Cause I really had this cool fantasy about outfitting my warriors with aluminum weapons and armor and invading medieval France, only to have the denizens of the SDMB shoot down the idea.
Yes, I understand that aluminum isn’t as strong as steel. But of course, it is lighter than steel. And I can see that with most weapons you are better off with the harder metal since you want a sharper more durable edge. But you could make aluminum armor much thicker than steel armor and still have it be lighter. Wouldn’t that be an advantage? And is aluminum’s malleability a serious detriment? After all, an aluminum plate that bends is still absorbing a lot of energy from the weapon. In fact, armor that gives a little might be better than perfectly rigid armor. Or maybe not. Any ideas?
Ultimately though we as modern practioners can’t truly hope to come even close to those warriors of long ago who trained with these weapons every day of their life, who lived and died by the sword?
As someone said in a book I read (paraphrasing):
“How could we as modern practioners ever hope to approach this fighting skill? Who would presume to even dare innovate their own fighting technique?”
Aluminum arrows would be worthless to medieval armies. A good wood arrow is much more durable than an aluminum one. Aluminum kinks very easily from hard impacts. Modern aluminum arrows are made to extremely tight tolerances from thin-walled duralumin tubing, and even these are ruined by a good hit to wood, bone, stone or metal much more often than sturdy wood arrows. Aluminum is also about five times denser than average wood (SG 2,7 vs. SG 0,5). Even if the medieval arrowsmiths had the equipment to precisely machine light-weight modern aluminum alloy arrows, the lighter ammo would have much less KE and even more less momentum than a good old wooden shaft, when shooting at typical battle distances. Medieval war arrows are typically much heavier (often 60 - 70 g) than modern hunting arrows (typically 25 - 35 g), despite the theoretical advantage of lighter, faster, longer - range ammunition.
Aluminum arrowheads perform poorly against any target. An arrow’s flesh-penetration ability depends largely on it’s sharpness. Aluminum is impossible to sharpen to the same edge as steel. Aluminum would penetrate even a bare human body poorly, resulting in less-than-optimal bleeding. Arrowheads made from too soft or too thin materials can actually bounce off game animals where an arrow with identical KE but with a stronger head would go straight through.
My point was not to refute your statements, Kinthalis. I’m wondering out loud if the core of the argument is really disputing different levels of compromise. I would really like to see if there are some good references or links to other comperable older martial arts that might be used as a reference. And to see if there are branches of SCA or SCA-derived groups that do study real methods of the past. My brief experience with the SCA was that there were some pretty serious people there, but to what extent they were “serious” is what the question is. And I don’t know that I feel confident dismissing them as a group unless I know more. Especially because a lot of the difference between the practice and the reality is relative and subjective.
Id imagine there would be a ton of possible uses if one is just trying to find ways to use it in medieval equipment. Saving weight in warfare is often a critical issue. And of course aluminium alloy armour does exist now but it cant just be hit with a hammer I imagine.
Parts of wheels maybe? Hafts of polearms or axes? Lining behind steel facia on armour? Rivets? Light cooking equipment? Light armour for more mobile soldiers? Sure its not going to be steel plate but it might have its place.
The main problem is that ingots by themselves wouldnt be much use, you need modern welding and the like to get the best use out of them. Not to mention economies of scale.
** Kinthalis **, I have the utmost respect for you and your hobby. I also note a rather condescending edge to your satements in regards to the SCA fighers. We are not “playing”, and the vast majority of us don’t claim to be recreating anything. Those that do, usually claim to be recreating tourny fighting of the sort that had a brief revival in the 1700’s.
However, I have to refute you’re claim of studying “Real Fighting”. Unless you have managed to stumble on a hidden master of the sword (or what have you) that has been trained by his father, and his father before him, going back 400 years or so, you are just recreating what you BELIEVE medieval fighting was like, probably with the help of the recently revived fechtbooks that are slowly sweeping the SCA as well.
Basically, you’re doing the same thing as the SCA… just with a bit more research and more focus on historical accuracy.
This argument is actually much more like the ongoing debates between Traditional Martial artists vs. Mixed Martial artists.
Fechtbuch and treatises ARE are the number one source of information. Followed up by historical research into those times, and of course practice with live steel, and blunted or alimunum replicas.
You’re right, sadly, in that there are is no longer an unbroken line in the study of these weapons (as there are in eastern martial arts). If only it weren’t for guns!
If it is true that the SCA is starting to take a look at the historical techniques of fighting, these is good news. I haven’t seen it (yet), but I’ll take your word for it.
We could use some more serious scholars, I for one, would love to see this art ‘revived’.
Still unless the SCA adopts more historically accurate methods of teaching and not just what I currently see, they might only realize that the historical martial arts will not translate all that well to their bouts.
Also remeber that MEdieval and renaissance martial arts encompass not just fencing, but fighting unarmed as well as with many other weapons.
