Ancient Weapons
- Thread starter Lesion42
- Start date
rhetorician
Registered Senior Member
I know who machiavelli is:"it is better to be feared than loved" although i don't have the ability to say you misquoted since i've never read his writings on that area. However i disagree. The roman infantry was famous for carring standardized weapons and armor. In fact the only difference ever found was that solider's not having citizenship were issued ring mail instead of the upper boddy plate armor.
As far as weapns though... every solder was given A shield (famous for their defensive formations with these) A long tipped shield piercing spear and a short sword for quick jabs and slices from behind a shield at extremely close range.
So what weapon were you referring to. I assume your talking about the glaive or bill
rhetorician
Registered Senior Member
Japanese Swords:
Extremely interesting swords in two aspects. The Thin curved sword that comes to mind was specifically designed for maximizing slicing power. its almost useless for jabs. But the greater unique ness comes from its construction...
The curve comes from making the front side of the blade stronger and then heating it so that the front and back of the blade will expand differently. The front because its more metal will force the other side to bend back so it can wrap around it instead of seperating.
Also: These swords are said to have been some of the strongest in contruction (including europe). Reason being not in the quality of metal but in contructin. The blacksmith would flatten out the blade and then fold it back over... doing this over and over againt would increase the strength of the sword. In some swords(remember these are extremely thin light swords...) the number of folds a scientist counted was way up in the tripple digits!!!
Extremely interesting swords in two aspects. The Thin curved sword that comes to mind was specifically designed for maximizing slicing power. its almost useless for jabs. But the greater unique ness comes from its construction...
The curve comes from making the front side of the blade stronger and then heating it so that the front and back of the blade will expand differently. The front because its more metal will force the other side to bend back so it can wrap around it instead of seperating.
Also: These swords are said to have been some of the strongest in contruction (including europe). Reason being not in the quality of metal but in contructin. The blacksmith would flatten out the blade and then fold it back over... doing this over and over againt would increase the strength of the sword. In some swords(remember these are extremely thin light swords...) the number of folds a scientist counted was way up in the tripple digits!!!
BillClintonsCigar
Registered Senior Member
I myself prefer the standard sword, or a Bow with arrows.
Broadswords, while doing more damage, are heavier and therefore slower in combat. The hand-and-a-half sword (or 'bastard sword', so called because when one gets hit with it one cries out, "Bastard"
) is a medium that can be used with one, or two hands, making it a good all-round weapon, when wandering the lands of the Earth.
Bows today have as much technology as other weapons, including laser sights! Now that is cool (in my opinion):
Broadswords, while doing more damage, are heavier and therefore slower in combat. The hand-and-a-half sword (or 'bastard sword', so called because when one gets hit with it one cries out, "Bastard"
) is a medium that can be used with one, or two hands, making it a good all-round weapon, when wandering the lands of the Earth.Bows today have as much technology as other weapons, including laser sights! Now that is cool (in my opinion):
Last edited:
rhetorician
Registered Senior Member
Blunt weapons...
i've heard 3 mentioned hear....mace, ball and chain and flail
Now of course sense in history there are different opinions names my vary to include different things. My definitions are based on the dictionary, a european expert and my personal experiences of where i've seen them.
The mace- basically designed to be a club that wouldn't break. Was developed to deliver force through ones armor instead of having to penatrate(anti heavy plate) although it could obviously still be used against other regulars. This weapon was had a shaft with a small steal ball on the end. Then around the small ball were thick fins paralel to the sheaft to increase the balls size without much additional weight. Use- a user would quickly start an offensive to nock the knight of balance and once the knight was, stronger hits would be placed to the vitals. with this technique the idea was to not give him time to attack but simply just keep hitting him or his weapon/shield On horse back, it was pretty simple, ride by and hit people over the head.
Ball and chain- NOT A MACE, but a variation. This was a small shaft that had a Chain and heavy ball attached. Then weapon was extremely dangerous to the user so it wasn't for the new recruit. Use: a user would start swing it above the head or in a figure 8 around his body. Then when speed was built he'd use it much as cthulhus slave illustrated to avoid it coming back at you. The chain was added to maximize the posible force you could get from the impact. It was so much force that it was hopped that you would either take out the enemy in one hit or completely nock him back and/or down so you could go again.
Flail-A mod of the ball and chain, but very specifici. A flail had multiple balls and chanins coming fromt he shaft, Usualy 3.
This weapon was even harder to use.. It delivered even more force however the biggest danger came from, you had to watch all 3 of your balls, If only 2/3 hit one might still come back and hit you.(the ones that hit would usally be slowed enough that it could be controled from not coming back and hitting you.
i've heard 3 mentioned hear....mace, ball and chain and flail
Now of course sense in history there are different opinions names my vary to include different things. My definitions are based on the dictionary, a european expert and my personal experiences of where i've seen them.
The mace- basically designed to be a club that wouldn't break. Was developed to deliver force through ones armor instead of having to penatrate(anti heavy plate) although it could obviously still be used against other regulars. This weapon was had a shaft with a small steal ball on the end. Then around the small ball were thick fins paralel to the sheaft to increase the balls size without much additional weight. Use- a user would quickly start an offensive to nock the knight of balance and once the knight was, stronger hits would be placed to the vitals. with this technique the idea was to not give him time to attack but simply just keep hitting him or his weapon/shield On horse back, it was pretty simple, ride by and hit people over the head.
Ball and chain- NOT A MACE, but a variation. This was a small shaft that had a Chain and heavy ball attached. Then weapon was extremely dangerous to the user so it wasn't for the new recruit. Use: a user would start swing it above the head or in a figure 8 around his body. Then when speed was built he'd use it much as cthulhus slave illustrated to avoid it coming back at you. The chain was added to maximize the posible force you could get from the impact. It was so much force that it was hopped that you would either take out the enemy in one hit or completely nock him back and/or down so you could go again.
Flail-A mod of the ball and chain, but very specifici. A flail had multiple balls and chanins coming fromt he shaft, Usualy 3.
This weapon was even harder to use.. It delivered even more force however the biggest danger came from, you had to watch all 3 of your balls, If only 2/3 hit one might still come back and hit you.(the ones that hit would usally be slowed enough that it could be controled from not coming back and hitting you.
HHmm, then what about axes?
The vikings used various sorts, the Franks had the francisca, a kind of throwing axe. And I thihk at Hasttings and other battles involving saxons there were times when people with great big huge axes would attack shield walls. Large axe heads and long hafts could do a lot of damage. Later on, as a knightly weapon, it was used apaprently by Bruce at Bannockburn to kill de Bohun with one blow to the head. It was used as a side arm even in the 15th century, I know that much. And then theres pole axes.
Hand and a hlfs are good, demand different techniques from one hadned, adn can open up new vistas of catching and trapping and just slicing. Draw cuts are easier as well. What is also interesting is how sword blades in europe evolved with the different armours. From broaded hacking blades to thinner stabbing ones, with a whole variety in between. Then you end up with the rapier, which I am not much interested in. Apparently in the 16th century or so there was an engilshman, george silver, who was disgruntled with all these effimate foreigners coming over and teaching their useless rapier shool. He used a broadsword, and challenged several of them to duels, beating them all. After that a lot of the foreign sword masters packed up and left, since many of their compatriots had been left in pieces by Silver.
Those romans and their pesky shields, made slaughtering celts and suchlike much easier, since the romans had the discipline and massive shield to hide behind.
The vikings used various sorts, the Franks had the francisca, a kind of throwing axe. And I thihk at Hasttings and other battles involving saxons there were times when people with great big huge axes would attack shield walls. Large axe heads and long hafts could do a lot of damage. Later on, as a knightly weapon, it was used apaprently by Bruce at Bannockburn to kill de Bohun with one blow to the head. It was used as a side arm even in the 15th century, I know that much. And then theres pole axes.
Hand and a hlfs are good, demand different techniques from one hadned, adn can open up new vistas of catching and trapping and just slicing. Draw cuts are easier as well. What is also interesting is how sword blades in europe evolved with the different armours. From broaded hacking blades to thinner stabbing ones, with a whole variety in between. Then you end up with the rapier, which I am not much interested in. Apparently in the 16th century or so there was an engilshman, george silver, who was disgruntled with all these effimate foreigners coming over and teaching their useless rapier shool. He used a broadsword, and challenged several of them to duels, beating them all. After that a lot of the foreign sword masters packed up and left, since many of their compatriots had been left in pieces by Silver.
Those romans and their pesky shields, made slaughtering celts and suchlike much easier, since the romans had the discipline and massive shield to hide behind.
Umm.... The ball-and-chain is not a weapon name, and is only used for describing the appearance of the flail, which does come in many forms, from simple devices to Holy Water Sprinklers. Japanese swords are not thin and light. The back of the blade is almost a quarter inch thick. The sword-rapier was much cooler than the regular rapier, as it had a blade wide enough for cutting with, while still being capable of speedy thrusts. The pata just requires a different fighting style, requiring more rotation at the elbow. With respect, the bill is just another name for the glaive, and while there are some designs with only a curved blade, most would at least have a back spike. Have you ever checked out Museum Replicas ? Their weaponry and armor are all hand-forged by the master smiths at Windlass Steelcrafts, the only ISO 9001 certified weapons manufacturers in the world! I have a lot of their stuff, and I have yet to be disappointed. Yes, the Indians had plate armor, which they called "the four mirrors." It consisted of two fairly flat plates in the front and back, with two thin vertical plates for the sides. These were held together with mail. Despite being so flat, they did have a shallowly sloping surface and deflected blows quite well.
Without respect, cos I dont like talking like that, it seems we have a fundamental disagreement over the common modern names for these weapons. It seems that back then they were named a whole variety or names, not too much care going into exact definitions. But nowadays, in England, the bill and partisan and glaive are names used for the weapons I have described, not the ones you have, as I have learnt from re-enacting over the past 18 months.
Then that website looks nice, but I am afraid that since ISO 9001 is just a quality control ie paperwork standard, that doesnt mean their weapons are good to use and strong. But if you have a few of them they must be pretty good. How well balanced are they? How strong?
I notice they are calling a partisan what I would call a glaive, and suggest that a bowman would carry one himself as a backup arm, whereas I was under the distinct impression that bowmen carried at most a sword as back up, often just a dagger.
How come Indians and others had such evocative names for their armour, we just called ours plate or mail, or byrnie etc, nothing as special as "four mirrors".
Then that website looks nice, but I am afraid that since ISO 9001 is just a quality control ie paperwork standard, that doesnt mean their weapons are good to use and strong. But if you have a few of them they must be pretty good. How well balanced are they? How strong?
I notice they are calling a partisan what I would call a glaive, and suggest that a bowman would carry one himself as a backup arm, whereas I was under the distinct impression that bowmen carried at most a sword as back up, often just a dagger.
How come Indians and others had such evocative names for their armour, we just called ours plate or mail, or byrnie etc, nothing as special as "four mirrors".
Here is the list of weapons I like (though I have none of them), in no particular order
saber-sword (katana and friends)
rapier (gentle swashbuckling?)
scythe (Prepare to meet you DOOM! MWAHAHAHAHAHA!.... okay, overacting)
wrist blades (close combat may be fun)
So far those are it....
I once even thought of making unique weapons, like a sabre which constantly emit fire......
saber-sword (katana and friends)
rapier (gentle swashbuckling?)
scythe (Prepare to meet you DOOM! MWAHAHAHAHAHA!.... okay, overacting)
wrist blades (close combat may be fun)
So far those are it....
I once even thought of making unique weapons, like a sabre which constantly emit fire......
A
and2000x
Guest
DESTROY EVERYTHING!!
Supermalek
Registered Member
So, which weopon is ultimatly the best? Say you were to have a modern day melee battle and you had 500 men and 50 horses to equip against another 500 men and 50 horses (who's weapons you equipment you don't know about), what exactly would you equip them with and why? You could give your men any weapons/armour from any time period made of the highest standard with modern alloys and the sort. Obviously no guns, explosives or anything like that.
R
Redoubtable
Guest
I do not understand the fascination of the few with these beastly weapons.
I'm not sure that such a morbid fixation with antiquity is healthy, though perhaps it is no less advisable than my own amour prope.
Ack . . 'tis nearly time for me to say adieux and begin work long put off.
I'm not sure that such a morbid fixation with antiquity is healthy, though perhaps it is no less advisable than my own amour prope.
Ack . . 'tis nearly time for me to say adieux and begin work long put off.
Supermalek:
I suppose I would choose English longbow and billmen, in perhaps a 7 to one proportion. As long as the archers had enough arrows, ( werent shooting upwind, enemy wasnt all in perfect plate etc.) anyone else would be toast before they could get within striking range.
I suppose I would choose English longbow and billmen, in perhaps a 7 to one proportion. As long as the archers had enough arrows, ( werent shooting upwind, enemy wasnt all in perfect plate etc.) anyone else would be toast before they could get within striking range.
A
and2000x
Guest
This is the plan:
100 men- Infantry:
Weapons: Short sword, katana, 2 knives, short bow
Armor: Lightweight chain and leather
Shields: round shields.
-These guys need to be lightweight and swift, so I don't bog them down with too much stuff. They come after the initial Heavy infantry charge. I chose the katana as a special weapon because of it's killing power, handling it would require the soldier to drop his shield though. The knives are for various purposes. The short bow is given just in case a warrior can make a good shot from afar.
100 men- Archers:
Weapons: Longbows, short
Armor: chain and leather
Shields: large rectangular shields
-These guys are scattered wherever I deem fit.
300 men- Heavy Infantry
Weapons: huge spears, long swords, crossbows
Armor: head to toe knight armor
Shields: large rectangular shields
-This is the bulk of the army, not very mobile but well armed to form a wall of death. They will be split between defense and offensive roles. The giant spears impale enemies and hold back oncoming attackers. The swords and axes are obviously when the enemy is in range and ready to fight. The cross bow is also a nasty weapon that they can pull out of their sleeve to surprise the enemy.
50 horses- 25 horses will go to the standard infantry, and they will be scantly armored to allow better movement.
The other 25 will go to the other heavy infantry and will be heavily armored (poor horses) and covered with spikes.
I think I would prepare lancemen on the horses (50), then various warriors: Estoc-soldiers behind heavily-armored soldier (surprise thrust), fire-bowmen, those skilled in double-blades and double-buckler (O&D). Oh, some would be supplied with slingshots for distractive attempts, hehehe....
But well, I'm no strategist anyway....
But well, I'm no strategist anyway....
Supermalek
Registered Member
reply to 2000x
qoute: 300 men- Heavy Infantry
Weapons: huge spears, long swords, crossbows
Armor: head to toe knight armor
Shields: large rectangular shields
Wouldn't your men struggle with all that stuff. How much would it all weigh 60 to 80Kgs? Surley these guys would get ripped by a lightly armoured group who could dance around them. Could you run after someone if you were carrying that much stuff? I'm also intrested in knowing if you would actually be able to control a huge spear in one hand (assuming you were carrying your large rectangular shield).
Just out of curiosity how much protection does chain mail offer? I'd guess it would stop bieng slashed and maybe bieng stabbed but not much else.
qoute: 300 men- Heavy Infantry
Weapons: huge spears, long swords, crossbows
Armor: head to toe knight armor
Shields: large rectangular shields
Wouldn't your men struggle with all that stuff. How much would it all weigh 60 to 80Kgs? Surley these guys would get ripped by a lightly armoured group who could dance around them. Could you run after someone if you were carrying that much stuff? I'm also intrested in knowing if you would actually be able to control a huge spear in one hand (assuming you were carrying your large rectangular shield).
Just out of curiosity how much protection does chain mail offer? I'd guess it would stop bieng slashed and maybe bieng stabbed but not much else.
curiocity, i would forget about estoc soldiers, unless their impossibly fast. better off with a spear.
supermalek- huge spears in one hand, hard to manouvre, with shield in otehr hand/ arm, youd end up using them like snooker cues. But if they were long enough, and your men good enough, they could do a lot of damage. Spears a thousand years ago were long and rather light, you could use them in one hand, but they run the risk of getting snapped off. Spears as heavy as bills, ie thicker shaft etc, would need two hands to do any real damage.
As for mail, its good agaisnt swords and spears and stuff, doesnt stop the blunt trauma, but prevents you being cut, which is why you wear padding underneath. However its little use against bodkin arrows, thats those with sharp pointy tips, and against longbow arrows in general, hence the leading theory as to the rapid introducion of plate was in defence agasint the english longbow. But better metallurgical techniques and more iron in circulation helped as well.
My general tactic would be to try and bring the enemy to battle with myself at the top of a slope and them at the bottom.
supermalek- huge spears in one hand, hard to manouvre, with shield in otehr hand/ arm, youd end up using them like snooker cues. But if they were long enough, and your men good enough, they could do a lot of damage. Spears a thousand years ago were long and rather light, you could use them in one hand, but they run the risk of getting snapped off. Spears as heavy as bills, ie thicker shaft etc, would need two hands to do any real damage.
As for mail, its good agaisnt swords and spears and stuff, doesnt stop the blunt trauma, but prevents you being cut, which is why you wear padding underneath. However its little use against bodkin arrows, thats those with sharp pointy tips, and against longbow arrows in general, hence the leading theory as to the rapid introducion of plate was in defence agasint the english longbow. But better metallurgical techniques and more iron in circulation helped as well.
My general tactic would be to try and bring the enemy to battle with myself at the top of a slope and them at the bottom.
As I said, I'm no strategist. By the way, guthrie, nice idea too to try to lure enemies to the place you prefer.