tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post1619303407424733736..comments2024-03-27T20:37:08.065+01:00Comments on Defence and Freedom: Exotic ancient weapons: (IX) Penobscot double bowUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-68388051847263888332018-09-26T18:24:48.441+02:002018-09-26T18:24:48.441+02:00Rermember the wide socket of the tip; it's des...Rermember the wide socket of the tip; it's designed to keep the javelin from getting pulled out of the shield in one direction, the barbs (spears had rather leaf-shaped tips) were meant to block the other direction.<br />The long iron part is but one of three elements that amde removal difficult.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-72355917487072893742018-09-25T23:13:22.962+02:002018-09-25T23:13:22.962+02:00>>>"To the opposite the quality of t...>>>"To the opposite the quality of the blade is more important for an thrusting svord."<br /><br />>>>>That's not the opposite.<br /><br />I do not understand that point (for sure because my english is so bad). I only wanted to add, that in the middle the quality of straight svord blades was better than of curved ones and also this was even necessary because for thrusting you need a better (higher quality) svord blade than for cutting.<br /><br />Also two edges were not about to have a reserve edge if ones get dull / damaged. But for better penetration, better thrusting, to have broader and therefore more stable blades with fewer weight and for some special cuts with the back of the blade.<br /><br />Many straigth blades had also only one edge like the famous Backswords, Messers and others.<br /><br />Having only one edge is also advantagous for cutting because of the blade geometry and for that reason sabres had mostly only one edge, because this increases the cutting power.<br /><br />Logically most straight svords with only one edge were therefore designed mainly for cutting. Also such a design makes the blade heavier and more top heavy which also increases the cutting power. <br /><br />One word about very short svords to conclude this. Such svords were for sure meant for very close combat (the border to daggers is here fluent - look for example for an long dirk, a schweizer degen etc but this very close combat was not only a result of tactics in an battle. If you fight not in an battle but a duell like situation an opponent with an shield and an spear it is very clever to drop your own spear and charge into the opponent as fast as possible and attack him with your second weapon, aka the short svord. Also you can draw such a svord much faster if it is shorter. In many cases also for the other guy this is then the best defence, to drop the spear and to get the very short svord out as fast as possible. <br /><br />So not so much in battle, but in duell like encounters and small skirmishes such very short svords are useful and also for the everday carry / everyday violence. Especially because you can draw them so fast.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-47961336558872463022018-09-25T23:12:48.003+02:002018-09-25T23:12:48.003+02:00>>>Many different kinds of battle damages...>>>Many different kinds of battle damages happened to swords<br /><br />I agree completly with that, but this is not so important in the question of the impact of svord cuts in battle even after such a damage occurs. Moreover high quality steel also not avoids such damage as some historical pictures even shows the best japanese blade with heavy battle damages and still in use. <br /><br />The sharpness of the blade was only reduced in some parts and maintained in others of the blade from battle damage. Most battle damage to a svord blade only "dulls" a small part of the blade. The most common are notches.<br /><br />>>>>2nd century BC La Tène period swords tended to be >>>round-ended; certainly not designed for stabbing <br /><br />Although you are right and some types of La Tene svords with such points were realy not meant for thrusting, funily a round ended point if it is realy sharp is advantagous in thrusting because it become not stick in bones like the short rips for example. So if the celts would made this rounded points sharp (which as far as i know it they did not) they would have been even advantagous.<br /><br />Some of this blades were so high quality that they could be bend tremendously even today and then spring back into their old form. <br /><br />PS: Most celtic svords had conventional points and the said longer la tene with rounded tips were as far as we knew it perhaps cavalry weapons. This would also explain the increase of length at this period 250 until 50 before christ. <br /><br />Also svords were not the main weapon of the celts in this period especially for their infantry which used spears, lances and much shorter svords which were in their hispanic form even copied from the romans. Also this is not an much known fact, that the gladius hispaniensis is not a genuin spanish svord form, but was a descendant of the La Tene svords of the celts and comes from the celto-iberians which were a mixture of celtic tribes and iberians. For that reason the early (middle republican) roman gladius hispaniensis was also much longer as most people think.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-62876533492784837702018-09-25T23:12:12.315+02:002018-09-25T23:12:12.315+02:00Some of them stick after penetration. The main pro...Some of them stick after penetration. The main problem in removing pilums from shields is from my experience the length of the tip, and not so much that they stick. You must pull them out quite a distance and therefore this is difficult in combat situation. Of cause this difficulty was a useful side-effect, but as i said not the main intention. It was only a side effect and resultet from the length of the tip and that it was from metal so you cannot easily cut it away with your weapon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-20110691041078578482018-09-23T03:20:04.102+02:002018-09-23T03:20:04.102+02:00"To the opposite the quality of the blade is ..."To the opposite the quality of the blade is more important for an thrusting svord."<br /><br />That's not the opposite.<br /><br />"Moreover the blades does not become dull in battle"<br /><br />Many different kinds of battle damages happened to swords, especially bending (if the alloy doesn't flex back after a slashing strike) and becoming jagged/burred/notchy (better words than dull).<br />Combat with shields and especially with edge-reinforced shields was a challenge for blade edges.<br /><br />>>Celtic swords were largely limited to slashing, >>>as the point was often dull<br /><br />"A "dull" point can be advantagous in thrusting because the resulting wounds are more serious and you avoid over-penetration which results in your svord stucking in the enemy."<br /><br />2nd century BC La Tène period swords tended to be round-ended; certainly not designed for stabbing. One could challenge my "largely", but I was not writing about what you thought.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-73730894221424279852018-09-23T02:49:48.655+02:002018-09-23T02:49:48.655+02:00"So Pilums are not about sticking in shields,..."So Pilums are not about sticking in shields, but about penetrating them."<br />They stick after penetration. The barbs of the tip and the wide socket of the tip made removal difficult in a combat situation.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-12751626425369962852018-09-22T22:12:47.597+02:002018-09-22T22:12:47.597+02:00>>>The pilum's purpose was threefold;...>>>The pilum's purpose was threefold; a demoralising/shocking salvo, disabling shields by sticking >>>to them (making them unwieldy and enabling the enemy to >>>>push the shield sideways) <br /><br />Mainly Pilums were desighned to thrust through shields. That was there main purpose. The long shaft of the tip penetrates suprisingly easy even through very heavy shields and the reaches the body of the enemy behind its shield. So Pilums are not about sticking in shields, but about penetrating them. <br /><br />>> The pilum slowly fell out of use when the longer spatha >>>sword gradually replaced the gladius sword<br /><br />There was a transition period between the mainly gladius and then mainly spatha period. And it was in this transition period, the pilum came out of use. In this time the infantry was still mainly armed with short (!) svords, not long ones. They are called ringknaufschwerter in german, i do not know the english name for it. The came from the sarmatians and spread with the use of much more cavalry (as you correctly wrote). In this time conventional spears as anti-cavalry weapons replaced the pilum and the gladius and were the main weapons. The short-svords were not longer the main weapon because of the cavalry centric combat of this time (which also leaded to the rise of the illyrians because of their importance in the cavalry). So not the spatha was the reason for the disfavour of the pilum, but the use of conventional spears (because of so many enemy cavalry). The gladius is superior in combat infantry against infantry. But against armoured sarmatian etc cavalry gladius and pilum were replaced by spears and ringknauf-svords. And only after that the short ringknauf-svords were then replaced by the spatha in the infantry (and for a further transition period also from longer ringknauf-svords and longer and cheaper forms of classical gladius pompeji).<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-41390388003133417962018-09-22T21:51:39.565+02:002018-09-22T21:51:39.565+02:00Historicaly a hit would nearly always had some eff...Historicaly a hit would nearly always had some effect (in regard for the further fight), even if no serious wounds would result from it because of armour. Moreover a good armour negates nearly all kind of sword cuts and a sword is therefore always a bad choice against an armoured enemy or more specifically against the armour.<br /><br />Also historicaly longer blades were favoured for the same simple reason: reach. The end was then the rapier which was more a short one handed spear from its nature than a sword.<br /><br />Concentrating further only on svords:<br /><br />>>This particular hilt design alone tells the >>observer that the blade will be very curved >>>sabre's blade.<br /><br />No it dont. Its the same hilt design that was used in india for a long period on straight blades. It shows not that the blades are curved, but that the svord is used mainly for cutting. And there were many straight swords which were used for cutting only in india.<br /><br />>>Curved blades typically require a relatively >>>high quality material because they almost never >>>have two edges, and one edge could quickly >>>become dull in an extended battle<br /><br />To the opposite the quality of the blade is more important for an thrusting svord. Especially sabres can have blades of inferior quality in comparison without loosing capacity. Moreover the blades does not become dull in battle, but most times from wearing them in the scabbard and a lack of maintaince. In a battle svord fights did not last long and there were not many of them. <br /><br />>>Celtic swords were largely limited to slashing, >>>as the point was often dull<br /><br />A "dull" point can be advantagous in thrusting because the resulting wounds are more serious and you avoid over-penetration which results in your svord stucking in the enemy. A point should not be to sharp but idealy a little bit dull.<br /><br />>>>Frankly, my suspicion is that they were >>>optimised for light weight, as respectable >>>sidearms that aren't too much of a burden on their user.<br /><br />There were also many very heavy ones: the rapiers were for example in the average heavier than ordinary period svords. you could also look at a Koncerz or a later french curassier svord and so on. Long and in comparions very heavy thrusting only blades.<br /><br />>>Large handguards tend to be associated with no >>>use of shields, or use of shields very unwieldy >>>(pavise) or very small (buckler).<br /><br />Highland Broadswords which had one of the largest handguards ever were for example used with the targe, a medium shield.<br /><br />The large handguards were here also used very offensive, to hit the opponent in the face or against the head.<br /><br />There are in most times so many reasons why something was like it was and not always this reasons are easy deducible. The context is in most times much more complex. <br /><br />Since i fence since many years and espially since around 8 years now mainly highland broadsword i discovered more and more within the years, that things are much more complicated than most people think.<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-46583822144498315002018-09-22T13:32:04.546+02:002018-09-22T13:32:04.546+02:00His views are a bit tainted by his favourite pract...His views are a bit tainted by his favourite practice - sabre duels where a hit counts even if armour would have made it ineffectual. He likes long blades in part because they make scoring hits easier.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-74793823625775505832018-09-22T10:49:34.581+02:002018-09-22T10:49:34.581+02:00I learned how to use the Bo staff in karate practi...I learned how to use the Bo staff in karate practice while growing up and later did a bit of HEMA and Filipino martial arts (weapons based) while I studied in Vienna. <br /><br />And yes. A short spear is an amazing weapon in duels and even group fights against pretty much any weapon as long as you are not using shields. And still good weapons even then, but shields pretty much even the ground. <br /><br />No idea about good armor though. Never wore more than a heavy duty fencing mask and padding and killing your training partner wasn't a priority :DAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-90975120502500417112018-09-22T10:08:12.510+02:002018-09-22T10:08:12.510+02:00Linking matt easton generally makes any further di...Linking matt easton generally makes any further discussion on melee weapons moot, if just for the amount of time needed to watch all his videos. <br />Regarding your opinion on straight swords, in one of his recent videos he claims that given sufficient training, a straight sword is the superior option even without armor being involved. Also, smallswords being weight-optimised is a historical fact - people at the time usually used heavier straight swords in war and smallswords in civilian life.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com