|
veekie posted:As for sharpness, is there ever a reason to keep the operating edge and point at less than maximum sharpness? The answer, as has already been touched upon, is simply durability. There is an inverse correlation between sharpness and durability. Keep in mind, a notched/chipped sword was practically useless for cutting, so its safe to assume sharpness was only used for maximum effect where it was needed (usually the last 6-8" of the blade, for 2-handers). Although I do not have practical experience in this, test cutting with a variety of some of the best reproductions available (Albion, etc.) I can safely say the efficacy of a cutting sword is more dependent on skill and edge alignment than sharpness. Furthermore, on so-called 'razor' sharp blades, even out of hardened spring steel, I've bent/shipped/notched blades on soft wood (which is a good indicator that they were in fact too sharp). Blade geometry plays a fair roll in what level of sharpness can be reached without greatly reducing durability. For example, a katana has a blade profile much like a wedge, and because of the thick back spine allows the edge to taper much finer without reducing strength greatly. Other blade profiles like lenticular (13th century and earlier) have less steel thickness to work with (on account of there being an edge on both sides) and therefore had to taper to an edge quicker, making the edge angle less sharp, since they still needed some thickness for strength.
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 03:50 |
|
|
Baldbeard posted:On sword sharpness, didn't it vary wildly by sword type? Like, I thought large 2 handed swords and long swords were actually barely sharp at all, enough so to where you could grab them by the blade and swing them around as a mace. You are half-right here. There could indeed be some substantial differences from sword to sword, especially if one counts blunt-edged Estocs as swords. More normally, types specialized for thrusting against armoured opponents, such as some of the type XVIIs, XVs, etc (Oakeshott typology), would not be as effective at cutting as, say, an 11th century type X or a type XVI specialized for unarmored self defence. However, your generalizations lead me to think you are probably confusing the ricasso, which is an explicitly unsharpened area of the blade, with the sharpness of the overall edge. Some longswords and many (most?) two-handers had a ricasso of some kind. The ability to use a sword to deliver a murder stroke, using the hilt as you describe, is arguably dependent upon its sharpness, but no serious evidence has come forward that longswords were not sharp enough to lop off limbs, heads, etc. Oberleutnant posted:Every pike I've seen (we have a few in an armoury at work) has also had long strips of metal on at least two sides of the shaft, presumably to protect against just this sort of thing. Maybe these were just higher quality than the usual, but I wouldn't expect anybody to be cutting through them with less than a half dozen really solid hits. You are describing langets, and while I have seen them (especially on boarding pikes) they were not universal by any means. That said, while the risk of losing a pikehead in combat was real and serious I cannot think a single sword stroke, one or two handed, would do it. Rabhadh posted:I don't believe their use was very much different than a 2 handed axe, both weapons were used fairly interchangeably by gallowglass. While this may be the case in an organizational sense, there are substantial differences in how these two weapons would actually be wielded. Points of balance, overall length, length of cutting surface, parrying surfaces, and weight are just some of the things that divide these two weapons and affect how they would be put to use. Additionally the two-handed swords used by the Gallowglass were typically of a different proportion and shape to those used on the continent, and so are not really comparable. Also, this isn't directed at you per se, but if you're interested in Gallowglass a worthwhile book to pick up (or loan out from a university library) is A Military History of Scotland. It's really good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
Probably a stupid question, but it always bothered me : Why the hell does the Oakeshott typology start at X? It just seems so arbitrary. Or are there another 9 classifications that no one ever talks about or what?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Why the hell does the Oakeshott typology start at X? It just seems so arbitrary. Or are there another 9 classifications that no one ever talks about or what? I believe this was due in part to his predecessor R.E.M. Wheeler constructing the earlier Viking blade typology (http://albion-swords.com/swords/wheeler.htm) which started at 1 and worked up to 9 (hence Oakeshott picked up from that point onward, and kept the numbering consistent).
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
I saw a video clip that had some re-enactment expert explain that sharpness does not equate cutting ability. He then used a blunt bastard sword to cut through the same bamboo targets that people cut with katana demos, and the cut was shockingly clean. That and the murder stroke must be why I thought long rear end European swords must have gone for durability over cutting edge. Seems like sharpness is only one factor in the ability to "hack" through stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
Baldbeard posted:I saw a video clip that had some re-enactment expert explain that sharpness does not equate cutting ability. He then used a blunt bastard sword to cut through the same bamboo targets that people cut with katana demos, and the cut was shockingly clean. If anyone wants a laugh about how the medieval longsword was such a lovely sword compared to a katana.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDkoj932YFo
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
What has been the most bloodiest battle with one side losing minimal people. In other words: Has there been a battle where one side just completely destroyed the other with barely any loss?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
1MCLMF posted:What has been the most bloodiest battle with one side losing minimal people. In other words: Has there been a battle where one side just completely destroyed the other with barely any loss? A really quick list off the top of my head, Sterling Bridge, Solway Moss and the Six Day War are about as one sided as you'll find. I dunno...73 Easting maybe? The whole GW1 was pretty much one sided.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
It's not like knights were using their long swords daily to cut dinner and chop firewood. He might see a battle once a year and might not even draw his sword. Wouldn't be difficult to maintain a sharp edge in that context
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
1MCLMF posted:What has been the most bloodiest battle with one side losing minimal people. In other words: Has there been a battle where one side just completely destroyed the other with barely any loss? The most famous one is probably (though this is not a medieval battle) the Battle of Carrhae... it was bad. It was real bad. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carrhae
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
Exercu posted:The most famous one is probably (though this is not a medieval battle) the Battle of Carrhae... it was bad. It was real bad. Well poo poo, what would have been a better alternative to defeat horse archers? Only things that come to mind from fiction and someone effort posting about horse archers during the crusades, is that you had to either catch the horse archers against terrain and trap them, or use crossbowmen to drive them off. Both of these options seem impossible at the time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
Chillyrabbit posted:Well poo poo, what would have been a better alternative to defeat horse archers? The Romans would take their cities with carefully organized campaigns and then sit in them. The Parthians would wait outside and gently caress with supply lines. The Persians used regular massed archers along with a lot of light cavalry. They also used allied nomads that had their own horse archers. In general, that was how most sedentary societies fought against horse nomads. They got away with it because they were pretty disorganized most of the time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
1MCLMF posted:What has been the most bloodiest battle with one side losing minimal people. In other words: Has there been a battle where one side just completely destroyed the other with barely any loss? Cannae? Well, it wasn't bloodless for Hannibal, but the bang/buck ratio there was pretty outsized. Really, any of his wins. Comedy answer: any friendly fire incident.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
1MCLMF posted:What has been the most bloodiest battle with one side losing minimal people. In other words: Has there been a battle where one side just completely destroyed the other with barely any loss? White Mountain Lutter Tilly.  (Ironically, outside a number of highly publicized events, the Thirty Years' War is a story of the anti-Imperials getting it handed to them repeatedly.) HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 08:20 on Jan 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
Again not fitting the time period but many of the early engagements in the Spanish-American war. Basically sailing ships like you find in glass bottles vs coal fired armour plated ships starting to look like what you see today. Just as one sided as expected, in the first engagement the Spanish lost pretty much all their South Asian fleet to 9 crappy\small American ships, the Americans lost 1 guy, to heatstroke, the night before the battle.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 09:50
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:(Ironically, outside a number of highly publicized events, the Thirty Years' War is a story of the anti-Imperials getting it handed to them repeatedly.) Gallas did more damage to the Imperial side than the anti-Imperials ever could do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 11:10
|
|
|
Baldbeard posted:I saw a video clip that had some re-enactment expert explain that sharpness does not equate cutting ability. He then used a blunt bastard sword to cut through the same bamboo targets that people cut with katana demos, and the cut was shockingly clean. I think I know some of the videos, John Clements makes those points quite a bit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58NVoTocUOk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFQ4aanmupU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR9k23U-P10 So your view is very reasonable. On the other hand, there is the schnitt or abschneiden techniques, slicing off, which draw the edge along the target rather than using a hacking motion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hh1UwpTLVoc (though this may also be a good setup to a thrust). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tx2cbelLe6o Chillyrabbit posted:If anyone wants a laugh about how the medieval longsword was such a lovely sword compared to a katana.... I know this post is mostly a joke, but I have seen so many people unironically link to this video and take it seriously that I believe it worthwhile to elaborate on how bad and misleading that video is. First and foremost, look at how close he stands when swinging with the longsword, even after he specifically states “I like it you don’t have to get too close.” He hits far too low down the blade, where there is far less momentum, this consistently means he is striking with less force. On the leather he uses a stronger downwards cut with the katana, though with the longsword he uses no pull or push in the cut and makes a weaker and more difficult sideways swing. At least compare like with like. Secondly, he is using a far too blunt sword. You can see the light reflecting off the edge in a way that suggests the longsword in that video has no edge at all. I think that this video if anything is a perfect demonstration of why knights did not use blunt swords, because those are the results a blunt sword would likely achieve. Compare with these other videos to see how representative that longsword is of the others: For the leather test, this shows minimal force being required to cut tougher textile armours: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMkGF3EqUjU To show that the condition of the edge is extremely important, same sword used with far more force and a bad edge: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLPZSQTyfyE Other longsword against leather: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZNoBTDR9kY As for the ice test, compare with this other sword, within the length (40-50 inches) and weight (up to 4.5 lbs.) figures given by Ermey: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VYqeWKSUz8 (around 1 minute 30 seconds he starts smashing concrete blocks). As for whether a blunt sword would cut those vegetables at the beginning: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cg0Q8k78ONE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmafataT5tk
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 14:03
|
|
|
Railtus posted:
Holy-poo poo! Concrete chunks on top of an anvil. I thought that sword was going to break for sure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Gallas did more damage to the Imperial side than the anti-Imperials ever could do. Heerverderber. You know some quality poo poo is going down when a dude gets a nickname like that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:Heerverderber. You know some quality poo poo is going down when a dude gets a nickname like that. Whats that translate to? I'm still in German II. Also, this thread makes me so mad sometimes. I had to switch to Accounting because of my dysgraphia. Now I'll never be a historian.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:Whats that translate to? I'm still in German II. Also, this thread makes me so mad sometimes. I had to switch to Accounting because of my dysgraphia. Now I'll never be a historian. Army-spoiler or army-wrecker, per google.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Army-spoiler or army-wrecker, per google. Edit: Actually, Kilpatrick seems to also have been a massive douche in general, so there you go. Edit 2: And the problem with translating Heerverderber is that the original word sounds so good. It rolls around in your mouth like a pebble in a drum, which was probably the original intention. "Army wrecker" is just awkward. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 01:28 on Jan 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:...dysgraphia.  
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
Baldbeard posted:Holy-poo poo! That test is somewhat deceptive. He's not hitting the concrete with full force (swinging *through* the cut) but rather doing it just hard enough that it breaks concrete without smacking on the anvil. Now, I wouldn't expect the sword to break from a few good smacks on an anvil unless it was poorly tempered but you'd gently caress up the face of the anvil which is something that no smith wants. Really I'm surprised they don't have an aluminum or mild steel plate underneath. INTJ Mastermind posted:He might see a battle once a year and might not even draw his sword. Wouldn't be difficult to maintain a sharp edge in that context Combat exists beyond battle, which was much rarer than you suggest. William Rufus, for example, did not fight a battle for his entire 13-year reign, despite being very militarily active: He crushed two rebellions, fought a civil war for Normandy, conquered half of Maine, expanded his influence in Wales, took Cumbria and built the castle of Carlisle, and fought in the French Vexin. Indeed, scarcely a year went by during his reign without some kind of war. While there was a sea battle during the rebellion of 1088 and a land battle at Coed Yspwys in 1094, these would only take up a small proportion of Anglo-Norman chivalry (in the case of the sea battle, perhaps none at all). Siege and ravaging (and their accompanying skirmishes) were where most of the killing went on. Yet even outside of wartime swords could be drawn: bandits were a small but constant problem in this period, or they could themselves take to banditry and theft, knights could get into quarrels with one another, and raids took place in border regions even during times of nominal peace. 1MCLMF posted:What has been the most bloodiest battle with one side losing minimal people. In other words: Has there been a battle where one side just completely destroyed the other with barely any loss? In the 11th-14th centuries ransom was so much preferred that it is really hard to identify such a battle without looking to the crusades. There, the two great victories of Montgisard for the Crusaders and Hattin for the Ayyubids would probably serve as good examples. Rodrigo Diaz fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Jan 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:Well, you're in great company! This is what I'm reading right now. I feel your pain, brother.   One of thousands of irrelevant draft lease that were largely un-executed, and which nobody will ever even look at, making my work listing them ultimately futile.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:I feel your pain, brother.  I've spent a month on this particular group of documents and I don't know whether they will go in my dissertation or not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
And here I thought Lord Charles Beresford had lovely handwriting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:I feel your pain, brother. Anyone else who thought this was Arabic at first? What the gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
First couple of lines: "This indenture, made the 3rd day of April 1854, between the Most Noble Henry Duke of Norfolk, Hereditary Earl Marshal etc. etc." As a legal document it's incredibly formulaic, which makes it easier to decipher once you know the form - allowing for the usual irregularities that crept into legal documents before the age of mass communication. This is equally true of legal documents in foreign languages. I have very limited Latin myself, and I do okay. And I've seen researchers with no Latin at all manage to get through huge bundles of documents quite accurately once you explain to them what the legal terms are. That one's just a draft lease, but I have to go through 40+ boxes of the things for the odd 1 in 100 that were eventually executed. It's not medieval, but (apart from the writing materials) it's basically identical to the medieval leases we have. communism bitch fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:First couple of lines: "This indenture, made the 3rd day of April 1854, between the Most Noble Henry Duke of Norfolk, Hereditary Earl Marshal etc. etc." quote:As a legal document it's incredibly formulaic, which makes it easier to decipher once you know the form... It gets slightly less flowery if the writer hates the addressee and wants him to die, but not very.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
I'm afraid I don't know anything about the clerk that wrote that one, but it wasn't a one-off. His handwriting is consistently terrible in documents that appeared year on year. That suggests it's him rather than his writing implements to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
You guys have made me so loving glad to be studying people that invented the printing press back in the loving Bronze Age. I never have to deal with poo poo like that. I've had to deal with a lot of bullshit (including flying to China to read poo poo that was written on slips of bamboo), but it's at least not that bad. Thank you, China. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:You guys have made me so loving glad to be studying people that invented the printing press back in the loving Bronze Age. I never have to deal with poo poo like that. I've had to deal with a lot of bullshit (including flying to China to read poo poo that was written on slips of bamboo), but it's at least not that bad. Are you thankful for alternate helpings of exceedingly vague and unexplained descriptions of historical events?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:You guys have made me so loving glad to be studying people that invented the printing press back in the loving Bronze Age. I never have to deal with poo poo like that. I've had to deal with a lot of bullshit (including flying to China to read poo poo that was written on slips of bamboo), but it's at least not that bad. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 07:02 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 06:58
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:Are you saying that the guys you study will go to the trouble of printing out some dude's interview from a murder trial? Because that's the picture I posted. Like half the time? Yes. Thanks, China! Slim Jim Pickens posted:Are you thankful for alternate helpings of exceedingly vague and unexplained descriptions of historical events? I'm a linguist who happens to research old, dead languages so it's pretty incidental what they're talking about. I spend a lot of time going through Song Dynasty random documents waiting for them to just say "isn't" ; the actual content of the sentence is pretty much window dressing. Historical linguistics = best linguistics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 07:04
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Like half the time? Yes. Thanks, China!
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 08:35
|
|
|
The Chinese dynasties really had their poo poo together when they weren't getting ruined by court intrigue or trampled into dust by Mongolians.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 11:29
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:Squares don't get stuck "tightly" into each other, but you're correct about the position of the guys with the Zweihänder. Yeah this makes good sense. I've often been thinking about zweihanders and never understood why on earth somebody would take such an unwieldy thing into battle. Them being mostly ceremonial/shock troops to use in a bind makes more sense than them being actually expected to outfight pike formations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
Just because we can't fully understand why doesn't imply they weren't used in a purely martial sense. The Landschneckt armies of the 16th centuries employed many 'doppnelsoldiers', and it's a far greater assumption to imply they did so for primarily ceremonial reasons, rather than for some martial benefit. You don't need that many zweihanders to defend a standard, so what are the other 75 zweihanders doing for them?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 03:50 |
|
|
DandyLion posted:Just because we can't fully understand why doesn't imply they weren't used in a purely martial sense. The Landschneckt armies of the 16th centuries employed many 'doppnelsoldiers', and it's a far greater assumption to imply they did so for primarily ceremonial reasons, rather than for some martial benefit. You don't need that many zweihanders to defend a standard, so what are the other 75 zweihanders doing for them? And Doppelsoeldner refers to everyone on double pay, not just the sword guys. For instance, the entire front line is Doppelsoeldners.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 21:51
|
|