Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Talvieno]

All true. Maces were actually very, very good at piercing armor, despite being considered a blunt weapon in just about every game. As they're more or less a very heavy chunk of metal (generally in the shape of a sphere or cylinder) that menaces with spikes of the same material, the weight of the mace would enable the spikes to pierce through the armor deeply enough to cause the opponent to at once suffer broken bones, heavy bruising, and profuse bleeding. It might've been slightly more difficult to remove the mace from the armor, however, I don't know.

Well, they are blunt. And they don't pierce. They just whallop and although your +steel breastplate+ may be fine (slightly dented), your bones are powder and your organs mush. (hyperbole. One blow would probably not do that, unless if you hit really hard and then only where you hit)

Oh, ah, I tend to refer to maces with spikes as morningstars instead of maces. There's enough variety of mace already that I feel safe in giving those a seperate category.

edit: FUCKING LET ME POST.

Ah, fine. Morningstars then. But those do pierce. Armor generally wasn't thicker than about twice the width of this: | In fact, it was often thinner than that. The reason is that if it was thicker, then yes, they had more protection, but it would also be ridiculously heavy and make them much less agile - thus making them easier to kill. You had to balance it out - it was all give and take. If they'd had carbon fiber, they might've made it as thick as they wanted, but they didn't, so.

[Loud Whispers]

Fun fact, the Spartans favoured tunics over breastplates because the tunics afforded more protection and mobility.

[DJ]

Fun fact - 300 isn't historically accurate.

[Mayama]

Katanas were made out of hard steel because its better for cutting things and the victim usually had no steel armor.

European swords were usually made out of softer steel because it would not break if you accidently hit your enemy in a  full steel suit at the wrong angle.

People made those weapon so they work best in the situation the user would usually face.


About cutting armor...



Real medival armor like this german gothic (replica) armor was designed to deflect blows (an arrows) against it, like modern tanks. People improved and designed those things for centuries. Do you really think you can "just cut right through" such an armor. I think not.

About Maces...



Those things might look primitive but they are designed to kill people in heavy armor and are very effective at it. Its like a modern specialized weapon, like a sniper rifle, it looks that way because it works.

[Loud Whispers]

Fun fact - 300 isn't historically accurate.

Nope, there were totally giant elephants.

And crab people.

And there were only 300 spartans... No extra few thousand Greeks. At all.

Also Spartan Mothers would've totally despaired when their children entered the Agoge.

And there was only one King e.t.c.

[AWdeV]

Those look awful. 

Especially the last one's head and the grip on all of them. Why is there an extra narrow grip underneath it?

Fun fact, the Spartans favoured tunics over breastplates because the tunics afforded more protection and mobility.

Mobility sure, but I'd wager it's also because it's cheaper and they relied on their shields and their mates' shields for protection more than they relied on armour in the first place.

All true. Maces were actually very, very good at piercing armor, despite being considered a blunt weapon in just about every game. As they're more or less a very heavy chunk of metal (generally in the shape of a sphere or cylinder) that menaces with spikes of the same material, the weight of the mace would enable the spikes to pierce through the armor deeply enough to cause the opponent to at once suffer broken bones, heavy bruising, and profuse bleeding. It might've been slightly more difficult to remove the mace from the armor, however, I don't know.

Well, they are blunt. And they don't pierce. They just whallop and although your +steel breastplate+ may be fine (slightly dented), your bones are powder and your organs mush. (hyperbole. One blow would probably not do that, unless if you hit really hard and then only where you hit)

Oh, ah, I tend to refer to maces with spikes as morningstars instead of maces. There's enough variety of mace already that I feel safe in giving those a seperate category.

edit: FUCKING LET ME POST.

Ah, fine. Morningstars then. But those do pierce. Armor generally wasn't thicker than about twice the width of this: | In fact, it was often thinner than that. The reason is that if it was thicker, then yes, they had more protection, but it would also be ridiculously heavy and make them much less agile - thus making them easier to kill. You had to balance it out - it was all give and take. If they'd had carbon fiber, they might've made it as thick as they wanted, but they didn't, so.

Oh yeah, sure, but even that thickness won't be cleft in twain by any sword. Meeting steel that thick edge-on is a good way of blunting your blade. You wouldn't cut but you would give a hefty concussive wallop to the chap underneath. It's why equipping a dwarf in nought but mail and/or plate is sadistic and unrealistic, You'll want thick padding underneath to absorb the blunt force. And, if you're wearing mail, you'll also want something that makes sure neither nipples nor bodyhair get pinched in between it. Thick padding can also keep the mail out of a wound which definitely is a good thing. :

 And armour (later plate definitely) was angled and curved in such a way as to let a blow slide off in a way that would cause the least harm.

[FrisianDude]

Not a work of art, munitions-quality. And it seemed as if you meant that ALL swords are works of art.

Okay, munitions-quality European swords aren't. As for period uchigatana blades, they're different in shape, steel quality, folding and composition, polish and sharpening, depending on who made them and where, so saying something about them collectively isn't right.

True enough, that's an additional issue when someone claims that 'western swords' are better or inferior to 'eastern/Japanese swords/katanas'.

[GhostDwemer]

Most information available regarding medieval and renaissance combat is terrible psuedo science. Even most professional sword smiths today have absolutely no idea how swords were balanced, or why they were balanced in a particular fashion. It has been thus for a long time:

"That there are persons of mistaken ideas in almost every Art or Science,
is what few will deny. Yet I am inclined to believe there are more
erroneous opinions entertained with regard to the
Art of using the Sword than on most other subjects."
- Joseph Roland, The Amateur of Fencing, 1809

Luckily, some good science has been done. If you Google "sword physics," the first article is this: http://www.thearma.org/spotlight/GTA/motions_and_impacts.htm, written by George Turner for the Association for Renaissance Martial Arts. He is a master of renaissance martial arts and has had the opportunity to use many actual renaissance swords of various types. I can't recommend his writings highly enough. Not to be a dick, but unless you've read them, pretty much everything you think you know about swords is just totally wrong.

[Loud Whispers]

Fun fact, the Spartans favoured tunics over breastplates because the tunics afforded more protection and mobility.

Mobility sure, but I'd wager it's also because it's cheaper and they relied on their shields and their mates' shields for protection more than they relied on armour in the first place.

1. The Spartans didn't give a crap about money, they changed their currency to iron coins dipped in vinegar to devalue it greatly.
2. Copper and Bronze vs thick tunic. They don't make bullet proof vests out of metal you know 

Those things might look primitive but they are designed to kill people in heavy armor and are very effective at it. Its like a modern specialized weapon, like a sniper rifle, it looks that way because it works.

Primitive? Da hell?

[Rude]

But the stereotype is they use axes and hammers and things you need a lot of room to swing around. What's up with that?

Spears don't seem to exist in fantasy. At all.

Ephraim from Fire Emblem: Sacred Stones

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Camus from Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Geoffrey from Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Altenna/Areone from Fire Emblem: Genealogy of the Holy War

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Plenty more throughout the entirety of the series.

This is much more relevant and interesting to me than x>y. I'm not going to say "this side is right and all naysayers are retards" but the industry prefers swords. consider the prevalence of spears (I mean all pole arms in general, not just explicitly spears) in history and in games.
how many games have swords but not spears; how many games have spears but not swords? If we looked quantitatively, I think swords would be the obvious winner. (IS there an example of a game with spears but not swords?)
Historically speaking, how many armies, countries, or just individuals carried swords or used swords, but not spears; and once again, vice versa. I don't really know, but I doubt it's as lopsidedly in favor of swords as the game (and fantasy) industry.
Not that fantasy should mimic reality, but I prefer spears and I feel a bit ignored that IF they are included it usually feels like an obligatory consolation inclusion or a second thought.

As for the armor debate (which I don't really care to get into):
Picks! because dead is dead whether it's from a 1/4 inch hole in the brain or a foot long gash in the chest.

[Loud Whispers]

"The industry prefers swords."

Yeah I don't get it either.

[DJ]

2. Copper and Bronze vs thick tunic. They don't make bullet proof vests out of metal you know 

Bullet proof vests are actually rather poor protection against knives.

[Loud Whispers]

2. Copper and Bronze vs thick tunic. They don't make bullet proof vests out of metal you know 

Bullet proof vests are actually rather poor protection against knives.

both made out of kevlar

[DJ]

That would be a combo vest. Those incorporate metal or ceramic plates to protect against stabbing.

A stab vest, or stab proof vest is a reinforced piece of body armor, worn under or over other items of clothing, which is designed to resist knife attacks to the chest, back and sides. Stab vests are different from bulletproof vests, most of which offer protection against firearms but afford little against stabbing with sharp-tipped objects such as knives; most stab vests afford less protection against bullets, particularly those of high caliber, but are designed to prevent serious injury by prohibiting knife penetration beyond a few millimeters.

[Loud Whispers]

That would be a combo vest. Those incorporate metal or ceramic plates to protect against stabbing.

All our vests are constructed from KevlarŪ
(On their bulletproof+stab proof vest page)

I'll take your word for it, but these guys say otherwise. Unless it's just wikipedia talking. In which case I'd rather not.