|
Post by Cosmoline on Sept 17, 2019 19:56:58 GMT
Small bones, yes. But I don't think we're talking about hand hits here. As far as sword weights, what four pound arming swords are there? Over three is rare, and most were two and a half or less.
This was addressed years ago:
They were also, you know, SHARP. Because swords.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Sept 17, 2019 20:00:31 GMT
Ah, SOCIAL REASONS?! LOL No, it was because weapons started getting through mail more and more. We recently saw what a longbow's arrow can do to mail, and how effectively plate stops that same arrow. Special pole arms such as the Goedendag emerged that could make short work of it in thrusts, and smash bone through it. The armor had to respond to the technology, just as it always does.
As far as the period art, much of it was pure fantasy and included cuts through steel helms. But again we come back to REAL WORLD TESTING. If indeed the art is correct and a hard hit can cut right through riveted mail, then it should be possible to recreate that. But the testing showed the opposite. It shows, in fact, that thrusting is the best means of getting through mail. Ideally with pole weapons. I guess you can keep taking a time machine back to the early 2000's when a lot of these issues were just getting hashed out. But it's pretty well settled now. Arming sword cuts don't reliably damage through mail and padding, and will not do enough damage to the mail itself. Thrusts show more promise, including thrusts starting off in a cut-like motion. But the damage they do to mail is eclipsed by axes and spears.
|
|
|
Post by elbrittania39 on Sept 17, 2019 20:06:41 GMT
Dude calm down. We all know swords were sharp. No need to talk down because we disagree on a super technical aspects of historical sword play.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Sept 17, 2019 20:17:00 GMT
From the article you’ve linked to (which I’m familiar with since it came out):
"…the average weight of swords from the 10th to the 15th centuries was 1.3 kg…"
When talking “heavy”, Clements meant ridiculous claims of sword weights such as "…how 14th century swords were "heavy" sometimes weighing as much as "40 pounds" (!)…" and goes on to say that "from ordinary hands-on experience we know full well that swords were not excessively heavy nor did they weigh 10 or 15 pounds and more."
Here’s one authentic example, with a quick search:
With a strong blow, three pounds with good blade presence will be more than enough to exert sufficient force to injure badly through (again, not necessarily cutting through) what has to be expected from contemporary, well-made armor (which must’ve varied quite a bit, though).
Many others to be found online well above three pounds, at least. Not even talking about hand-and-and-a-half swords. I have seen many other reverences with weights given, but won’t bother to look them up now. I get the sense you’re trying to diffuse the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Sept 17, 2019 20:20:34 GMT
OK, let's see testing on that claim. Otherwise we'll keep going back and forth forever.
|
|
|
Post by elbrittania39 on Sept 17, 2019 20:26:22 GMT
OK, let's see testing on that claim. Otherwise we'll keep going back and forth forever. It's not a fair burden to ask every forum member who disagrees with you to go scientifically prove their claims themselves. For example, that would require me going out, buying historically accurate mail, historically accurate gambeson, a historically accurate arming sword, probably a ballistic gel torso with fake bones, then setting up camera and testing strikes that would likely damage the sword and or the mail to post my findings. So we're talking at least 3 grand and weeks of work just to provide a rebuttal to a forum argument?
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Sept 17, 2019 20:29:39 GMT
The experts in the thread I’ve linked to have layed out the many difficulties in recreating such tests. It’s not as easy as you claimed “You can go test this yourself anytime by getting some decent riveted mail and seeing how well cuts from a sharp do against it.”. Authentic mail was different from modern mail.
Now if I told you to get a piece of good modern mail, put it over a gambeson (was it worn this way – probably not; and which padding?) and have someone strike your shoulder with a hard blow from a “weighty” sword, I’d feel like a bad person.
Mail with padding over a fresh carcass, to see if it breaks bone, that’s another thing, but will leave a lot to be desired - in addition to being quite costly.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Sept 17, 2019 20:33:17 GMT
OK, let's see testing on that claim. Otherwise we'll keep going back and forth forever. It's not a fair burden to ask every forum member who disagrees with you to go scientifically prove their claims themselves. For example, that would require me going out, buying historically accurate mail, historically accurate gambeson, a historically accurate arming sword, probably a ballistic gel torso with fake bones, then setting up camera and testing strikes that would likely damage the sword and or the mail to post my findings. So we're talking at least 3 grand and weeks of work just to provide a rebuttal to a forum argument? It's been twenty years since this issue was being debated on the old forums. Surely someone has shown large bone breakage through mail and padding at this point. If not, it's actually not that difficult to test. I can't do it, because apparently I swing too softly LOL. It's the youtube era. And no it doesn't cost three grand to set up a basic test for this. Some pig legs and riveted mail can be a start. Or just post a video from someone else who proved it.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Sept 17, 2019 20:35:18 GMT
The experts in the thread I’ve linked to have layed out the many difficulties in recreating such tests. It’s not as easy as you claimed “You can go test this yourself anytime by getting some decent riveted mail and seeing how well cuts from a sharp do against it.”. Authentic mail was different from modern mail. Now if I told you to get a piece of good modern mail, put it over a gambeson (was it worn this way – probably not; and which padding?) and have someone strike your shoulder with a hard blow from a “weighty” sword, I’d feel like a bad person. Mail with padding over a fresh carcass, to see if it breaks bone, that’s another thing, but will leave a lot to be desired - in addition to being quite costly.
How much does a part of pig cost? Not that much. And most of us have scrap riveted mail around. It's pretty cheap these days. Such a test doesn't have to be perfect. But otherwise we will just go back and forth. I'm happy to do it, but you've accused me of not hitting hard enough or not getting hit hard enough. As far as how much padding, it's your test. The important thing is to show what you did in detail and explain why.
From all I've heard, this question was raised many years ago and has since been resolved. But by all means if you think we got it wrong then I'm open to considering a test result. Maybe the addition of a horse's speed makes the difference, or maybe some aspect was overlooked. But so far your position seems to be that I haven't been getting hit hard enough, HEMA doesn't replicate battlefield fighting, the art shows the injuries through mail, plate harness was a matter of fashion, and technique wasn't part of medieval fighting. What I've been taught by my instructors and by experts all over the country and overseas is the opposite of what you're contending. But maybe you are right. Let's see.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Sept 17, 2019 20:43:20 GMT
I must admit this is tempting and can already see myself clowning around before my spiritual eye, trying to set that thing up in a “realistic” way. However, let me ask first, if it doesn’t brake a bone, would that mean it couldn’t have been a severely impeding injury nonetheless?
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Sept 17, 2019 20:47:37 GMT
Here's my two bits--set the standard by starting with what we all agree on. Hit the thing with a pole arm or war hammer and observe results. All of us agree a hit with one of those through mail will give you a bad bad day. Then those results can be compared. If the war hammer just tears ligaments and tissue without breaking the big bones, you can see if the sword does likewise. Shoulder and ribs would seem like a good selection--and tasty.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Sept 17, 2019 20:51:48 GMT
I have never said technique wasn’t important or that plate harness was a matter of fashion. Nor have I implied you wouldn’t be able to hit hard enough. I’ve also said more than once that the injuries shown in artwork struck through mail are questionable. You are not playing fair here.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Sept 17, 2019 21:00:53 GMT
Maybe I misunderstood you:
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Sept 17, 2019 21:16:54 GMT
I guess so. I don’t think we disagree largely on the reason for the development/spreading of plate, especially when more and more people of lower status found reason to join the battlefields. I also guess we agree on that plate is (in general) harder to penetrate than mail and gives more protection from blunt trauma. And most likely easier to produce, given various socio-economic changes of the time (labor intensity vs. capital intensity/material availability).
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Sept 17, 2019 21:38:27 GMT
I like how far the goalposts got moved, from talking about force in sword play, to the evolution of plate armor.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Sept 17, 2019 21:49:18 GMT
What goalposts? It's a discussion, not a game.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Sept 17, 2019 22:18:39 GMT
What goalposts? It's a discussion, not a game. It's a term describing a fallacy. Not literal figures.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Sept 17, 2019 22:41:03 GMT
So to narrow the goalposts, it seems to come down to this: Two guys meet on the battlefield, both clad in mail and padding of the same quality (also with helmets, with or without shields, on foot or horseback, doesn't matter). Both armed with swords, a lighter and a heavier one. One tries to find an opening in the armor with a quick blade and finesse, the other tries to strike the other powerful at any given target on the body. Who wins? Who will be the one causing the fight to take turns in his favor, the soonest?
Is it the one trying to hit a small, unprotected opening with comparably light blows? Or is it the one trying to hit a big, but (perhaps) well-protected part of the body with heavy blows? Who will gain (or regain) the initiative and overpower his opponent rather quickly, statistically?
To me, the answer is clear. The one using heavy blows has any chance to hit either an unprotected or protected part of the body, to either strike his opponent decisively or at least to discomfort resp. off-balance him, and work forwards from there. The other can only hope to hit that small spot he has picked, though it moves faster than his eyes can tell, and nothing else.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Sept 17, 2019 23:16:46 GMT
So to narrow the goalposts, it seems to come down to this: Two guys meet on the battlefield, both clad in mail and padding of the same quality (also with helmets, with or without shields, on foot or horseback, doesn't matter). Both armed with swords, a lighter and a heavier one. One tries to find an opening in the armor with a quick blade and finesse, the other tries to strike the other powerful at any given target on the body. Who wins? Who will be the one causing the fight to take turns in his favor, the soonest?
Is it the one trying to hit a small, unprotected opening with comparably light blows? Or is it the one trying to hit a big, but (perhaps) well-protected part of the body with heavy blows? Who will gain (or regain) the initiative and overpower his opponent rather quickly, statistically?
To me, the answer is clear. The one using heavy blows has any chance to hit either an unprotected or protected part of the body, to either strike his opponent decisively or at least to discomfort resp. off-balance him, and work forwards from there. The other can only hope to hit that small spot he has picked, though it moves faster than his eyes can tell, and nothing else. The contest, as always, will be largely decided before either blade reaches a person. Whoever takes control of the center and neutralizes the opponent's attack will have the first ability to hit paydirt. And by that time whatever energy you have from the big blow is likely gone, so you work with what you have. It could be a small opening for a thrust, a slice to open skin, or an opportunity to take control through grappling or pommel bashing. That, in a nutshell, is the problem with the idea of allmighty sword blows in any combat. Even if they did work through mail, you hardly ever get such a clean opportunity. That doesn't mean powerful blows can't be useful in the fight. Zorn-ort style attacks are useful with arming swords. As are powerful zwerchs and line-clearing attacks to longpoint. But it's a huge luxury to be able to stand in blade-swing and just beat on someone's torso. Maybe they used the shields to allow it? I don't know. I suppose it's possible. But the other guy will have a shield too presumably.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Sept 17, 2019 23:22:34 GMT
And yet it always works both ways. A heavy sword (not too heavy for me) doesn’t keep me from “taking the center” (most overused and misunderstood term in ma for years now, not only hema).
Or as Ol’ George says “Bring me to a fencer, I will bring him out of his fence tricks with down right blows.” It’s a bit more than an ideology.
|
|