Okay, I see. I may have been rather impatient due to that priggish idiot in the other thread, sorry.bigdummy wrote:Wolfgang Ritter wrote:Oh dear, do I have to mention a list of all effective weapons against armour in general and mail in special before comparing that thingy to a sword??
Are we at least of the same opinion that a "chopper" = a shortened glaive is a weapon relying on force and impact and therefore at least a better bludgeon than a sword. Or do you doubt in general that busting people under their mail happened or was a sufficient tactic?
The latter ... Ironically enough it was re-enactors who convinced me - though of course that doesn't mean it has to convince you. Seeing some Viking re-enactors go at it with (probably heavier than realistic) axes while wearing mail convinced me cutting weapons don't make good blunt instruments against an armored opponent. Maces and hammers yes of course. And more to the point, I think in a 13th Century context there would be plenty of exposed flesh to cut, and no doubt that thing could cut people, and horses, quite well.
And like I said, it's quite possible that the angular shape and points of that (ubiquitous) type of glaive head were precisely for attacking armor, it makes more sense to me than chopping through it or bludgeoning through it.And that does not mean I'd advocate a chopper or warbrand or whatever instead of a more substantial weapon like for example a long glaive. It's just better than a sword and should work more easily in a close range compared to long staff weapon.
Yes I agree. I think they would cut them down like that for an intense / chaotic close range fight. It has a prettty "mad max" feel to me in fact. Imaging 40 armored guys equipped with those things charging into a group of people hacking away...
admin wrote:Firstly, modern mild steel is quite a bit tougher and harder than pig iron. Especially medieval iron with all its inclusions of rubbish.
I am not very convinced that any kind of mail offers good protection from higher velocity missiles. Every test I have seen of bodkins (longbow or crossbow) against mail has ended very badly for the mail, even when worn over padding (and regardless of what the mail was made of). It comes down to the fact that the bodkin only needs to burst one rivet to get through (unless it is very fine Asian mail). The only projectiles I have seen stopped consistently by mail are broadheads for hunting. In my mind this is the clearest reason why coats of plates became so prolific by the middle of the 13th century.
bigdummy wrote:I agree with Leonardo, drawing mail out on a wire should not
Well, more than one person around today does smelt their own iron, paul champagne used to do it, you can see dozens of youtube videos on doing it it's not that hard to make a simple bloomery forge.
Bloomery forges by the 15th Century though were not simple, they were in fact pretty sophisticated, typically run on water power, and capable of making large pieces of good quality homogenius iron.
I'm going to have to re-read Knight and the Blast furnace, I'm going to download it to my Ipod today so I can review it. Some of what I'm reading here doesn't jibe with my memory but it was a while since I read it and it's a long book, so maybe my memory is skewed.
I'm hip to the fact that modern steel is much different than steel or iron used in Medieval times, and better for making rebar, washing machines, or jet turbines. I'm not convinced that modern steel is better for making swords or armor though. For example, harder is not necessarily better for either swords or armor... what you really want is a certain springiness and a toughness. But I'm going to review my Alan Williams and other sources and come back to this interesting topic.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest