folks here; if it came off sounding that way, I apologize. :embarrass Anyway... Quoth sfubear: "...if you are convenced that your amor will beat my rapier come to my home town wear your best suit of armor(if you have one) and let me whip up ou you for a min and see how much energy you have left compared to me as I dance around you with nothing but my epee, not all my hits will get through the gaps in your armor, but i'll hit you more then you will hit me and I'll get through enough that in real life you would be dead..." I have a rapier and an epee, too, and have some idea as to what they're capable of. What makes you think your rapier would be able to pierce the mail that my suit includes at those gaps in my armour? I have my own ideas as to what would happen if I had to face an unarmoured man with a rapier while I had my full plate and a bastard sword. IMO, D&D lets the lightly-armoured swashbuckler-types be a little more effective than they would have been in reality in order to appeal to the kids who watch too much japanese animation, full of ninjaz, and uber-1337 5w0rdzm3n, and k4t4n4z, and stuff. It's pop-culture nonsense, childrens' stories and tall tales, exaggerated to achieve maximum "kewlness". :rolleyes: Anime-geeks crack me up. Here are some photos of me at an anime convention in Dallas earlier this month (Don't laugh at my dinky plastic sword...): http://josh.mediumaevum.com/A-Kon%20005b.jpg http://josh.mediumaevum.com/A-Kon%20008b.jpg Notice my barely-suppressed contemptuous sneer. ;) People wore armour because it worked; it kept the sharp, pokey, hurty things out. When the gun eventually became the most commonly encountered weapon on the battlefield, they stopped wearing armour, but until then, if you could afford it, you wore it. There are even records of men who either couldn't afford it, or were too cheap to shell out the money for it, renting armour in order to accompany their lord on crusade. Armour was a lifesaver in low-tech combat, and those who could get the best did so, and more often than not, lived to tell about it. Lets put it this way. An unarmored rapier armed man on the feild against armored knights is screwed because for every knight he dodges there's about six more that can kill him. Meanwhile an armored knight in a street duel against a clever rapier user could be beaten quite easily. The Duelist need only back away over and over again dodging and staying out of harms way until the swordsmen is too weary to hold his sword up. Eventually the dueler can swoop in for the kill. As it has been said you get very tired after a few hours in plate mail. I'm not sure why you claimed the swashbuckler class has anything to do with anime pop culture. I think a ninja could beat a knight in certain cases. especially a knight with an open helmet that a shiriken can fit into easily enough. I belive climbing claws could block a arming sword, maybe even a broad sword. Of course there's always the really cheap stuff. Chilly powder thrown in the eyes for one. Try to be more civil to each other. Instead of bashing each others experience and knowledge try to get along and get all your facts strait.
Bruunwald 06-29-05, 05:36 PM	Excuse me? "face my opponents"? You know, IMO, "calling someone out" to face you physically over an internet argument is tantamount to admitting you lost the argument and just want to hit your opponent. If you can't control your temper in a debate and have to resort to threatening physical violence, you're no more disciplined than a kindergartener who throws a tantrum because teacher won't give har another cookie. What's wrong with my "claiming great knowledge"? Demonstrably, I know more about the subject of how full plate armour performs than most here. While a couple of WMA artists and SCA fighters, and a handful of LARPers and Renaissance Fair players do hang out here, I've yet to see any of them wearing their own set of full plate, or claiming to be able to make any armour other than butted-link mail. LOL. Nice try. I hardly call pointing out how easy it is to be rude on the internet "calling you out." Nor did I use those words, so quoting it is a sad attempt to paint me as doing something I didn't. More, look at yourself before you accuse others. I simply pointed out that you don't need to be so abusive towards the rest of us, and if you were in the same room with us, I doubt you would. Whether fear of repercussions or simply good manners, I don't think you'd be so rude and pushy without the internet as your shield. Telling me not to shoot my mouth off when I was addressing somebody else is tantamount to a slap across the face. And acting as if I were the aggressor after doing so is just hypocritical. Shakespeare says you do protest too much. I think that if you truly knew and were secure in the knowledge you claim to have, it would be easy for you to reply to the rest of us in a mature, reasonable and polite manner. If you are possessed of information or experience that we are not, you have every opportunity to present that to us in a way that is responsible and grown up. If you were secure in yourself and in your knowledge, you could say your piece, then walk away when somebody disagreed or misunderstood. You wouldn't have to lambaste them, because you'd know you were okay with what you thought and with what you believed, or even knew. It wouldn't be life-and-death, which it so obviously is to you. But you don't do that, and so any knowledge, no matter how profound or true, is wasted coming from you. And it's wasted on you. Because you lack the civility to truly teach or to be taught or to simply be serene. What profits you to know the world when you don't know your soul? Or, in this case, are just a rat bastard? In my experience, only two things can profit from a loudmouth's bad behavior: his gigantic ego and his efforts to distract attention away from his tiny, little package. Which fits you best, do you think?
Elthbert 06-29-05, 05:38 PM	Lets put it this way. An unarmored rapier armed man on the feild against armored knights is screwed because for every knight he dodges there's about six more that can kill him. Meanwhile an armored knight in a street duel against a clever rapier user could be beaten quite easily. The Duelist need only back away over and over again dodging and staying out of harms way until the swordsmen is too weary to hold his sword up. Eventually the dueler can swoop in for the kill. As it has been said you get very tired after a few hours in plate mail. I'm not sure why you claimed the swashbuckler class has anything to do with anime pop culture. Try to be more civil to each other. Instead of bashing each others experience and knowledge try to get along and get all your facts strait. No The armoured guy wins in a street fight also, the rapier wielding duelist runs away the guy in armour goes about killing and looting until the rapier guy foolishly attacks him agian at which time the guy in plate kills the stupid guy with a rapier. The rapier is simply not capable of doing any serious harm to a guy in plate, if all you have is a rapier and you HAVE to fight a guy in plate use it to parry blow while you close and try anti-armour grappling techniques because that rapier ain't going to do squat.
Vahenir 06-29-05, 05:41 PM	The Duelist need only back away over and over again dodging and staying out of harms way until the swordsmen is too weary to hold his sword up. Eventually the dueler can swoop in for the kill. As it has been said you get very tired after a few hours in plate mail. There's a big problem with this line of logic: It assumes the fop can stay out of reach of the knight for the 'few hours' it will take to tire out the knight. This is extremely doubtful considering the huge level of skill a Knight is likely to have. A well-trained fop could probably stay away from a poorly trained knight - but with equal training you just can't avoid an armed and ticked off adversary for -that- long. You also ignore the fact that continuously dodging and jumping away from the Knight will also be extremely tiring. The 'duelist' is likely to get tired doing this -before- the Knight, who is probably moving slower, since he has no reason to attempt to dance around like the 'duelist' is.
Elthbert 06-29-05, 05:42 PM	There's a big problem with this line of logic: It assumes the fop can stay out of reach of the knight for the 'few hours' it will take to tire out the knight. This is extremely doubtful considering the huge level of skill a Knight is likely to have. A well-trained fop could probably stay away from a poorly trained knight - but with equal training you just can't avoid an armed and ticked off adversary for -that- long. You also ignore the fact that continuously dodging and jumping away from the Knight will also be extremely tiring. The 'duelist' is likely to get tired doing this -before- the Knight, who is probably moving slower, since he has no reason to attempt to dance around like the 'duelist' is. Yup
MasterRookie 06-29-05, 05:46 PM	LOL. Nice try. I hardly call pointing out how easy it is to be rude on the internet "calling you out." Nor did I use those words, so quoting it is a sad attempt to paint me as doing something I didn't. More, look at yourself before you accuse others. I simply pointed out that you don't need to be so abusive towards the rest of us, and if you were in the same room with us, I doubt you would. Whether fear of repercussions or simply good manners, I don't think you'd be so rude and pushy without the internet as your shield. Telling me not to shoot my mouth off when I was addressing somebody else is tantamount to a slap across the face. And acting as if I were the aggressor after doing so is just hypocritical. Shakespeare says you do protest too much. I think that if you truly knew and were secure in the knowledge you claim to have, it would be easy for you to reply to the rest of us in a mature, reasonable and polite manner. If you are possessed of information or experience that we are not, you have every opportunity to present that to us in a way that is responsible and grown up. If you were secure in yourself and in your knowledge, you could say your piece, then walk away when somebody disagreed or misunderstood. You wouldn't have to lambaste them, because you'd know you were okay with what you thought and with what you believed, or even knew. It wouldn't be life-and-death, which it so obviously is to you. But you don't do that, and so any knowledge, no matter how profound or true, is wasted coming from you. And it's wasted on you. Because you lack the civility to truly teach or to be taught or to simply be serene. What profits you to know the world when you don't know your soul? Or, in this case, are just a rat bastard? In my experience, only two things can profit from a loudmouth's bad behavior: his gigantic ego and his efforts to distract attention away from his tiny, little package. Which fits you best, do you think? FYI your insulting him right back. The best way to stop someone from becoming uncivil is to stay civil yourself.
MasterRookie 06-29-05, 05:49 PM	There's a big problem with this line of logic: It assumes the fop can stay out of reach of the knight for the 'few hours' it will take to tire out the knight. This is extremely doubtful considering the huge level of skill a Knight is likely to have. A well-trained fop could probably stay away from a poorly trained knight - but with equal training you just can't avoid an armed and ticked off adversary for -that- long. You also ignore the fact that continuously dodging and jumping away from the Knight will also be extremely tiring. The 'duelist' is likely to get tired doing this -before- the Knight, who is probably moving slower, since he has no reason to attempt to dance around like the 'duelist' is. Yeah. But its still a possibility. Just use the old Kender Taunt. Run from the knight make fun of him and get him super ****** so he attacks in bline rage charging and swinging until he's exhausted. I don't recomend the dancing around part. Jumping back works well enogh.
Elthbert 06-29-05, 05:53 PM	Yeah. But its still a possibility. Just use the old Kender Taunt. Run from the knight make fun of him and get him super ****** so he attacks in bline rage charging and swinging until he's exhausted. I don't recomend the dancing around part. Jumping back works well enogh. Kender are supposed to have a virtually supernatural ability to tic people off, that is unusual to say the least in reallity, further you have to figure your average kender would use it to taunt someone to make them focus on him while others attacked him ( the guy in armour), that isn't what we are talking about we are talking about the ability of someone witha rapier to effectively harm someone in Plate armour.
MasterRookie 06-29-05, 07:06 PM	If the guy in plate armor is suffering from heat stroke then yes. Thats my point. If the rapierist can irritate the knight to keep chasing him. A duelist may have no chance in trying to parry, thats why he doesn't, a well trained fencer should be able to jump back in time to avoid a strike. The duelist doesn't run away and hide. He runs back a good thrity feet and jeer's at the knight until the knight breaks into a charge. The fencer then starts running back which brings this argument to the simple question of whether or not an unarmored man can out run and armored man of equil strength. A no brainer.
MasterRookie 06-29-05, 07:08 PM	No The armoured guy wins in a street fight also, the rapier wielding duelist runs away the guy in armour goes about killing and looting until the rapier guy foolishly attacks him agian at which time the guy in plate kills the stupid guy with a rapier. The rapier is simply not capable of doing any serious harm to a guy in plate, if all you have is a rapier and you HAVE to fight a guy in plate use it to parry blow while you close and try anti-armour grappling techniques because that rapier ain't going to do squat. Not talking about that. Of course the rapier has no chance. I'm talking about keeping away until the knight succombs to heat exhaustion. It could work its certainly worth an experiment.
Elthbert 06-29-05, 07:11 PM	If the guy in plate armor is suffering from heat stroke then yes. Thats my point. If the rapierist can irritate the knight to keep chasing him. A duelist may have no chance in trying to parry, thats why he doesn't, a well trained fencer should be able to jump back in time to avoid a strike. The duelist doesn't run away and hide. He runs back a good thrity feet and jeer's at the knight until the knight breaks into a charge. The fencer then starts running back which brings this argument to the simple question of whether or not an unarmored man can out run and armored man of equil strength. A no brainer. And why is the knight going to charge him, why not simply casually walk torwards him until he backs up into a wall or trips on a pothole. meanwhile the Plate armoured guy doesn't even have to chase him, he can just kick in the door of the nearest house and comense to looting. or go back to the tavern fro a drink.
Elthbert 06-29-05, 07:12 PM	Not talking about that. Of course the rapier has no chance. I'm talking about keeping away until the knight succombs to heat exhaustion. It could work its certainly worth an experiment. Heat exaustion is not something you want to bet your life on.
Vahenir 06-29-05, 07:13 PM	Not talking about that. Of course the rapier has no chance. I'm talking about keeping away until the knight succombs to heat exhaustion. It could work its certainly worth an experiment. There's about a 1% chance that a duelist of equal or slightly greater skill as the Knight could manage this. And a 0% chance if they're less skilled than the Knight, of course. Just 'staying away' from someone that you're involved in a fight with is simply a -hell- of a lot harder than it's being made out to be. The duelist doesn't run away and hide. He runs back a good thrity feet and jeer's at the knight until the knight breaks into a charge. And this entire train of logic runs on the faulty assumption that someone of human intelligence and reason can be goaded in such a manner. The trained, half-way intelligent and reasonable knight is not going to go chasing after the guy, he's going to bide his time, move cautiously, and wait for the duelist to make a mistake. Knights weren't all "crush, bang, smash, kill" - they were intelligent strategists in combat.
Elthbert 06-29-05, 07:17 PM	There's about a 1% chance that a duelist of equal or slightly greater skill as the Knight could manage this. And a 0% chance if they're less skilled than the Knight, of course. Just 'staying away' from someone that you're involved in a fight with is simply a -hell- of a lot harder than it's being made out to be. And this entire train of logic runs on the faulty assumption that someone of human intelligence and reason can be goaded in such a manner. The trained, half-way intelligent and reasonable knight is not going to go chasing after the guy, he's going to bide his time, move cautiously, and wait for the duelist to make a mistake. Knights weren't all "crush, bang, smash, kill" - they were intelligent strategists in combat. of course they were, further 30 feet away is simply no longer inthe fight at all, the armoured combatant has no reason to continue worrying aboout the cowardly duelist anyway. oops i put where instead of were.
Vahenir 06-29-05, 07:50 PM	Of course who were what? I'm confused.
Elthbert 06-29-05, 07:53 PM	Of course who were what? I'm confused. Knights were excellent tacticians.
Vahenir 06-29-05, 07:53 PM	Oh! Yes.. okay.. haha.
Willie the Duck 06-29-05, 11:09 PM	I think what can best be taken away from all of this is that weapons are best at what they are designed to do. A katana is not meant to cut through plate armour and as such does a poor job of it. A rapier also is not meant to do so and is better suited to situations for which it was designed (mostly that gentry could walk around with them outside of military engagements). As to maces, there has always been a sort of arms race between weapons and armor where a bigger or more powerful weapon cuts through the old armor and then a new form of armor comes out that is near inpregnable to last generations weapon. When that happens, weapons like maces often came out as "not great but better than the ineffectual former-king-of-the-hill" until a another weapon comes out that truly beats the armour. For example, a heavy sword is invented that can cut through chain. This rules for a while until plate armor comes out. This sword can barely touch the plate. For a while, people stop using heavy sword and instead use maces to try to crack the skulls of the guys in plate. eventually a serious anti-plate weapon comes out (small pointed hammers and picks, as well as the pike versus a charging knight), whereupon the mace becomes a secondary weapon again. The advantage (and disadvantage) of the mace is that it always works, although never as well as a weapon specialized against the armor in question. MasterRookie, agian, you shot your mouth off, don't be surprized by the venon you incur. That you are being generally lambasted here is not "Weird", it is normal. Please learn the basic rules for internet forum posting and what to expect from what you say (in this all I can offer is "gain experience", which is kind of lame on my part). Whiteharness, given that all we have here is your word, it is your responsibility to maintain an argument that is simultaneously acurate, convincing and polite, or else what you say will be meaningless. Yes, that is putting the burden on you that only one or the other is true for the rest of us, but you are the one that is trying to gain hegemony over this discussion. It really is required that you be perfect if you wish to appear sagatious instead of pedantic. Bruunwald, your basic response to Whiteharness was spot on. You pointed out flaws in his analysis, analyzed it with perfect meta-analysis, and came back with accurate rebukes. You would have completely wiped the floor with him if you had resisted the temptation to twist the knife. Sorry, you lost when you went for cheap insults yourself (sorry, people here when they inflate an argument aren't trying to, "distract attention away from his tiny, little package," they are simply trying to "win" a debate when they are really simply having a conversation). As for egos, I think everyone that has bothered to post here has forgone the right to criticize each other for having one, since the only purpose for posting here now is to show each other how much you do or do not know.
Vahenir 06-30-05, 10:59 AM	Well there were never any swords that could, or were designed to, cut through mail. Any weapon that depends on its edge is diametrically opposed to cutting through metal armour. But besides that, Willie is correct about the arms race of the Medieval world. Although I wouldn't say the mace or warhammer were ever regulated back to 'secondary weapon.' They were most certainly primary -personal- weapons. Polearms were generally formation weapons - very few mounted knights, for example, would be carrying pollaxes - even though they did quite well against all forms of plate.
MasterRookie 06-30-05, 11:55 AM	MasterRookie, agian, you shot your mouth off, don't be surprized by the venon you incur. That you are being generally lambasted here is not "Weird", it is normal. Please learn the basic rules for internet forum posting and what to expect from what you say (in this all I can offer is "gain experience", which is kind of lame on my part). . Hey I didn't say anything mean. I'm just trying to learn through discussion is that a crime or something. All those other people started arguing and being general SOBs I didn't say anything bad.
MasterRookie 06-30-05, 11:58 AM	There's about a 1% chance that a duelist of equal or slightly greater skill as the Knight could manage this. And a 0% chance if they're less skilled than the Knight, of course. Just 'staying away' from someone that you're involved in a fight with is simply a -hell- of a lot harder than it's being made out to be. . Ah but there's a chance. And I'd wager slightly better then what you've said. Maybe 5%.
MasterRookie 06-30-05, 11:59 AM	of course they were, further 30 feet away is simply no longer inthe fight at all, the armoured combatant has no reason to continue worrying aboout the cowardly duelist anyway. oops i put where instead of were. My Idea was the duelist would shout insults to the knights family, kingdom and God until he got mad and came after him. But then I really don't care too much. I was more interested in my other questions that just got burried under all this fluf.
Eliza_Stormwhisper 06-30-05, 12:36 PM	I'm glad I'm an archer. I just shoot things.
Breetai 06-30-05, 01:14 PM	This is why the DM's guide suggests house rules.
WhiteHarness 06-30-05, 01:23 PM	Okay Willie, just how did Bruunwald "wipe the floor" with me? He posted nothing to support any argument that countered anything I said or posted. All he offered were his own opinions, along with insults. I don't see how he successfully refuted any of my points at all. Heck, he didn't even address many of them...
Vahenir 06-30-05, 02:07 PM	Ah but there's a chance. And I'd wager slightly better then what you've said. Maybe 5%. I'd say even 5% is far too high an estimate. Like I said before, continually dodging someone else is not easy - as a matter of fact it's very, very difficult. Combine that with how tiring it is to do, compared to the guy in armour who's just calming following your movements. Sure he's wearing uncomfortable armour, but he's also taking it a lot easier than you are ('you' being the duelist, of course). I still say it's simply implausible (but not impossible) for a battle to happen as you propose.
Zennithology 06-30-05, 07:19 PM	I thought this thread was about a mace vs. chain, not rapier vs. plate.
Chaotic Nothing 06-30-05, 07:33 PM	So what COULD get through this godly, almighty fullplate? Some examples?
Vahenir 06-30-05, 07:43 PM	So what COULD get through this godly, almighty fullplate? Well let's see.. Maces, flails, pollaxes/voulges/halberds/-some- spears/etc, axes, estocs, warhammers, bec-de-corbins.....
Chaotic Nothing 06-30-05, 07:48 PM	Well let's see.. Maces, flails, pollaxes/voulges/halberds/-some- spears/etc, axes, estocs, warhammers, bec-de-corbins..... THANK YOU... And maces couldnt hurt you in chainmail? Hmmm..... Interesting. Isnt chainmail better than fullplate then? Thats what everyones been saying. Due to padding. Right?
Vahenir 06-30-05, 08:57 PM	THANK YOU... And maces couldnt hurt you in chainmail? Hmmm..... Interesting. Isnt chainmail better than fullplate then? Thats what everyones been saying. Due to padding. Right? I certainly have -not- asserted that maces couldn't hurt a man in mail. Quite the contrary, a direct-hit from a mace to a guy wearing only mail is more than likely to incapacitate him in some way, or at least severely damage him. The padding properly worn with mail is fairly thin - meant only to cushion impact, not absorb and disperse it. Padding for mail can, for example, lessen the impact of a cutting stroke from a sword. But from a mace? It's not going to happen - at least not on a direct hit. Mail was mostly proof against some thrusting attacks and cutting attacks. Blunt trauma has proved to be the most effective way to combat -any- kind of armour throughout history. Even a modern bullet-proof vest isn't proof against someone swinging a sledgehammer at you.
Chaotic Nothing 06-30-05, 09:27 PM	I certainly have -not- asserted that maces couldn't hurt a man in mail. Quite the contrary, a direct-hit from a mace to a guy wearing only mail is more than likely to incapacitate him in some way, or at least severely damage him. The padding properly worn with mail is fairly thin - meant only to cushion impact, not absorb and disperse it. Padding for mail can, for example, lessen the impact of a cutting stroke from a sword. But from a mace? It's not going to happen - at least not on a direct hit. Mail was mostly proof against some thrusting attacks and cutting attacks. Blunt trauma has proved to be the most effective way to combat -any- kind of armour throughout history. Even a modern bullet-proof vest isn't proof against someone swinging a sledgehammer at you. Thanks again, Vahenir... you are right, and have helped me prove that the people saying that chain should get full armor bonus against blunt damage are wrong with your statement and knowledge.
Vahenir 06-30-05, 10:25 PM	I agree with the people that say mail should get its full AC bonus against maces. Unless you intend to have EACH WEAPON in D&D affect EACH ARMOUR style in a different way. A D&D greatsword should ignore leather and padded armour completely. A D&D halberd should ignore all armour completely... etc. If you give maces a bonus against mail, then you have to give the same types of bonuses to all weapons against all types of armour they're good against. That will be a long, complicated list. If you ONLY give a bonus to maces versus mail - you're making quite a ludicrous rule decision.
MasterRookie 06-30-05, 10:28 PM	I've decided to just go with the rules. They have a good point to many rules overcomplicates. They're pretty crazy as it is. It doesn't really matter. I don't have any mace wielders in my campain anyway :rolleyes: .
Chaotic Nothing 06-30-05, 10:29 PM	I agree with the people that say mail should get its full AC bonus against maces. Unless you intend to have EACH WEAPON in D&D affect EACH ARMOUR style in a different way. A D&D greatsword should ignore leather and padded armour completely. A D&D halberd should ignore all armour completely... etc. If you give maces a bonus against mail, then you have to give the same types of bonuses to all weapons against all types of armour they're good against. That will be a long, complicated list. If you ONLY give a bonus to maces versus mail - you're making quite a ludicrous rule decision. True, but if time were taken, a ruleset focusing on different types of armor and weapons could be an interesting and slightly more realistic take on armor. I try to alter the rules to the most realistic standpoint in my eyes, and thus the game I play barely resembles Dnd, and is in itself its own system.
Surreal 06-30-05, 10:56 PM	And then there's the "hammerblock" armor enchantment (Complete Warrior) that gives you 5/piercing or slashing :rolleyes:
Elthbert 06-30-05, 11:03 PM	True, but if time were taken, a ruleset focusing on different types of armor and weapons could be an interesting and slightly more realistic take on armor. I try to alter the rules to the most realistic standpoint in my eyes, and thus the game I play barely resembles Dnd, and is in itself its own system. Well then get out an old first edition players handbook and use the armour adjustmentsin there, they are more realistic than anything I have seen come up with since.
Quirriff 06-30-05, 11:06 PM	Chain mail was developed after Plate but before full plate. Full Plate Mail was damaged by Bludgening weapons, that's why Mace's but more popular when Full Plate was around. You could stab some1 in Breast plate more easily than you could against somebody in chain mail.
Vahenir 06-30-05, 11:08 PM	I've decided to just go with the rules. They have a good point to many rules overcomplicates. They're pretty crazy as it is. Might I suggest that, at your earliest convienence, you take a look at the OGL Conan RPG by Mongoose Publishing? It does, basically, what you want by giving Armour DR and Weapons an Armour Piercing rating - allowing some weapons to bypass armour easier than others. It's quite an ingenius way of dealing with the issue in a realistic but streamlined manner. True, but if time were taken, a ruleset focusing on different types of armor and weapons could be an interesting and slightly more realistic take on armor. Most systems I've seen like you describe are hideously complicated - even the ones I've devised myself. Although if you look above - I found the Conan rules to be amazingly realistic (surprisingly so) and still extremely elegant and simplistic. I try to alter the rules to the most realistic standpoint in my eyes, and thus the game I play barely resembles Dnd, and is in itself its own system. I'm the same way - though I try to only go so far with realism as allows the game to remain fun and relatively simple. If it overcomplicates things, in my opinion, then there HAS to be a better way to do it. And like I mentioned above - I think Mongoose did the best job at realistically portraying how weapons and armour interact without making the system more complex. THAT is being a good game designer. Any idiot can write up a ludicrously complex system and call it realistic. But it takes someone with real skill in game design to write up a system that -is- realistic, but -not- complex.
Vahenir 06-30-05, 11:11 PM	Chain mail was developed after Plate but before full plate. .....What?! Full Plate Mail was damaged by Bludgening weapons, that's why Mace's but more popular when Full Plate was around. First of all, there's no such thing as "full plate mail." Second of all, maces never really saw an increase or decrease in popularity so far as history tells us - it was a fairly standard weapon throughout the entirety of human history. You could stab some1 in Breast plate more easily than you could against somebody in chain mail. What on earth are you talking about?
Kullak-Kobold Sorcerer 07-01-05, 01:02 PM	Chain mail was developed after Plate but before full plate. This is incorrect. Plate mail, or full plate (which are the same things but it was only called plate mail in real life) was developed after chain mail. The best armor was double linked chain mail (which is what I believe it is called, it has been a while since I had to discuss armor) which had one layer of chainmail on top of another layer of chain mail. Plate mail was around for a short period of time due to the invention of firearms. The two-handed sword was invented during this same time period. Full Plate Mail was damaged by Bludgening weapons, that's why Mace's but more popular when Full Plate was around. Actually, any armor can be damaged if you hit it hard enough. The popular weapon to pierce armor was the warhammer. On one end was a spike, that spike was used to pierce armor. You could stab some1 in Breast plate more easily than you could against somebody in chain mail. Depends with what, and how much the chainmail was covering. I wouldn't want to wear chain versus a rapier. But chainmail could be made into a suit that covers arms and some of the lower body (past the groin). A breastplate only covers the torso.
Vahenir 07-01-05, 02:13 PM	Plate mail, or full plate (which are the same things but it was only called plate mail in real life) Plate mail is a misnomer. The term is contradictory and never existed historically. Such armour most likely would have been called augmented mail or mail-with-plate, or some other such term, but would not have been shortened to "plate mail." which had one layer of chainmail on top of another layer of chain mail. That's layered mail, not a different kind of mail. And it should be noted, just for the sake of completion, that the 'extra' mail would have been either a mantle and aventail, or a 'vest' of mail - not a complete hauberk over the first. Plate mail was around for a short period of time due to the invention of firearms. No.. transitional plate (plate-and-mail) was around for quite awhile - until the invention of the full plate harness - which replaced plate-and-mail for quite awhile. Further, and this has been said over and over in different threads: 1) Firearms were not -INVENTED- at that time, they were advanced. Firearms have existed well before the Crusades - long before plate armour was used. And better versions of firearms existed after the 13th century - long before the plate harness ('full plate') was created. 2) Firearms did not spell the end of plate armour. A combination of factors, everything from better HAND-weapons to firearms, from bows to economic concerns, spelled the end of plate armour. The two-handed sword was invented during this same time period. Actually, there is a fair amount of evidence of two-hand swords existing as early as 1300 - well before the full plate harness was used. On one end was a spike, that spike was used to pierce armor. If by armour you mean 'visor.' The most common use of the backspike of a weapon (whether it be hammer or axe) was to jam the spike through a downed soldier's visor, killing him. I wouldn't want to wear chain versus a rapier. I don't know why. I'd be quite glad to wear mail versus a rapier-wielder. A smart wielder will be looking for parts of my body NOT COVERED by the mail, as a cutting stroke will ruin his blade, and a piercing stroke will probably snap the tip off his sword. Mail is better that people seem to think - and just because a rapier is a thrusting weapon does not mean it works against mail - it's not strong enough to split the rings. Someone in mail is virtually immune to the attacks of a rapier (in the places covered by his mail).
Elthbert 07-01-05, 05:56 PM	This is incorrect. Plate mail, or full plate (which are the same things but it was only called plate mail in real life) was developed after chain mail. The best armor was double linked chain mail (which is what I believe it is called, it has been a while since I had to discuss armor) which had one layer of chainmail on top of another layer of chain mail. Plate mail was around for a short period of time due to the invention of firearms. The two-handed sword was invented during this same time period.. Actually Plate and Mail is refered to as early as the 8th century, it was expensive but it existed. And it was never called Plate mail Mail has a particular meaning which is contradictory to the term Plate.The two handed sword is a completly differant issue and largly depends on what you deem a two handed sword-- what I would call a two handed sword you are correct about, what Vahenir would call a two handed sword ( which I would call a great sword) you are incorrect about, needless to say there where swords which required two hands for normal use well before 1300. There where longswords( normally a twohanded weapon) as early as the 1100's. Actually, any armor can be damaged if you hit it hard enough. Yes well this is true assuming your weapon doesn't break first. Depends with what, and how much the chainmail was covering. I wouldn't want to wear chain versus a rapier. But chainmail could be made into a suit that covers arms and some of the lower body (past the groin). A breastplate only covers the torso. Well I would happlly fight a rapier weilder in chain, rapiers are not that effective agianst any armour, even boiled leather is going to stop a rapier most of the time. I don't really understand what your point is about the fact that chian was somtimes worn as a suit and a breatplate only covers your torso, that seems quite obvious, what is the point.
Vahenir 07-01-05, 06:35 PM	There where longswords( normally a twohanded weapon) as early as the 1100's. 1200s. Swords that -required- two hands to be used properly didn't start showing up until around the mid 13th century, and didn't see widespread use until the 14th century (the 1300s). don't really understand what your point is about the fact that chian was somtimes worn as a suit and a breatplate only covers your torso, that seems quite obvious, what is the point. I'm a bit confused by that too. What I -thought- he meant was that you're more protected in mail - since it protects more of your body. For example, someone with a rapier wouldn't be smart to attack your arms or upper thighs - as you're protected there, while both of those places are exposed if you're only wearing a cuirass or breastplate. But I might be confused as to what he meant.
Elthbert 07-01-05, 06:53 PM	1200s. Swords that -required- two hands to be used properly didn't start showing up until around the mid 13th century, and didn't see widespread use until the 14th century (the 1300s).. I didn't say that swords that required two hands where around before the 1200's I said swordss that normally used two hands where aroound in the 1100"s and of course I am not claiming they where common buit as I remember there where longswords appearing around 1150. I'll try and find a source for you.
Vahenir 07-01-05, 07:43 PM	I didn't say that swords that required two hands where around before the 1200's I said swordss that normally used two hands where aroound in the 1100"s You said longswords - which is a term for a two-hand swords. A two-hand sword is drastically different from a single-hand sword often used in two-hands. And it was around the 1100s (early 12th, late 11th centuries) that the grips of arming swords became commonly longer to accomodate a second hand. as I remember there where longswords appearing around 1150. I'll try and find a source for you. If I remember correctly, according to Oakeshott's Archaeology of Weapons - arming swords began to have longer hilts around the early 1100s, late 1000s. But true two-hand swords didn't come about until the very late 13th, early 14th century.
Elthbert 07-01-05, 07:48 PM	You said longswords - which is a term for a two-hand swords. A two-hand sword is drastically different from a single-hand sword often used in two-hands. And it was around the 1100s (early 12th, late 11th centuries) that the grips of arming swords became commonly longer to accomodate a second hand. If I remember correctly, according to Oakeshott's Archaeology of Weapons - arming swords began to have longer hilts around the early 1100s, late 1000s. But true two-hand swords didn't come about until the very late 13th, early 14th century. Well this is where our terminology conflict comes in, a longsword can be used with one hand, even tough it is normally used two handed. We both agree that swords which require two hands are 13th century weapons.
Vahenir 07-02-05, 01:47 PM	We both agree that swords which require two hands are 13th century weapons. Quite so. But the proper ('accepted') terminology for a two-hand sword is a "longsword." As you can see in these links: http://www.thearma.org/essays/armoredlongsword.html http://www.thearma.org/essays/Talhoffer/HT-Web.htm\ http://www.thearma.org/essays/dlring.htm http://www.thearma.org/essays/StancesIntro.htm http://www.thearma.org/terms4.htm In some cases (mostly in concerns to 'the war sword') a sword might be called a longsword, but was able to be used single-handed. So we don't disagree, really. I just wanted it to be clear to any readers of this thread that 'longsword' most often implies an exclusively two-hand sword, just for the sake of completion, you understand.
Kullak-Kobold Sorcerer 07-02-05, 06:59 PM	Plate mail is a misnomer. The term is contradictory and never existed historically. Such armour most likely would have been called augmented mail or mail-with-plate, or some other such term, but would not have been shortened to "plate mail." True, but I believe it was in the 1400s when the suit of armor D & D refers to as "plate mail" was created. That was what I was referring to. That's layered mail, not a different kind of mail. And it should be noted, just for the sake of completion, that the 'extra' mail would have been either a mantle and aventail, or a 'vest' of mail - not a complete hauberk over the first. I mixed up my chain mail. Double link mail had two link attaching to another set of double links. This was the most advanced form of mail created. It was stronger than a single link set of mail because if one link was severed, it did not guarentee that the mail would lose the second link thereby creating more stability. No.. transitional plate (plate-and-mail) was around for quite awhile - until the invention of the full plate harness - which replaced plate-and-mail for quite awhile. I was not referring to plate and mail. Further, and this has been said over and over in different threads: 1) Firearms were not -INVENTED- at that time, they were advanced. Firearms have existed well before the Crusades - long before plate armour was used. And better versions of firearms existed after the 13th century - long before the plate harness ('full plate') was created. It depends what you are referring to. Firearms where not used in mass combat until the 14 th century. The advancement of firearms meant it could be used effectively in combat (which is the point of any weapon) as be mass produced efficiently and cost effectly. 2) Firearms did not spell the end of plate armour. A combination of factors, everything from better HAND-weapons to firearms, from bows to economic concerns, spelled the end of plate armour. I think when a metal ball blows through metal plates of armor, the economic factor is obvious. Why wear armor that won't be effective versus the weapons of the time? Of course, the first arqubus didn't single handly take down plate armor (as called the full plate harness). At the time that firearms were being used in mass battles, platemail was rendered obsolete. Historians will always debate what took armor from the field. Personally, I agree with you. The crossbow, which was considered the deadliest weapon of the time, was outlawed by the Pope because it broke God's Law (as the Church saw it at the time). When a commoner can kill a noble with ease, such a weapon breaks the rules of Heirachy. When the crossbow began mass use (and was proven effective) the Pope outlawed the use of the crossbow upon Christians. Why this didn't occur with firearms is unknown to me. I am not interested in the 14th century history. I prefer 8th through 13th century. Actually, there is a fair amount of evidence of two-hand swords existing as early as 1300 - well before the full plate harness was used. There were plenty of weapons used two handed, including swords. I was referring to the greatsword (originaly called the two handed swordin D & D, I still get caught up in calling greatswords two handed swords. My fault.) If by armour you mean 'visor.' The most common use of the backspike of a weapon (whether it be hammer or axe) was to jam the spike through a downed soldier's visor, killing him. Much like how a blade as a wider edge to cause blunt shock trauma and lacerations, the spike was use to pierce plates of armor and helms. If it only dented the armor, the discomfort to the wearer from the dent could distract them enough (or irritate the skin/muscle enough) to lessen the opponent's combat abilities. The spike was wider than the opening for a visor. A dagger could be sliped through, but a spike (in many cases, such as the warhammer) could not. The reason it was used on the visor of a downed opponentis because the oppening is a natural weak spot in armor. It would be much easier to puncture. The the flat end of the warhammer would be used on unarmored oppoents, as the small surface would make much less of an impression upon armor. The more force generated upon a smaller surface, the more likely it will break. The spike would have less surface area than the flat end of a warhammer and would be much more effective against armored opponents. I don't know why. I'd be quite glad to wear mail versus a rapier-wielder. A smart wielder will be looking for parts of my body NOT COVERED by the mail, as a cutting stroke will ruin his blade, and a piercing stroke will probably snap the tip off his sword. Mail is better that people seem to think - and just because a rapier is a thrusting weapon does not mean it works against mail - it's not strong enough to split the rings. Someone in mail is virtually immune to the attacks of a rapier (in the places covered by his mail). Depends on the mail. Depending on the size of the links and if a surcoat is worn underneath, I would prefer my vitals covered and have more mobility. I agree that the rapier is too thin to break the links, and the likelihood of the weaponn breaking upon any armor is very likely. The rapier was not designed for use against armored foes, nor was it designed to be used while wearing armor. That is just what I would prefer.
Kullak-Kobold Sorcerer 07-02-05, 07:12 PM	Actually Plate and Mail is refered to as early as the 8th century, it was expensive but it existed. And it was never called Plate mail Mail has a particular meaning which is contradictory to the term Plate.The two handed sword is a completly differant issue and largly depends on what you deem a two handed sword-- what I would call a two handed sword you are correct about, what Vahenir would call a two handed sword ( which I would call a great sword) you are incorrect about, needless to say there where swords which required two hands for normal use well before 1300. There where longswords( normally a twohanded weapon) as early as the 1100's. Agreed. Yes well this is true assuming your weapon doesn't break first. Which is my I love the viking culture so much. The only other society that used folded steel. While in the orient, it was used to make razor sharp blades, it was fairly useless versus armor.Viking sword made using folded steel longsword where almost indestructable though use in combat. Well I would happlly fight a rapier weilder in chain, rapiers are not that effective agianst any armour, even boiled leather is going to stop a rapier most of the time. I don't really understand what your point is about the fact that chian was somtimes worn as a suit and a breatplate only covers your torso, that seems quite obvious, what is the point. It wasn't my point, it was my response to Quirreff. When one sentence is taken from a paragraph, highlighted and debated, it doesn't make much sense. In the context of commenting on Quiref, it make perfect sense to me. A torso suit of chain versus a breatplate is about equal in general protection. The more armor you wear, the more protected you are. As chain could be made in "full suits", his point is only obvious if you make that distinction. Since he did not, his comment isn't valid. We could begin the debate of how much more fatigued how how less mobile you are in a full suit of chain versus just a breastplate. If the point was a breast plate offered more unarmored areas versus a full suit of chain, he would be correct. Otherwise, his statement is too broad to be correct. Too many other variables exist to make the statement valid.
Surreal 07-03-05, 03:43 AM	Which is my I love the viking culture so much. The only other society that used folded steel. While in the orient, it was used to make razor sharp blades, it was fairly useless versus armor.Viking sword made using folded steel longsword where almost indestructable though use in combat. Folded steel itself doesn't really make for stronger blades. Heat treatment by far has a larger effect. No sword is ever really indestructible though. Well, maybe a sharpened crowbar. And incidentally, many other cultures other than the vikings and the Japanese used folded steel, and many for different reasons. For aesthetics, to refine the metal, to conserve/recycle metal, simply tradition, etc etc. As another aside, there's also a bunch of terminology here that needs to be thrown out before all things get confused (not going into detail here, just brief mentions): folded steel: as the name implies, metal that has been folded over and welded to itself, then flattened; generally done to either draw out impurities in poor quality steel, or equalize the concentration of impurities/carbon throughout the bar pattern welded steel: basically as above, but generally with differing materials and specific folds/twists in order to create a pattern in the steel when finished damascus: steel from the ancient city of Damascus, often confused with layered/pattern welded steel wootz: argh, my memory is failing me on this one, I think it was a seemingly pattern like material, of German origin, can't remember the rest And now, go visit http://www.meiersteel.com/ (the pioneer of modern day pattern welding, affectionately known as "Grandpa Meier" in the industry) and see some of the beautiful work he's done. Some of his stuff is unbelievable.
Elthbert 07-03-05, 01:02 PM	Quite so. But the proper ('accepted') terminology for a two-hand sword is a "longsword." As you can see in these links: http://www.thearma.org/essays/armoredlongsword.html http://www.thearma.org/essays/Talhoffer/HT-Web.htm\ http://www.thearma.org/essays/dlring.htm http://www.thearma.org/essays/StancesIntro.htm http://www.thearma.org/terms4.htm In some cases (mostly in concerns to 'the war sword') a sword might be called a longsword, but was able to be used single-handed. So we don't disagree, really. I just wanted it to be clear to any readers of this thread that 'longsword' most often implies an exclusively two-hand sword, just for the sake of completion, you understand. Agian we disagree, I would say they 'war sword ' is most certainly a longsword and was refered to as such in the middle ages. Of couurse much of the problem comes from the facts that A. The Middle ages is such a broad area of time and space And B There was no attempt in the middle ages to use uniform terminology.
WaterRabbit 07-03-05, 02:44 PM	There seems to be some confusion here about the decline of plate regarding bows, crossbows, and firearms. (see around post #98). The battle of Agincourt was won by longbow men, not the longbow per se. Recent tests (see the Battlefield Archeologists from the History channel) demonstrated that the bodkin arrow used by the English longbow could not penetrate the plate armor use by the French at the time (even at close range). It could kill horses however. The majority of the French were killed in melee combat with the longbow men. They had a distinct advantage due to the muddiness of the battlefield and the fact that they had local numerical superiority due to being at the correct end of the ‘funnel’ that was the battlefield. Add to that the poor leadership and crowded conditions the French once again inflicted upon themselves. Additionally, a large number of the French were killed after the battle due to King Henry ordering their deaths. The crossbow is a defensive weapon and not that useful on a battlefield due to its low rate of fire. Crossbows (properly called arbalests) could defeat plate, but they were heavy and slow. The battle of Crecy did not show that the longbow was ‘better’ than the crossbow. Again environmental conditions, poor logistics, and poor understanding of how to employ the crossbow by the French leaders were the primary factor in the defeat of the Genoese. Personal firearms did not create the decline of plate armor. It wasn't until the end of the American Civil War that personal firearms developed to the point that they really would be effective against armored units. The American Civil war started with the rifle-musket and the mini-ball. The mini-ball would more often than not shatter upon hitting a rigid object. Personal firearms prior to the rifle-musket had a slow rate of fire, 1 shot per 10 seconds was considered good in training. 14th, 15th, and 16th century personal firearms took even longer to employ and were often dangerous to their users. More properly, artillery was the weapon that created the decline in armor. If infantry has always been the queen of the battlefield, artillery is the king. The difference between an armored person and a non-armored person hit by artillery is an open versus closed casket funeral. BTW, artillery brought about the end of castles as well. There were of course many other factors that contributed -- mostly economic. The 1st edition weapon versus armor rules were used by every group that I played with. They were fairly simple to use since we just wrote them on the character sheet any way. However, they could have probably been simpler. I will have to check out the Conan RPG to see how they approach this.
Vahenir 07-04-05, 02:41 PM	Crossbows (properly called arbalests) Not quite. The arbalest is a -type- of crossbow. It's larger than many others, and has a steel prod. The term arbalest is sometimes used interchangeably with 'crossbow' - but its correct usage refers to a particular type of crossbow. I would say they 'war sword ' is most certainly a longsword Fair enough. But you'd have to explain why so many historical manuals that involve the use of the longsword only teach its use in two hands. Note that the -only- link of all those I posted that claims a 'longsword' could be used in one-hand isn't the best of the links, because it's also the one that has quite a few errors, and even claims the 'broadsword' is a type of sword, when another article on that site even discusses that there's no such thing as a 'broadsword.' So I'm going to have to go with what I've read in every source - the longsword is a two-hander almost exclusively. True, but I believe it was in the 1400s when the suit of armor D & D refers to as "plate mail" was created. D&D doesn't have "plate mail." It did in 2nd Edition - now it has Half and Full Plate. I was not referring to plate and mail. Then what the hell were you talking about? The only armour ever referred to as a combination of plate and mail (often mistakenly called "plate-mail") is plate-and-mail armour. If you're not referring to that, then you were really screwing up your terminology even worse than I thought. (Not attacking you, I'm just seriously confused now.) think when a metal ball blows through metal plates of armor, the economic factor is obvious. That's not an economic factor at all. Nice try, though. As for the rest, see WaterRabbit's post - as he seems to have a handle on the firearm factor - no use in repeating it all. Much like how a blade as a wider edge to cause blunt shock trauma and lacerations No.. Blades are thin. You wouldn't make a 'thicker-edged blade' so that it can cause blunt trauma. If you want blunt trauma, you don't use a sword. I say again: Swords were not crowbars, they were not hammers, and they were not used like either. the spike was use to pierce plates of armor and helms. If it only dented the armor, the discomfort to the wearer from the dent could distract them enough (or irritate the skin/muscle enough) to lessen the opponent's combat abilities. The spike was not used to pierce plates unless it was absolutely necessary to give it a shot. We're talking about metal plates here, people make it seem so easy to jam something through them. And yes, denting their armour made fighting uncomfortable, or even deadly. A hammer was good at that - so you crack him a few times with your hammer until he's having trouble breathing with his breastplate pressing against his ribs - then when he falls down you jam your backspike through his visor. The spike was wider than the opening for a visor. Not by much. And the area directly around the visor (the 'edges' of the helm, so to speak) would also be extremely weak and would bend quite easily. So it was actually not difficult to jam a spike through someone's visor. And it could probably go through the helm anyway - since helmets were not made to be especially strong. Helms were made mostly to protect from a glancing blow and to ward away people even wanting to bother striking at your head. But a direct blow from a spike would probably go through a helm. Not true of the rest of the armour, which would have been thicker and stronger. Depending on the size of the links and if a surcoat is worn underneath ? A surcoat, first of all, would do nothing to stop any kind of weapon. Secondly, it was worn -over- the armour. I think what you mean is an aketon (jack, gambeson, etc) - a padded undershirt. A surcoat is a tabard - just a colourful piece of cloth worn over armour. But unless you are wearing mail with unusually big links - thrusting a weak blade between those links is virtually impossible. I would prefer my vitals covered and have more mobility. I'd rather have excellent mobility and good protection - mail provides both. Well, not in D&D, unfortunately, but in reality.
Kullak-Kobold Sorcerer 07-04-05, 03:18 PM	Personal firearms did not create the decline of plate armor. It wasn't until the end of the American Civil War that personal firearms developed to the point that they really would be effective against armored units. The American Civil war started with the rifle-musket and the mini-ball. The mini-ball would more often than not shatter upon hitting a rigid object. Personal firearms prior to the rifle-musket had a slow rate of fire, 1 shot per 10 seconds was considered good in training. 14th, 15th, and 16th century personal firearms took even longer to employ and were often dangerous to their users. Actually, what spelled the effectiveness of firearms in the American Civil War was the rifled bullet. The musket (which was used in the American Revolution) fired a small metal ball. The problem was that the ball could hit the ground a few feet away as easily as traveling a few dozen yards. It was completely inaccurate, which is why they were fired in a line with as many men as possible. The British used a three row systems, so while one line was firing, the other rows could reload. The Americans used the Native Indian tactics of stealth and cover. During the Civil War, the British line was used again instead of the "stealth tactics" of the American Revolution. The rifled bullet fired a bullet straight instead of in a random direction. It accomplished this by spinning the bullet while it was in the barrel. Between the spinning and the longer shape, it insured that the bullet always fired forward. This landmark in firearms was one of the primary reasons that the use of the British line made the American Civil War one of the bloodiest wars. Since armor was no longer in use during the American Revolution, I am unsure how you have determined that personal firearms were only effective versus armored units during the American Civil War.
Vahenir 07-04-05, 03:48 PM	WaterRabbit can correct me if I'm wrong: But I think what he meant was that firearms would not have been totally effective and devestating to armoured opponents until the Civil War, at which time armour had already fallen out of use. This points to the concept that firearms did not doom armour - since firearms were not a major player against it until it was already gone.
Derren S. 07-04-05, 03:59 PM	Not really scientific but some months ago there was a semi scientific (Science light is probably the better term) movie here in germany of the effectivness of medival weapon. Part of the test was firing a modern 9 mm pistol and a crossbow at close range at a gelatinous mass used for weapon testing. The result was that the crossbow benetrated only slightly less as the bullet 30cm vs 25cm. Granted, taht was against a unarmored target but this shows that when firearms emerged they probably were ven less effective than crossbows. So I think it is unlikely that they were the reason armor disappeared as a comparable weapon already existed for a time. But then, the same movie showed a test where the japanese army fired with a WW2 MG at a katana and the katana only snapping after the third hit and that the first bullet simply splintered when hitting the blade... And something on topic (When somebody still reads this thread) When you want to make a system which incorporates armor weaknes against certain weapons keep it simple and "unrealistic". How about dividing all armor into three categories. Soft for leather Flexible for mail Hard for Plate. Bludgeoning weapons recieve +1 or +2 to attack against hard armor and -1/2 against soft armor Piercing get +1/2 against flexible and -1/2 against hard Slashing gets +1/2 against soft armor and -1/2 against flexible armor. It isn't of course not realistic but it shouldn't get more complicated like that.
Kullak-Kobold Sorcerer 07-04-05, 04:02 PM	D&D doesn't have "plate mail." It did in 2nd Edition - now it has Half and Full Plate. Agreed. Since I have been playing since first edition, I mix the terminology freely. I apologise in advance. Then what the hell were you talking about? The only armour ever referred to as a combination of plate and mail (often mistakenly called "plate-mail") is plate-and-mail armour. If you're not referring to that, then you were really screwing up your terminology even worse than I thought. (Not attacking you, I'm just seriously confused now.) Agreed. I am now as confused as you are. :) That's not an economic factor at all. Nice try, though. As for the rest, see WaterRabbit's post - as he seems to have a handle on the firearm factor - no use in repeating it all. A small ball is easier to manufacture than an arrow or bolt. The rifle can survive while wet (but cannot be fired while wet) but the sinew from a bow or crossbow will lengthen through use. When the rifle is better for durability, it makes sense why it was used. BUT When a musket ball takes no skill to produce, thereby reducing its cost to make and use and it was effective versus plate, why produce a suit of plate armor (which required a specialist to make and required a lot of material) when it could be overcome by an fairly inexpensive technology? That's economic principle at it's finest. No.. Blades are thin. You wouldn't make a 'thicker-edged blade' so that it can cause blunt trauma. If you want blunt trauma, you don't use a sword. I say again: Swords were not crowbars, they were not hammers, and they were not used like either. First, I own a sword. I own a few weapons. A sword does have an edge. It is a thin edge but not razor thin like a Katana. This "edge" is fairly thick in comparison to the Katana. When you wear armor, the force of the "edge" is reduced. Upon impact with a sword against armor, it was more likely a bone would be broken than be lopped off. This impact is called blunt force trauma. It is not a "cut". It is a laceration. The skin "splits" from the force. Against an unarmored foe, it is still called blunt force trauma. The blade is not sharp enough to cut. If it was, it would break and chip against armor. This is just medical speak. D & D is correct in calling it a slashing weapon, but the damage is blunt force trauma. The spike was not used to pierce plates unless it was absolutely necessary to give it a shot. We're talking about metal plates here, people make it seem so easy to jam something through them. I am not saying that at all. And yes, denting their armour made fighting uncomfortable, or even deadly. A hammer was good at that - so you crack him a few times with your hammer until he's having trouble breathing with his breastplate pressing against his ribs - then when he falls down you jam your backspike through his visor. A warhammer weighs about 3 lbs and is used in one hand. The spike takes up the majority of the weapon. The "hammer" end is about 4 inches long and its diameter is is slightly larger than a quarter. If my opponent was lying on the ground, I wouldn't care which end I was using. But in such a fight, when you are hit, you can move back (and many times you are, check your physics). So while you hit his breatplate and shield, pushing yuor opponent back, he is also swinging at you. The first person to break is often the loser. Unlike the "hammer" end, the "spike can penetrate. Again, simple physics. Less surface area to force an opponent back. More force per square inch to penetrate the armor. Not by much. And the area directly around the visor (the 'edges' of the helm, so to speak) would also be extremely weak and would bend quite easily. It isn't as easy as you describe. I own a helm and some chainmail. Hitting someone in the open face (or closed visor) while they are fighting back is almost impossible. As someone swings at you, you parry, duck, move back, strike back, and block with your shield. It is very instinctive to try and protect your face. The purpose of a closed face helm is to protect from arrows. It was also used in jousting, since you generally didn't have any chance of dodging or even parrying the blow. If helmets were that fragile, they would have been discountinued just like plate armor was. We even use helmets in modern day use. So it was actually not difficult to jam a spike through someone's visor. And it could probably go through the helm anyway - since helmets were not made to be especially strong. Helms were made mostly to protect from a glancing blow and to ward away people even wanting to bother striking at your head. But a direct blow from a spike would probably go through a helm. Like I said, you are assuming helms are very weak. They are more effective that you are stating. But I also will agree, a helm has traditionally been less thick that body plates. This is because of the difficulty in hitting an oponent's head.[/QUOTE] Not true of the rest of the armour, which would have been thicker and stronger. This debate can go on and on. If you hit someone with the spike unto someone's helm, it would probably penetrate and kill the opponents. Until you get to take that action, you WOULD NOT be flipping the warhammer around so you could strike with the hammer end to the body and then the spike end to the helm. A longsword weight about 3 lbs and is about 3 1/2 feet long. A warhammer weighs about 3 lbs and is about 1 1/2 feet long. Because it is shorter, it is much more difficult to recover from a strike. Also, because it is shorter, the impact tends to be harder. ? A surcoat, first of all, would do nothing to stop any kind of weapon. Secondly, it was worn -over- the armour. I think what you mean is an aketon (jack, gambeson, etc) - a padded undershirt. A surcoat is a tabard - just a colourful piece of cloth worn over armour. You are correct, my apologies. But unless you are wearing mail with unusually big links - thrusting a weak blade between those links is virtually impossible. This is against another debate. Define a big link compared to a small link. A rapier is a thin blade. No one agrues that. But fine links are more a creation of moderna day. Butcher's Mail is a great example of modern craftsman ship. But the skill and dexterity to make links from iron made them fairly large in comparison. As I said before, a rapier was not designed to be used against an armored foe in the first place. I stand by my opinion of why I would choose which armor type I would rather face with a rapier. It has never been stated what my OPPONENT would be using. If it was rapier versus rapier, I would rather my opponent wear chainmail. If he had a full suit, he woud be slow and tire (since mail is heavy). If he only had a torso suit of chain, the chain and breatplate are effective exposing the same areas. I'd rather have excellent mobility and good protection - mail provides both. Well, not in D&D, unfortunately, but in reality. Again, personal beliefs.
Surreal 07-04-05, 05:30 PM	There was recent episode of Mythbusters where they fired various types of projectiles into ballistics jelly. The crossbow penetrated the furthest by far. Mind you, this is against a stationary soft target. The bolt penetrated furthest mostly because of it's large mass (and hence lots of kinetic energy).
WaterRabbit 07-04-05, 05:53 PM	Since armor was no longer in use during the American Revolution, I am unsure how you have determined that personal firearms were only effective versus armored units during the American Civil War. and WaterRabbit can correct me if I'm wrong: But I think what he meant was that firearms would not have been totally effective and devestating to armoured opponents until the Civil War, at which time armour had already fallen out of use. This points to the concept that firearms did not doom armour - since firearms were not a major player against it until it was already gone. Exactly. Though I am at a loss to understand how you inferred I was talking about armored units being present in the Civil War. Also, rifling was in rifles (hence the name) at the time of the American Revolution. The problem was that it took twice as long to prepare a rifle for firing than a musket. A musket at that time had a rate of fire of about 4 rounds per minute and an effective range of less than 50 yards (against a human-sized target). A rifle might have as many as 2 rounds per minute but could be as low as 1 round per minute; however it had a greater effective range. At the beginning of the Civil War, the 1861 rifle musket used which had a rate of fire of about 6 rounds per minute; fired a .58 caliber conical minie ball at a muzzle velocity of 950 ft/second and had an effective range of about 300 yards (500 yards at max.). Toward the end of the Civil War, repeating rifles with brass cartridges and high rates of fire are what turned the handheld firearm into a truly devastating weapon. So, given that plate armor could be made proof against black powder handheld firearms and given that at the time of the Civil War the rate of fire of these weapons was still less than an English longbow (though its effective range was greater), it is unlikely that they had much impact in the decline of plate. Also, I am using the Civil War example as a boundary condition. Small arms prior to the 18th century were much less effective. However, as late a WWII more soldiers were injured/killed by mortars than any other weapon. In the American Revolutionary War and army without cannon lost or retreated to an army armed with them. Artillery became the true equalizer and rendered armor of any sort useless on the battlefield. Again there were many other factors that led to the decline of armor on the battlefield. Artillery just was the final nail in the coffin as it were. Crossbows (properly called arbalests) could defeat plate, but they were heavy and slow. Not quite. The arbalest is a -type- of crossbow. It's larger than many others, and has a steel prod. The term arbalest is sometimes used interchangeably with 'crossbow' - but its correct usage refers to a particular type of crossbow. It seems that you are not reading my posts closely enough. A crossbow could not defeat plate armor; they did not have enough power. An arbalest, which is a late variation of the crossbow, could thus the aside (properly called arbalests). There are significant material differences between a crossbow (generic) and an arbalest – most notably the steel prod which allowed for much greater pull. I know it is your habit to try and correct everyone’s terminology but here your correction is unwarranted. I realize that I have a dense writing style to which you might be unaccustomed, so in the future reread my sentences at least twice before you invoke the knee-jerk reaction to correct them. Or better yet, you could clarify without the correction. Your pedantic attitude clouds the points you are trying to make.
Kullak-Kobold Sorcerer 07-04-05, 06:11 PM	It wasn't until the end of the American Civil War that personal firearms developed to the point that they really would be effective against armored units. Exactly. Though I am at a loss to understand how you inferred I was talking about armored units being present in the Civil War. I am at the exact same loss on how you determined I said there were. I said Since armor was no longer in use during the American Revolution, I am unsure how you have determined that personal firearms were only effective versus armored units during the American Civil War. I said since they were not around, how did you come to your determination that Civil War firearms were the only effective firearm versus plate?
Vahenir 07-04-05, 07:12 PM	It seems that you are not reading my posts closely enough. Not quite. Your comment was simply unclear. It appeared, even in context, that you were referring to all crossbows ("the crossbow" "was heavy and slow"). If you had said "the arbalest, a heavier -version- of a crossbow...etc" - then that would have been a bit more clear. But I apologize for misunderstanding your statement. I know it is your habit to try and correct everyone’s terminology but here your correction is unwarranted. I realize that I have a dense writing style to which you might be unaccustomed, so in the future reread my sentences at least twice before you invoke the knee-jerk reaction to correct them. Or better yet, you could clarify without the correction. Your pedantic attitude clouds the points you are trying to make. Just felt I should point out that this entire paragraph was unnecessary. The one before it demonstrated that I'd misunderstood you. That was all that was needed. This second paragraph just makes you look like you get off on going at it with me. I suggest cooling your heels a bit, okay? No need to get snippy. A small ball is easier to manufacture than an arrow or bolt. The rifle can survive while wet (but cannot be fired while wet) but the sinew from a bow or crossbow will lengthen through use. I think we're now getting away from the point I had originally made. The point was the economics of -armour- helping them to fall out of favour. It had nothing to do with the economics of firearms. First, I own a sword. I own a few weapons. A sword does have an edge. It is a thin edge but not razor thin like a Katana. This "edge" is fairly thick in comparison to the Katana. When you wear armor, the force of the "edge" is reduced. Upon impact with a sword against armor, it was more likely a bone would be broken than be lopped off. This impact is called blunt force trauma. It is not a "cut". It is a laceration. The skin "splits" from the force. I'm aware of the type of injury sustained from a 'blow through armour.' I also deal with a lot of re-enactment, and own plenty of weapons and armour. And I'm sure those of us that have these things have suffered at least one such injury in our time, yes? But what it appeared that you were saying is that the edge of a blade is 'thickened' to help it produce -more- blunt trauma. That is what I disagree with. An edge is an edge. You wouldn't arbitrarily attempt to make it thicker so that it can do something a sword isn't really intended to do (cause blunt trauma, which is more of a byproduct of armour than an intention of the weapon). And yes, a katana's edge is finer than many other swords - but only because it was intended to be used against unarmoured targets and thus did not have to worry about being damaged. The finer the edge, the easier it is to damage that edge. So a sword with a keen, but not razor, edge would be less susceptible to nicks and other harmful abrasions. So I may have misunderstood your intention, but it looked to me like you were saying that edges were made thicker -so that- they'd cause more blunt trauma on the cut. But then, it seems I'm misunderstanding people a lot today. Chalk it up to a frazzled brain from trying to quit smoking. Again, simple physics. Less surface area to force an opponent back. More force per square inch to penetrate the armor. Except that this equation doesn't take into account the fact that a finer point glances off metal armour -much- easier than a flat, wide surface. Take that into account, and it's quickly apparent why no one was actually attacking their foe with the spike-end of a warhammer, and why it was relegated to a 'finisher.' It isn't as easy as you describe. I own a helm and some chainmail. Hitting someone in the open face (or closed visor) while they are fighting back is almost impossible. As someone swings at you, you parry, duck, move back, strike back, and block with your shield. It is very instinctive to try and protect your face. I think you may have missed that I'm talking about an opponent that has been knocked prone or otherwise is on his back. A good blow with a hammer may knock him out, a second will probably kill him. But jamming your backspike into his visor is a quick, clean (suffice to say) death. If helmets were that fragile, they would have been discountinued just like plate armor was. We even use helmets in modern day use. First of all, a helmet is not primarily built to protect against people jamming the equivalent of an ice-pick into your eyes. But barring that, what you're saying is equivalent to saying "if firearms hadn't been totally effective in 900 AD, we wouldn't be using them today." Modern materials and innovations, as well as changes in the battlefield, dictate what we use today. Helmets today barely resemble helmets of the 1400s, for example - and are rarely made of even close to the same materials. But in any event, I'm NOT saying helms were fragile. I'm saying that they're thinner than most plates meant to protect the body. I'm also saying that the thinner metal around the opening of a visor would be far more precarious considering the opening. If the very tip of the spike gets into the visor, it will tear and pull down at the metal -surrounding- the visor MUCH easier than it would go THROUGH that metal to begin with. That's all I'm saying (and thus the reason that the visor was a prime target for a downed opponent). This is against another debate. Define a big link compared to a small link. A rapier is a thin blade. No one agrues that. But fine links are more a creation of moderna day. Butcher's Mail is a great example of modern craftsman ship. But the skill and dexterity to make links from iron made them fairly large in comparison. A big link would be one that's larger than was historically used. Inner link diameter should be -around- 3/8 of an inch. If it's bigger than that - it's not really comparitive to what was being used historically. And a rapier blade is going to have a -lot- of trouble getting through the tiny openings left by those links. And if it does get in, it's probably going to get caught and break. As for butcher's mail, there's really nothing special about it. It would have made totally impractical combat gear - a full suit would have been far too heavy and cumbersome to bother with. If I remember correctly, there has been mail found that was around 3/16 of an inch in diameter for each link, but is presumed to have been mostly ornamental for the rich - since it would have taken a LONG time to create, and would have been quite uncomfortable in combat for any extended period. If it was rapier versus rapier, I would rather my opponent wear chainmail. If he had a full suit, he woud be slow and tire (since mail is heavy). If he only had a torso suit of chain, the chain and breatplate are effective exposing the same areas. See, I thought we were talking about what would be best to wear -against- someone wielding a rapier (obviously that would be plate). But really, I wouldn't mind at all being the guy in a full suit of mail going up against someone with a rapier - since if they have a rapier too, I've just rendered their weapon virtually useless against most of my body. Different strokes for different folks, right?
Shaken, not Stunned 07-04-05, 08:22 PM	I know it is your habit to try and correct everyone’s terminology but here your correction is unwarranted. I realize that I have a dense writing style to which you might be unaccustomed, so in the future reread my sentences at least twice before you invoke the knee-jerk reaction to correct them. Or better yet, you could clarify without the correction. Your pedantic attitude clouds the points you are trying to make. I wish people wouldn't say stuff like this. It's like saying, "What I say will be confusing and difficult to read thanks to my personal unwillingness to make an effort. Please refrain from commenting, even though my statment will sound insulting (and indeed is quite insulting)." Take the time to make your writings more easily understood if you want people to respong in a more positive way. Almost every opinion or view adds to a discussion with the exception of those which are confusing or misleading, and I would think your opinion could be very helpful were it that it did not fall into this latter catagory.
Willie the Duck 07-04-05, 09:20 PM	It seems that you are not reading my posts closely enough. A crossbow could not defeat plate armor; they did not have enough power. An arbalest, which is a late variation of the crossbow, could thus the aside (properly called arbalests). There are significant material differences between a crossbow (generic) and an arbalest – most notably the steel prod which allowed for much greater pull. He read your post perfectly. You said, "crossbow (properly called arbalests)." The logical conclusion is that you think the proper term for a crossbow is arbalest. Whatever point you thought you were making about arbalests being the crossbow of choice for the application at hand, you never mentioned it, so there was no reason for anyone to assume it. Unless you expect the people you are conversing with to be telepathic, it was you that mispoke, not him that misinterpreted. I know it is your habit to try and correct everyone’s terminology but here your correction is unwarranted. I realize that I have a dense writing style to which you might be unaccustomed, so in the future reread my sentences at least twice before you invoke the knee-jerk reaction to correct them. Or better yet, you could clarify without the correction. Your pedantic attitude clouds the points you are trying to make. How about you proofread your posts before submitting them? That would ensure you were making the point you thought you were and actually contributing to a communicative discussion. The collegiate essay writer that complains about his poor grade and tries the "but THIS is what I meant." gets no sympathy and neither do you.
Willie the Duck 07-04-05, 09:37 PM	But what it appeared that you were saying is that the edge of a blade is 'thickened' to help it produce -more- blunt trauma. That is what I disagree with. An edge is an edge. You wouldn't arbitrarily attempt to make it thicker so that it can do something a sword isn't really intended to do (cause blunt trauma, which is more of a byproduct of armour than an intention of the weapon). And yes, a katana's edge is finer than many other swords - but only because it was intended to be used against unarmoured targets and thus did not have to worry about being damaged. The finer the edge, the easier it is to damage that edge. So a sword with a keen, but not razor, edge would be less susceptible to nicks and other harmful abrasions. Okay, now the knife guy gets to show his stuff. Any blade, from knife to sword to axe or saw can be made either convex, concave or 'v-shaped'. The primary purpose is to provide rigidity based on the resistance offered by the expected substance being cut. With a really narow blade like a paring knife (or katana), you can go through soft substances really quickly and with alot of control (which is why we use them to cut through pears without cutting ourselves. Cleavers tend to be more straight, although they would probably be a little fatter if they didn't have so much body behind them, so they really don't equate well to swords. An axe, however, is striking a hard body (relatively). It needs to absorb alot of strain, and slicing too deeply into the tree would only get it wedged in, thus it tends to have a blade that almost looks like a pumpkin seed in cross section. While the thickness of a standard sword versus a katana makes the cut less of a whisling slice, it is hardly and exclusively blunt trauma cut (although it certainly would be if you didn't get through the armor). remember that european swords certainly did take off limbs on unarmored opponents. The difference between european swords and katanas is a matter of degree, not completely differing function.
Vahenir 07-04-05, 10:28 PM	The difference between european swords and katanas is a matter of degree, not completely differing function. (Forgive me, didn't want to waste too much space quoting the whole block, so I just quoted the summation ;) ) I totally agree, and did not mean to imply otherwise. My point was simply that the -intended- target has an effect on how the weapon is designed, and that unintended targets (like armour for a katana) can prove detrimental. So a katana's finer edge is a boon against flesh - but a detriment if it connects with something harder - as the finer the edge, the weaker the edge.
WaterRabbit 07-05-05, 12:33 AM	He read your post perfectly. You said, "crossbow (properly called arbalests)." The logical conclusion is that you think the proper term for a crossbow is arbalest. Whatever point you thought you were making about arbalests being the crossbow of choice for the application at hand, you never mentioned it, so there was no reason for anyone to assume it. Unless you expect the people you are conversing with to be telepathic, it was you that mispoke [sic], not him that misinterpreted. How about you proofread your posts before submitting them? That would ensure you were making the point you thought you were and actually contributing to a communicative discussion. The collegiate essay writer that complains about his poor grade and tries the "but THIS is what I meant." gets no sympathy and neither do you. I put in the parenthetical remark to avoid pedantic nit-picking (something all too common on this forum) – clearly I was wrong. If it was left out or if I just used the term arbalest, that would have been nit-picked as well -- kind of dammed if you do, damned if you don't. In the context of the sentence, paragraph, and preceding posts it should have been clear I was referring to a weapon that could penetrate plate. I endeavor to be as succinct as possible so others don’t have to wade through overly wordy posts. I also assume that if someone is going to post in a thread, they have been following the conversation in that thread. I will also point out that I proof read and spell check each of my posts. I compose in Word and reread each one at least twice. Have you thought about doing the same? Not only did you misspell “misspoke”, but I didn’t speak – I wrote. If you are going to correct someone about proofreading their posts, perhaps you should as well. I said since they were not around, how did you come to your determination that Civil War firearms were the only effective firearm versus plate? Ok, I see what you are driving at. Until small arms were able to deliver a large volume of accurate fire, they were not much more effective than the bow or crossbow. Until rifling was developed they had a much smaller effective range, about 50 yards at best compared to a bow or crossbow that had out to 200 yards. [Of course, maximum range was much greater.] The 1861 rifle musket is the upper bound for this; advances in ammunition, propellant (smokeless powder), and action (bolt, lever) after this are dramatic. The minie ball as I pointed out earlier tended to shatter upon impact with a rigid surface. Plate armor is a rigid surface. So a theoretical armored target (in proof plate) would be unlikely to be killed or even grievously wounded by a sub-velocity minie ball. However, he probably would be knocked on his rear and may suffer a severe bruise or broken ribs. It would have likely provided a level of protection similar to bullet resistant armor today. Also, given the design, late plate armor would have likely deflected a round ball that wasn’t fired directly on line. Add to that a minie ball cannot penetrate even a couple of inches of hardwood a shield would have added to the protection. This weapon (and variants) represented the epitome of muzzle loaded, black powder weapons and ammunition. Predecessor small arms were much less effective. The contemporary of plate would have been the arquebus (or harquebus): They were difficult to use, had a very low rate of fire, could not penetrate proof plate, and had a tendency to injury the user if use improperly (sometimes even if used properly). In addition, they were smoothbore so they also had a 50 yard or less effective range. They really could not be used in an indirect role in the way a bow was employed. They tended to obscure the target even after a single shot due to the use of black powder. They had all of the drawbacks of a crossbow. Finally, the arquebus was individually hand made and thus was expensive. Even as bad as they were they were still lighter and more effective than their predecessor the handgonne. The Battle of Pavia in 1525 was where the arquebus first gained any distinction. Yet even in this battle, the crossbow was a more prominent and dangerous weapon that turned the tide of the battle. The arquebus was used from the 15th to 17th centuries and was slowly replaced by the musket starting in the 16th century. While rifling was developed in the 15th century, the manufacturing technology was not sufficiently precise for small arms until the mid 18th century. In the previous Battle of Marignano (1515) the cannon coupled with cavalry broke the Swiss pike phalanx. The great breakthrough in the 15th century was to add a wheeled carriage to the cannon and make it more portable. Once cannon were portable, they moved from being a siege weapon to battlefield weapon. The early 16th century begins the decline of plate on the battlefield. By the mid 16th century reduced plate (basically a breastplate) is worn on the battlefield. By the 17th century it is relegated to just a status symbol among nobles and generals. I am sure others can give you a more detailed timeline of the decline. However, even by this simple timeline, you can see that the handgonne, arquebus, and musket could not have been the primary reason for the decline of plate armor. By the time of the rifle, armor was not a component of the battlefield. It is my contention that just as cannon made the castle obsolete, it also made armor obsolete once it became mobile.
Earthcrosser599 07-05-05, 01:53 AM	I read the first two pages and couldn't stop laughing. This is a GAME. If you're going to get all bent out of shape over maces striking chain mail, put down your pencil and paper and go find one of those history clubs who smack each other with those weapons.
Andrew_980 07-05-05, 02:10 PM	My suggestion would be to assign each armor differant ratings vs slash/peirce/blunt rather than each indevidual weapon, perhaps giving weapons such as the pick or the like a "armor peircing" quality that ignores some armor (maybe nat. armor too). Chain shirt/mail is good against slashing but not so good for blunt for example
wordserpent 07-05-05, 02:42 PM	My suggestion would be to assign each armor differant ratings vs slash/peirce/blunt rather than each indevidual weapon, perhaps giving weapons such as the pick or the like a "armor peircing" quality that ignores some armor (maybe nat. armor too). Chain shirt/mail is good against slashing but not so good for blunt for example I like this idea. Perhaps an armor could have three ratings for the type of damage that it resists? Chain mail would have a DR of 5/4/2 or 5 points of Damage reduction versus edged weapons, 4 points versus piercing weapons and 2 points versus blunt trauma. Adding a fourth category, Energy, would tell you how much the armor protected a wearer against heat, cold and electricity by it's ability to absorb or conduct energy. This latter part could tie in with any Sci-fi systems.
Vahenir 07-05-05, 02:46 PM	My suggestion would be to assign each armor differant ratings vs slash/peirce/blunt rather than each indevidual weapon, perhaps giving weapons such as the pick or the like a "armor peircing" quality that ignores some armor (maybe nat. armor too). I already spoke on this type of suggestion, but it's been a long thread, so I'll go over again: If you use that idea to impart some 'realism' to your game, you've already failed. The idea simply doesn't hold water. Axes were exceptionally good against plate. The only way to represent that in your idea is to give plate armour low DR against slashing weapons (since an axe is a slashing weapon). That means that daggers, longswords, bastard swords, hand-axes, kukri, and katana are going to be just as good against plate armour as an axe. Extremely unrealistic. Mail was weak against certain kinds of thrusts - such as thrust-oriented arming swords, estocs, etc. So to represent this, mail would have to be weak against piercing damage. That means a -rapier- could get through mail as easily as an estoc! And let's not forget than an unarmed attack deals bludgeoning damage! So now a fist is MORE useful against a guy in plate than a greatsword - because one deals bludgeoning while the other deals slashing. Etc. It just doesn't work. The only logical way to handle this sort of thing is to have armour act as DR - and to give EACH WEAPON an armour piercing rating, like Mongoose did with the Conan RPG. But this -will- effect game balance and a myriad other little things about combat, feats, and class abilities. So the conclusion is - unless you're willing to really revamp the game to allow for that kind of rule, making armour and weapons interact in any kind of realistic way is virtually impossible without compromising realism- the very thing you're trying to impart. This is a GAME. Yeah, you're right. You know what - we don't need gravity in D&D either. It's just a game, after all. Oh, we don't need dice. Just decide what you want to do - and do it. It's just a game, no reason to get all worked up over "rules." Why do we even need weapons? Just describe what weapon you want to use, and everytime you pretend to hit someone - they die or get seriously injured. It's just a game, no reason to get too involved with such petty concerns. Next, we should get rid of rules for being fatigued, dazed, blinded, etc. It's JUST A GAME! No reason to get all 'realistic' about what happens to you under those conditions. Like it or not, some people like to entertain the prospect of making their games a bit more logical and believable in some aspects. If you disagree with that desire - don't post in those threads. It's as easy as that. Posting in a thread like this to remind us all that it's "just a game" is as ludicrously inane as you seem to think the thread is in the first place. If you're going to get all bent out of shape over maces striking chain mail, put down your pencil and paper and go find one of those history clubs who smack each other with those weapons. I'll remind you that many gamers -are- members of ARMA, the SCA, and similar organizations, slick.
Derren S. 07-05-05, 03:04 PM	If you use that idea to impart some 'realism' to your game, you've already failed. The idea simply doesn't hold water. Who said that this house rule has to be realistic? I still consider my idea doable, simple and flavorful in a nonrealistic way.
Vahenir 07-05-05, 03:11 PM	Who said that this house rule has to be realistic? Considering this entire thread was started in an effort to impart realism into the game - and most of the posts in the thread have been in concerns to that topic, I found it logical to assume your idea was meant as an alterative rule to impart realism. If it isn't, then I don't see the point. It's no more fun than the RAW, and doesn't add any realism - so what would be the point? But that's just my opinion.
Derren S. 07-05-05, 03:14 PM	Well, there is Realism and there is Realism. Realism = Some weapons were better against some type of armor than others. Realism = Weapon A was good against armor X but bad against armor Y untill the 13th century where weapon A' coupled with fighting style µ began to appear...
Vahenir 07-05-05, 03:16 PM	Realism = Some weapons were better against some type of armor than others. So you are trying to invoke this type of realism? Because the system you propose doesn't do this either, as I already pointed out. Some weapons are better against some types of armour. Yep. And naturally, some aren't. Going by damage type doesn't add this type of realism, since it makes all weapons of a certain damage type equal, when that's not the case realistically. So the realism is already dead.
Derren S. 07-05-05, 03:30 PM	Is it more realistic than what D&D has now? Yes.
Elthbert 07-05-05, 05:14 PM	Is it more realistic than what D&D has now? Yes. NO It isa not Vahenir already explained why it is not realistic, it is far less realistic than just giving Armour an AC. As I said before if you want a system that truly simulates realism your going to have to do a lot of math, if you want a more realistic system you can either, play Palladium( I think their system of roling for each attack parry and dodge is much more realistic than D&D's. Their armour system has a simular problem to D&D ( armours have an AR based on coverage and you must beat the AR to damage the person however the armour actually takes damage and one can simply render an armour useless by beating on it enough. ) but even though I think it is margianally more realistic. However it takes a lot longer about 2 or 3 times as long to have a battle but it is more realistic. Or you can go with the mongoose publishing system or armours goving a DR ( but agian more math) or you can get a 1st edition book and use the Armour penetration rules from there for each weapon( but still more math.
Vahenir 07-05-05, 07:15 PM	Is it more realistic than what D&D has now? Yes. No. As I've already demonstrated, it's not more realistic than we have now. It's simply a variant abstraction. But both your suggestion and the RAW are equally incorrect, and equally abstract, as neither are inherently even remotely realistic. I'm not coming down on you or anything. If your concept is something you really like - flesh it out, as I once did, and use it to your heart's content. I'm not saying it's a BAD rule (as I'm not saying the RAW is bad). I'm just saying it's no more realistic than the RAW.
Elthbert 07-05-05, 11:07 PM	VahenirFair enough. But you'd have to explain why so many historical manuals that involve the use of the longsword only teach its use in two hands. Note that the -only- link of all those I posted that claims a 'longsword' could be used in one-hand isn't the best of the links, because it's also the one that has quite a few errors, and even claims the 'broadsword' is a type of sword, when another article on that site even discusses that there's no such thing as a 'broadsword.' So I'm going to have to go with what I've read in every source - the longsword is a two-hander almost exclusively. Sorry I missed this I don't think I need to explain anything of the kind hisotrical manuels show the longsword being used one handed Vadi shows numerous one handed techniques granted he is 15th century but it is still the longsword he is showing, as I remember other masters also show onehanded Longsword techniques I will try and find you some specific referances.
Elthbert 07-05-05, 11:11 PM	Oh that was easy. here are some links to Vadi illustrations using the longsword in one hand. http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/VadiNewImages/Untitled-7.jpg http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/VadiNewImages/Untitled-4.jpg http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/VadiNewImages/Untitled-6.jpg (second picture) or here is a collect of illustrations from his work, peruse them you will see MANY one-handed techniques for the longsword.
Elthbert 07-05-05, 11:22 PM	http://www.thehaca.com/pdf/sf7.JPG or herre is a german illustration which shows a onehanded grapple technique, I have actually practiced this grapple and the reason one doesn't let go of the sword is that one can still use it once one has incapacitated the foe. and some more from Paulus Hector Mair http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Mair/60.jpg http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Mair/48.jpg
Elthbert 07-05-05, 11:36 PM	Water rabbit I have to say i am not sure I agree with your assessment of the artillery/ armour distinction, and your timeing is a bit off, in 1588 when spain was going to invade england there where many many suits of full plate armour ready for the invading troops, even in the early 17th century it was not gone. And even near the end of the 30 years war armour had not been relagated to only a breastplate, sholder and upper leg protection where still often worn. I would argue that it was the invention of the flintlock in the mid 17th century which doomed armour, for while the armour would infact stop many round the huge increase in firepower provided by the flintlock ended it. of course the breastplate would live on among cavalry for sometime more but that is a differant issue. Artillery had an impact but not one of tremendous significance, There was already field artillery at Crecy in the 1300's. No it was the pike formation followed by the flintlock which killed plate armour. Of course I would argue that the cannon didn't really kill the castle either economics did, but that is a diffferant arguement.
Elthbert 07-06-05, 01:09 AM	Wow I almost forgot Talhoffer, how could I forget Talhoffer? http://www.schielhau.org/talpoint.html Try 7,10, and 11
WaterRabbit 07-06-05, 01:57 AM	Water rabbit I have to say i am not sure I agree with your assessment of the artillery/ armour distinction, and your timeing is a bit off, in 1588 when spain was going to invade england there where many many suits of full plate armour ready for the invading troops, even in the early 17th century it was not gone. And even near the end of the 30 years war armour had not been relagated to only a breastplate, sholder and upper leg protection where still often worn. I would argue that it was the invention of the flintlock in the mid 17th century which doomed armour, for while the armour would infact stop many round the huge increase in firepower provided by the flintlock ended it. of course the breastplate would live on among cavalry for sometime more but that is a differant issue. Artillery had an impact but not one of tremendous significance, There was already field artillery at Crecy in the 1300's. No it was the pike formation followed by the flintlock which killed plate armour. Of course I would argue that the cannon didn't really kill the castle either economics did, but that is a diffferant arguement. I think it is a bit of a stretch to call the cannon used at Crecy (1346) “field artillery”. They were immobile, lacking a carriage and they fired round shot carved from stone. They had little influence on the battle as a whole. The only reason they could be brought into play at all was the defensive nature of the English lines. But even so, this battle is considered by many to be the beginning of the end for the knight – more to do with “peasants” killing nobility. I am skeptical that the pike formation had much to do with the downfall of plate armor. Especially given the effectiveness of both cannon and heavy cavalry in the Battle of Marignano (1515) I mentioned earlier. Pike formations are the epitome of ‘cannon fodder’. For the Spanish Armada (1588) how many is “many many suits”? What percentage of Alessandro Farnese’s invasion force was equipped in full plate? I don’t know, but I suspect it was much less than at Agincourt. I really haven’t studied the invasion force’s composition since of course it never came into play. By the time of the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) full plate is just not in use. The fact that reduced plate, which sacrifices some protection for better mobility, was still in use speaks more to how ineffectual small arms were at that point. We also see how devastating artillery was during this time period. Also, I wrote “basically” a breastplate not “only” a breastplate. All told, we are talking about a suit of armor that provides less protection than even transitional plate. The battlefield is still dominated by melee and not ranged combat during this period. I think that if you look closely, it is mainly mercenary units that are wearing this armor as well. While the flintlock was developed during this time frame (1610-1630) and lasted until percussion took off in 1830, it was still not as widespread as the arquebus. I think you are going to have to define ‘a huge increase in firepower’ of the flintlock over the previous mechanisms. We are still only looking at weapons that fire 1 or 2 rounds per minute in non-battlefield conditions. By the time the flintlock became ubiquitous, armor was essentially gone from the battlefield. Again, I point out that many other factors play into this both social and economical (for both the castle and plate). However, plate was already on the decline long before firearms became effective battlefield weapons. If there was a weapon that created this decline it was artillery. Cannon and mortars are just more effective battlefield weapons than their handheld counterparts and equally deadly to both armored and unarmored soldiers.
Chaotic Nothing 07-06-05, 02:46 AM	Elthbert- Every one of those pictures is a GRAPPLE technique. The only way to attack IN A GRAPPLE is indeed with one hand while the other is grappling, but a grapple is entirely different than a sword swing. You have yet to show something supporting your claim. Just to clarify, because I dont really care about the argument.
Elthbert 07-06-05, 02:56 AM	I am skeptical that the pike formation had much to do with the downfall of plate armor. Especially given the effectiveness of both cannon and heavy cavalry in the Battle of Marignano (1515) I mentioned earlier. Pike formations are the epitome of ‘cannon fodder’. Now if you are argueing that artillery ended the square of pikeman I agree. For the Spanish Armada (1588) how many is “many many suits”? What percentage of Alessandro Farnese’s invasion force was equipped in full plate? I don’t know, but I suspect it was much less than at Agincourt. I really haven’t studied the invasion force’s composition since of course it never came into play. How many I am not sure, I'll have to do some looking to come up with a number but dozens are still extant, that testifies that there wher numerous suits. By the time of the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) full plate is just not in use. The fact that reduced plate, which sacrifices some protection for better mobility, was still in use speaks more to how ineffectual small arms were at that point. We also see how devastating artillery was during this time period. Also, I wrote “basically” a breastplate not “only” a breastplate. All told, we are talking about a suit of armor that provides less protection than even transitional plate. The battlefield is still dominated by melee and not ranged combat during this period. I think that if you look closely, it is mainly mercenary units that are wearing this armor as well. . There where units using fullplate in the English civil war as I remember Arthur Haselridge's cavalry used full plate armour this is certianly contepary with the 30 years war. While the flintlock was developed during this time frame (1610-1630) and lasted until percussion took off in 1830, it was still not as widespread as the arquebus. I think you are going to have to define ‘a huge increase in firepower’ of the flintlock over the previous mechanisms. We are still only looking at weapons that fire 1 or 2 rounds per minute in non-battlefield conditions. By the time the flintlock became ubiquitous, armor was essentially gone from the battlefield. Oh you are correct particularly on the Continent the flintlock took a while (although the matchlock was in common use at the time not the Arqubus thats 1500's not 1600's) to catch on and really didn't become common until after the 30years war was over, interestingly thats the last time you see full plate on the battlefield. Cannon and mortars are just more effective battlefield weapons than their handheld counterparts and equally deadly to both armored and unarmored soldiers. on this we have no disagreement.
Elthbert 07-06-05, 02:59 AM	Elthbert- Every one of those pictures is a GRAPPLE technique. The only way to attack IN A GRAPPLE is indeed with one hand while the other is grappling, but a grapple is entirely different than a sword swing. You have yet to show something supporting your claim. Just to clarify, because I dont really care about the argument. Although several of Vadi's them are not grapple techniques it actually it doesn't matter, the strike is being made with the sword one handed, this is not something that can be done with a true two handed sword, I think you need to look at them agian, on many if not most one hand is being used to bind the opponants weapon and the other is being used to swing the sword. or thrust with it as the case may be. For the record I have done these techniques and you most certainly can and do swing or thrust with the sword. Further you can easily swing a longsword with one hand, it just isn't hard to do. And there are many grapples that involve both hands on the sword.
roetroc 07-06-05, 09:25 AM	There is a school thought that indicates that the mace remained on the battlefield, partly, due to it's tendency to incapacitate rather than outright kill. Especially in an era where ransoms were a great incentive for knights to go to war.
Vahenir 07-06-05, 03:41 PM	Elthbert: As was mentioned (though I'm really loathe to agree with CN), those are primarily grappling techniques. There are also techniques just like those for swords that we would both agree are -definitely- only for two-hand use. So it proves nothing. I'm not debating whether a longsword can be -held- in one hand, I'm debating whether it can be effectively wielded in one hand. And none of those contradict my position, as they all show the weapon being held or utilized in a grapple, not actually swung or thrust. I mean, when I was doing some training in two-handers, I had a sword almost as tall as myself (few inches shy), that weighed close to 6 pounds or so. There was -no- way I was going to ever be able to use this thing in one hand effectively. But I still could grip it one-handed to push my opponent, hit them, or grab at them. That doesn't make nearly 6-foot two-hand swords usable in one hand, however.
Elthbert 07-06-05, 03:49 PM	Elthbert: As was mentioned (though I'm really loathe to agree with CN), those are primarily grappling techniques. There are also techniques just like those for swords that we would both agree are -definitely- only for two-hand use. So it proves nothing. I'm not debating whether a longsword can be -held- in one hand, I'm debating whether it can be effectively wielded in one hand. And none of those contradict my position, as they all show the weapon being held or utilized in a grapple, not actually swung or thrust. I mean, when I was doing some training in two-handers, I had a sword almost as tall as myself (few inches shy), that weighed close to 6 pounds or so. There was -no- way I was going to ever be able to use this thing in one hand effectively. But I still could grip it one-handed to push my opponent, hit them, or grab at them. That doesn't make nearly 6-foot two-hand swords usable in one hand, however. well I just guess we will hav eto disagree because I would contend that those are thrust and cuts being made with the sword arm while the other is binding the weapon or grappleing. I think it is clear if you look at the illustrations alone. While we agree that your sx foot sword would not be usable with one hand, those illustrations are not showing the sword being used to hit or push but to cut and thrust.
Vahenir 07-07-05, 04:13 PM	Well the problem with that logic is that in none of those images is the longsword being used in any real -sword- attack. I could do the same maneuvers with a 6-foot sword, which is mostly definitely two-handed. So those images demonstrate -my- point, they do not prove that a longsword was ever a one-hand weapon. But we can agree to disagree, if you like.