|
Speaking of things that shoot stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY2untEwCnU Looks like either the bolt is too light, or the prod is badly designed. That thing has massive handshock.
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 08:42 |
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:Speaking of things that shoot stuff. I have some questions about shooting stuff! How, exactly, does the length of a bow/prod and the draw-length of the bow interact? Like I can see that recurve bows are designed to make the draw-length longer for their size, but how would their performance compare to 'longer' bows with the same draw-length and weight? On a related note, how would an asymmetric bow (which I've only ever seen in Japanese longbows like the one below) affect the flight of the arrow? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Bendigeidfran posted:How, exactly, does the length of a bow/prod and the draw-length of the bow interact? Bendigeidfran posted:how would their performance compare to 'longer' bows with the same draw-length and weight? Bendigeidfran posted:On a related note, how would an asymmetric bow (which I've only ever seen in Japanese longbows like the one below) affect the flight of the arrow? AFAIK asymmetric bows are designed so that hand placement balances out the vibrations caused by the asymmetry, in order to achieve acceptable performance. One neat thing about asymmetrically gripping a bow is that you're much less likely to have the bowstring slap you, which is nice, perhaps doubly so when you are busy riding a horse 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Bendigeidfran posted:I have some questions about shooting stuff! How, exactly, does the length of a bow/prod and the draw-length of the bow interact? Like I can see that recurve bows are designed to make the draw-length longer for their size, but how would their performance compare to 'longer' bows with the same draw-length and weight? The first question is actually quite complex and cannot be answered without refering to the distinct geometry of a design. We assume a prod/bow that is completely straight unbraced, with a D-shaped tiller. The drawlenght generally affects energy storage and stacking. Longer limbs can store more energy, but they're also more heavy. Shorter limbs store less, but are much faster, due to being lighter. The frequency with which the limbs work is also much higher. The longer the limbs in this model, the less it stacks. What is stacking? That is very difficult to explain properly, but it has to do with the string angle at full draw in relation to the limbs. At a certain point, you have bend the bow so much that you don't bend it any more, but you pull it along the lenght axis of the limbs instead. When drawing, you feel a sudden, exponential increase of poundage. This doesn't reflect in performance, it's not preferable. To make it more confusing, tillering the bow the wrong way can introduce this effect. If you make the bow too weak near the grip, it will stack earlier and shorten the max drawlenght. You cannot bend the limbs to their full potential, because the weak spot makes it bend too much, too early. Recurves give you more leverage over the limbs and make it easier to bend them, they don't necessarily increase the drawlenght for short bows. Assuming that the design doesn't use working recurves (very few do, and no warbows afaik), this means that while recurves don't add lenght to the bow that you can bend, they enable you to bend the limb material to a greater degree. This does make alot more sense for composites, as they can take 20% deformation vs. 1% of wooden selfbows. There is a certain design feature in turkish and persian bows that does make a short bow longer, which is a spot right below the transition of the limb and rigde that is strongly reflexed and thinner and less wide, which will make it flexible there, thus it is called a flexible Kasan Eye. The first centimeters of the ridged section also bend, which makes the bow seem to unwind in the last inches before full draw, before that, this and the recurved tip acts as a lever. Such a feature is not present in composite bows before the 15th century. To get back to the original question about performance, the longer a bow (= greater mass of the limbs and different vibration frequency), the slower it's return speed, the longer draw (and other design tricks) you need to make it perform ok. The formula for kinetic energy tells you what is "better", as velocity is squared compared to mass. It is not that simple though, as for the practical aplication, momentum is also relevant, so there are some distinctive advantages of shooting a heavy projectile vs. a light one. The light one loses energy very quickly as you reach out due to air resistance, and also it is easier to stop it with thick padding, generally, the thickness of the material that you try to penetrate. Now, that doesn't mean that you can't shoot through multiple unarmored persons or a horse with such an arrow, but it will not keep going the same way that a heavy one does, when it hits bone for example. Which makes for an interesting question how these light and fast arrows were used? Certainly not from far away, and certainly not against the most heavily armored parts of the body. Slight assymetry adds to the shooting comfort, as it lifts the arrow from the hand when you shoot. Generally, the lower limb is either stiffer and/or shorter in any bow, so that you have this effect. I have no idea why the modern japanese bow looks like this (probably them being mounted and not wanting to constantly poke the horse with the lower limb), but I've seen a number of illustration that suggest that it was smaller than it is now. You can approximate the size of the respective bow by looking at old arrows. For turkish war arrows it is ~71cm, so that means (71/1,5)*2=94,6, which squares right up to the comfort zone of a 108cm ntn bow. Boneplates from hunnish graves suggest that their bows were strongly assymetric. There is no advantage performancewise, more likely it's the fact that you can saw a long and a shorter plate out of a single medium sized/longer horn to make such a bow. Power Khan fucked around with this message at 12:00 on Dec 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 11:47
|
|
|
Well, the third and last layer of sinew is done.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 15:07
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:Well, the third and last layer of sinew is done. Nice. What's the next step?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
Saturating the final layer with thin glue until the surface is almost flat, filling, sanding, filling, etc. This needs to be done carefully not to make the glue layer too thick, or it will crack too much.  I did that on my first bow, which is the reason why it isn't finished yet. Had to remove the top layer of sinew and reapply a new one. Not hideglue either, it needs to be fishglue, which is more flexible. Another type of collagen glue with a higher lipid content would also work I guess. The next pics are by Cem Dönmez, I'm aiming for a shape like this bow, which is how old bows of the highest quality looked like  As you can see, the horn belly is strongly convex, while the sinew layer is completely flat, with sharp edges. The wooden core below is shaped like the horn, which means that most of the sinew is concentrated on the sides, with the sinew layer in the middle being quite thin. You can see it in this pic.   I tried to give the sinew this shape with another method that I saw another experienced bowyer use, but it's clear that the first layer needs to be done differently than what I did. Cem splits one pack of sinew in half and applies each to the sides. The layers over the first one are single packs that go on top. It's possible that I need to apply some more sinew to the sides to give them the desired shape. Speaking of shape, the thickness taper in the limbs seems to be closer to the unfinished old bows, but I didn't dare to give it so much reflex yet. I'm confident that I'll get it right in the next 2 bows. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
What do you do with them once you finish? Are the commissioned, or you just keep them?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Animal posted:What do you do with them once you finish? Are the commissioned, or you just keep them?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
As far as I can tell, they sell rather fast, Lucas Novotny, the owner of Saluki bows is so brutally back on his orders and expensive, that a number of other people have filled the gap in the meantime. Mostly it's a year or more waiting time (Novotny has stuff that's 2 or +3 years back on his orders), and once you post a finished bow, it's soon sold. I supposed it's like with quality sword smiths, when Hema started to grow. So yes, I make these bows to sell them, but it's slow and takes more time that I have, to do it full time. I'd certainly do it if I had the capital. HEY GAL posted:he's posting from slightly under the ceiling fan as the room slowly fills up That's true. I'm starting to run out of space.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
got a sword now  also got a friend who likes photography italian swept hilt rapier, rayskin grip. slightly shorter and stouter than many rapiers, but i don't want it to get snapped in the middle of a scrum
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:got a sword now that looks loving awesome
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
Fine work. Pics of the blade pls?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 13:28
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:got a sword now That's a beauty. I just received one of his (slightly more than basic) Bolognese sideswords, and it handles like a dream. A Danelli rapier is next on my list.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:got a sword now Have you lined up anyone to kill in a tavern duel yet If they don't have a rapier do you need to drop yours or do they need to improvise
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Have you lined up anyone to kill in a tavern duel yet
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:weirdly enough, most people i hang out with also have swords Just find the drunkest/weakest looking one, walk up to him/her and ask them to drink to your health, NOW.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Is it true that battles between armies were mostly posturing/maneuvering and were often decided very quickly with relatively few casualties, since your average soldier really didn't want to die?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
Subyng posted:Is it true that battles between armies were mostly posturing/maneuvering and were often decided very quickly with relatively few casualties, since your average soldier really didn't want to die? Depends on the battle. And the time period. And the weapons. Generally, yes, routs or just people saying 'gently caress that' happened a lot sooner than most films/media show, and so casualties are a lot lower than you'd think, and what casualties do crop up tend to include more wounded and more killed in the rout than most depictions. ~generally~
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
What examples are there of battle that were particularly drawn out with many casualties suffered on both sides?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
In medieval times? aside from sieges, basically none. Even the bloodiest battles lasted a day or two at most. My guess is many of the longer/bloodier ones involved a class of cultures or religion like the Crusades or Mongol invasions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
Subyng posted:What examples are there of battle that were particularly drawn out with many casualties suffered on both sides? Well, Rocroi was halfway there. It starts having the potential to get nastier as things get early modern. xthetenth fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Jan 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
Subyng posted:What examples are there of battle that were particularly drawn out with many casualties suffered on both sides? Well, it's not Medieval, but the Battle of Malplaquet in the war of the Spanish Succession stands out. The Austrian/British/Dutch/Prussian beat the French, at the cost of a good quarter of their soldiers (wikipedia puts the casualty toll at 21,000, twice the number lost by the French). I can't think of a battle where the victors lost anything like that number, prior to the industrial revoloution).
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
Both sides suffered about 25% casualties at the Battle of Luetzen. The Swedish lost 50% ( ) at Noerdlingen but then they did lose the battle.Also even in brutal one sided affairs there can be a lot of casualties on both sides. Once the encirclement of the Romans at Cannae was complete it likely took the Carthaginians hours and thousands of casualties to chop through the entire Roman army. You have to kill every one of those guys after all, it's not like you can just let them run away at that point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 12:33
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Both sides suffered about 25% casualties at the Battle of Luetzen. The Swedish lost 50% ( Unless you have mounted archers. Then you just laugh and laugh as you shoot them in the back while they're desperately trying to get away from you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
Subyng posted:What examples are there of battle that were particularly drawn out with many casualties suffered on both sides? Hastings is the most famous example but Kulikovo, Falkirk, and Legnano all come to mind. Note, however, that we don't have precise casualty counts for any of these battles, and these are infrequent even late in the period. Jamwad Hilder posted:In medieval times? aside from sieges, basically none. Even the bloodiest battles lasted a day or two at most. My guess is many of the longer/bloodier ones involved a class of cultures or religion like the Crusades or Mongol invasions. Given the number of men we're usually talking about, "a day or two" is an extremely long time. I mean, consider that even the Battle of Antietam was only a one-day affair and contained enough men to comprise an impossibly large host by medieval standards. Also, historiographically speaking, "battles" are generally separate from sieges, especially when the term "pitched battles" is used. In all this it is important to keep in mind that battles are rare affairs in medieval warfare. Richard the Lionheart only participated in 2 or 3 battles in his life. Louis VI of France participated in 2, one of which is arguably only a skirmish. As far as casualty count, one of Louis' battles, Brémule, comes to mind because it is in the earlier part of the period and is especially interesting given that nobody died. Out of a force of 400 knights Louis lost 140. Considering that these were all captured and the rout was not heavily pursued, that still comprises about 1/3 of his force. Thus even in this relatively bloodless affair you have a significant casualty count. For a more extreme example, with a more considerable cavalry element, the battle of Evesham in 1265 resulted in the destruction of the majority of the approx. 5000 strong barionial host.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Both sides suffered about 25% casualties at the Battle of Luetzen. The Swedish lost 50% (
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Hastings is the most famous example but Kulikovo, Falkirk, and Legnano all come to mind. very good point. in terms of percentages, medieval battles could be devastating in terms of casualties/captures, like you mentioned. I was interpreting the question as pure body count, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 05:40
|
|
|
Railtus posted:I have a question that others may know more about than me. On occasion I have read that most men-at-arms were not knights, and that this was often by choice – the men-at-arms in question did not want the extra responsibilities or expenses of a knight – particularly in later centuries or in England. I'm a bit late, but reading your question reminded me of an anecdote of reckless bravado from the Gesta Friderici Imperatoris, which details the early campaigns of the Emperor Frederick "Barbarossa" in the 12th century. This is wildly before your preferred time period and probably not what you want, but it stuck in my head for being an early example of someone turning down a knighthood. (Context is Frederick's siege of Tortona in 1155) quote:Nor must we fail to mention the valor, the downright audacity, of a certain sergeant (strator). Wearied by the long siege, he wished to set the others an example by scaling the citadel! Using only his sword and shield and a little axe, such as is carried after the fashion of that class of men, fastened to the saddle, he approached the wall which lies in front of the tower Rubea, and cutting with the axe a trail on which to set his feet, he ascended the height. Neither the frequent blows of stones, propelled from the prince's siege engines against the tower by the force of the machines, nor the incessant thud of spears and rocks that showered down from the citadel, could deter him. He reached the tower, now half in ruins, and there, fighting manfully, even brought down to earth by his blows a fully armed soldier, and amid the hazards of so many perils was able to return to camp unhurt. The king called the sergeant into his presence and decreed that for so notable a deed he should be honored by the belt of knighthood. But as he declared that he was a man of lowly station and wished to continue therein, his condition being satisfactory to him, the king permitted him to return to his own quarters, richly rewarded. You could make the inference that the man wanted to avoid knighthood because of the costs or duties associated with it, and a plea of humility was either the best way to phrase that to the king, or the best way Otto of Freising (the chronicler) had of turning an otherwise mildly interesting story about a feat of arms into an example of Teutonic virtue. Ultimately, though, we have few clues.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 09:47
|
|
|
Glass Hand posted:I'm a bit late, but reading your question reminded me of an anecdote of reckless bravado from the Gesta Friderici Imperatoris, which details the early campaigns of the Emperor Frederick "Barbarossa" in the 12th century. This is wildly before your preferred time period and probably not what you want, but it stuck in my head for being an early example of someone turning down a knighthood. Thanks! It is certainly useful info for me. It also covered something else I was curious about, which was terms like sergeant/strator used in a German context. And don't worry about being late - my questions aren't time-sensitive. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
Railtus posted:It also covered something else I was curious about, which was terms like sergeant/strator used in a German context. Notably, strator is also the word used to refer to Frederick himself when, later in the same expedition, he is told that as part of a ritual precondition to his imperial coronation he has to hold the stirrup of Pope Adrian's horse as the pope dismounts. This is a stock image of subservience; a few years later when Manuel Komnenos humiliates Raynald of Chatillon, he makes Raynald lead his horse into Antioch in a similar manner (though Raynald's treatment is much, much more degrading than Frederick's, which is just a formalized ritual). Frederick considered the implication that he was the pope's vassal/servant to be so outrageous that he initially refused to do it, leaving Adrian in the lurch and putting the whole expedition on hold until his legal experts assured him that yes, indeed, this was a thing previous emperors had done for previous popes, and doing it for Adrian would not be setting some new precedent of papal overlordship. So while in this translation of the Gesta Friderici, strator is translated as "sergeant," you might just as easily read "squire" or "groom" or something like that. Obviously it's a subservient role beneath the dignity of a knight and with an equestrian connotation, but aside from that it's a pretty vague term. For comparison, the unfortunate individual he killed on the tower, rendered as "fully armed soldier" in the translation, is in the Latin a militem etiam armatum. As far as I'm aware in the 12th century German context miles usually means a free knight, which is presumably what Otto of Freising also means, though in Italy (where Frederick is campaigning) miles seems much more ambiguous and could be used to refer to a wider range of noble or non-noble fighting men. The Latin text may suggest that part of the impressiveness of the deed is the social aspect of it, that of a lowly strator killing a miles in his full panoply, a distinction which is partially lost in the translation by rendering miles as "soldier." Or at least, that's my take on it. I am not a professional historian! Glass Hand fucked around with this message at 05:52 on Jan 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:A longsword is a sword that is longer than a shortsword and a mediumsword. A bastard sword is a sword that's a bit of a jerk.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 07:44
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:25% is the low end of normal for my century It turns out that, under the cold light of day, guns do kill people!
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 11:36
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:It turns out that, under the cold light of day, guns do kill people! The only thing that can stop a bad man with a pike square is a good man with a pike square.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
Clearly this thread should be named Axe me about Medieval History & Combat.  Axes seem to be typically considered 'barbarian' weapons, at least in popular culture, while swords were 'civilized'; how accurate was this? I don't remember hearing much about ancient Greeks or Romans using axes in war, was that where it dates from? I know the latter developed the gladius from a weapon of the Iberians.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Clearly this thread should be named Axe me about Medieval History & Combat. Axeman rush is the hallmark of a crude, brutish civilization player. Bronze doesn't make good swords, so the bronze age civs used axes, and they were pretty civilized.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Clearly this thread should be named Axe me about Medieval History & Combat. This is raw supposition so I eagerly await someone that actually knows what the gently caress correcting me. That said, I suspect it is because swords are a purpose-made weapon and axes are a weaponized tool. Metal tools and weapons are fairly expensive things in this period and just having enough money to afford a purpose made metal weapon is a pretty big signifier of class and status. A sword is a fairly precious item. On the other hand every farmer in the land is going to have an axe of one sort or another, or at least a few axes scattered around that multiple farmers can share out between them. One of the things that occurs to me is that most of the "barbarian" societies that are associated with axes have a far blurrier delineation between warriors and farmers (peasants, "civilians," third estate whatever you want to call them). A viking longboat is going to be full of guys who are out for plunder in order to supplement their day jobs. A Germanic tribe that is trying to migrate the gently caress away from whatever is boiling out of the steppes this year is moving EVERYBODY, and from what I read those cultures had inter-tribe raiding and warrior societies as a thing that most males participated in. Basically you end up with richer societies that can afford armies and purpose-built weapons squaring off against the poorer fringes and people who don't have the luxury of large number of single-use weapons and so rely on things that are both weapon and tool. edit: thinking back on what i've seen in museums, I also think that the higher ranks of those "barbarian" societies were pretty fond of swords as well, and those are the guys who would have both the money to afford them and the leisure to train with them. Again, I think it's mostly an economic divide by the time you get into the medieval era with readily available iron and steel. Like I said though, this is all semi-educated supposition so take it as such. edit x2: everyone knows that axes get a bonus against armored opponents, while swords get a plus to-hit. Barbarians don't have the proficiencies for heavy armor, so obviously swords are the optimal counter to them, as it's all about landing as many blows as possible. Meanwhile the barbarians need to make up for this deficiency with something with enough punch to get through the heavy armor favored by civilized militaries. Note that the only barbarians using swords are your extremely buff Conan-types who have enough strength that their to-hit and damage bonuses simply roll over the benefits of heavy armor. In this case swords are a better choice due to the increased variety in base weapons and, frankly, the more care given to making interesting uniques with the various magical properties that you will need down the road. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Jan 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
Keep in mind that both are sidearms, unless you are talking about stuff like Dane axes. The Greeks used a spear as their primary weapon like 90% of armies up until gunpowder did. The Romans are one of the outliers that used swords, but they also did carry pilum which they used as spears often. Most of the time in history, a sword or one handed axe was a backup weapon you used if you lost or broke your spear or you were caught in a skirmish without your main weapon at hand. Axes are cheaper to make then swords, simply because you need much less metal to make an effective weapon. If you have a harder time getting access to good metal, an axe is a good option. A sword is in general much more expensive to produce, and is thus a more prestige worthy weapon. A sword is a more versatile weapon then an axe, since you can stab someone with it, and its cutting surface is much bigger. It also has some kind of guard at the base of the blade to protect your hand (minimal in the ancient world) whereas an axe has none. So if you can afford one, most likely you will choose a sword as your sidearm, not an axe. Even in societies where axes were more common, like the vikings, good swords were still the most prized weapons by the upper classes. As to the actual classification of axes as a barbarian weapon, that would have ebbed and flowed a whole lot since we are talking about thousands of years. The Romans likely looked down on them as barbarian since anything not Roman was seen that way. The Franks liked them so much they named themselves after an axe, and in the medieval period war axes and pollaxes with axe blades on them were commonplace across social levels. in general they were more common among poorer societies, so a general sense of superiority from one group to another over things like that probably happened plenty.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
Axes are barbarian weapon is probably just a dumb DnD thing from the 70s or whenever, reinforced by heavy metal covers. It's not uncommon to see knights with axes in medieval images, I would imagine it's entirely personal preference. There are also a great many fancy axes from Asia/India in museums. It should be noted that axes intended for killing people are much lighter than axes intended to chop wood, and the two aren't really interchangeable. Axes have a pretty interesting history in Ireland. They don't appear until the Vikings show up (same with bows), and the native Irish are very quick to adopt them. They seem to have replaced spears as the most common weapon (except for javelins), in fact 300 years later during the Norman invasion it's said that the axe was the national weapon of the Irish. Ireland's most famous users of the axe, the Gallowglass, first appear in history described as heavily armoured spearmen, so it's possible they adopted axes once they began intermingling with the native Irish. Here is a pair of axe heads, they would have been mounted on a 6 foot long pole. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 08:42 |
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Clearly this thread should be named Axe me about Medieval History & Combat. Generally not very accurate. For example, the pollaxe was very popular among late medieval knights fighting on foot, and those knights would have swords as well. It was typically not an either-or. Similarly, if you imagine a huscarl or Varangian Guard armed with a long axe you could probably expect him to be wearing a sword as well. Norman knights might have an axe or mace in addition to a sword. Essentially my view is that no such divide between “barbarian” axes and “civilised” swords existed in the medieval period; career warriors seemed to have made pretty extensive use of both. Halberds gained in popularity as well over time. The impression I get is that axes tended to be chosen for a different niche than swords, with polearm-axes standing out more than side-arm axes, but it seems like axes and swords were both in use together. Like you mentioned with the Roman gladius having roots in Iberia, clearly there were people seen as “barbarians” who made extensive use of swords. Also, the Romans copied everything that worked, so I would hesitate before tracing the idea of some gear being civilised and some being barbarian to them, because they would happily adopt barbarian equipment when it suited them. My instinct would be to suspect the image of there being a “civilised” or “barbarian” weapon comes from maybe the 1700-1800s when axe-weapons started seriously declining. I tend to trace a lot of cultural prejudices to the Age of Enlightenment, but I wonder how much of that is my medievalist bias talking, so take it with caution. WoodrowSkillson posted:Keep in mind that both are sidearms, unless you are talking about stuff like Dane axes. The Greeks used a spear as their primary weapon like 90% of armies up until gunpowder did. The Romans are one of the outliers that used swords, but they also did carry pilum which they used as spears often. Most of the time in history, a sword or one handed axe was a backup weapon you used if you lost or broke your spear or you were caught in a skirmish without your main weapon at hand. I would just like to add a few points (although I think your logic is very reasonable overall): Around the 13th-14th century swords became a lot cheaper to produce than they once were, which ties into the ebb and flow you mentioned: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy1fcRG0A3g From what I understand, the Roman army would cheerfully adopt barbarian equipment, so I would hesitate to assume that Romans would look down on barbarian weapons because of xenophobia – just because that xenophobia didn't stop them from adopting other things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 18:00
|
|