|
Railtus posted:Overall, it is not superior, it was just an earlier, more labour-intensive method of compensating for limited metallurgy. Around 600-1200 it was the main type of sword in use, but during the later half of the medieval period forge-folded or pattern-welded swords were considered medium quality, and the best swords were the ones made of homogenous steel. How common was differential hardening in European swordsmithing? The Japanese figured it out with their swords - getting a very hard (holds a sharper edge) yet brittle edge section that's backed by a softer and more resilient core.
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2013 08:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 13:38 |
|
|
When and why did it become unpopular for (civilian) men to walk down the street armed with a sword or dagger?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2013 21:19
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I'd imagine sharpening all of the edged weapons for a medieval army would be a huge logistical undertaking. When your sword is your primary weapon, keeping it sharp and oiled takes as high a priority as a modern soldier making sure his rifle is clean and that he is carrying sufficient ammunition.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2013 05:45
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:Finally, there is also the issue that the guys in front are somewhat likely to be killed or wounded, and will have to be replaced by men from the backranks anyway, so giving everybody different lengths of weapons would be pointless. Why did people not realize that the front ranks of a phalanx or pike square are a lovely place to be, for the thousands of years they were employed?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2013 15:26
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:From what little research I've done on the subject, the sword seems like such a luxury weapon. Compared to the cost of a spear or even an axe, a quality sword seems like a huge expense for relatively little return. A sword is basically a long pointy piece of iron. It's quality is almost 100% dependent on the quality of the iron. But not only is the material relatively rare, it's usually full of impurities that must be removed. They didn't really have scientific metallurgy back then, so a lot of it was trial and error. Each individual smith had his own secret recipes that were closely guarded family secrets, but unless you had an electron microscope handy, you can't reliably assess the quality of your blade until you swung it at someone else's and see whose snapped first. A spear / axe / polearm on the other hand is a small pointy metal bit on a big piece of wood. Wood is easier to find, and while not as strong as iron, it's more predictable in the sense that everyone is familiar with it's strength qualities. The metal is just to make a more durable pointy edge, and isn't intended to be the load bearing component. In that respect, any poo poo piece of scrap iron would do just fine.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
Litmus Test posted:I take it this is totally unrealistic? I take it for safety reasons you're not allowed sharp weapons and can't just stab the other guy through the belly as he tries to play bumper cars?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2013 01:06
|
|
|
SeaWolf posted:What the hell is that!? Unfortunately the "have a real job so I can afford $10,000 of swords and plate armor" cuts into the "wake up / workout / train / lunch, beer, wench / workout / train some more" regimen that makes a professional knight / soldier / athelete. Imagine if the NFL had to work office jobs 9-5 M-F to buy their own pads and plane tickets. INTJ Mastermind fucked around with this message at 03:48 on Aug 2, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:There is a lot in this post that is wrong. While many swords contained iron components (such as those made by pattern-welding or wrapped construction) the cutting edge, was almost always made of steel. The quality of metal has something to do with the quality of the sword, but the heat treatment is very important, I would say equally so. Steel without heat treatment cannot keep an edge anywhere near as well as treated steel, nor can it flex, and is much more liable to break. Steel is iron with a small amount of carbon. The problem with early steel was the large amount of impurities, which disrupt the crystal-structure of the metal and weaken it. Heat treatment is absolutely important in that it changes the crystalline structure of the material, but I lumped it all under "quality". So I guess I should clarify my "quality" as 1) having the right percentage of carbon for the task 2) removing all impurities 3) properly heat treated for the application at hand. Unfortunately for Ye Olde Smithe, judging all 3 basically came down to experimentation and secret family recipes, without any hard objective data to work by. quote:It seems that this particular confusion continues to your understanding of spears. 'any poo poo piece of scrap iron' would not do 'just fine'. Aside from the fact that spears have sharp edges (something that wrought iron cannot maintain after first contact with wood or linen or a butterfly), wrought iron is prone to bend far more than steel. I don't know by what rationale you can say the point is not intended to be the 'load bearing component' when the point is where force is applied to the target. In a spear, the metal blade provides the cutting edge, while the shaft supports the force of the blow. This has two advantages: 1) a harder (and thus brittler) steel can be used for better edge retention because 2) the more flexible wooden shaft allows it to absorb a lot of force. This composite weapon allows both materials to be used to their respective strengths. On a sword, the blade has to be sharp enough to hold a cutting edge, AND be strong enough to withstand the force of repeated strikes. That's a lot of demand to put on a single material, which in addition to the difficulty of objectively making "good" steel, makes creating a quality sword kind of a crapshoot.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2013 03:39
|
|
|
Re: hook swords. Reminds me of the TFR goons with their modded AR-15s with a foregrip, bipod, laser sight, 4x scope, red dot sight, folding stock, flash suppressor, silencer, loudener, and those duct-taped double magazines. Probably the same mentality went into making a hook sword.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2013 18:11
|
|
|
Beeez posted:And they were generally aware of this? Well it's pretty easy to ride out a spell of bad diarrhea when you have a nice warm bed and good nutrition on your side. It's a whole nother matter when you're force-marching miles a day, cold, wet, starving, and being chased by Muslims / Mongols / Johnny Reb / the Nazis.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2013 06:12
|
|
|
Also shepherding means you have about 16 hours a day of sitting in a field with nothing to do but practice your slinging.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2013 06:24
|
|
|
Probably more effective in a defensive scenario or to cover a retreating force from cavalry pursuit. Speaking of which, what kinds of nasty traps did medieval armies use? Not referring to ambushes, etc, but stuff like punji sticks, trip-wire crossbows, etc. Or was that all fiction?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2013 20:10
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:What made the treasure fleet so (relatively) safe? It sounds like if it was such a big deal, every other power with a navy would want to take a shot at it. What kept them from succeeding most of the time? Was it just that the spanish protected it with enough strength to make trying to attack it Not Worth The Trouble, or were there other factors? The strategy and mathematics of "big gun" naval warfare (everything from ships of the line up to WW-II battleships) gives an overwhelming advantage to whoever can bring the strongest armada to the fight. Naval battles between big sailing ships typically resulted in ships being disabled either from crew casualties, destroyed sails and rigging, etc. not outright sunk. So in fact, your fleet's strength can be determined based on the number of ships (or more accurately the number of guns) at your disposal. The damage you deal at any time is proportional to the number of guns you have left, while the damage your receive is proportional to the number of guns your enemy has left. The more damage you inflict on your opponent, the less return fire you will receive, and vice versa. The numbers work out so that even a slightly inferior fleet engaging a stronger opponent will be quickly rendered impotent and only dish out minimal amounts of damage in return. The ratio of casualties is approximately inversely proportional the square of the ratio of firepower. So a 3:2 advantage in firepower translates to a 9:4 ratio in casualties. Put it another way, a 270 gun fleet fighting a 180 gun fleet will completely destroy the smaller fleet and only have 80 guns knocked out of action, assuming the fight continues to the bitter end, which they normally do not. What's the significance? Big fleets like the treasure armada are much safer than their numbers suggest from first glance, and serve as a deterrent from any upstart little admiral wanting to have a go.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Wherever did you hear this? From being a huge military and war game nerd. Here's a good book if you're interested. http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1557503923/ref=mp_s_a_1_4?qid=1455229886&sr=8-4&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=naval+tactics INTJ Mastermind fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Feb 11, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 13:38 |
|
|
I remember reading that in Roman times the brothels would have paintings on the walls of various sex positions. You simply walked in, pointed at what you want, paid the madam and got down to business. Probably not much different in Medieval times. Every traveler needs a bed for the night, booze, food, and maybe a whore. Not hard to get by with pointing and gesturing and waving money about. INTJ Mastermind fucked around with this message at 04:18 on May 29, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 29, 2017 04:15
|
|