Yogah of Yag
Ltlconf said:TO HELL WITH RATTAN, IT'S FOR WIMPS! I WANT STEEL!!!! :twisted:
First the Skills, then the Steel. 8)
Ltlconf said:TO HELL WITH RATTAN, IT'S FOR WIMPS! I WANT STEEL!!!! :twisted:
Nothing wrong with that mate. JOkay Taylor, we seem to agree on some point and disagree on others.
If you are saying that the swords of the 15th century were more consistently superior because steel refining techniques were consistantly better, then I totally agree. But you said Yes Taylor a stabbing weapon did in fact have to be of a better steel than a slashing sword due to the nature of the attack, and that is wrong.My point on the steel quality on the sword is not that a slashing sword was not made the best it could be IF ONE COULD AFFORD IT, but rather that a stabbing sword often had a larger amount of well fired quality steel due to both the nature of the weapon and the era in which they became prevelant i.e. the late 14th to 15th centuries.
All swords do to a certain degree. It’s like cooking a steak: the outside is usually at least slightly more cooked than the middle.The slashing sword had a softer steel in the core (yes due to the method of firing I know
I’m sure you did know mate, I just chucked it in for people reading the thread who didn’t and might be interested in what we were talking about. JI figured you knew that as well and thus didn't mention that) to give the flexiablity (not whippiness, once again I assumed you knew what I was driving at).
True also many stabbing swords were thicker than slashing weapons as a matter of function. But also due to the higher firing of the steel the steel was more brittle as well. Stabbing swords did become quite flexible later on, but by that time armor was nonexistant for all practical purposes so it was a matter of pointless debate (sorry couldn't help it)
And that’s great, I’m sure Oakeshott would approve.While it's true Oakeshott does not mention the points I brought up, but I'm also going by some of the most recent info coming out of the Royal Armory research, which calls into question some of the long accepted info on many things, including use and number of swords.
Sure in the 7th century, but not so much in the 15th. Steel producing and refining techniques were much more affordable by then.As far as who carried what, I never said ONLY a knight could carry such and such by law (though in some countries at some times it was so). My ponit was that certain sword are going to be limited to certain CLASSES by virtue of ECONOMICS.
I can see what you are driving at, but I still don’t agree. A longbowman and a knight in the 14th century might both wield a XVIa longsword. The blade geometries, and general design would be very similar. The knight must have got his blade imported from Toledo or Solingen (both cities had craftsmen renowned for the consistency of their heat treats), and he might have a beautifully engraved and gilded hilt to boot. But, the sword designs (XVIa) are still the same.I did point out that one could gain a better due to luck but the likelyhood of a footsoldier having a fine Milan or Regensburg blade made by the best is unlikely. It's like my cracker butt getting his hands on a firstclass Berretta shotgun or Mosenburg rifle. First question out of everyone's mouth would be "who'd did I kill?". The foot soldier going to have the best he can get, which won't be all that great (falchion ect.) the knight the afore mentioned custom made blade. Thus what class carried what sword can be GENERALY assumed based on quality and style. But like all human influenced events, there will be exceptions always.
The primary purpose of the mounted knight at this time was shock cavalry. If they got tangled up in melee combat against infantry who absorbed their charge, they were in trouble. The lance was the weapon designed to maximise the knights primary role, so I would say it was their primary weapon.Actually I was pointing out that the sword was the primary weapon of the earlier Middle Ages knight (but not the foot soldier) up into the mid 14th. The lance was a point of impact weapon, sort of a shock weapon. Once the melee began the sword and to a lesser extent the axe became the prime killing tool.
Personally, I think that the evidence in this instance is showing the knight using his sword to hack down broken infantry, and not using swords in melee combat against a fighting foe.Battlefield forensics bear this out, for the foot soldier casualties anyway.
We have a saying at work that if a soldier (out of uniform obviously) gets asked if he’s an officer (or gets saluted by a recruit or whatever), he answers with the fact he works for a living. It’s a tongue in cheek joke, with a big germ of truth in it. Personally, despite being part of the system, I find it ridiculous that a sergeant with 15 years experience is subservient to a lieutenant with 2 years experience. It reeks of 18th century British class-ism to me. But, whatever, it’s not like we are conscripted anyway!As far as modern officers go, I was a Marine and my officers led from the front all the way to colonel so they worked for a living. After all, as the Duke of Wellington said "A officers' first duty is die well as an example to his men."
Fair enough. I’m not a reenactor or a SCA buff, but I’ve been a historical fencer for a couple of years (primarily under Stephen Hand’s interpretation of George Silver’s Paradoxes of Defence).Personaly, I will admit I base my info on the opinions of researchers at museums and reenactors who actually have to use the stuff (and are sticklers for accuracy) as well as my own reenacting experience (1988-2003, quit due to injuries piling up). I have find what we often come up with ends up often proving true once the Museum researchers try out and research the info from the new perspective. Nothing proves a theory of how a sword works than to swing a accurate (as possible) replica, made the traditional way, at another person (or approximation of one), wearing full plate in a the closest thing we are ever going to get to a 15th century battle! TO HELL WITH RATTAN, IT'S FOR WIMPS! I WANT STEEL!!!!
lol, no hostility on my side mate, I’ve enjoyed our discussion. JBegining to think the only ones fight...er...debating on this thread were Taylor and I
lol, there are no conditions too decrepit for an Aussie digger to sleep in!The fact that I slept in conditiond the Marines frown on while doing this in all climes all over the states is likely proof of a certain lack
BhilJhoanz said:I should start by saying that I have a problem with people who decide to play Melee only or Ranged only Specialists. A smart combatant will know that there is a time for each! The Melee specialist seem to be the more foolish however, rushing into a throng of foes with their sword drawn only to be cut down! Archery specialists never seem to know when to put down the bow.
That is interesting. I tend to agree with you. The group that I game with insists on building parties with specialists that compliment each other. I recall a heated debate over whether a MU should keep a +2 spell point ring (equivalent of one free 2nd level spell per day) versus bracers (don't recall the AC but it was a huge improvement). He went with the +2 ring. Being higher level I would have grabbed the bracers because sooner or later he would/should be in melee. Our spell casters constantly hide behind the front row fighters and the DM lets them. But, that's not Conan. And, that's not me. I will definitely challenge ALL the players in melee (even if it is just ranged) so that, hopefully, the characters learn to balance their characters out.
dunderm said:I can't say at this point in my own research, but there is not a great deal of difference in ranges or damage for crossbows or bows. At least with our modern equivalents.
Verdict: Even a "wing" shot (arm or leg) would likely kill you from the shock and the sheer impact of the bolt would shatter the impacted bone (guarenteeing gangrine even today) into a thousand pieces