|
Post by Cosmoline on Sept 19, 2019 19:39:11 GMT
Also Cosmoline, can you please stop arguing points no one is making? You bring up the "just bash em school" and the idea that swords are unsharpened percussive weapons. Literally no one, let me repeat that, literally no one here is saying that. The only thing I've seen people say, is that delivering a blow with a considerable amount of force can matter, and can situationally do some amount of damage through protective gear. I was pointing out that Victorian antiquarians came up with this theory, and that this is the background of the current debate and has been for some time. I'm not sure why you're upset about this. There is still a broad division between folks who reject the idea that the late medieval sword books had any relation to real combat, and those who use these texts as a starting point. And obviously if you're using a four or five pound arming sword's blade as a blunt instrument, you're closer to the Victorian theory than the HEMA theory. We can exchange theories all day, but ultimately testing is the key to resolving this. To date, even hard cuts with arming swords haven't been able to cut through riveted mail. Conversely, thrusts have been able to, as have warbow arrows. This has been demonstrated in many tests both formal and informal. The next concept is whether a hard swing with a heavy arming sword can nevertheless injure someone through mail and early or high medieval padding. And I don't know that that's been tested much, but it would be interesting to see. Personally, as noted, I think when you add a charging horse's power to such a cut it starts to get a lot more frightening on the business end. But I don't know that anyone has tested this yet.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Sept 19, 2019 20:09:43 GMT
One wonders why they even bothered to wear a helmet like that at all then if one sword blow would cleave it right through like a tomato. I mean surely they would have done their own tests with these helmets and if it was so easily made useless by a single blow they would make it thicker,etc. One could also wonder why they even bothered to use swords if they broke. Equipment fails, even if it's a good design. There are also accounts of swords being stopped dead in their tracks and even snapped on a hard strike to the steel head cap under a turban.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Sept 19, 2019 20:22:32 GMT
One could also wonder why they even bothered to use swords if they broke. Equipment fails, even if it's a good design. There are also accounts of swords being stopped dead in their tracks and even snapped on a hard strike to the steel head cap under a turban. Yes but according to the account these helms seemed almost routinely chopped into confetti lol Actually believe it or not, those two are some of the only ones I've found in my two readings of the book. Lots of accounts of soldiers actually resorting to using the point as their Indian foes were too armored, usually with cloth and turban.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Sept 19, 2019 20:28:39 GMT
I have given myself a break, and am back again. Back to force because I have no interest in discussing armor evolution, here's an account of a British soldier cutting through the likely iron helmet of an Indian warrior. A blow without the man giving his strength to it? Certainly not a weak armed blow without the use of the arm, chest, and shoulder muscles.
He was on a horse, though it's not clear if it was still moving forward. I'm starting to wonder if that's a factor in this. To my knowledge nobody was ever able to match these "helmet splitting" accounts in art and literature, but I don't know that they tried it horseback. It would be very interesting to recreate the period helmet and include a horse back saber charge. This account is near enough in time that folks could eliminate much of the speculation inherent to recreating medieval events.
In this case I really doubt it was a factor, it wasn't a forward moving cut or a thrust, it was downright. We also don't know (other than it was his "scimitar") what sword our boy used. We do see the effect of the horse moving in such blows where the sword is moving forwards through a target, or thrusting through, but I don't see too much in the way of a downright blow, aside from if the horses were moving past each other, there may be an exaggerated element of drawing, however I do not think this is what happened as it was described cleanly as only a downright blow. It does state the enemies horse "galloped on" towards his lines.
There would still be a world of speculation. What grade of iron or steel was in the helmet? What form was it? How heavy was the sword? How sharp was it? How fast were the horses moving? How tall are our opponents? Etc etc.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Sept 19, 2019 20:45:19 GMT
Also Cosmoline, can you please stop arguing points no one is making? You bring up the "just bash em school" and the idea that swords are unsharpened percussive weapons. Literally no one, let me repeat that, literally no one here is saying that. The only thing I've seen people say, is that delivering a blow with a considerable amount of force can matter, and can situationally do some amount of damage through protective gear. I was pointing out that Victorian antiquarians came up with this theory, and that this is the background of the current debate and has been for some time. I'm not sure why you're upset about this. There is still a broad division between folks who reject the idea that the late medieval sword books had any relation to real combat, and those who use these texts as a starting point. And obviously if you're using a four or five pound arming sword's blade as a blunt instrument, you're closer to the Victorian theory than the HEMA theory. We can exchange theories all day, but ultimately testing is the key to resolving this. To date, even hard cuts with arming swords haven't been able to cut through riveted mail. Conversely, thrusts have been able to, as have warbow arrows. This has been demonstrated in many tests both formal and informal. The next concept is whether a hard swing with a heavy arming sword can nevertheless injure someone through mail and early or high medieval padding. And I don't know that that's been tested much, but it would be interesting to see. Personally, as noted, I think when you add a charging horse's power to such a cut it starts to get a lot more frightening on the business end. But I don't know that anyone has tested this yet. You've been on that point though, of whacky bashy for a while. Not just to mention the victorian angle.
There is not one single HEMA theory. There are people who think curved swords do not thrust, and people who think you should only cut with the sabre because otherwise it thrusts so well you begin to perform rapier. And there are also people who believe sabre fencing should be 50/50. There are a multitude of "best way to use this weapon and what it's for" in any given weapon system in HEMA.
Much of mounted combat didn't happen like in the movies with men rushing past each other, there was a true and defined melee element to mounted combat and in many accounts circling is described to get a better angle on the opponent, so in some cases the horse was only acting as a vehicle.
So even though people using lighter and more hilt balanced swords in hema have broken bones through modern padded protective gear, and even through modern steel mesh, using what should be by your own logic "HEMA theory", why wouldn't they also break bones when using maybe just a wool coat, a gambeson, or mail?
Matt Easton broke his pinky through a bulky Red Dragon, sparring with infantry weight sabres. It doesn't have to be a super heavy sword with a Conan strike to break bones, it needs to move quickly, and hit with force.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Sept 19, 2019 20:48:40 GMT
But if those two accounts are freak incidents then maybe we shouldn't use them illustrate a point? Or is the point just that clearly a blow that hard would obviously involve a good amount of muscle power as well as technique. The latter.
And as well as that, I wouldn't call them exactly freak incidents, more an example of the rare incident of equipement failing. In that isolated moment in time, sure it was a freak incident that the helmet, shield, or sword was made of poor quality and soft iron or steel, or tempered improperly. But on one page we have two very similar things happen, not even that far apart in time. I think it's more apt to compare it to a pistol jamming in combat or a self defense scenario.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Sept 19, 2019 21:01:21 GMT
Cosmoline, you’re creating unnecessary dichotomies. Then you’re citing a man on a subject and completely ignore that same (very knowledgeable and respectable) man on another. In general, what you do is no less speculative than what others do – maybe a lot more so, since I have every reason to assume you don’t do much full contact let alone scenario training. Yet you speak with authority and accuse others of mere speculation, and all while using very questionable rhetoric tactics.
The tests you talk about have very little validity (I assume it’s the tests that are around the internet for years now). Aside from the quality of the mail itself (what is/was the quality of the mail and its specific characteristics?), seldom was put good power into the strike. If anything, at least the Hurstwic test should have shown you that mail without padding bears little protection from percussive force.
How much padding they did wear under their mail (and how rigid) is hard to say, but remember, they needed not only to fight, but also to march, sleep, live in that armor for a long time. They didn’t drive up to the field in their Hyundais with the cup holders, throwing off their slippers and jumping into their high-tech suits.
Also a good stab with a sharp point might be able to penetrate mail but will be just as hard or most probably harder to pull off in a fight (forget certain blessed treatises and their modern interprets for a second), and have a hard time getting through thick padding (a point needs to be either really sharp or pointy or best both for that, all problems after repeatedly having met mail etc. with force). In a thrust, the blade will most probably flex a great deal. In a good cut, the blade flex is much less and a great amount of the power (with good solid body mechanics, not snapping; and, yes, weight, height and muscle) will be transferred through all flexible layers of armor right into the body, splitting the links of the mail or not. This is best done with a heavier sword, and a reason for why we get to see longer and heavier cutting swords as the age of mail proceeds.
Joints or hard parts of the body where always vulnerable, especially to cuts, and that’s one reason why plate got more developed, despite encumbering the agility of the wearer even more (increasing, not lessening the difference between armored and unarmored fighting resp. fencing > don’t be deceived by the “Liechtenauers” and monks, the “commoners” where risking their life in battle, the others impressing the ladies; bind work in general works best armored vs. unarmored, surprise, surprise).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2019 21:14:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Sept 19, 2019 21:20:46 GMT
I sense an ARMA vs the world in some of the posts and we should go to an edge vs flat to really get to the root of the truths Unless the W. in R.W. is read as „world“, no. Also I'm not affiliated with the ARMA.
I knew that “flatamastrong” had to come up sooner or later, I had a bet going with myself for it being from you
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Sept 19, 2019 21:54:04 GMT
Small finger and wrist bones, as I stated earlier. But not shoulder bones. Not bones that we were talking about in the main discussion. Which means, if true, that hard hits to the mail-armored arm or chest would be largely a waste of time. As noted I have taken many many hits to these places with padding on, and only got bruises. The response was I don't get hit hard enough. Though admittedly I do wear some basic plastic bits on shoulders and elbows when longswords are in play. My response was--let's test it! See how the heavy arming sword compares with a war hammer vs. meat under mail and padding. Let's see if a horse's power changes that.
From my position, HEMA harnessfetchen strongly suggests that thrusts are best against armor with swords, or inversion/pommel bashing. Applying that back to mail, others have shown that thrusts do indeed seem to get through mail better than standard cuts. And my own experiences in sparring esp. with shields and bucklers blocking the path are that thrusts often end up getting paydirt, while big cuts almost never do. So I've drawn my conclusions based on this evidence. And that's still my position. We clearly have different views of the issue, based on different sources. So the solution is--let's test it. If you don't think they were using the right mail, use what you think is right. I don't see any other resolution here.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Sept 19, 2019 22:03:27 GMT
Would you keep fighting on well for long with a broken wrist? Never have I said it needs a broken shoulder to alter a fight decisively. Also I know the answer pretty assuredly - are you that sure you do? Why don't you come up with such a test?
BTW, anyone else feeling like one of the linguistic gladiators of the forum ATM? Then again, around 1300 clicks by now doesn’t seem like a lot of audience. I’d probably brake my neck from stumbling, anyways. No, really. LOL.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Sept 19, 2019 22:06:57 GMT
I will absolutely agree that a good wrist/finger strike against someone only wearing light padding with mail on their hand is a fine hit. I suspect they would have kept their hands away from engagement and used the shield until ready to strike, but again that's speculative ;-)
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Sept 19, 2019 23:12:06 GMT
I will absolutely agree that a good wrist/finger strike against someone only wearing light padding with mail on their hand is a fine hit. I suspect they would have kept their hands away from engagement and used the shield until ready to strike, but again that's speculative ;-) "A good head strike is a fine hit, but I suspect they would protect their head" That's your logic. Really? Your response is to say "test a heavy arming sword against a mace"? Apples to oranges. Why even bring up the mace? Did anyone say the mace couldn't? No one is saying the sword cut has to pass through the mail to injure, it is being said that the cut can, through percussive force, break bones through mail and perhaps padding depending on the level.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Sept 19, 2019 23:46:33 GMT
As I explained earlier, the test would benefit from a baseline. In this case, something that everyone generally agrees will hurt you through mail and padding. A war hammer for example. Then, seeing what that damage looks like you can test the arming swords and compare. Otherwise, what do you compare the sword damage on the medium to? If a heavy arming sword is doing comparable damage to a war hammer, the theory is bolstered. If it does no apparent damage to a war hammer's carnage, the theory is undercut. If neither does apparent damage, you may need a different testing medium.
? I don't follow that. They did protect their heads.
|
|
|
Post by Adventurer'sBlade on Sept 19, 2019 23:47:33 GMT
The helm-cleaving account reads like a fish story. So does the casual closing claim of taking 309 heads in that campaign.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Sept 19, 2019 23:49:44 GMT
The helm-cleaving account reads like a fish story. So does the casual closing claim of taking 309 heads in that campaign. If it was the only account of such a thing happening sure, but it isn't. Is it really difficult to believe that sometimes poor quality softer iron got used for armor in a country perpetually at war? We'd have to do more digging to come to his claim of the number of men he decapitated.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Sept 19, 2019 23:51:51 GMT
As I explained earlier, the test would benefit from a baseline. In this case, something that everyone generally agrees will hurt you through mail and padding. A war hammer for example. Then, seeing what that damage looks like you can test the arming swords and compare. Otherwise, what do you compare the sword damage on the medium to? If a heavy arming sword is doing comparable damage to a war hammer, the theory is bolstered. If it does no apparent damage to a war hammer's carnage, the theory is undercut. If neither does apparent damage, you may need a different testing medium.
? I don't follow that. They did protect their heads.
I am saying the logic used in your comment "I will absolutely agree that a good wrist/finger strike against someone only wearing light padding with mail on their hand is a fine hit. I suspect they would have kept their hands away from engagement and used the shield until ready to strike" is the same fallacy in the statement I put forward. Yes, obviously someone is going to protect their body from harm, but just as obviously that isn't infallible. Otherwise, no one would ever die from a sword, knife, or spear wound.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Sept 19, 2019 23:52:02 GMT
Helm-cleaving shows up all over the place going back to early medieval manuscripts. Yet the testing all shows it to be all but impossible esp. with a one-handed sword. Maybe there's something we've missed in the tests. Possible crappy iron that shatters with enough force?
|
|
|
Post by Adventurer'sBlade on Sept 20, 2019 0:34:07 GMT
I wouldn't say it's impossible. I just wouldn't believe it unless other accounts from witnesses were given. That whole page smells like braggart.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2019 2:14:33 GMT
Obata sensei wrecked a helmet with a katana. Maybe you're not using a strong enough sword?
|
|