I don’t want to get into a sword metallurgy debate again, as those tend to not be productive, but I think what the other poster means is that you want to distribute the carbon finely through the molecular matrix of the iron, not have it exist as contiguous areas of non-metal. These areas of non-metal form weaknesses in that they are stress concentrators (which are prime sources for crack formation), and since they don’t contain iron in them, are necessarily not contributing strength to the sword. In addition, the boundary regions of pure carbon deposits can turn into what can loosely be descibed as “extremely high carbon steel”, and can form very brittle zones of steel with iron contents above 1%.
The quality of the armor makes a very big difference here. The typical enthusiast’s harness is eighty pounds of crap. High quality armor handles much better.
The students I know move rather a lot when they fence in armor. They do not skitter all over the place, no, but they have little difficulty executing armed take-downs and other such techniques.
Yes and no; I was in recreated full field plate constructed using a mix of actual steel (modern grade) and aluminum, with steel chainmail in some vital areas. I’m told it was considerably lighter than the real thing, with which I have no experience, unless you count looking at pictures from museums.
…and considering the weight of it, and the padding necessary to wear it, I am here to tell you that the weight alone is pretty oppressive. Trying to march anywhere in it, if the weight and rubbing didn’t make you nuts, the padding would get you via heat exhaustion. Try it in the rain, and things get WAY worse. And I wasn’t kidding about taking a crap. And I wasn’t even in the woods, but had the benefit of modern plumbing. You do NOT get into or out of the stuff quickly, or by yourself, and if you fall down, I pity you. And if you fall down in combat, you’re pretty much screwed. “Convenience of movement” is an alien concept when you’re strapped into a chunky steel carapace.
I also have experience with a variety of sorts of chainmail. Plate armor, as mentioned, IS pretty well distributed as far as weight goes… at least, compared to chainmail. Then again, one can get in and out of chainmail quite quickly, and if you fall down in chainmail, I could see you defending yourself until you could get up again, as opposed to choosing “get up” or “keep maniac from killing you”.
Yes, vision is restricted, as is movement. This is why I’ve tended to not consider fighting forms that take armor into account as “fencing.” Maeglin, thanks for the links; you may consider my ignorance successfully fought for today; I did not know a bunch of this stuff, and I do find it interesting.
Una Persson’s remarks about carbon concentration are right on the money, based on what I know on the subject; this is what I meant when I was talking about how the concepts of modern metallurgy were incompletely understood or practiced by previous generations of swordsmiths. Even the best swordmakers of centuries past could sometimes inadvertently allow “brittle zones” in even the best blades, through sheer inability to control all the factors involved. Steelmaking was never entirely guesswork… but even today, it’s far from easy.
Epimetheus: Thanks for the link. The “history of fencing” section pretty much agrees with what my old fencing master used to tell us, although I’m not sure “colichemarde” was the word he used (although the information agrees with him). I do find it kind of interesting, though, that that section DISagrees with what’s been said about the use of broadswords:
Like I said, I’m no expert, only a well-read Sunday painter, so I’ll let someone else lecture on that topic.
Yup. I’d read about such things, and forgot about them completely earlier. Still, from what I’ve read, actual duelists eschewed armor; it was considered effete in a situation where the real question was quien es mas macho? It was my understanding that “judicial combat” and “affairs of honor” were not the same thing. Perhaps I’m wrong, though; if anyone has any more of those cool links, do feel free to educate me.
Again, it’s important to note that if you’re running around a real battlefield in full field plate, you are likely atop a horse; between you and your long weapon and your warhorse’s trained pugnacity, I think Grog and his screwdriver are going to have their hands more than full. At the least, Grog is going to need some major cojones to even try it, especially considering you’re either leading a mass of foot soldiers… or part of a decent-sized unit of cavalry; he’d be insane to attack you under the latter circumstances.
And, of course, I think we agree that any duel or judicial combat is unlikely to match Prince Platemail up against Grog and his screwdriver, yes?
Grog and his screwdriver, on a medieval battlefield, are much more likely to be up against John Bull (in studded leather, wearing a metal-reinforced cap, armed with anything from a shortsword to a halberd) or perhaps Harry English (in chainmail with coif, and perhaps a metal small helm with noseguard, armed with nearly anything). Both of these chaps are going to be way less encumbered, and have much better fields of vision… and be armed with longer and more useful weapons than a screwdriver.
I dunno, though… somehow, the idea of going up into a potentially lethal combat armored like the U.S.S. New Jersey and blind as Helen Keller in a coal mine, and simply trusting to technique to save my skin… I dunno. This strikes me as awfully “Use the Force, Luke.” Not saying it didn’t happen, but based on my own experience, I sure wouldn’t wanna try it. I would certainly be interested in reading more, if anyone has more links.
In the opening scene of “Branded”, a 1960’s TV western starring Chuck Conners as Captain Jason McCord, a cavalry officer breaks McCord’s saber over his knee like a twig. Is that likely or even posible? :dubius:
Chuck then spent the rest of the series proving my manliness by thwarting all sorts of bad guys with his resharpened stubby sword.
IANAS, however:
-
I was under the impression that soldiers in the past were quite aware of the importance of both visibility and mobility and armor was constructed appropriately. The helmets that I’ve seen that looked like they would reduce eyesight to the merest slit were part of jousting armor which was a completely different kettle of fish than the armor a soldier would wear into battle.
-
Likewise for mobility, I know the stuff isn’t exactly a leotard but even suits of plate were considerably more flexible than people give them credit for. There’s a nifty video called something like “How A Man Shall Be Armed” which is based on military treatises of the day. It shows a man being suited up in plate and then running about, doing somersaults and so on.
-
Keeping in mind that the soldier with a full set of armor, nice weapons, a warhorse and whatnot was not Joe PikeBearer, he was an extremely well-trained guy in very good shape, he’d be able to run around and stay combat effective in that load for longer than some average schlub like me (who’d be given the screwdriver).
-
I know some of Kinthalis’ views on the SCA but I’ve seen plenty of folks at tournaments and fighter practice who were quite able to move and fight while wearing heavy armor, helmets and swinging their weapons. Sweaty messes after a bit but doable. Maybe not historically accurate in technique but just in terms of the load that they are carrying it’s a good data point.
On Plate Armor:
The quality and wether it was made for you (or someone of close dimensions) or not is going to make a LOT of difference. As someone else mentioned, most reproduction is crappy steel (not properly hardened and so made thicker than it should be) and of poor fit.
You end up an overweight can.
I have worn a quality period replica and was able to do cartwheels and sprint a long distance up a hill. There is some constriction of movement, but not much, and you do burn off more energy, but agaiun, not much.
The visor IS a big problem when it comes to visibility. You get used to it though. Moreover I’m beginning to think Knights would have fought with their visors up, and only had them down while moving to engage the enemy (so as to protect from missile weapons). My only cite for this belief is some period paintings and some illustrations on the Fechtbuch.
Maeglin, I’ve been itching to head on over to the Martinez Academy to learn the spanish rapier, and I will, once I can schedule some free time, maybe I’ll get to meet you then! 
Most armor was actually much easier to wear than we give credit for. I have a “barbuta” style helmet that is nearly full-face, but gives practically no restriction to my vision.
I participate in an activity where people are wearing armor but also running around and such, and you’d be surprised at how fast the fit people can sprint and dodge in platemail, chainmail, etc. You realize pretty quickly that armor that is a major hindrance to you walking around is a bother. Armor definitely wears on your endurance and will start pressing in spots as time goes on, but when the adrenaline starts pumping, it’s not that much of a hindrance if it’s well constructed.
However, there is a lot of maintenance on armor, too – chain mail will need pretty much constant repair if it’s not riveted closed, for example, and straps, joints, and other weak points will cause armor to break or fall apart over time.
I can’t speak too much for swords, as we don’t really try to kill each other, but one tactic that you really see a lot of in re-enactment fighting (as has been mentioned) is striking limbs. Go for the legs, the hands, the arms. If the opponent is well armored and has a shield, bang hard on the shield – it still hurts. In movies, people always seem to aim for the chest area which is a pretty dumb idea. Also, kicking or tripping an armored opponent (it is harder to get back up – armor does limit flexibility) and knocking them over to get to areas like the neck, groin, and so on is also effective.
Well. One year I convinced my Dad to buy me some “No Frills” “Japanese Style” swords for [$winter_holiday]. Since this wasn’t exactly the most practical thing to own, they spent a lot of time in closets over the next few years.
Eventually they ended up for use in yardwork… pruning, chopping up brush, etc.
Once you learn a technique for not catching the blade in the wood, they actually worked pretty well. Eventually, a good swing and the right part of the blade could hack through 1.5-2" limbs. This ruined the blades asthetically by causing corrosion and scratching on the finish, but I didn’t notice much happening with the edge and never had a blade break or bend.
Not sure how they’d fare against other swords rather than trees.
Just wanted to point out that you’re talking about soldiers/warriors, here. The point of their existence is to fight in battles. And in a battle, there are people, friend or foe, on your right, on your left, and pushing behind you. It’s not like you can run away or even move much. Medieval armies might not have been as well organized as roman legions, but the shock of massed troops was normally used. And the defenders closed ranks. It’s not a thousand duels, each ten meters apart. It’s one thousand men charging together one thousand massed ennemies. If you’re engaged, there’s no “run away” option.
More generally, I wonder to what extent the perception fencers have of former combat techniques is tainted by the fact that they fight one to one, instead of in a pitched battle. Don’t you think that most of them, though maybe efficient in a joust, would be completely worthless during a real battle?
I mean, when your read descriptions of such battles, they’re talking about masses of men at arms attacking, knights being unable to stop a charge, people being trampled on by their friends coming behind, and such things. How many subtle moves can you actually use in such conditions?
I know there was a thread about this recently, but I can’t find it. The consensus was that the sword would have to be notched/scored first, as cavalry sabers are spring-tempered and will bend quite alarmingly (and spring right back) under normal use.
For the opposite end of the spectrum, this (5MB mpg video) is what happens when you make swords out of stainless steel. :eek:
Medieval and Renaissance systems of martial combat were designed to handle all aspects of combat.
Certainly it would not have been cost effective to train a knight for a decade or so to use weapons in duels and be worthless on the battlefield.
Studying the treatises of historical masters one notices that most tecnique and movement would be of use in mass combat, the rest might not be practical in that situation can would apply to one on one combat. So both forms are covered, and both forms are interelated. In fact I wouldn’t call them two “forms” they are the same art, just applied differently.
All I can say is, dude, you gotta!