Print

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

[SlipshodDorf]

Jep, while Silk might not be able to be cut by an axe/sword/dagger ,
it probably still (RL) wouldn´t offer any protection to it...
the silk of the clothes would just wrap around the blade,
with silk+blade still being thin enoughto cut through the underlying flesh.

Not to mention piercing weapons (like arrows), which just might pass through the silk fabric by pushing the silk strands aside

Jep, while Silk might not be able to be cut by an axe/sword/dagger ,
it probably still (RL) wouldn´t offer any protection to it...
the silk of the clothes would just wrap around the blade,
with silk+blade still being thin enoughto cut through the underlying flesh.

Not to mention piercing weapons (like arrows), which just might pass through the silk fabric by pushing the silk strands aside 

Actually, if you study Mongollian warfare, you find that they relied on loose heavy silk as a major part of their armor.  Reportedly, arrows would not cut the silk (too loose), but actually push it into the wound.  This slowed the progress of the arrowhead meaning mere flesh wounds instead of piecing through the body part and also allowed for quick recover as there was no tearing when the arrow was removed - meaning more men could stay on campaign longer - a good thing in that time period.

Silk in ARMOR should provide some decent protection, but Olin in his silk pajamas with pictures of elves falling to their deaths shouldn't be as well protected, since it's not designed for use in fighting like those Mongolian armors were.

[ZeroGravitas]

Not to mention that it was not uncommon to select those who would be wearing armour on the battlefield when young and get them to carry weights on their body and train so that they are used to it. I once saw a reenactor do cartwheels and I doubt he had training since his youth.

Was the armor theatrical armor or real armor? A lot of the armor made these days is just for show, often times far thinner than real armor is, or even made out of aluminum instead which is much lighter than steel.

SCA guys vary hugely. Some of them put in a huge amount of effort to make sure everything is as accurate as possible, made authentically and real. The swords and armor they make and wield could be used on the battlefield 500 years ago. Then you have the guys who just do it for appearances, but the stuff isn't actually functional.

Actually, I bet a lot of the 'reenactment armor' would have been considered low quality back in the day: a lot of knowledge has been lost since then, and we don't know anymore how to make armor that's just as good without resorting to advanced titanium, aluminum etc. composites.

This is absolute bollocks. For one thing our metal quality now is loads above the quality of their metal, mainly because better smelting processes remove more impurities and we have way better tempering and hardening techniques than they could have ever.  There is absolutely no question that our armor, made of the same amount of the same materials, would be better.

What you're basically saying is that somehow medieval smiths had access to some kind of "secret techniques" that allowed them to get better results with worse materials and worse tools than a modern factory, or even a modern smith, could. Essentially you're saying that they had magic. This is absolute nonsense.

You people don't appreciate that modern techniques in everything - metalworking, brewing, agriculture, etc - make our results vastly more effective than whatever "traditional" or "secret" nonsense you can think up.

[Qwernt]

Jep, while Silk might not be able to be cut by an axe/sword/dagger ,
it probably still (RL) wouldn´t offer any protection to it...
the silk of the clothes would just wrap around the blade,
with silk+blade still being thin enoughto cut through the underlying flesh.

Not to mention piercing weapons (like arrows), which just might pass through the silk fabric by pushing the silk strands aside

Jep, while Silk might not be able to be cut by an axe/sword/dagger ,
it probably still (RL) wouldn´t offer any protection to it...
the silk of the clothes would just wrap around the blade,
with silk+blade still being thin enoughto cut through the underlying flesh.

Not to mention piercing weapons (like arrows), which just might pass through the silk fabric by pushing the silk strands aside 

Actually, if you study Mongollian warfare, you find that they relied on loose heavy silk as a major part of their armor.  Reportedly, arrows would not cut the silk (too loose), but actually push it into the wound.  This slowed the progress of the arrowhead meaning mere flesh wounds instead of piecing through the body part and also allowed for quick recover as there was no tearing when the arrow was removed - meaning more men could stay on campaign longer - a good thing in that time period.

Silk in ARMOR should provide some decent protection, but Olin in his silk pajamas with pictures of elves falling to their deaths shouldn't be as well protected, since it's not designed for use in fighting like those Mongolian armors were.

I disrespectfully disagree that Mongolian Armor would be better suited for combat than Dwarf Pajamas. 

[slothen]

link relevant to discussion of silk armor
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0114_050114_tv_spider.html

[Solarn]

Not to mention that it was not uncommon to select those who would be wearing armour on the battlefield when young and get them to carry weights on their body and train so that they are used to it. I once saw a reenactor do cartwheels and I doubt he had training since his youth.

Was the armor theatrical armor or real armor? A lot of the armor made these days is just for show, often times far thinner than real armor is, or even made out of aluminum instead which is much lighter than steel.

SCA guys vary hugely. Some of them put in a huge amount of effort to make sure everything is as accurate as possible, made authentically and real. The swords and armor they make and wield could be used on the battlefield 500 years ago. Then you have the guys who just do it for appearances, but the stuff isn't actually functional.

Actually, I bet a lot of the 'reenactment armor' would have been considered low quality back in the day: a lot of knowledge has been lost since then, and we don't know anymore how to make armor that's just as good without resorting to advanced titanium, aluminum etc. composites.

This is absolute bollocks. For one thing our metal quality now is loads above the quality of their metal, mainly because better smelting processes remove more impurities and we have way better tempering and hardening techniques than they could have ever.  There is absolutely no question that our armor, made of the same amount of the same materials, would be better.

What you're basically saying is that somehow medieval smiths had access to some kind of "secret techniques" that allowed them to get better results with worse materials and worse tools than a modern factory, or even a modern smith, could. Essentially you're saying that they had magic. This is absolute nonsense.

You people don't appreciate that modern techniques in everything - metalworking, brewing, agriculture, etc - make our results vastly more effective than whatever "traditional" or "secret" nonsense you can think up.

Not magic. Craftsmanship. Which modern civilization essentially doesn't have. It's the same reason nobody can fucking figure out how Damascene blades were made. When demand ceased, the swordsmiths simply took their techniques to the grave.

Also re: agriculture. Have you ever heard of the Butser Ancient Farm? It's an archeological research site where prehistoric grains, living conditions and methods are reconstructed to the best of the researchers' knowledge to gain a better understanding of what life must have been like for ancient man. They found out that the wheat used by Iron Age Britons has a much higher yield than modern strains of the common wheat, although it is more labour-intensive. Again, a superior ancient technique lost to time because at a certain point in history, ease of harvesting was more important than quantity or quality.

[Dwarfoloid]

I'm not sure how much those thick Mongolian silk coats were meant as armor. Though I guess I should re-read my copy of H.R. Robinson's Oriental Armour in detail for that. I think their primary purpose was more in realms of insulation and fashion. Silk clothing is pretty traditional in Central Asia, trade of horses for silk cloth had been going on since around warring states period, and rich ornamental silk clothes were popular way of gift giving to a chief's personal band of warriors.

According to Caprini, most Mongol warriors armored up with leather, with the elite using lamellar of wrought iron. Mongol "leather" armor usually took the form of either thick coat of pressed rawhide or scale/lamellar of laquered leather.

That being said, I think that armor is currently both overpowered and underpowered. The high-end metals are perhaps too impervious, but I think the bigger problem is that high-end (like steel) weapons are too good against especially the lower end metal armors. On the other hand, the light armors are too crappy for any real combat. I feel the issue with light armor is more of an armor raw or hardcoded mechanic problem than material problem though (well, not that the material raw's aren't in need of overhaul, but I think Toady knows that). The "light" armors were lot thicker generally than metal armors, and could get quite bulky.

Not magic. Craftsmanship. Which modern civilization essentially doesn't have. It's the same reason nobody can fucking figure out how Damascene blades were made. When demand ceased, the swordsmiths simply took their techniques to the grave.

Eh? I thought true crucible steel or wootz is more of an ore vein than craftsmanship thing. The supply went out because the traditional veins were mined out. Fake damascus was produced for quite long after that, and used to decorate all kinds of stuff. The "secrets" of it's manufacture are perfectly well know and even used today. I think even the chemical composition and rough manufacturing process of true wootz has been cracked these days.

And no guys, ancient secret supersteel's are not better than modern stuff. That is just romanticm at play. This doesn't mean that all modern steels are good for making weapons, ofc.

[Hyndis]

Not to mention that it was not uncommon to select those who would be wearing armour on the battlefield when young and get them to carry weights on their body and train so that they are used to it. I once saw a reenactor do cartwheels and I doubt he had training since his youth.

Was the armor theatrical armor or real armor? A lot of the armor made these days is just for show, often times far thinner than real armor is, or even made out of aluminum instead which is much lighter than steel.

SCA guys vary hugely. Some of them put in a huge amount of effort to make sure everything is as accurate as possible, made authentically and real. The swords and armor they make and wield could be used on the battlefield 500 years ago. Then you have the guys who just do it for appearances, but the stuff isn't actually functional.

Actually, I bet a lot of the 'reenactment armor' would have been considered low quality back in the day: a lot of knowledge has been lost since then, and we don't know anymore how to make armor that's just as good without resorting to advanced titanium, aluminum etc. composites.

This is absolute bollocks. For one thing our metal quality now is loads above the quality of their metal, mainly because better smelting processes remove more impurities and we have way better tempering and hardening techniques than they could have ever.  There is absolutely no question that our armor, made of the same amount of the same materials, would be better.

What you're basically saying is that somehow medieval smiths had access to some kind of "secret techniques" that allowed them to get better results with worse materials and worse tools than a modern factory, or even a modern smith, could. Essentially you're saying that they had magic. This is absolute nonsense.

You people don't appreciate that modern techniques in everything - metalworking, brewing, agriculture, etc - make our results vastly more effective than whatever "traditional" or "secret" nonsense you can think up.

Not magic. Craftsmanship. Which modern civilization essentially doesn't have. It's the same reason nobody can fucking figure out how Damascene blades were made. When demand ceased, the swordsmiths simply took their techniques to the grave.

Its just mass production vs tradesmen.

Rather than one man taking a lifetime to produce a masterwork, you have factories that churn it out by the thousands. Thats pretty much it.

Better to invest much less effort to make far, far more of slightly inferior products than to take a lifetime to produce only a handful of masterful items.

[Solarn]

Not magic. Craftsmanship. Which modern civilization essentially doesn't have. It's the same reason nobody can fucking figure out how Damascene blades were made. When demand ceased, the swordsmiths simply took their techniques to the grave.

Eh? I thought true crucible steel or wootz is more of an ore vein than craftsmanship thing. The supply went out because the traditional veins were mined out. Fake damascus was produced for quite long after that, and used to decorate all kinds of stuff. The "secrets" of it's manufacture are perfectly well know and even used today. I think even the chemical composition and rough manufacturing process of true wootz has been cracked these days.

If it has, then I didn't know of it. Not to say that that means it hasn't, though. And as far as I know, it was both. Knowledge of the source of ore and the exact technique for creating the steel both played a part in its quality.

Its just mass production vs tradesmen.

Rather than one man taking a lifetime to produce a masterwork, you have factories that churn it out by the thousands. Thats pretty much it.

Better to invest much less effort to make far, far more of slightly inferior products than to take a lifetime to produce only a handful of masterful items.

Yes, but the point is that the masterful product will still be superior to the factory-produced ones, with all our technological advances. It might very well not be worth it, but that's not the point of the argument.

[Hyndis]

Yes, but the point is that the masterful product will still be superior to the factory-produced ones, with all our technological advances. It might very well not be worth it, but that's not the point of the argument.

I'm sure it would be.

Its just that with a tradesman producing only a few suits of masterful armor would result in only a few suits of armor. Only a few guys get armor, the rest just put on extra layers of clothes, call it padded "armor", and hope for the best. A factor mass producing lesser quality armor would outfit an entire army, and so the mass produced stuff wins in the end.

This is exactly what killed the longbow.

An English longbowman was far superior to firearms (in terms of range, accuracy, stopping power, and rate of firre) probably until the late 1800's, when cartridges were invented. But everyone used guns anyways. Why? Because it only takes about 10 minutes to teach someone to use a gun, and you can churn out piles of guns in factories. It takes decades for someone to become a master archer. Its more effective to have armies of almost entirely inaccurate guns (they might hit something out of dumb luck) than a few master archers.

[darkflagrance]

And no guys, ancient secret supersteel's are not better than modern stuff. That is just romanticm at play. This doesn't mean that all modern steels are good for making weapons, ofc.

Whether or not powerful metals with secret production techniques in history were more powerful than the stuff we can make with the techniques we know is unanswerable if we don't know the techniques ancient smiths used.

Either way, to assert superiority of the past over the present or vice versa are both unresolvable debates.

Even with our modern metallurgy, who knows if somebody developed a counter-intuitive and yet insightful way to pull off results that we nowadays lack to incentive to devote resources to reproducing.

By this statement, I mean that it is possible that lost sword-making techniques existed that were designed to make a blade excellent specifically in its context, and that modern metallurgical techniques, though more advanced and based in a more thorough understanding of the fundamentals of metal, do not possess the same reason to research ways to make excellent swords because guns are the dominant way of warfare. Better general metallurgical knowledge does not mean that a modern can necessarily outdo someone who has been trained in the intricacies of blade-making, even if he lacks the same understanding of the science behind it.

All this, of course, is mere speculation. I am merely providing a logical basis for argument to support those who wish to argue this point further.

[CognitiveDissonance]

...An English longbowman was far superior to firearms (in terms of range, accuracy, stopping power, and rate of firre) probably until the late 1800's, when cartridges were invented. But everyone used guns anyways. Why? Because it only takes about 10 minutes to teach someone to use a gun, and you can churn out piles of guns in factories. It takes decades for someone to become a master archer. Its more effective to have armies of almost entirely inaccurate guns (they might hit something out of dumb luck) than a few master archers.

In general, modern instruments and materials are significantly superior, but we do not have the time to invest into it, or a cultural knowledge of how.
In the "romantic" medieval era, most people would be using a lot of knives, axes and maces without ever being in the military - killing animals, butchering them, thrashing wheat, chopping wood. There was a real world need for armor and weapons, and it flowed in the culture - how to make armor better, how to make it less pierceable etc. We nowadays only inherited the shadow of ancient war techniques, and as such may well fail to properly create a suitable suit of armor, even with having better materials and machinery.

An example of that would be when the opposite happened - metal cuirasses versus bullets did not work at all once rifles and cannons emerged, simply because there was no cultural backbone to prepare for this kind of a weapon. Nowadays, we can craft spectacular bullet-resistant (or immune) suits that can protect you from high-calibre bullets, shrapnel, fire and wrath of Armok, but a trained psycho with a 8-inch blade will kill that person in less than a second.

Also, Quantity > Quantity in many modern world applications.
What would you like. One master soldier, or one thousand recruits? The odds are against the master soldier. Just look at Amazonian warrior ants - they are ANTS that destroy everything in their path (allegedly, they can get a person from living to skeleton in seconds)

To bring the discussion back to the topic, quantity > quality does not work versus armor. I once had a single iron-armored goblin break into my fortress when I didn't have a military equipped. I sent 30 dwarves to wrestle him. They broke a toe, and all died. Seriously? 30 dwarves versus a goblin? A good half of those were trained in combat (not wrestling though) but had no weapons.

But as someone said elsewhere, could well be the problem with natural attacks.

[Solarn]

Yes, but the point is that the masterful product will still be superior to the factory-produced ones, with all our technological advances. It might very well not be worth it, but that's not the point of the argument.

I'm sure it would be.

Its just that with a tradesman producing only a few suits of masterful armor would result in only a few suits of armor. Only a few guys get armor, the rest just put on extra layers of clothes, call it padded "armor", and hope for the best. A factor mass producing lesser quality armor would outfit an entire army, and so the mass produced stuff wins in the end.

This is exactly what killed the longbow.

An English longbowman was far superior to firearms (in terms of range, accuracy, stopping power, and rate of firre) probably until the late 1800's, when cartridges were invented. But everyone used guns anyways. Why? Because it only takes about 10 minutes to teach someone to use a gun, and you can churn out piles of guns in factories. It takes decades for someone to become a master archer. Its more effective to have armies of almost entirely inaccurate guns (they might hit something out of dumb luck) than a few master archers.

Or it was. See, that's a point people often miss. Just because something went out of use because it was inefficient back then, doesn't mean it's still inefficient now. Although I guess even with today's teaching techniques becoming a master archer would take long enough that even the inaccurate guns of the past would work better. But the ancient wheat that I edited my post to talk about (I believe it was either a kind of durum or spelt wheat) would be more economical today, that we have the workforce needed to cultivate it on the same scale as easier to handle grains (and it would solve the employment problem at least partly). Trading off yield for less need for labour was a necessity in the Middle Ages when Europe's population dwindled, but we have a massive surplus of untrained and unemployed people now who could work in the fields.

Of course, that would need a change in the way people view agriculture and work itself, but whatever. That discussion's even more irrelevant to the topic at hand.

[ZeroGravitas]

Not to mention that it was not uncommon to select those who would be wearing armour on the battlefield when young and get them to carry weights on their body and train so that they are used to it. I once saw a reenactor do cartwheels and I doubt he had training since his youth.

Was the armor theatrical armor or real armor? A lot of the armor made these days is just for show, often times far thinner than real armor is, or even made out of aluminum instead which is much lighter than steel.

SCA guys vary hugely. Some of them put in a huge amount of effort to make sure everything is as accurate as possible, made authentically and real. The swords and armor they make and wield could be used on the battlefield 500 years ago. Then you have the guys who just do it for appearances, but the stuff isn't actually functional.

Actually, I bet a lot of the 'reenactment armor' would have been considered low quality back in the day: a lot of knowledge has been lost since then, and we don't know anymore how to make armor that's just as good without resorting to advanced titanium, aluminum etc. composites.

This is absolute bollocks. For one thing our metal quality now is loads above the quality of their metal, mainly because better smelting processes remove more impurities and we have way better tempering and hardening techniques than they could have ever.  There is absolutely no question that our armor, made of the same amount of the same materials, would be better.

What you're basically saying is that somehow medieval smiths had access to some kind of "secret techniques" that allowed them to get better results with worse materials and worse tools than a modern factory, or even a modern smith, could. Essentially you're saying that they had magic. This is absolute nonsense.

You people don't appreciate that modern techniques in everything - metalworking, brewing, agriculture, etc - make our results vastly more effective than whatever "traditional" or "secret" nonsense you can think up.

Not magic. Craftsmanship. Which modern civilization essentially doesn't have. It's the same reason nobody can fucking figure out how Damascene blades were made. When demand ceased, the swordsmiths simply took their techniques to the grave.

Absolute nonsense. For one thing, just because we don't know exactly how they did something doesn't mean they were somehow better than ours. Their exact techniques are unclear, but it's pretty obvious that ours are still superior. Damascus steel was forged with pattern welding. Big. Whoop. Pattern welding isn't rocket science, ok? I know plenty of METAL CRAFTSMEN today who don't work in factories, have their own forges, and produce blades just as artful and powerful as anything people made 500 years ago. WE STILL HAVE CRAFTSMANSHIP. You're just spouting nonsense romanticism without any knowledge of the craftsmen and artists out there working today. I've worked in a metal forge. Have you? Tell me about your practical experience in metalworking.

Also re: agriculture. Have you ever heard of the Butser Ancient Farm? It's an archeological research site where prehistoric grains, living conditions and methods are reconstructed to the best of the researchers' knowledge to gain a better understanding of what life must have been like for ancient man. They found out that the wheat used by Iron Age Britons has a much higher yield than modern strains of the common wheat, although it is more labour-intensive. Again, a superior ancient technique lost to time because at a certain point in history, ease of harvesting was more important than quantity or quality.

That's not a superior ancient technique, that's a trade-off. If we wanted a higher-yield strain that required more labor, we could have one next year. We could genetically engineer it or just use old cross-fertilization techniques to make it. You aren't describing a superior ancient anything, because if it were superior, we'd still use it. Duh?

[ZeroGravitas]

Yes, but the point is that the masterful product will still be superior to the factory-produced ones, with all our technological advances. It might very well not be worth it, but that's not the point of the argument.

I'm sure it would be.

Its just that with a tradesman producing only a few suits of masterful armor would result in only a few suits of armor. Only a few guys get armor, the rest just put on extra layers of clothes, call it padded "armor", and hope for the best. A factor mass producing lesser quality armor would outfit an entire army, and so the mass produced stuff wins in the end.

This is exactly what killed the longbow.

An English longbowman was far superior to firearms (in terms of range, accuracy, stopping power, and rate of firre) probably until the late 1800's, when cartridges were invented. But everyone used guns anyways. Why? Because it only takes about 10 minutes to teach someone to use a gun, and you can churn out piles of guns in factories. It takes decades for someone to become a master archer. Its more effective to have armies of almost entirely inaccurate guns (they might hit something out of dumb luck) than a few master archers.

Or it was. See, that's a point people often miss. Just because something went out of use because it was inefficient back then, doesn't mean it's still inefficient now. Although I guess even with today's teaching techniques becoming a master archer would take long enough that even the inaccurate guns of the past would work better. But the ancient wheat that I edited my post to talk about (I believe it was either a kind of durum or spelt wheat) would be more economical today, that we have the workforce needed to cultivate it on the same scale as easier to handle grains (and it would solve the employment problem at least partly). Trading off yield for less need for labour was a necessity in the Middle Ages when Europe's population dwindled, but we have a massive surplus of untrained and unemployed people now who could work in the fields.

Of course, that would need a change in the way people view agriculture and work itself, but whatever. That discussion's even more irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Uhh... you think it'd be economical to put all our untrained and unemployed people to work in the fields?

Are you joking? You really just keep spouting things off that you have no idea about.

As it stands, the price of food is dramatically lower than it has ever been historically. Hunger is basically eradicated in the developed world. You think it would make any sort of economic sense at all to put people to work in the fields? Here's a newsflash: if it were, they'd have already done it. We already waste more food than some countries produce. The last thing farmers need is more labor.

[ZeroGravitas]

And no guys, ancient secret supersteel's are not better than modern stuff. That is just romanticm at play. This doesn't mean that all modern steels are good for making weapons, ofc.

Whether or not powerful metals with secret production techniques in history were more powerful than the stuff we can make with the techniques we know is unanswerable if we don't know the techniques ancient smiths used.

Either way, to assert superiority of the past over the present or vice versa are both unresolvable debates.

Even with our modern metallurgy, who knows if somebody developed a counter-intuitive and yet insightful way to pull off results that we nowadays lack to incentive to devote resources to reproducing.

By this statement, I mean that it is possible that lost sword-making techniques existed that were designed to make a blade excellent specifically in its context, and that modern metallurgical techniques, though more advanced and based in a more thorough understanding of the fundamentals of metal, do not possess the same reason to research ways to make excellent swords because guns are the dominant way of warfare. Better general metallurgical knowledge does not mean that a modern can necessarily outdo someone who has been trained in the intricacies of blade-making, even if he lacks the same understanding of the science behind it.

All this, of course, is mere speculation. I am merely providing a logical basis for argument to support those who wish to argue this point further.

On the contrary. We have examples of Damascus blades. We're know what their qualities and what they're made of, even if we don't quite know what variation on pattern welding Damascene smiths used.

And obviously, we know what we have now. Our stuff is superior. End of story.