Yeah I was also thinking of ladders for sieges, but as someone mentioned this would likely require skills and technology not available at the time leaving this contructions perhaps too weak to be functional.
I know for exaple my extension ladder had a weight limit of some 400 pounds.
That’s probably 2 guys in chainmail armor.
Take a look at one example of some Rockwell Hardness comparisons. Steel is clearly harder, which means (I think) that for an arrowhead or a plate resisting it, steel is better than aluminum. I’ve got a history of metallurgy book around here somewhere that mentions that blacksmiths reached a level of skill that is unmatched today, i.e. they could cold-hammer bodkin arrowheads that would do as well as anything we’d produce today. If the armor was prohibitively heavy, they could just reduct the amount of metal used. They didn’t.
To put another way, there’s a reason that they don’t use aluminum rifle barrels. That’s how I understand it, anyway.
(Price is the real issue. I recently saw a documentary where archeologists were looking for old battlefields. They said that you can’t search for abandoned metal because iron & steel were so expensive that every last arrowhead was collected.
Before 1886, when it was discovered that cyrolite lowered the melting point of aluminum to managable levels, it was so expensive that Napoleon kept aluminum utensils for only the most I’s of the VIPs. You’ll note that in 1855 aluminum costed $113/pound. That’s about $2,000 in today’s prices. ( http://www.eh.net/hmit/ppowerusd/ ))
Blunt aluminum weapons would be useless. The key here is the weight of the weapon, the idea being you can easily throw someone off balance and crush even plate armour with a heavy weapon.
Kinthalis, my friend, I suspect you’re trolling for SCA fighters such as myself. Suffice to say, respectfully, I believe you’re mistaken in your assessment of both our level of skill and our field of study. If we ever meet in friendly martial competition, perhaps we’ll see who supplies the lunch and who dines thereupon.
Regarding the OP, although aluminum is a very useful metal, its utility in arms and armour is limited. If introduced into the Middle Ages, it could have been used for some very nice jewelry and cookware, but not so much for weapons.
I have no stage-fighting background. Niether does the SCA, which began as a back-yard medievil party in Berkley Ca. 1963. It’s grown considerably since then, and includes a great many people with diferent focuses and skill levels.
However, any blanket statemants about whether or not a “historical Fencer” would be able to win in a bout against an SCA fight are pointless. No matter how hard someone may have trained at his historical fencing, going up against a chap who’s spent most every weekend trying to hit/not to hit his friends as hard as possible with a rattan stick is not going to be a cakewalk. The more experienced SCA fighters I’ve known have honed their speed and reaction time on attack/defense that I’d bet even you might find surprising.
Were you a member I’d throw a freindly gaunlet down myself, and afterwards, we could discuss the relative merits of our not dissimular hobbies over a Guiness around the campfire.
I have no doubt that your continued practice has honed your ability to wack someone over the head with a padded waster, but can you handle live steel in a real fight to the death?
This is a bit of a trick question, really.
Even historical fencers do not fight to the death in this day and age. It is because of this, fortunate, obstacle that we strive towards a goal that is ultimately unatainable.
That being said we DO practice REAL techniques developed by masters of these weapons using them in REAL life and death situations. These people honed their skills not only through out their lives, but they have also built their technique on a base of experience several hundred years strong.
As I mentioned, I have seen several SCA bouts. Hella fun looking, but I can plainly see technique that is simply not applicable to the way real live weapons handle.
There are straight edge on edge, static blocks (unheard of using medieval techniques) and in very poor form, slashing at people with waster ‘rapiers’, something that a renaissance master would NOT do, and for good reason.
So a bout between an SCA member and a student of historical martial arts using your equipment and your rules… I say it might go either way.
Give them both live steel and actual weapons and the SCA fighter will die, plain and simple.
I’m not trying to troll or be antagonistic. I simply stated my opinion, and hopefully, some useful info backing up my position.
Maybe, and give the Historical Fencer SCA equipment and he might die.
I seem to remember Musashi Miyamoto fought ‘live steel’ duels to the death while armed only with a stick and he killed several opponents.
Oh well, I suppose we can agree that Batman would beat us both.
I think the SCA argument going on isn’t addressing the simple point that I think Kinthalis is trying to make.
If I may…
While the SCA has many members that individually may study and train classical martial arts, the SCA does not officially teach or instruct said arts in any formal organized manner.
So in any particular SCA group, one tends to get a potpourri of skills, knowledge, and abilities. Techniques can range from amatuerish Highlander wannabe up to elegant beautiful fencing.
They made the armor for the film Excalibur out of aluminum. It’s light, which is th big draw. But I suspect that it’s not as good at protecting you as stel.
Just for the record, there were relatively cheap processes for making aluminum before the electrolytic processes were developed, and made it really cheap. When Jules Verne wrote From the Earth to the Moon the electrolytic processes hadn’t been developed yet, and he still talks about aluminum as not outrageously expensive. Unfortunately, IIRC, the processes in use at that time required alkali metals, which ae also produced by electrolysis, so it’s hard to imagine a Medieval procss that would’ve worked.
Kinthalis, do your friends study medieval or Renaissance fighting? They are quite different.
It wasn’t just a random stick, but a wooden practice sword called a bokken. Students even died in practice bouts from time to time when bokken were used, which led to the development of the shinai, a practice sword made with 4 long bamboo slats bound in a cylinder with cord and leather. You could probably still knock someone unconsious with a shinai, but it would be difficult to cause any permanent or life-threatening injury with one.
as well as a couple of freshly-stripped branches and once, a whittled-down boat oar.
Very interested about the argument about S.C.A. versus historical fencers but the bottom line is the fear factor ,we are always hearing about housewives who could “outdraw” Billy the Kid etc. but shooting a balloon quickly and having someone in front of you who is A intent on killing you and B is used to having someone trying to kill them while they are doing it is a whole different ball game !likewise medieval fighting ,the troops of the time were (except for the peasant levies )very highly trained ,even the longbowmen were well trained in hand to hand combat which was reflected in the high casualty figures of the battles of the wars of the roses and the english expeditions to France.
Sturnhauke: I study both actually.
BMalion: Give the Historical fencer SCA equipment and he might get a bruise! SCA bouts are fought with padded sticks. 
As GargoyleWB mentioned, my point is that the SCA does NOT teach medieval and renaissance martial arts. Some SCA people go out on their own and study the art on their own, but that is the exception, not the rule.
It is more than a little presumptious to assume that play fighting with inacurate replicas or padded sticks can produce a more efficient technique than that which historical masters developed using real sword, in fights to the death, over several centuries, don’t you think?
Presumptious? Sorry, I don’t follow you. I did not mean to come across as pompous or a martial-arts know-it-all (I’m a lover, not a fighter!). I’m only average in skill level, and that’s probubly being generous.
You are possibly confused. I was answering the assertion that a modern person who studied historical fencing techniques, was going to be more of an effective combatant in a life or death fight against your average SCA fighter. Getting beaten with a stick can kill you too, you know.
I did not mean to imply that SCA training was more “efficient”.
I would like to point out that our “Historical-fencing person” is also only going to get bruised as I seriously doubt he’s training for actual life or death situations. I’m sure that in a L or D situation the instincts that I’ve learned from my SCA experience will stand me in good stead if I have to defend myself from an attacker. I’d also like to point out that I’d be much more likely to have a stick of some kind on hand than a sword. (althought not always;) ) 'course that’s beside the point.
FYI. The SCA “sticks” are not padded. They are 1 1/4 inch rattan covered in duct tape, if you are hit hard with one you’ll have broken bones followed by death, that’s why we wear the helmuts and armour.
Alright, I see where you’re coming from, but I’m sorry I just don’t agree.
A historical fencer is studying a martial art developed by people that weren’t concerned about arbitrary rules and regulations. They fought with live steel and developed these techniques through generations of warriors.
How then, can you put on equal footing play fighting with wooden wasters on the same level?
As I mentioned on some of my posts above I have SEEN SCA bouts first hand. I have seen as technique that would have gotten them killed in a fight with real weapons was being used with success. I saw poor fencing principles being used (solid, static blocking as done in movies with longswords, slashing with rapiers, etc).
If the SCA were to perform these bouts for a live audience of medieval knights you’d have a lot of head scratching going on as the knights pondered wether they were being mocked or these bunch never touched a blade in their lives.
Good for them. You don’t train with any rules or regulations? How many people have been maimed or killed that you know of? Those historical fencing training halls must be quite the slaughterhouse.
What make the SCA rules “arbitrary” ?
I wasn’t. All I said was that you might be surprised at some SCA fighter’s skill level. How this got into me comparing SCA vs. sword masters from the age of fencing is a mystery. We are in it for fun, mostly.
By the way, what is a waster ?
So? It’s evolved stick-fighting. What’s a wrong technique with a broadsword is good technique with a four foot rattan stick.
I would not presume otherwise. But then, I don’t take my hobby that seriously. It’s not meant to entertain Medieval time-travellers.
This is coming down to a silly “my hobby is deadlier/more accurate than your hobby” discussion. Reminds me of a Kirk/Picard argument. Sorry if I ruffled your feathers.
I understand that an SCA’s fighter skill level at play fighting with rattan sticks might be rather good. I can see how he probably has become aquainted with the finer points of point disntance control. I fail to see how this would lead him to be any good at using real weapons.
And that’s my point. You claim that an SCA fighter is just as good as a historical fencer when it comes to a fight with real weapons.
The reason why I disagree is because while SCA bouts are basically a modern sport with absolutley no connection with historical combat, a historical fencer would have been studying technique developed BY the USERS and CREATORS of these weapons, whom did not play fight with them, but fought with them in very real situations.
It’s like claiming that, having played paper football during breaks in highschool makes you capable of outplaying a professional football team. No, it wouldn’t. You don’t have the experience with the real instruments and gear, the real tactics, or real aspects of the actual sport.
http://www.woodenswords.com/WMA/longsword.htm
A waster is a wooden practice sword.
My point exactly!
Look I have no beef with you or the SCA. In fact I love those guys and am looking to join in the fun sometime this year.
What I do have a problem with is the misinformation that some SCA people spread.
That their playfighting has any martial value whatsoever.
That it is connected to historical medieval and renaissance martial arts.
That it matter not that they do not study those ancient techniques, they are as able fighters (using real live weapons) as those warrirs of long ago.
Obviously I’m not claiming YOU said any of these thigns, but I have met others who have, and this is why I’m being so persistant getting this point accross.
There IS no discussion on this point. My hobby deals with a martial art. Effective at one nasty thing - kill your opponent with weapons of the time. It is accurate to a good degree when ti comes to historical practice.
Your hobby is not a martial art, period. And it is only accurate in being true to whatever rules are used for sparring at SCA bouts.
What is the name and address of the school that teaches real sharpened steel combat in the methods of the old masters? Without rules and without regulations and strictures?
It’s a serious question, not an argumentative one. And I’m not trying to belittle anyone’s field of study. If by definition playing by rules and using anything but real weapons is not a martial art, then how can one legally train in most industrialized nations and claim to truly be practicing a martial art?
Study of most anything that involves hurting other human beings is a compromise in some manner. It seems almost that the argument is over who is making the least compromise. I’m a very good shot with my .22 A couple of days ago I was putting holes in paper targets with less than 1-inch groupings at more than 80 feet. Yeah, sure, not Olympic quality by any means but damn good. But that’s not the same as shooting a real, live, moving, bleeding, screaming, begging for their life, human being. But I would never claim I have “real combat experience” or “combat training”, even if Gunnery Sergeant Hartman himself was training me - unless I was shooting human beings.
There is none. And I never claimed we used live steel on one another with abandon
But there is a MAJOR difference when you talk about ONLY training in sporting conditions, and practicing deadly (tried and true for oh, several hundred years) techniques at three-quarter speed with aluminum replicas and with a partner. That coupled with test cutting using live blades, understanding the concepts of medieval and renaissance masters, and competition with steel (blunted) swords in armor makes for as close an aproximation as possible.
True there are no real masters of the sword currently for to be one one would have to have the terrible experience of using a blade on a human being.
What I am saying is that unless you study the way these weapons were actually used, practice the techniques taught by by fencing masters you are not going to be skilled in the use of these weapons.
Is this not a logical statement?
If I gave you a stick and my 12 year old cousin to practice with and said to you: ok now practice modern fencing for a few months, you’re going to be competing in the olympics! But I never gave you a real foil, or the equipment necessary or a set of rules… how do you think you will fare at the olympics?
I’d think it’s safe to say you’d fare badly.
It seems I’m either not getting my logic accross, or you are refuting my statements. If so, please elaborate as to why I’m wrong.