|
|
Post by koshka on Aug 9, 2017 19:01:27 GMT
(Not quite "military", but weapons myths go here as well.)
A common element in fantasy fiction has a major character in a battle scene slice-and-dicing opponents. A "mild" version has the character removing opponents' limbs with a single blow from a sword, but if you're really bad@ss you're chopping heads off with a single blow.
Obviously, this isn't how it works in reality. There's too many examples in history where an executioner needed multiple swings to remove someone's head, and that was with a non-resisting target. (It can happen, ask Anne Boleyn, but Henry clearly still had feelings for her and paid extra to hire someone capable of the feat.) Executioners also get to use both hands on the sword or axe, and in a battle scene you're more likely to see this done with a one-handed weapon because the other arm has a shield on it.
Given that too many people get their impression of what's physically possible out of movies or books, would it be worth addressing this on the show? I assume there's a butcher near the current filming location where the new guys could get animal spines.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Aug 9, 2017 20:08:30 GMT
They actually tested decapitation with a single swing of a sword several years ago. From what I recall this particular myth was confirmed.
You don't remember that episode?
Well that's not too surprising because that segment was never aired. From what I was told the build team tested this using goat heads. But the footage was deemed far to graphic to be shown on TV and shelved.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 10, 2017 1:05:18 GMT
decapitation of a standing opponent would actually require less finesse than decapitation on a headsman's block. the reason is that when you are chopping down onto a block, you need to have your implement come down if full contact with the block to complete the cut. this is why a heavy axe was commonly used - it could cut into the top of the block, making it more certain of finishing the cut - and the the guillotine, which was intended to be more humane than a live headsman mainly used a heavy blade that cut past the neck to complete the cut. the best try-this-at-home would be to buy two styles of pruning clipper: a bypass pruner  and an anvil pruner  and compare the performance. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 10, 2017 8:02:05 GMT
The two handed Scottish "Ba$tard" sword and indeed the Claymore, of this type..  Other pictures easily availiable on searching two handed ba$tard sword. Which could stand as high as your chin, or further if you were of shorter stature, could easily decapitate in battle. The idea was to practise Golf, and learn to "Swing through" the shot... Confirmed, I have seen one in action against a side of meat intended for roasting at a camp fire, its neat butchering, and no dents on the sword at all. Clean through Bone, Ligaments, Cartilage, the works. If you are against a swordsman "who knows his stuff", keep clear... if you are against someone who doesnt quite look competent, "Run Further".. In practise, they are bloody heavy to swing, and practising golf on a driving range may indeed tune up muscles needed, because an extended battle may tire you out very quickly. They are unwieldy at first use, but, they definitely are good at keeping a good ring of clear air around you, and definitely successful at creating serious damage, its a good idea to practise keeping them moving at all times with at first slow sweeps and build up to the "Ring of steel" continuous long reaching attack. And you have to go full havoc at it to get the best from it. It is heavy enough to knock aside many shields of those who were not professional soldier. How good were they in battle?. Ask why Hadrian built his wall and never tried to take on Scotland. |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Aug 10, 2017 11:02:12 GMT
In part because there was no Scotland for Hadrian to invade, the Scotti tribes did not settle the area until later. The Romans did push further northwards. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonine_WallBut I don't think the people's of Caledonia of that era used Claymores like that one. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 10, 2017 14:31:41 GMT
The two handed Scottish "Ba$tard" sword and indeed the Claymore, of this type.. Other pictures easily availiable on searching two handed ba$tard sword. Which could stand as high as your chin, or further if you were of shorter stature, could easily decapitate in battle. The idea was to practise Golf, and learn to "Swing through" the shot... Confirmed, I have seen one in action against a side of meat intended for roasting at a camp fire, its neat butchering, and no dents on the sword at all. Clean through Bone, Ligaments, Cartilage, the works. If you are against a swordsman "who knows his stuff", keep clear... if you are against someone who doesnt quite look competent, "Run Further".. In practise, they are bloody heavy to swing, and practising golf on a driving range may indeed tune up muscles needed, because an extended battle may tire you out very quickly. They are unwieldy at first use, but, they definitely are good at keeping a good ring of clear air around you, and definitely successful at creating serious damage, its a good idea to practise keeping them moving at all times with at first slow sweeps and build up to the "Ring of steel" continuous long reaching attack. And you have to go full havoc at it to get the best from it. It is heavy enough to knock aside many shields of those who were not professional soldier. How good were they in battle?. Ask why Hadrian built his wall and never tried to take on Scotland. using one of those actually involves a lot more finesse than you would think, and standing close to a good wielder is actually not as safe as it appears. the "ring of steel" tactic looks good in movies, but in actuality, the preferred defense against it is to take a step back and wait a minute or two. and shields of the era were actually made of sterner stuff than people think - closer to a composite material than a slab of wood, essentially plywood, often reinforced with rawhide, and sometimes rimmed with steel. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 11, 2017 5:39:17 GMT
Doesnt matter what your holding, a good sideswipe with the flat of the sword is going to make your hand numb...
From experience.
Yes the "Posh" shields were made of sterner stuff, for those that could afford that....
The shield could also in the right hands be used as a weapon.
Most militia at the time were no more than farm hands.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Aug 11, 2017 6:18:22 GMT
The militias formed from local farm workers were far more likely to be using a form of polearm or bill, long and pointy with instructions to poke and chop at the enemy. They were used in a block and were ideal to protect the crossbow men or arquebusier that were coming in at around the same time as the claymore came into use.
Sword and Shield was for the trained fighters.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 11, 2017 8:29:02 GMT
We dont need to be too historically pedantic on this one, all we need to look at are the various types of swords from history that were acclaimed as being able to do serious damage.
The English Longsword was not the only party goer of that time..
Many of the middle and far eastern recurved blades were also capable of massive wounding at the same time, any heavy two hander, or even single hander, but keeping away from Foils, Epee, and "Small swords" of the type worn as ceremonials and personal protection, anything from the famed Japan's Katana longswords Ba$tards, even the Roman Gladius in the right hands was capable of deep wounding of swung with enough force, but that wasnt the usual use for it, it was a close quarters skirmish weapon designed to poke around the sides of a shield, not a swing at arms length type of thing, but, well, when needs must?..
I would suggest anything that was made of steel, not rough iron, but steel, was long enough to be heavy enough to swing with force, if forged right and honed to a good sharpness, is capable of decapitation of limbs or indeed a head.
There are many swords around the world capable of serious damage, but, that should be expected, as they are instruments of war.
But not all warriors were highly trained.
Even those that were had various levels of competence.
Even Me, I had basic training, and got to the level of being bloody dangerous if I got upset, but that was a very long way from being proficient enough to say I could ever have been anything like "Highly trained"
Highly interested, for sure, because the art of making the sword from start to finish intrigued me at that time.
If it had been something I could have done at home, I think I would still be doing it as a hobby.
The pieces I saw being made were decorative pieces of art work for "Show", yes they could have been used, and they were made accurately enough to be historically correct, but the master armourer I was friends with at that time was paying his bills by making a lot of decorative specialist orders.
One a Month.
Yeah, he took his time, but then that got sold for a good price, which paid his wages, and allowed him to participate in making rough swords to be sold as just blades, blunt, for battle re-enactment society to tailor as they wanted.
He also at that time worked on some of the "recreated" exhibits for the Jorvic centre in York.
Form what I saw, many Viking sword were not exactly pretty things, built for decapitation, and a side-arm to their usual favoured weapon being a type of axe.... with a nasty point on the end... that as well as being able to swing, could be thrown... Nasty...
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 11, 2017 14:07:35 GMT
We dont need to be too historically pedantic on this one, all we need to look at are the various types of swords from history that were acclaimed as being able to do serious damage. The English Longsword was not the only party goer of that time.. Many of the middle and far eastern recurved blades were also capable of massive wounding at the same time, any heavy two hander, or even single hander, but keeping away from Foils, Epee, and "Small swords" of the type worn as ceremonials and personal protection, anything from the famed Japan's Katana longswords Ba$tards, even the Roman Gladius in the right hands was capable of deep wounding of swung with enough force, but that wasnt the usual use for it, it was a close quarters skirmish weapon designed to poke around the sides of a shield, not a swing at arms length type of thing, but, well, when needs must?.. I would suggest anything that was made of steel, not rough iron, but steel, was long enough to be heavy enough to swing with force, if forged right and honed to a good sharpness, is capable of decapitation of limbs or indeed a head. There are many swords around the world capable of serious damage, but, that should be expected, as they are instruments of war. But not all warriors were highly trained. Even those that were had various levels of competence. Even Me, I had basic training, and got to the level of being bloody dangerous if I got upset, but that was a very long way from being proficient enough to say I could ever have been anything like "Highly trained" Highly interested, for sure, because the art of making the sword from start to finish intrigued me at that time. If it had been something I could have done at home, I think I would still be doing it as a hobby. The pieces I saw being made were decorative pieces of art work for "Show", yes they could have been used, and they were made accurately enough to be historically correct, but the master armourer I was friends with at that time was paying his bills by making a lot of decorative specialist orders. One a Month. Yeah, he took his time, but then that got sold for a good price, which paid his wages, and allowed him to participate in making rough swords to be sold as just blades, blunt, for battle re-enactment society to tailor as they wanted. He also at that time worked on some of the "recreated" exhibits for the Jorvic centre in York. Form what I saw, many Viking sword were not exactly pretty things, built for decapitation, and a side-arm to their usual favoured weapon being a type of axe.... with a nasty point on the end... that as well as being able to swing, could be thrown... Nasty...the classic sword was actually a rather uncommon weapon of war, because it required much more maintenance and skill than most other weapons. thus possession of a sword was the province of the elite. as has already been said, peasant militis were generally given long pointy things and sent out to tire and thin the enemy militia out, before the aristocrats went out to play. - at least in the "civilized" countries. I suspect that is part of why the vikings were looked at with such horror. the lowest viking warrior didn't have any qualms at having the effrontery to fling his axe at an earl or lord. but me, I reached a level of "competent" and yes, I have had a few photogenic marks on me, including a dent in my forearm from trading an arm (losing the arm) for a clean strike at my opponent's ribs.  as for the cutting ability of the weapons, don't forget that before the advent of the electric meat saw, steaks were cut with a cleaver.  and a poleaxe was just a long handled cleaver. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Aug 11, 2017 15:05:56 GMT
The most long serving and well used weapon in history has been the spear or some variation of it. Indeed it is STILL part of modern military forces in the form of a rifle with a bayonette.
The Viking axe had a singled curved edge but no point. It was designed to be used either one handed with a shield or two handed without. There were two general types of these axes used, the basic version was principally used for cutting wood but could and was used for combat mainly due to them being widely owned; It was a rare viking that would not have an axe so he could get wood for the fire or defend himself if needed.
The 'war' version was rarer, only being found in the hands of the more wealthy Vikings. These differed from the standard axe in having a narrower cutting edge, an angled shaft that allowed them to be swung more easily with one hand and often metal banding around the shaft to allow them to block weapons without damaging it.
Viking swords were actually made using a very similar technique to the Japanese Katana, and for the same reason; They didn't have high quality ore available locally. As such they had a 'Damascus' type pattern along them.
Such blades were for the professional, and wealthy, warrior and quite often family heirlooms.
Now the Sax is a different matter. This was either a long knife or short sword depending on how you look at it, and was basically the Viking version of a survival knife owned by everyone. These blades, unlike swords, were usually low quality as they were made by the local blacksmith rather than a swordsmith.
Your average Viking Warrior would have been armed with a spear, shield, axe and sax. They probably also owned a bow, but may not have taken it into battle. Except for the shield, you may notice that these were all things needed for hunting or general survival.
Exactly what was the favored weapon of your average Viking, who got to choose anyway, seems to have been a bow, spear and then axe. This is not too surprising as if you look at warriors throughout history their favored weapon tends to be the one that keeps an opponent as far away as possible. The Japanese Samurai were principally archers, then spear mean and swordsmen only as a last resort for example.
There were some exceptions to the ranged preference on an individual level. At least one Viking in the Saga's was renowned for using the Sax in battle - although the fact this was noted probably indicates how unusual it was for Vikings to use that weapon unless they had to.
The Roman legions used swords of course, not that they had much choice in the matter. But if you look at the actual reason why this was effective it was due to this being part of a larger tactical approach to battle involving shield walls, rigid discipline and the use of ranged weapons to weaken and disrupt enemy forces before they reached close combat range.
|
|
