Print

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

[Leafsnail]

Turns out "sharp thing on the end of a stick" is actually quite a common concept.

[GlyphGryph]

Naginatas were generally not weapons of war in Japan (well, depending on the time period, actually), but home defense weapons. The Yari referred to the sort of spear used in militaries. That's the reason why most women were trained with the Naginata instead of the Yari and naginata-jitsu eventually became a woman's domain. I don't actually why this was, specifically, but I'm presuming it's because they were more useful in smaller fights rather than as part of an infrantry unit or against cavalry?

[Blargityblarg]

Phalanx is a block of dudes with spears, plural phalanges
Phalangites are the dudes in the phalanx
Hoplon is a shield used by hoplites
Hoplites are a specific kind of phalangites
Sarissa are ridiculous 6m pikes used my Macedonian (i.e. non-hoplite) phalanges
Doru are less ridiculous spears used by hoplites in their phalanges, with a spike on the bottom for redundancy/ digging into the ground to maintain position

[USEC_OFFICER]

Doru are less ridiculous spears used by hoplites in their phalanges, with a spike on the bottom for redundancy/ digging into the ground to maintain position

I heard that the extra spike at the end was also used for easily killing off wounded soldiers. Also, I've never heard about the digging into the ground to maintain position part. Unless they used the Dory as pikes to brace against the enemy, which is also something I've never heard hoplites doing.

[Sergius]

Katana aren't brittle.  Only the edge is hard, while the rest of the sword is flexible.  The purpose of folding is to remove impurities in the iron.  Japan has high levels of impurity in it's iron.  When you hear about high fold counts, it is an indication that the materials were refined thoroughly.  It has nothing to do with the blades' sharpness. 

Not quite accurate.

Yes, the edge is hard, that means that hitting a hard surface with your katana was definitely going to ruin the edge. There was a reason the samurai had to protect their swords (with their life, even).

The rest of the blade wasn't so much flexible as it was bent easily. A western sword would probably bend and retain its shape, once you bend the katana, good luck getting it straight again!

And folding doesn't "get rid" of any impurities. The impurities in the iron created weak spots along the blade, which would be easy to break. Folding merely makes it so that each layer would reinforce the other layer, essentially lowering the chances that a single spot in your blade would snap, but making the metal crappier overall. For example, if western swords made with good iron were folded, they would be weaker than non-folded.

So it's more a case of "oh this metal is shit! I guess we'll have to fold it!"

The Katana: It is capable of cutting european style armor, in the very least a basic breastlate, this has been demonstrated.

Sauces please.

I wouldn't consider this a basis for a "blahblahblah, katanas are better" argument, but is this a sufficient demonstration? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDkoj932YFo
I'm well aware of the fact this guy doesn't neccecarilly know what he's talking about, and what passes as leather armor for them is laughable.

No. Not. This. Video. Again.

Already responded in the other thread, and I think someone already pointed out the shittiness of this video. First, that "armor" looks like a thin sheet of tin, second, that's a CONTEMPORARY katana made with CURRENT materials, and third, that dumbass can't even wield the swords properly. Like, using the actual edge of the longsword instead of the blunt part, and using such stupid angle, and he'd better stop waving it around like a feather-duster!



Ok, on another topic:

I just had an argument with a coworker, he insisted that armor protects against weapons and stuff, but in a fall it would actually break your bones. He offered zero proof of this, except "well I have experience with skateboarding kneepads and stuff and they can make it worse" or something. And flexibility blah blah blah". I don't buy it - I think armor would protect against even mundane damage, not just blades and heavy weaponry. Any experts on the subject? Can falling from a horse or a second floor be worse with armor than with no armor, because you can't "roll with the fall" or some such nonsense?

Note: He also mentioned the widely debunked myth that wearing a motorcycle helmet increases the damage of your neck if you hit your head.

[Vattic]

I just had an argument with a coworker, he insisted that armor protects against weapons and stuff, but in a fall it would actually break your bones. He offered zero proof of this, except "well I have experience with skateboarding kneepads and stuff and they can make it worse" or something. And flexibility blah blah blah". I don't buy it - I think armor would protect against even mundane damage, not just blades and heavy weaponry. Any experts on the subject? Can falling from a horse or a second floor be worse with armor than with no armor, because you can't "roll with the fall" or some such nonsense?

From what I understand a square strike from a heavy weapon will still break bones even through armour. I wonder if the extra momentum would cause any problems when falling from height in armour.

[Sergius]

I just had an argument with a coworker, he insisted that armor protects against weapons and stuff, but in a fall it would actually break your bones. He offered zero proof of this, except "well I have experience with skateboarding kneepads and stuff and they can make it worse" or something. And flexibility blah blah blah". I don't buy it - I think armor would protect against even mundane damage, not just blades and heavy weaponry. Any experts on the subject? Can falling from a horse or a second floor be worse with armor than with no armor, because you can't "roll with the fall" or some such nonsense?

From what I understand a square strike from a heavy weapon will still break bones even through armour. I wonder if the extra momentum would cause any problems when falling from height in armour.

Well the point was that things that would normally NOT hurt you badly (falling on your knees or on your hand) would hurt you if you were wearing armor (broken wrist, broken leg), or at least would hurt you worse when armored than unarmored, such as falling from a horse.

The point wasn't that armor was perfect. In your example, it the strike would be worse if unarmored.

My opinion is that some of these are exaggerated or circular logic (breaking your wrist because armor is hard... because that's just logical because armor is hard) or the armor may even help more than no armor (falling from a horse... better or worse with armor?).

[Vattic]

I was mainly comparing a fall from height with being struck. Again one thing I could see making a difference is the increased momentum caused by the extra weight.

The closest I have to experience of armour is steel toe capped boots. Recently it snowed and someone put a huge ball in the road which blocked the way and wouldn't melt. We decided to break it up by kicking bits off and that hurt far more with the steel toe capped boots than normal trainers. Effectively I ended up kicking a metal plate with only a sock for protection. This doesn't directly apply to armour as it would be more close fitting.

[Sergius]

Well yes, that steel tip is designed to protect you from falling objects, I think. There's no structure holding it in place in the shoe either, except leather. An entire boot made of steel may be different.

[Andrew425]

Doru are less ridiculous spears used by hoplites in their phalanges, with a spike on the bottom for redundancy/ digging into the ground to maintain position

I heard that the extra spike at the end was also used for easily killing off wounded soldiers. Also, I've never heard about the digging into the ground to maintain position part. Unless they used the Dory as pikes to brace against the enemy, which is also something I've never heard hoplites doing.

The spike was because spears snapped very easily. After the mass charge many of the shields and spears would break. The butt spear was essential as a back up weapon.  It was also useful for soldiers as they were marching over the enemy. If I remember correctly spears were about 1.5 inches in width. (This comes from Victor Hanson)

[Vattic]

Well yes, that steel tip is designed to protect you from falling objects, I think. There's no structure holding it in place in the shoe either, except leather. An entire boot made of steel may be different.

That's precisely what it's for and even why there is a gap between the cap and my toes. It's arch-like shape deflects the force of falling objects into the ground and can hold shape against a heavy weight. If it was fitted some of the force would travel through my toes. This would be different for armour as the force of blows can't be distributed into the ground and armour would be close fitted and padded.

Ultimately I don't know and doubt it would make much difference besides any the added momentum might cause. Even though you would be effectively placing a metal plate between you and the ground it would be padded.

[Andrew425]

I think you guys are forgetting that the metal is the outer part of the armour.  Knights and any soldier worth his salary is wearing leather and other padding underneath.  It would definitely help with landing if falling off a horse opposed to not having it. The inflexibility of it might hamper the fallers ability to brace himself properly.

So a suit would stop any scratching damage and the initial impact would be lessened but if he fell wrong he might get hurt by the suit.

[Sergius]

That's what I think too, the padding from the gambeson would absorb the impact, so the question is, the increase in mass would be enough to nullify said padding in the case of a fall? I really doubt it, and I don't know why is hitting the ground different than being struck by a club or mace: the armor may not protect you completely, but at least you're not naked...

The entire armor weighs about the same as a hiking backpack, so I don't even know how that's an issue. But this guy's argument was that since the joints are rigid, or because the armor is rigid, or because you don't have the "agility" to somehow nullify the fall (ninja-style?) you would break a bone/joint. In the end I was really losing patience with him, and not even because I was 100% he was wrong, but because he speculated as if it was fact, and said he had more "expertise" because he used to wear padding when skateboarding, or something (I also severely doubt that you'll hurt yourself more wearing a kneepad than wearing nothing).

Here are two interesting videos: here's a guy in armor throwing himself off a horse (I think he didn't break anything)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMuNXWFPewg

This is a 47 minute video about misconceptions of medieval armor, maybe someone finds it interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqC_squo6X4

[Vattic]

I think you guys are forgetting that the metal is the outer part of the armour.  Knights and any soldier worth his salary is wearing leather and other padding underneath.

I did mention this.

[Trollheiming]

That's what I think too, the padding from the gambeson would absorb the impact, so the question is, the increase in mass would be enough to nullify said padding in the case of a fall?

Ever fall on your keys in your back pocket? I have. It's pretty painful. I wouldn't want to do it even with gambeson underwear, in fact. Falling on hard things hurts, no matter their size or weight. I don't say that with expertise in armor, but as a general truth. It would seem there are a lot of places around the joints that can dig into the skin, particularly if the suit is ill-fitted.