The more i know about medieval armory, the more i believe that maces and any kind of weapons that causes blunt damage was the best choice of weapon to draw in battle.
@Novantii Not sure if you're trolling or just ignorant, but the issue isn't about the different designs of swords, it's about how they're used. Skill of the wielder is obviously the most important factor, but no sword is meant to cut armor.. it's meant to cut flesh. Therefore, if someone is wearing armor (whether metal, leather, textile, whatever) it's always in your best interest to cut/thrust/hew where the armor IS NOT PRESENT, or at the very least, where it is weakest.
In general, I tend to disagree with the fact that the sword is characterized as a "heavy bludgeoning tool".. otherwise there is no point in making them sharp. If the idea is to effect massive blunt trauma, then one only needs a blunt object.. a club (and I seem to recall there being depictions of these in the M. Bible also). Consider also the difference in *price* between a sword and a club - especially in an era when swords were made by hand (or by several hands) individually.
Please, with all due respect, not again this bullshit show with Ermey and Goodwin... Their "longsword" was a completely blunt flimsy "something" and their "Katana" a chinese cheapo. Their cuts were amateurish, their "armor" was a stainless costume piece. The only thing they have proven is that an old goofball with a sharp chinese fantasy katana can produce more damage than an old goofball with a totally blunt flimsy longsword-like blade. BTW - Goodwin is a Hollywood stage fighter ;)
@Novantii The cut vs. thrust debate has been going on since swords existed. If one were definitively superior to the other, the debate would have ended thousands of years ago. Both have their uses and advantages.
@Novantii you are missing the point of sword fighting its in the technique of wielder.Heavy armor has many weaknesess that can be pierced so thats why samurai would have great chance to win.Not to mention he would be 1000x times faster.
@GregorMar Wrong lad, the sabre is good for cutting flesh but not good against armor. The curve makes it glide off armor instead of biting into it. It doesn't deliver the blunt force through the armor like a straight sword. It is also not nearly as useful for thrusting.
Against an unarmored fellow, a sabre will do tremendous work. Against a man in metal armor, you want something to deliver blunt or piercing damage. Cutting attacks are ineffective against metal armor.
@demomanchaos Jesus Christ MAN did You ever CUT ANY ARMOR???? You have no idea what nonsense you talking. You know what was military state Polish test for good sabre in 1930's after which it was accepted to serve? It has to cut 0,5 cm steel rot FIVE TIMES without any damages!!! And stab through 2 mm sheet metal! When you will let it fall from 2 meter high. You se YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT! Watch a bit:
@demomanchaos In Poland sabre was using since XV century till XVIII AGAINS ARMORED FELLOWS!!! Coz Polish solders carry coat of mail and fight with Russians, Turks, Tatars and many other eastern enemies which were carry such personal amours too.
My dear friend first you buy sabre and test it then talk, coz you simply have no idea what are you talking about
@GregorMar Physics my boy, cutting weapons are ineffective against heavy armor. A sabre is a cutting weapon. Just like with a katana, the cutting action will not get through metal armor. Leather will do a good job in stopping cutting attacks, but leather is poor against piercing which is why mail came around.
A sabre is not great for stabbing. The curve means you have to use a hooking motion to thrust with the point, which leaves you open.
@demomanchaos My dear boy you watch too much stupid TV and about physics and reality you have no idea. You even never had real white weapon in your hands if you are talking such nonsense. I showed you vid and I told you how army tested fighting sabreI and how it was used historical. if you can understand and accept this then you have real problem. If sabre is not great for stabbing then watch yet again vids made by Cold Steel. You know nothing about sabres... my boy NOTHING about physics as well
@demomanchaos I propose you one thing, buy such cold steel sabre and test it comparing with straight blade if you really think it is better, made vid and put in on youtube and we will see. I know one thing that you have no right, you know why? coz I have swords 1,2 and 2 hand and sabres replica of polish hussar sabre from 1600's sabre is quicker and more operative than any sword. But I see you must see this on your own eyes then buy CS sabre and see yourself. Then we will talk again OK.
@GregorMar Why don't you make said video? You supposedly already have everything you need.
Speed on a sword comes from balance and weight. The hussar sabre is about the length of a viking longsword. I am guessing it is close to the same weight as well (3 lb range). Like the viking sword, it doesn't have a weighted pommel to balance it. Thusly it is no better than a longsword for fencing.
Heavily curved blades like a sabre are near useless against a man with a big shield.
@demomanchaos Oh I’m sorry but.. Why???? I know this and it is you who claims it is opposite. So you shouls prove your thesis. So please make such vid and show this, prove your thesis. If you want to see how big stabbing power has sabre you may see this on cold steel vid that I gave you. Why you didn't watch this? Similar tests made Polish army in 1930's so this already shows that you are in big mistake. Sabre has 85-95cm long and its weight is 0,75-0,95 kg so it is even longer than longsword.
@demomanchaos And as to Vikings sword... I'm sorry but you have no idea what are you talking again if you saying about fencing with Vikings swords they are not for fencing. After 5 minutes your hand would felt of from tiredness if you would try to use this for fencing. And in reality ANY SWORD will not help you against shield! ANY!!! Did you had shield in your hand?
@GregorMar Viking swords weigh only 3-5 lbs, which isn't much. You would tire just as fast as you would with an equal weight sabre.
Those blokes were using a cavalry shield. Vast majority of infantry shields were not strapped to the arm. They had a singe handle in the middle behind a metal boss. A strapped shield is far harder to parry with.
I have a center grip shield and it is not impossible to get around. A wrapping attack with the backedge of a straight sword works quite well.
@demomanchaos I’m sorry my friend but I see that you simply never had real sword in your hand if you say that fighting with non balanced Viking sword is nothing… I’m in medieval fighting society we using Viking swords from X century, medieval long swords and 1,5 and 2 handed swords and I see you never had any sword in your hand. Any of them is not very heavy but to work fencing with not balanced sword is VERY difficult and needs many forces.
@GregorMar I own quite a few actually. I have made a few videos of some basic testing of the (cut and thrust on some cardboard). My least balanced sword is a blade heavy 3.5 pounder. I would rather use something else for fencing, I admit, but it isn't too bad when you work with the weight rather than against it. Just like an axe or mace. If you cannot fight your foe if you are fighting with your weapon.
@demomanchaos But it is the most important question if you fight with someone using blade you want to win right? And you want to tell me that not balanced blade specially designed for fencing is better? 0_o... 3,5 pound is almost 1,6 kg wow who made such blade???? It must be really bad replica coz real historic blade weights not more than 1,3 kg 1,5 kg weights 2 handed swords. So if you want to fight and win you need really good balanced blade for long fights not for 10 minute of fight.
@GregorMar It isn't a replica, but it is the same weight as a viking sword. A 2 hander could weight between 6-10 pounds. 3.5 is nothing. Majority of single handled longswords did not have a counter weight to balance it, especially in the dark ages. Most were used with a shield in the off hand. A blade heavy balance helps deliver hard hits. Grab any hammer, hold it near the end of the handle and whack something. The move your hand near the head and whack again. The first whack will stronger.
@demomanchaos Everything what is not made in original times is replica. :-) so if you have blade made now then it is a replica. Really any, ANY real viking sword never weight 6-10 punds!!! it is 4,5 kilogram!!! Where have you read such nonsense? I'm living in North western Poland where in X was many Slaves living and fighting together with the vikings. 130 km fro me is island Wolin which was the biggest medival town where Polish Slavs were living with vikings, and together go for wars on Europe
@GregorMar Viking 1 handed swords are 3-5 lbs, late period 2-handed great swords (claymore, gothic zweihander, etc.)are the ones that could weight 6-10 lbs.
@demomanchaos Polish Slavs were allays of vikings and daughter of Polish high Dux was mother of all Viking kings, so here on this terrain archeologists found many viking swords and any of them didn't weight more than 2 kg! ANY! 4,5 kg do you even have idea how to fight with this? Even executioner's sword weight only 3,5 kg and it was made specially for executions not for fight. So you have to read something wrong coz any real sword could weight so much it would be not possible to use in fight.
@GregorMar We are in 2 different weight units here. 3.5 pounds is about 1.6 kg. Most 1 handers were in the 3-5 pound range. Some late medieval 2 handers weighed in the 6-10 pound range. 10 lbs being about 4.5 kg.
@demomanchaos OK so sabre had 0,75-0,90 kg, swords 1 and 1,5 handed 0,80-1,3 kg and two handed 1,5/1,8- had MAX 3 kg and you said about 4,5 kg viking sword it is impossible.
European sword weight is a confusing issue, but fortunately there is hard scientific data available:
-- swordforum . c o m /forums/showthread . p h p ?105673-Debunking-European-Sword-Myths. (Remove the spaces)
There is no one-handed historical combat sword known which would be heavier than 1,5kg or 3,3 pounds. The so called "bearing swords" or "ceremonial swords" could be about 11kg - but those things were sword-like non-functional objects, not sharpened or heat treated.
@demomanchaos In Poland cavalry fought with cavalry in medieval. It is not like in movies as you watch in TV where you see fights from England or France. The biggest medieval battles were on the east. Did you heard about battle of Grunwald 1410 – The biggest medieval cavalry battle ever! Real knights fought with knights using horses not with foot solders. And against armor they used only WARHAMERS (nadziak) and MACES (bulawa)! Not blades! Not swords.
@GregorMar Your argument was about the sabre they used, not the hammers. That is like saying the katana is the best weapon ever then saying the samurai used a kusarigama against armor when anyone brings up the katana's ineffectiveness against armor. A warhammer is quite unwieldy and not much good for fencing. Hussars had quite a lot of gaps in their armor where you could easily put a sword in. By your logic, the unweildy warhammer will be useless for fencing and thus the hussar is good as dead.
@demomanchaos Katana is not the best weapon ever on the contrary it is the biggest myth ever. But sabre is the best white weapon ever especially polish hussar sabre from 1600's coz it has special element called paluch (thumb) thanks to which cuts are quicker more precise and more powerful. As to medieval fights, knights used lances and then when they broke them use weapons and they try not to fence only to kill the enemy as quick as possible so they use warharmers and maces.
@GregorMar The most effective bladed weapon is actually the gothic flammenschwert. The ricassa allows you to use the balanced 7-9 pound blade like a polearm for surprising agility. It will easily outcut a sabre (double the mass, comparable speed, do the math). Its 60-80 inch length meant you could keep your enemy at a distance. You can use the pommel as a blunt weapon. It can chop like no other, the pommel can crush like no other, and the kriss style blade delivers a nasty thrust wound.
@demomanchaos :-P who said you this??? uhahahahaha no sorry man but really from where you have such opinion :-p How you would fight with this from horse back??? :-P still the best weapon is sabre. you know why? coz it is lighter then usual sword, it is longer, quicker, you may stab and cut and you may use two sabres at once if you can fight with left and right hand. So you will always have advantage with two blades on someone with one blade. And two handed blade is always slower.
@GregorMar It is an infantry weapon, primarily made to cut the heads off of pikes but it can cut the heads off of multiple foes with ease. Lightness makes it much less effective against armor. You need weight to deliver force through the armor. The sabre has half the reach of a flammenschwert. Dual wielding swords is something out of Hollywood. The off-hand would use a parrying dagger, not a full size sword. A parrying dagger isn't going to do much good against a great sword.
@demomanchaos As to hussars first they use long 6,2 - 6,5 meter long lances!!! Longer that Macedonian which had only 5 - 5,5 meters. And after hussar charge almost no one left on the field, and during 200 years they didn't lose even one battle. Of course they were in 5 lost battles but they didn't fight in them coz commanders didn't use them in fight that is why those battles were lost. But hussars during 200 years of their exist never lost their fight. And when they were use then always crushed
@GregorMar Facing unarmored opponents with muskets is not much of a challenge. Even the pikemen of the time were no match for medieval pikes (who saw melee combat much more frequently). In the time of the Hussar, the bayonet didn't exist. Any melee orientated heavy troops would easily decimate unarmored soldiers who weren't trained for melee combat who only had a ranged weapon.
@demomanchaos Hussars fought with: Swedes (which was called "The best western European army"), Germans, Austrians, Hungarians, Russians, Tatars, Turks (Tatars and Turks, Hungarians use armors: mails and plate armors), and other western infantry coz in Polish forces fot solders were Irish, Scottish and Switzerland foot solders called zaciężni (something like contract solders) coz Poles never uses foot solders. Only cavalry was Polish. So during wars they fought with many types of solders.
@GregorMar The majority of which were using muskets or pikes. I doubt any of the people the Hussar's faced would do well against a medieval army. The bowmen will tear the muskets to shreds (more range and much faster rate of fire, they aren't the best against heavy armor and require more skill than a musket).
@demomanchaos In reality till 1850 muskets were really weak weapon. After 1860 guns began to have really good range. And I want to remained you that hussars fought with Tatars that they use bows and Hussars ALSO USE BOWS You saw this on old picture that bow is also their weapon. And bowmen are hapless against armored in plate armor units. In 1410 in battle of Grunwald Polish forces defeat the biggest medieval Teutonic Knights army complex from all western knights So they have practice as you see
I do have to protest your claim that up to 1850 the musket was a very weak weapon. If it's as weak as most people believe, it wouldn't have replaced the bow as the predominant missile weapon all over the globe by the 1700's, ease of use notwithstanding. Properly loaded and used by a skilled individual (and becoming a crack shot with a musket is a he** lot easier than with a bow), a musket is really not inferior to the bow in the areas of accuracy and range, and superior in power.
But the artillery of those "people" would tear static formations of medieval bowmen apart. That's how in the end the French managed to beat the English during the Hundred Years War.
@HaNsWiDjAjA They had cannons during the 13th century, but knights were around into the 16th century. What killed off knights is that its much cheaper and easier to arm 1000 peasants with matchlocks and a few days of training than train a handful of knights.
It is indisputable, a melee army will defeat a ranged army in melee. The only question is can the ranged army do enough damage to the melee guys before they get into melee.
I do know that, just thought it's fun to point out.
BTW, knights were not ineffective by firearm equipped infantry, specifically they were made obsoelete by 'reiters', heavy cavalrymen armed with pistols. The proportion of heavy cavalry in European armies did not decrease after the 16th century, if anything they actually increased. The heavy horsemen however became more professional and discarded the lance (ineffective against plate armor).
@demomanchaos their opponents. And after charge they use their sabres (hussar sabres called black sabres) or warharmers or long 1,5 meter long blades called palasz (Backsword). Hussar unit had 150 men and the highest lost ever that was recorded was 50 hussars. And usually they lose only 5-15 men from 150 unit in charge and fight so this shows how powerfull and high qualify solders they were. And they had the best weapon made from Swedish steel: two guns, sabre, backsword, bow, spear, Whammer
@GregorMar Again, look what they were fighting. If they were pitted against a medieval army that was equipped for melee and ready to accept a heavy cavalry charge, the story would be far far different. A musket is of little use in melee and a pike is worthless once you get inside it. And as previously covered, a sabre is of little use against armor. They never faced anything that could have been a threat to them.
This is a rather stupid comment, a two handed sword is generally always superior (in a duel on foot) to a one handed sword without shield. Think about it, all else being equal the two hander will have superior speed and striking power, as well as better point control for precise stabbing if necessary.
The szabla is best for fighting unarmored opponents ON HORSEBACK in a melee, that's its function. The hussars also carried koncerz, palasz and czekan to handle other comers.
@HaNsWiDjAjA Stupid is your comment, you have no idea how was fighting with szabla, what is the most funny about medieval and swords speaks such yound Americans as you who knows shit about medieval, only from films made in Hollywood. Szabla was used against ARMORED men it cut steel 0,5 cm root. And as to musket watch this it confirms everything what I said about musket: /watch?v=ZZukxamOoVE
Everything is showed there so there is no sense even to argue with you.
That show is incredibly flawed from a historical point of view, after all the shooting there is conducted by amateurs. Of course any weapons in the hands of amateurs are rather unimpressive.
For example of how well a musket can perform in the hand of experts, I'd recommend this:
/watch?v=ytk7rN1u_6k
Do you have any proof of szabla cutting through steel? I've never actually seen ANY sword cutting through QUALITY tempered plate armor. It's just not done.
BTW I saw a lot of edge on edge contact in those videos of szabla fencing, which would've rendered the swords blunt very, very rapidly. Unless the szabla is only sharpened for the first six inch or so of the blade, which was actually common with cavalry sabers.
They forget all well artisans and blacksmiths of today know the craft inside and out and make near flawless works of art.
That was not the case in the dark ages. It is possible Helmets where not made near as well from one smith to another and a sword of higher quality could do some damage, slicing a helmet is impossible but crushing into the skull isn't.
I think that this video actually suggests that the scene in the Bible is feasible. First, the knight has trained all his life with the weapon and the demonstrator has not. Second, the Knight has the energy of the horse's charge to add to his blow and this should not be discounted. Third, the quality of the metal might have varied sufficiently to allow such a blow. Of course, the video also demonstrates the effectiveness of the helmet used by 11th c. knights as depicted in the Bayeau Tapestry!
I guess when a sword actually split a helmet in Medieval Battles what actually happened was that the sword's kinetic energy caused the binding joining the two halves of a helmet bowl to fail. Many cheaper helmets were made by this simple and practical technique.
Or perhaps, as some Roman legionnaires discovered, a bronze helmet is not really up to the task of resisting a blow from a falcata made of Spanish steel. Or Napoleon's dragoons and uhlans facing the British Pattern 1796 sabers.
Katanas are EXTREMELY specialized weapons. They are designed to slice through soft material like clothing, muscle, and bone. They just aren't suited to dealing with armor. You can't slice through metal, it just doesn't work. Best thing to do is try and pierce it with a sharp, rigid point.
@crookeyejim This style of European sword is a very generalist weapon by comparison. It can pierce, hack, slice, and bludgeon reasonably well, but it can't slice as well as a Katana. Everything else it's going to do considerably better.
@crookeyejim You can also use it like a lever or a warhammer in the case of hand-and-a half swords. There're way too many European sword styles to make a single comment of "European sword"
Well the style of the helmet is right out of the Bayeau Tapestry and the Majewski (sp) Bible. But what about the materials? Is the iron used the helmet the same? Is it a steel helmet? I believe the cost of a tempered steel helmet in 1066 might have been prohibitive.
@lebarosky Youre right, I wonder what kind of metal they used, probably in Medieval times, metals for doing helmets where less hard. And also, those guys from medieval times where trained, ..I doubt these old men are a strong as a soldier of the medieval times
It was imposible to make someone wearing helmet unconsious by hitting him with sword. Believe I fight in re-enactment, and I almost do not feel any one handed sword that hit me even those with full force. Hear only BANG
If you really went full force swords against helmet in reenactment, there would be pretty high casualty rates, as swords would glance off helmets and into necks, swords would hit unprotected faces etc. etc. Even if you hit the helmet without the sword glancing off, how do you avoid force being transferred to the head and neck? With sufficient padding the skull will be fine, but the neck will still move according to the blow.
In my group, we've had people black out, fighting medium-contact, if only for a second or so. Full contact would likely send someone unconscious if it catches a good spot.
Bear in mind while, our minimum helm gauge is 14ga, most medieval equivalents would be thinner.
A heavier helm is better at stopping a blow. Concussion, blackouts etc. Are caused by the brain being sloshed around inside the skull. Heavier helms slow down faster after being hit, and so your head moves less far, at less speed.
It's true what you say about the weight, but we found out that the padding is a most important part in stopping a blow and preventing concussion. A k.o. is more complicated than that, what sends you down is a blow to the chin, nearly never a blow to the upper skull. So the k.o.'s i have seen came from shild blows to the chin, never seen a k.o. with a sword. check out my channel there are plenty full contact vids there.
A KO has all to do with the strength of the neck, not the head itself. The Norwegian word for concussion translates to "brain shake", and that's essentially what happens. Concussion happens from violent movement of the head, not impact to the head (the impact leads to movement, which then leads to concussion). A head supported by a thick, muscular neck won't move as much, and as such will be harder to KO.
And that's why a blow like that may leave a man dazed and concussed - because although the skull is protected from penetration, the force is nevertheless transferred to the neck.
@Gilmaris i'm doing this every goddamn sunday. never went or send anyone into dreamyland (our necks are quiet regular). proper padding and of course a minimum waight of the helmet make KOs very difficult. But it can happen, with thin padding when the energy is transfered directly to your skull you go KO, there you'r right, its as simple as that. I'm just saing: he's making to much fuzz about it.
@Wattebauschchen Indeed he is. I doubt that one would even had gone for the head in a melee as it is so well protected. The neck is a more viable option, don't you agree?
I think one of the things they are missing here is the quality of the armour, let's face it, these days we can make helms of the same strength again and again, no problem, but back then, metals would contain far more impurities, possibly weakening the metal. Other problems could be cracks or damage to the helm, or thinner pieces of armour. Still, it is highly unlikely that every strike placed on a helmet would cleave through the metal.
But by that same rational would not sword blades then have suffered the same disadvantages? Extant helmets actually show pretty strong construction. There may have been freak occurances of a helmet failing under a sword blow. But a sword would not be able to cleave even that helmet in two and also helms mere not really targetted with swords, even if you did cleave it, the swords edge would take damage, so although you might defeat one guy you've ruined your chances of defeating the next.
Good point, hadn't considered that. I guess the cleaving of a helmet would only happen with a badly made and well-worn helmet, with a very strong and hard sword, probably elaborated on by the writers of the time, I mean, it would make the army you are representing seem so much more mighty.
f=ma The artwork depicts mounted combatants charging forward with the attacks. I've seen a reenactor accidentally cleave through a post at not much more than a trot.
Again, another very good point, and a knight going at full tilt towards a badly-armoured infantryman wouldn't leave the poor men-at-arms much chance against a horse travelling at a great speed.
This has come up previously. The problem is one of momentum, that is mass + speed. Riding a horse at a gallop will add about 30mph onto the speed that the sword is travelling, at best. The part of the sword that you strike with though has the same mass, which is not a great deal. The 30mph extra is not going to produce enough momentum and therefore not enough energy to cleave the helm. The very best that you will get out of it will be a dent which just may have a narrow split or crack.
Not m+a=f, ma=f. Also, your model is flawed by assuming that only the speed of the horse is added, when also the momentum energy from mass is translated across in large amount. Again 6" post cleft in two by missing the target.
My mistake of course its a product not a sum; still not enough to cleave a helmet though. 6" Post cleft across or down the grain? Was it hard or soft wood? Old or green wood? Quite a lot of variables; chopping into a wooden post does not translate into cleaving a metal helmet . The mass of the horse won't be transmitted into the cut as it is travelling in a different frame of reference to the sword. The only significant variable you are changing in aid of the sword is increasing the speed.
You have to remember that the Maciejowski Bible is first and foremost a bible. It depicts miraculous biblical events not historical ones therefore biblical heroes are imbued with the strength cleave helms etc. Remember the story of Samson slaying an army with the jawbone of an ass? If we saw that illustrated would we assume that it was real? Helmets don't make good targets for swords for many reasons, why would people have bothered wear helms if they could be cleaved open so often?
Some soldiers were not well off enough to have metal helms. There are accounts of soldiers wearing leather helms, and these guys were the ones getting their heads cleaved in despite wearing a "helm".
Why does medieval art have to be so lame? No wonder we have myths running around.
And I don't like how 2mm thick steel armor is being portaid as being either heavy or weak. True, it adds weight and has its limits, but if it's designed to be worn for protection and mobility, then that's what it does.
Hm, maybe this kind of example: you kick someone while standing still and you kick after a short run and jump. The second option is much more powerful, the same is with horse. The blade is moving not only witha power of your arm but also with a power of the horse speed. Of coursa if horse stands in place there's not much more diffrence [only height].
How fast can a horse gallop? About 35/36 mph and thats a naked horse with no rider. A knight with armour is going to cut that speed. Now the end of that blade is already traveling very fast just swinging it. I doubt that adding the speed of the horse on to it is going to be the difference between it penetrating and not penetrating. Plus there are the practical difficulties of achieving such a powerful stroke while riding a horse in battle, single handed etc etc. It doesn't add up.
Will that would bring a conclusion but I'll put my money on the sword doing similar damage to this video ie. denting and 'biting' the helmet but no penetrating. If you want to cleave a helmet open you need a weapon designed to do that, either and axe or a war hammer/poleaxe, even then the results might not be as dramatic as you expect.
Err I think you find that momentum has an element of speed, its a product of the speed and mass of an object. The point is that the sword will never gain enough momentum because it does not have enough mass and it will never attain a high enough speed to produce enough energy to penetrate the helmet. And I think you will find that a war hammer was certainly designed to penetrate armour, for you to suggest that it wasn't shows your unfamiliarity with medieval weapons.
A horse's mass and speed combined with a mounted man's mass and speed is what gives the sword its power and momentum.
A war hammer is essentially, a HAMMER designed to strike with massive bludgeoning force.
They might have had a spike on the back of them to pierce armor. In fact, many of them did, but the war hammer's primary method of use was to daze and stun the opponent to set up the piercing blow.
No it dosen't quite work like that. You're not hitting the helmet with a horse you are striking it with a sword while riding a horse, the mass of the horse will not be transmitted down your arm into the sword. All riding a horse will do is impart greater velocity to your strike by around 30-35mph(?) The sword will still not build enough momentum to penetrate the helmet it does not have enough mass or velocity.
A warhamer works by crushing or penetrating, but it evolved into what we would understand as a warhamer primarily because of the need to defeat armour. Concussive weapons such as maces, warhamers and axes are the only reasonably effective way to defeat armour. A sword is not an armour piercing weapon on foot or on horseback, they were simply not used like that, certainly not by cutting.
I think medieval helmets were less qulity than this on the video. Also, the blow is likely to be more powerful when delivered from a horse that runs at full speed.
Well, the sword look pretty useless, but in XXI century, we have much better steel than in middle ages. In my opinion it's possible to cut the helmet with heavy, sharp broadsword. Maybe not much like it's shown on the medieval icon, but enough to kill human. Sorry for my English by the way. Greetings from Poland :)
i own a handmade tempered highcarbon steel 38 in broad sword that can barely crack the weakest helmet i have and as for your coment about the metal being worse back then you have to realize if metal for armour was worse then so was the metal used for weapons so it really makes no difference.
But in middle ages they could make damascus steel for weapos(yes, in Europe too. Polish damascus used since VI-VII century (!!) is named "dziwer"). Ofcourse that was really expensive, so only very rich warriors could have one. Best damascus was made by Jews and Arabic people in Palestina, but european wasn't so bad ;)
the kind of steel really makes very little difference i have knives made of the hardest steel possible aswell a titanium and they do no better then any other of my very numerous blades. and dont think you know about weapons and armour and actually test things then youll know what your talking about Ive been testing armour and building it aswell as practicing with a variety of weapons for a very long time and am very knowledgable when it comes to armour piercing and its much harder then you think
Well, I'm making only knives (but I wish to do more in future) but have some experience in weapons and armoury. Of course I don't say that you don't have. I belive you, but in my opinion it's possible, that's all ;) History know accidents, when one warrior could kill 2-3 quite well armoured people at once by slash! It's really unbelievable, but that really was possible. Greetings :)
Actually I'd say that history knows of no such incidents as you describe. There are sagas and legends which talk about things like that but they are just stories. People wore armour for a reason; that was that it proteced you from the weapons of the day. If it ceased to offer protection people would cease to wear it as they indeed did as firearms became more effective.
Oh, and one more thing. I'm a History student on Silesian University, so I think I know history very well (with weapons, armours and tactics too), so don't say "hurray" before you don't jump and land safely ;)
reading a book dosnt teach such things that we are disccusing i never believe teachers,books etc i only believe it when i test it. for example i shot a 44 special bullet at a 16 gauge mild steel plate and while it did severly dent the steel it did not penetrate. but the larger calibers did.
The important thing to look at here is energy transfer. Medieval nasal-helms weighted about 2 lbs. You don't have to even dent the helm to knock a man out when the sword tip is moving at about 160 mph and is delivering about 160 lbs of concentrated force on the edge.
Modern SCA helms weight about 8 lbs in order to absorb the impact. The rattan swords we use also give more and spread the impact over a wider surface.
The Maciejowski Bible pictures do tell us some very important things even if they exaggerated the effects a little bit. It tells us for certain armored heads were certainly a good target area to aim at.
They can be stainless steel or mild steel. Stainless is easier to maintain, mild is cheaper but more historic and rusts. The are 14 gage in thickness at the light end, and 12 gage at the heavy end.
I don't think you have been hit on the head at full power. Even with these heavey duty helmets and padding on the inside, people sometimes see stars when hit hard. People often add aventails to the helm for neck protection and to add more mass to the helm.
Just to clarify further, a sword tip weights about 1 lb and will often accelerate to 160 mph. That is about 160 lbs of force transferred from the edge of the sword to the head. When someone gets hit hard you will often see that 8 lb helm jolt. We might get hit 50 times in a single practice in the head. If the helmet was a historical 2 or 3 lbs, we would be getting cases of brain damage over time. Historically soldiers spent more time marching ,guarding and moving earth then anything else.
I see I see, but armor and helmets were not mild steel; they were made by Hardened Steel or Spring Steel which is very, very, very strong... But if you do that now a days it would cost a pretty penny for some reason. (Even though it was the standard for steel armor back then)
The great thing about tempered steel is that you can have something that is as thin as 22 gage still stop a sword cut. If it is not tempered it would bend. That is fine over you arm or leg because you can take more punishment there and not get hurt. The head is a different matter. You have to do more then just stop the sword from cutting your head, you have to keep your head from getting jolted. When your head gets jolted your brain slams into the inside of your head and you get knocked out.
This is a similar to a situation of getting into an accident in a car or in a truck. In a car you bounce around more. In a truck, you will not unless you hit another truck of similar mass. So the mass itself is protection to being jolted. Tempering can not make up for the protection of mass. It is a compromise that allows you to cover your whole body at a fraction of the weight. Tempered plate was only used for a short period of time.
Prior to the 14 th century mail, leather or linen was more common. Coats of plates were used but this was just chest plate. Tempered plate was used in 15th century but as gun fire became common in the 16th century they went back to more thick untempered plates that covered just their chest and head. The compromise was to just protect the vital areas. You see this commonly in painting of Spanish Conquistadors. Those chest plates are to stop musket balls, not swords.
Modern steel helmets are made from better quality steel than helmets from a thousand years ago, but even so, I have to agree with their results to some extent. It's much more probable that the sword would glance of the helmet and hit the shoulder than actually cut through the steel. Greatly depends on the shape of the helmet too.
intresting but its all on how well is the weapon is made (a katana manage to do a 3-4 inch gash on a helmet), what weapon is used(an ax or a pick will really be effective) and the method the blow is dealt
Yes, well as we all know, Katana's if dropped actually cut through the whole earth and travel right the way through the centre to china. Western Longswords on the other hand at are made of concrete and are as sharp as my finger.
I have very little doubt that a katana would be no more succesful and would take even more damage from such a blow.
well thats a bit logical sonsidering chainmail is soft enough to absorb blows, I mean the chain mail is made to protect against slashing not stabbing which katana ia a slashint weapon. but i gotta admit I still have this small flisker of anticipation the katana might scratch it
Swords work on speed rather then power. If you accelerate the tip to 160 mph it is going to hit with a concentrated force of about 160 lbs. The advantage of strength is that a stronger man needs less of a windup to get to that speed. Less of a windup means less of a tell to your opponent.
Persons were stronger than now
MrDrakosha 9 months ago
The more i know about medieval armory, the more i believe that maces and any kind of weapons that causes blunt damage was the best choice of weapon to draw in battle.
italok9 1 year ago 2
A couched lance cavalary charge would easily tear apart an infantary helmet though.
italok9 1 year ago
thrusting > cutting
hence why katanas suck ass unless youre fighting a guy armored in a hanes t shirt (which is about what most japanese were armored in, so fair enough)
Novantii 1 year ago 9
@Novantii Not sure if you're trolling or just ignorant, but the issue isn't about the different designs of swords, it's about how they're used. Skill of the wielder is obviously the most important factor, but no sword is meant to cut armor.. it's meant to cut flesh. Therefore, if someone is wearing armor (whether metal, leather, textile, whatever) it's always in your best interest to cut/thrust/hew where the armor IS NOT PRESENT, or at the very least, where it is weakest.
tristan1264 5 months ago
In general, I tend to disagree with the fact that the sword is characterized as a "heavy bludgeoning tool".. otherwise there is no point in making them sharp. If the idea is to effect massive blunt trauma, then one only needs a blunt object.. a club (and I seem to recall there being depictions of these in the M. Bible also). Consider also the difference in *price* between a sword and a club - especially in an era when swords were made by hand (or by several hands) individually.
tristan1264 5 months ago
@Novantii I agree thrusting > cutting vs armored opponents. katana stands superior to the european longsword in both fields
put:
"Japanese Katana VS European Longsword - Samurai sword VS Knight Broadsword "
into your search bar you'll see what I mean
LTakeninja 5 months ago
@LTakeninja
Please, with all due respect, not again this bullshit show with Ermey and Goodwin... Their "longsword" was a completely blunt flimsy "something" and their "Katana" a chinese cheapo. Their cuts were amateurish, their "armor" was a stainless costume piece. The only thing they have proven is that an old goofball with a sharp chinese fantasy katana can produce more damage than an old goofball with a totally blunt flimsy longsword-like blade. BTW - Goodwin is a Hollywood stage fighter ;)
Protherium 4 months ago
@Novantii The cut vs. thrust debate has been going on since swords existed. If one were definitively superior to the other, the debate would have ended thousands of years ago. Both have their uses and advantages.
Also, samurai wore iron armor in battle.
JohnRaptor 2 months ago
@Novantii you are missing the point of sword fighting its in the technique of wielder.Heavy armor has many weaknesess that can be pierced so thats why samurai would have great chance to win.Not to mention he would be 1000x times faster.
TheRudio2011 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is Thrand !!!!!
Love everything Jarl Mike Loades !!!!!
Please check out my videos here on youtube !!!!!!
ThegnThrand 1 year ago
Katana has no CHANCE WITH POLISH HUSSAR SABRE FROM 1630!!!
The best white weapon ever is Polish cavalry hussar sabre from 1630!!! It is the best fencing weapon ever!!!
look here:
/watch?v=pHP4pSQvbxk
/watch?v=n6IcZnx1flI
/watch?v=voxErBJyFuw
GregorMar 1 year ago
@GregorMar There isnt such a thing as "the best sword ever", just different swords for different needs.
radopunk 9 months ago
@GregorMar Wrong lad, the sabre is good for cutting flesh but not good against armor. The curve makes it glide off armor instead of biting into it. It doesn't deliver the blunt force through the armor like a straight sword. It is also not nearly as useful for thrusting.
Against an unarmored fellow, a sabre will do tremendous work. Against a man in metal armor, you want something to deliver blunt or piercing damage. Cutting attacks are ineffective against metal armor.
demomanchaos 9 months ago
@demomanchaos Jesus Christ MAN did You ever CUT ANY ARMOR???? You have no idea what nonsense you talking. You know what was military state Polish test for good sabre in 1930's after which it was accepted to serve? It has to cut 0,5 cm steel rot FIVE TIMES without any damages!!! And stab through 2 mm sheet metal! When you will let it fall from 2 meter high. You se YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT! Watch a bit:
/watch?v=UaJSrjv6ckw&NR=1
/watch?v=LZWcyga9-Ag
GregorMar 9 months ago
@demomanchaos In Poland sabre was using since XV century till XVIII AGAINS ARMORED FELLOWS!!! Coz Polish solders carry coat of mail and fight with Russians, Turks, Tatars and many other eastern enemies which were carry such personal amours too.
My dear friend first you buy sabre and test it then talk, coz you simply have no idea what are you talking about
GregorMar 9 months ago
@GregorMar Physics my boy, cutting weapons are ineffective against heavy armor. A sabre is a cutting weapon. Just like with a katana, the cutting action will not get through metal armor. Leather will do a good job in stopping cutting attacks, but leather is poor against piercing which is why mail came around.
A sabre is not great for stabbing. The curve means you have to use a hooking motion to thrust with the point, which leaves you open.
demomanchaos 9 months ago
@demomanchaos My dear boy you watch too much stupid TV and about physics and reality you have no idea. You even never had real white weapon in your hands if you are talking such nonsense. I showed you vid and I told you how army tested fighting sabreI and how it was used historical. if you can understand and accept this then you have real problem. If sabre is not great for stabbing then watch yet again vids made by Cold Steel. You know nothing about sabres... my boy NOTHING about physics as well
GregorMar 9 months ago
@demomanchaos I propose you one thing, buy such cold steel sabre and test it comparing with straight blade if you really think it is better, made vid and put in on youtube and we will see. I know one thing that you have no right, you know why? coz I have swords 1,2 and 2 hand and sabres replica of polish hussar sabre from 1600's sabre is quicker and more operative than any sword. But I see you must see this on your own eyes then buy CS sabre and see yourself. Then we will talk again OK.
GregorMar 9 months ago
@GregorMar Why don't you make said video? You supposedly already have everything you need.
Speed on a sword comes from balance and weight. The hussar sabre is about the length of a viking longsword. I am guessing it is close to the same weight as well (3 lb range). Like the viking sword, it doesn't have a weighted pommel to balance it. Thusly it is no better than a longsword for fencing.
Heavily curved blades like a sabre are near useless against a man with a big shield.
demomanchaos 9 months ago
@demomanchaos Oh I’m sorry but.. Why???? I know this and it is you who claims it is opposite. So you shouls prove your thesis. So please make such vid and show this, prove your thesis. If you want to see how big stabbing power has sabre you may see this on cold steel vid that I gave you. Why you didn't watch this? Similar tests made Polish army in 1930's so this already shows that you are in big mistake. Sabre has 85-95cm long and its weight is 0,75-0,95 kg so it is even longer than longsword.
GregorMar 9 months ago
@demomanchaos And as to Vikings sword... I'm sorry but you have no idea what are you talking again if you saying about fencing with Vikings swords they are not for fencing. After 5 minutes your hand would felt of from tiredness if you would try to use this for fencing. And in reality ANY SWORD will not help you against shield! ANY!!! Did you had shield in your hand?
Watch this: /watch?v=VclUpn3UtkI
GregorMar 9 months ago
@GregorMar Viking swords weigh only 3-5 lbs, which isn't much. You would tire just as fast as you would with an equal weight sabre.
Those blokes were using a cavalry shield. Vast majority of infantry shields were not strapped to the arm. They had a singe handle in the middle behind a metal boss. A strapped shield is far harder to parry with.
I have a center grip shield and it is not impossible to get around. A wrapping attack with the backedge of a straight sword works quite well.
demomanchaos 9 months ago
@demomanchaos I’m sorry my friend but I see that you simply never had real sword in your hand if you say that fighting with non balanced Viking sword is nothing… I’m in medieval fighting society we using Viking swords from X century, medieval long swords and 1,5 and 2 handed swords and I see you never had any sword in your hand. Any of them is not very heavy but to work fencing with not balanced sword is VERY difficult and needs many forces.
GregorMar 9 months ago
@GregorMar I own quite a few actually. I have made a few videos of some basic testing of the (cut and thrust on some cardboard). My least balanced sword is a blade heavy 3.5 pounder. I would rather use something else for fencing, I admit, but it isn't too bad when you work with the weight rather than against it. Just like an axe or mace. If you cannot fight your foe if you are fighting with your weapon.
demomanchaos 9 months ago
@demomanchaos But it is the most important question if you fight with someone using blade you want to win right? And you want to tell me that not balanced blade specially designed for fencing is better? 0_o... 3,5 pound is almost 1,6 kg wow who made such blade???? It must be really bad replica coz real historic blade weights not more than 1,3 kg 1,5 kg weights 2 handed swords. So if you want to fight and win you need really good balanced blade for long fights not for 10 minute of fight.
GregorMar 9 months ago
@GregorMar It isn't a replica, but it is the same weight as a viking sword. A 2 hander could weight between 6-10 pounds. 3.5 is nothing. Majority of single handled longswords did not have a counter weight to balance it, especially in the dark ages. Most were used with a shield in the off hand. A blade heavy balance helps deliver hard hits. Grab any hammer, hold it near the end of the handle and whack something. The move your hand near the head and whack again. The first whack will stronger.
demomanchaos 9 months ago
@demomanchaos Everything what is not made in original times is replica. :-) so if you have blade made now then it is a replica. Really any, ANY real viking sword never weight 6-10 punds!!! it is 4,5 kilogram!!! Where have you read such nonsense? I'm living in North western Poland where in X was many Slaves living and fighting together with the vikings. 130 km fro me is island Wolin which was the biggest medival town where Polish Slavs were living with vikings, and together go for wars on Europe
GregorMar 9 months ago
@GregorMar Viking 1 handed swords are 3-5 lbs, late period 2-handed great swords (claymore, gothic zweihander, etc.)are the ones that could weight 6-10 lbs.
demomanchaos 9 months ago
@demomanchaos Polish Slavs were allays of vikings and daughter of Polish high Dux was mother of all Viking kings, so here on this terrain archeologists found many viking swords and any of them didn't weight more than 2 kg! ANY! 4,5 kg do you even have idea how to fight with this? Even executioner's sword weight only 3,5 kg and it was made specially for executions not for fight. So you have to read something wrong coz any real sword could weight so much it would be not possible to use in fight.
GregorMar 9 months ago
@GregorMar We are in 2 different weight units here. 3.5 pounds is about 1.6 kg. Most 1 handers were in the 3-5 pound range. Some late medieval 2 handers weighed in the 6-10 pound range. 10 lbs being about 4.5 kg.
demomanchaos 9 months ago
@demomanchaos OK so sabre had 0,75-0,90 kg, swords 1 and 1,5 handed 0,80-1,3 kg and two handed 1,5/1,8- had MAX 3 kg and you said about 4,5 kg viking sword it is impossible.
GregorMar 9 months ago
@GregorMar No. READ, >4.5 kg late medieval 2 handers. 1.6-(about) 2.3 kg for a viking 1 hander.
demomanchaos 9 months ago
@demomanchaos
European sword weight is a confusing issue, but fortunately there is hard scientific data available:
-- swordforum . c o m /forums/showthread . p h p ?105673-Debunking-European-Sword-Myths. (Remove the spaces)
There is no one-handed historical combat sword known which would be heavier than 1,5kg or 3,3 pounds. The so called "bearing swords" or "ceremonial swords" could be about 11kg - but those things were sword-like non-functional objects, not sharpened or heat treated.
Protherium 7 months ago
@demomanchaos In Poland cavalry fought with cavalry in medieval. It is not like in movies as you watch in TV where you see fights from England or France. The biggest medieval battles were on the east. Did you heard about battle of Grunwald 1410 – The biggest medieval cavalry battle ever! Real knights fought with knights using horses not with foot solders. And against armor they used only WARHAMERS (nadziak) and MACES (bulawa)! Not blades! Not swords.
GregorMar 9 months ago
@GregorMar Your argument was about the sabre they used, not the hammers. That is like saying the katana is the best weapon ever then saying the samurai used a kusarigama against armor when anyone brings up the katana's ineffectiveness against armor. A warhammer is quite unwieldy and not much good for fencing. Hussars had quite a lot of gaps in their armor where you could easily put a sword in. By your logic, the unweildy warhammer will be useless for fencing and thus the hussar is good as dead.
demomanchaos 9 months ago
@demomanchaos Katana is not the best weapon ever on the contrary it is the biggest myth ever. But sabre is the best white weapon ever especially polish hussar sabre from 1600's coz it has special element called paluch (thumb) thanks to which cuts are quicker more precise and more powerful. As to medieval fights, knights used lances and then when they broke them use weapons and they try not to fence only to kill the enemy as quick as possible so they use warharmers and maces.
GregorMar 9 months ago
@GregorMar The most effective bladed weapon is actually the gothic flammenschwert. The ricassa allows you to use the balanced 7-9 pound blade like a polearm for surprising agility. It will easily outcut a sabre (double the mass, comparable speed, do the math). Its 60-80 inch length meant you could keep your enemy at a distance. You can use the pommel as a blunt weapon. It can chop like no other, the pommel can crush like no other, and the kriss style blade delivers a nasty thrust wound.
demomanchaos 9 months ago
@demomanchaos :-P who said you this??? uhahahahaha no sorry man but really from where you have such opinion :-p How you would fight with this from horse back??? :-P still the best weapon is sabre. you know why? coz it is lighter then usual sword, it is longer, quicker, you may stab and cut and you may use two sabres at once if you can fight with left and right hand. So you will always have advantage with two blades on someone with one blade. And two handed blade is always slower.
GregorMar 9 months ago
@GregorMar It is an infantry weapon, primarily made to cut the heads off of pikes but it can cut the heads off of multiple foes with ease. Lightness makes it much less effective against armor. You need weight to deliver force through the armor. The sabre has half the reach of a flammenschwert. Dual wielding swords is something out of Hollywood. The off-hand would use a parrying dagger, not a full size sword. A parrying dagger isn't going to do much good against a great sword.
demomanchaos 9 months ago
@demomanchaos As to hussars first they use long 6,2 - 6,5 meter long lances!!! Longer that Macedonian which had only 5 - 5,5 meters. And after hussar charge almost no one left on the field, and during 200 years they didn't lose even one battle. Of course they were in 5 lost battles but they didn't fight in them coz commanders didn't use them in fight that is why those battles were lost. But hussars during 200 years of their exist never lost their fight. And when they were use then always crushed
GregorMar 9 months ago
@GregorMar Facing unarmored opponents with muskets is not much of a challenge. Even the pikemen of the time were no match for medieval pikes (who saw melee combat much more frequently). In the time of the Hussar, the bayonet didn't exist. Any melee orientated heavy troops would easily decimate unarmored soldiers who weren't trained for melee combat who only had a ranged weapon.
demomanchaos 9 months ago
@demomanchaos Hussars fought with: Swedes (which was called "The best western European army"), Germans, Austrians, Hungarians, Russians, Tatars, Turks (Tatars and Turks, Hungarians use armors: mails and plate armors), and other western infantry coz in Polish forces fot solders were Irish, Scottish and Switzerland foot solders called zaciężni (something like contract solders) coz Poles never uses foot solders. Only cavalry was Polish. So during wars they fought with many types of solders.
GregorMar 9 months ago
@GregorMar The majority of which were using muskets or pikes. I doubt any of the people the Hussar's faced would do well against a medieval army. The bowmen will tear the muskets to shreds (more range and much faster rate of fire, they aren't the best against heavy armor and require more skill than a musket).
demomanchaos 9 months ago
@demomanchaos In reality till 1850 muskets were really weak weapon. After 1860 guns began to have really good range. And I want to remained you that hussars fought with Tatars that they use bows and Hussars ALSO USE BOWS You saw this on old picture that bow is also their weapon. And bowmen are hapless against armored in plate armor units. In 1410 in battle of Grunwald Polish forces defeat the biggest medieval Teutonic Knights army complex from all western knights So they have practice as you see
GregorMar 9 months ago
@GregorMar
I do have to protest your claim that up to 1850 the musket was a very weak weapon. If it's as weak as most people believe, it wouldn't have replaced the bow as the predominant missile weapon all over the globe by the 1700's, ease of use notwithstanding. Properly loaded and used by a skilled individual (and becoming a crack shot with a musket is a he** lot easier than with a bow), a musket is really not inferior to the bow in the areas of accuracy and range, and superior in power.
HaNsWiDjAjA 4 months ago
@demomanchaos
But the artillery of those "people" would tear static formations of medieval bowmen apart. That's how in the end the French managed to beat the English during the Hundred Years War.
HaNsWiDjAjA 4 months ago
@HaNsWiDjAjA They had cannons during the 13th century, but knights were around into the 16th century. What killed off knights is that its much cheaper and easier to arm 1000 peasants with matchlocks and a few days of training than train a handful of knights.
It is indisputable, a melee army will defeat a ranged army in melee. The only question is can the ranged army do enough damage to the melee guys before they get into melee.
demomanchaos 4 months ago
@demomanchaos
I do know that, just thought it's fun to point out.
BTW, knights were not ineffective by firearm equipped infantry, specifically they were made obsoelete by 'reiters', heavy cavalrymen armed with pistols. The proportion of heavy cavalry in European armies did not decrease after the 16th century, if anything they actually increased. The heavy horsemen however became more professional and discarded the lance (ineffective against plate armor).
HaNsWiDjAjA 4 months ago
@demomanchaos their opponents. And after charge they use their sabres (hussar sabres called black sabres) or warharmers or long 1,5 meter long blades called palasz (Backsword). Hussar unit had 150 men and the highest lost ever that was recorded was 50 hussars. And usually they lose only 5-15 men from 150 unit in charge and fight so this shows how powerfull and high qualify solders they were. And they had the best weapon made from Swedish steel: two guns, sabre, backsword, bow, spear, Whammer
GregorMar 9 months ago
@GregorMar Again, look what they were fighting. If they were pitted against a medieval army that was equipped for melee and ready to accept a heavy cavalry charge, the story would be far far different. A musket is of little use in melee and a pike is worthless once you get inside it. And as previously covered, a sabre is of little use against armor. They never faced anything that could have been a threat to them.
demomanchaos 9 months ago
@GregorMar
This is a rather stupid comment, a two handed sword is generally always superior (in a duel on foot) to a one handed sword without shield. Think about it, all else being equal the two hander will have superior speed and striking power, as well as better point control for precise stabbing if necessary.
The szabla is best for fighting unarmored opponents ON HORSEBACK in a melee, that's its function. The hussars also carried koncerz, palasz and czekan to handle other comers.
HaNsWiDjAjA 4 months ago
@HaNsWiDjAjA Stupid is your comment, you have no idea how was fighting with szabla, what is the most funny about medieval and swords speaks such yound Americans as you who knows shit about medieval, only from films made in Hollywood. Szabla was used against ARMORED men it cut steel 0,5 cm root. And as to musket watch this it confirms everything what I said about musket: /watch?v=ZZukxamOoVE
Everything is showed there so there is no sense even to argue with you.
GregorMar 4 months ago
@GregorMar
That show is incredibly flawed from a historical point of view, after all the shooting there is conducted by amateurs. Of course any weapons in the hands of amateurs are rather unimpressive.
For example of how well a musket can perform in the hand of experts, I'd recommend this:
/watch?v=ytk7rN1u_6k
Do you have any proof of szabla cutting through steel? I've never actually seen ANY sword cutting through QUALITY tempered plate armor. It's just not done.
HaNsWiDjAjA 4 months ago
@GregorMar
BTW I saw a lot of edge on edge contact in those videos of szabla fencing, which would've rendered the swords blunt very, very rapidly. Unless the szabla is only sharpened for the first six inch or so of the blade, which was actually common with cavalry sabers.
HaNsWiDjAjA 4 months ago
try stabbing instead!
raztin1 1 year ago
They forget all well artisans and blacksmiths of today know the craft inside and out and make near flawless works of art.
That was not the case in the dark ages. It is possible Helmets where not made near as well from one smith to another and a sword of higher quality could do some damage, slicing a helmet is impossible but crushing into the skull isn't.
Gratch2222 1 year ago
Robert The Bruce a was able to do it with a war axe.
spliffslider 1 year ago
I think that this video actually suggests that the scene in the Bible is feasible. First, the knight has trained all his life with the weapon and the demonstrator has not. Second, the Knight has the energy of the horse's charge to add to his blow and this should not be discounted. Third, the quality of the metal might have varied sufficiently to allow such a blow. Of course, the video also demonstrates the effectiveness of the helmet used by 11th c. knights as depicted in the Bayeau Tapestry!
lebarosky 1 year ago
I guess when a sword actually split a helmet in Medieval Battles what actually happened was that the sword's kinetic energy caused the binding joining the two halves of a helmet bowl to fail. Many cheaper helmets were made by this simple and practical technique.
Or perhaps, as some Roman legionnaires discovered, a bronze helmet is not really up to the task of resisting a blow from a falcata made of Spanish steel. Or Napoleon's dragoons and uhlans facing the British Pattern 1796 sabers.
HaNsWiDjAjA 1 year ago
Katanas are EXTREMELY specialized weapons. They are designed to slice through soft material like clothing, muscle, and bone. They just aren't suited to dealing with armor. You can't slice through metal, it just doesn't work. Best thing to do is try and pierce it with a sharp, rigid point.
crookeyejim 1 year ago
@crookeyejim This style of European sword is a very generalist weapon by comparison. It can pierce, hack, slice, and bludgeon reasonably well, but it can't slice as well as a Katana. Everything else it's going to do considerably better.
crookeyejim 1 year ago
@crookeyejim You can also use it like a lever or a warhammer in the case of hand-and-a half swords. There're way too many European sword styles to make a single comment of "European sword"
HaNsWiDjAjA 1 year ago
excellent helmet. No sword could ever get through that
Kurogasa55 1 year ago
See, look, age-old proof that you should always wear a helmet, it'll save your life, whether be it riding, biking, skiing, skating snowboarding..
or in this case: getting hit in the head with a sword. ^-^
AnGobh 1 year ago
Well the style of the helmet is right out of the Bayeau Tapestry and the Majewski (sp) Bible. But what about the materials? Is the iron used the helmet the same? Is it a steel helmet? I believe the cost of a tempered steel helmet in 1066 might have been prohibitive.
lebarosky 2 years ago
@lebarosky Youre right, I wonder what kind of metal they used, probably in Medieval times, metals for doing helmets where less hard. And also, those guys from medieval times where trained, ..I doubt these old men are a strong as a soldier of the medieval times
lefunz 1 year ago
first fight then talk. We don't feel much not even with poleaxes. days of concusion is rubbish. u'r welcome to hit me with a steel sword anytime.
Helmets were hardened partialy from the beginnig of the 14. century at least.
Wattebauschchen 2 years ago 2
@Wattebauschchen I agree, I have armor too.
255Knights 2 years ago
hey , don't forget that in XII-XIII century helmets was made basically in iron, not hardened steel ( 'til end of XVI century)
FURIEREPAZZO 2 years ago
pardon till the end of XIV century, my mistake
FURIEREPAZZO 2 years ago
It was imposible to make someone wearing helmet unconsious by hitting him with sword. Believe I fight in re-enactment, and I almost do not feel any one handed sword that hit me even those with full force. Hear only BANG
kamikaziu 2 years ago
You fight with steel swords there? Then you're a bunch of crazy fellows, most clubs only allow aluminium.
Ranziel1 2 years ago
not in poland and east ;)
kamikaziu 2 years ago
what? aluminum? in my fightin g association we FIGHT, don't cook!!
FURIEREPAZZO 2 years ago 3
If you really went full force swords against helmet in reenactment, there would be pretty high casualty rates, as swords would glance off helmets and into necks, swords would hit unprotected faces etc. etc. Even if you hit the helmet without the sword glancing off, how do you avoid force being transferred to the head and neck? With sufficient padding the skull will be fine, but the neck will still move according to the blow.
Gilmaris 2 years ago
watch some movies on youtube. Search "grodziec rycerze"
kamikaziu 2 years ago
In my group, we've had people black out, fighting medium-contact, if only for a second or so. Full contact would likely send someone unconscious if it catches a good spot.
Bear in mind while, our minimum helm gauge is 14ga, most medieval equivalents would be thinner.
A heavier helm is better at stopping a blow. Concussion, blackouts etc. Are caused by the brain being sloshed around inside the skull. Heavier helms slow down faster after being hit, and so your head moves less far, at less speed.
Alex231291 2 years ago
It's true what you say about the weight, but we found out that the padding is a most important part in stopping a blow and preventing concussion. A k.o. is more complicated than that, what sends you down is a blow to the chin, nearly never a blow to the upper skull. So the k.o.'s i have seen came from shild blows to the chin, never seen a k.o. with a sword. check out my channel there are plenty full contact vids there.
Wattebauschchen 2 years ago
@Wattebauschchen
A KO has all to do with the strength of the neck, not the head itself. The Norwegian word for concussion translates to "brain shake", and that's essentially what happens. Concussion happens from violent movement of the head, not impact to the head (the impact leads to movement, which then leads to concussion). A head supported by a thick, muscular neck won't move as much, and as such will be harder to KO.
Gilmaris 1 year ago
And that's why a blow like that may leave a man dazed and concussed - because although the skull is protected from penetration, the force is nevertheless transferred to the neck.
Gilmaris 1 year ago
@Gilmaris i'm doing this every goddamn sunday. never went or send anyone into dreamyland (our necks are quiet regular). proper padding and of course a minimum waight of the helmet make KOs very difficult. But it can happen, with thin padding when the energy is transfered directly to your skull you go KO, there you'r right, its as simple as that. I'm just saing: he's making to much fuzz about it.
Wattebauschchen 1 year ago
@Wattebauschchen Indeed he is. I doubt that one would even had gone for the head in a melee as it is so well protected. The neck is a more viable option, don't you agree?
TheScandinavianOne 1 year ago
That is why they used maces.
Godisthebest9 2 years ago
mmmm its just a romantic notion of 'mighty knight slaying with each blow' type thing. full bogus
PearlJamm 2 years ago
I think one of the things they are missing here is the quality of the armour, let's face it, these days we can make helms of the same strength again and again, no problem, but back then, metals would contain far more impurities, possibly weakening the metal. Other problems could be cracks or damage to the helm, or thinner pieces of armour. Still, it is highly unlikely that every strike placed on a helmet would cleave through the metal.
Hrolfgartheviking 2 years ago 3
But by that same rational would not sword blades then have suffered the same disadvantages? Extant helmets actually show pretty strong construction. There may have been freak occurances of a helmet failing under a sword blow. But a sword would not be able to cleave even that helmet in two and also helms mere not really targetted with swords, even if you did cleave it, the swords edge would take damage, so although you might defeat one guy you've ruined your chances of defeating the next.
mrbeast85 2 years ago
Good point, hadn't considered that. I guess the cleaving of a helmet would only happen with a badly made and well-worn helmet, with a very strong and hard sword, probably elaborated on by the writers of the time, I mean, it would make the army you are representing seem so much more mighty.
Hrolfgartheviking 2 years ago
f=ma The artwork depicts mounted combatants charging forward with the attacks. I've seen a reenactor accidentally cleave through a post at not much more than a trot.
charlesdodgeson 2 years ago 3
Again, another very good point, and a knight going at full tilt towards a badly-armoured infantryman wouldn't leave the poor men-at-arms much chance against a horse travelling at a great speed.
Hrolfgartheviking 2 years ago
This has come up previously. The problem is one of momentum, that is mass + speed. Riding a horse at a gallop will add about 30mph onto the speed that the sword is travelling, at best. The part of the sword that you strike with though has the same mass, which is not a great deal. The 30mph extra is not going to produce enough momentum and therefore not enough energy to cleave the helm. The very best that you will get out of it will be a dent which just may have a narrow split or crack.
mrbeast85 2 years ago
Not m+a=f, ma=f. Also, your model is flawed by assuming that only the speed of the horse is added, when also the momentum energy from mass is translated across in large amount. Again 6" post cleft in two by missing the target.
charlesdodgeson 2 years ago
My mistake of course its a product not a sum; still not enough to cleave a helmet though. 6" Post cleft across or down the grain? Was it hard or soft wood? Old or green wood? Quite a lot of variables; chopping into a wooden post does not translate into cleaving a metal helmet . The mass of the horse won't be transmitted into the cut as it is travelling in a different frame of reference to the sword. The only significant variable you are changing in aid of the sword is increasing the speed.
mrbeast85 2 years ago
You have to remember that the Maciejowski Bible is first and foremost a bible. It depicts miraculous biblical events not historical ones therefore biblical heroes are imbued with the strength cleave helms etc. Remember the story of Samson slaying an army with the jawbone of an ass? If we saw that illustrated would we assume that it was real? Helmets don't make good targets for swords for many reasons, why would people have bothered wear helms if they could be cleaved open so often?
mrbeast85 2 years ago 14
@mrbeast85
Wasn't Samson also blind when he slayed the thousand?
alcoatari 1 year ago
@mrbeast85
Some soldiers were not well off enough to have metal helms. There are accounts of soldiers wearing leather helms, and these guys were the ones getting their heads cleaved in despite wearing a "helm".
phalanxbl 4 months ago in playlist Swords
A loooot of myths here in europe.
rapid287 2 years ago
Why does medieval art have to be so lame? No wonder we have myths running around.
And I don't like how 2mm thick steel armor is being portaid as being either heavy or weak. True, it adds weight and has its limits, but if it's designed to be worn for protection and mobility, then that's what it does.
ManintheArmor 2 years ago
thats a good point, if helms could be cleaved open so often then people would have stopped wearing them.
mrbeast85 2 years ago
Well, on the pictures we could see a horsemen. It's a totally diffrent force.
averit 3 years ago
Why would it be a totally different force?
If you were riding a horse when you struck with the sword it would still be a downward strike so the momentum of the horse would have minmal effect.
mrbeast85 3 years ago
Hm, maybe this kind of example: you kick someone while standing still and you kick after a short run and jump. The second option is much more powerful, the same is with horse. The blade is moving not only witha power of your arm but also with a power of the horse speed. Of coursa if horse stands in place there's not much more diffrence [only height].
averit 3 years ago
How fast can a horse gallop? About 35/36 mph and thats a naked horse with no rider. A knight with armour is going to cut that speed. Now the end of that blade is already traveling very fast just swinging it. I doubt that adding the speed of the horse on to it is going to be the difference between it penetrating and not penetrating. Plus there are the practical difficulties of achieving such a powerful stroke while riding a horse in battle, single handed etc etc. It doesn't add up.
mrbeast85 3 years ago
We need a test. ;>
averit 3 years ago
Will that would bring a conclusion but I'll put my money on the sword doing similar damage to this video ie. denting and 'biting' the helmet but no penetrating. If you want to cleave a helmet open you need a weapon designed to do that, either and axe or a war hammer/poleaxe, even then the results might not be as dramatic as you expect.
mrbeast85 3 years ago
And with that thought, you're a complete idiot.
It's not a matter of how fast the horse is moving, it is how much momentum of the the movement imparts.
Plus a war hammer's design wasn't even to cleave armor. It was to bludgeon someone to death by shatter armor and limbs alike.
Think before you post dumbass.
k1ngch0wm31n 2 years ago
Err I think you find that momentum has an element of speed, its a product of the speed and mass of an object. The point is that the sword will never gain enough momentum because it does not have enough mass and it will never attain a high enough speed to produce enough energy to penetrate the helmet. And I think you will find that a war hammer was certainly designed to penetrate armour, for you to suggest that it wasn't shows your unfamiliarity with medieval weapons.
So who is a dumbass?
mrbeast85 2 years ago
A horse's mass and speed combined with a mounted man's mass and speed is what gives the sword its power and momentum.
A war hammer is essentially, a HAMMER designed to strike with massive bludgeoning force.
They might have had a spike on the back of them to pierce armor. In fact, many of them did, but the war hammer's primary method of use was to daze and stun the opponent to set up the piercing blow.
k1ngch0wm31n 2 years ago
No it dosen't quite work like that. You're not hitting the helmet with a horse you are striking it with a sword while riding a horse, the mass of the horse will not be transmitted down your arm into the sword. All riding a horse will do is impart greater velocity to your strike by around 30-35mph(?) The sword will still not build enough momentum to penetrate the helmet it does not have enough mass or velocity.
mrbeast85 2 years ago
A warhamer works by crushing or penetrating, but it evolved into what we would understand as a warhamer primarily because of the need to defeat armour. Concussive weapons such as maces, warhamers and axes are the only reasonably effective way to defeat armour. A sword is not an armour piercing weapon on foot or on horseback, they were simply not used like that, certainly not by cutting.
mrbeast85 2 years ago
I think medieval helmets were less qulity than this on the video. Also, the blow is likely to be more powerful when delivered from a horse that runs at full speed.
Ranziel1 3 years ago
By the 1300s or 1400, is about the same qulity.
255Knights 3 years ago
smoe idiot alraedy said that on another video,and the answer is if the armour were less quality then so is the weapon so the quality is irrelavent.
aries772 2 years ago
Well, the sword look pretty useless, but in XXI century, we have much better steel than in middle ages. In my opinion it's possible to cut the helmet with heavy, sharp broadsword. Maybe not much like it's shown on the medieval icon, but enough to kill human. Sorry for my English by the way. Greetings from Poland :)
gswiaczny 3 years ago
i own a handmade tempered highcarbon steel 38 in broad sword that can barely crack the weakest helmet i have and as for your coment about the metal being worse back then you have to realize if metal for armour was worse then so was the metal used for weapons so it really makes no difference.
aries772 3 years ago
But in middle ages they could make damascus steel for weapos(yes, in Europe too. Polish damascus used since VI-VII century (!!) is named "dziwer"). Ofcourse that was really expensive, so only very rich warriors could have one. Best damascus was made by Jews and Arabic people in Palestina, but european wasn't so bad ;)
gswiaczny 3 years ago
the kind of steel really makes very little difference i have knives made of the hardest steel possible aswell a titanium and they do no better then any other of my very numerous blades. and dont think you know about weapons and armour and actually test things then youll know what your talking about Ive been testing armour and building it aswell as practicing with a variety of weapons for a very long time and am very knowledgable when it comes to armour piercing and its much harder then you think
aries772 3 years ago
Well, I'm making only knives (but I wish to do more in future) but have some experience in weapons and armoury. Of course I don't say that you don't have. I belive you, but in my opinion it's possible, that's all ;) History know accidents, when one warrior could kill 2-3 quite well armoured people at once by slash! It's really unbelievable, but that really was possible. Greetings :)
gswiaczny 3 years ago
LOL, no sword can kill or even hert armor men with a slash...
255Knights 3 years ago
You're an idiot.
Learn to type properly before posting.
k1ngch0wm31n 2 years ago
No thanks.
255Knights 2 years ago
Actually I'd say that history knows of no such incidents as you describe. There are sagas and legends which talk about things like that but they are just stories. People wore armour for a reason; that was that it proteced you from the weapons of the day. If it ceased to offer protection people would cease to wear it as they indeed did as firearms became more effective.
mrbeast85 3 years ago
Oh, and one more thing. I'm a History student on Silesian University, so I think I know history very well (with weapons, armours and tactics too), so don't say "hurray" before you don't jump and land safely ;)
gswiaczny 3 years ago
reading a book dosnt teach such things that we are disccusing i never believe teachers,books etc i only believe it when i test it. for example i shot a 44 special bullet at a 16 gauge mild steel plate and while it did severly dent the steel it did not penetrate. but the larger calibers did.
aries772 2 years ago
The important thing to look at here is energy transfer. Medieval nasal-helms weighted about 2 lbs. You don't have to even dent the helm to knock a man out when the sword tip is moving at about 160 mph and is delivering about 160 lbs of concentrated force on the edge.
Modern SCA helms weight about 8 lbs in order to absorb the impact. The rattan swords we use also give more and spread the impact over a wider surface.
tsafa1 3 years ago
The Maciejowski Bible pictures do tell us some very important things even if they exaggerated the effects a little bit. It tells us for certain armored heads were certainly a good target area to aim at.
tsafa1 3 years ago
There are helmets that are only 3.5 to 4.3 lbs and they are GOOD for combat! They need to be made of Hardened Steel or Spring Steel!
SCA helms weight about 8 lbs? Holy hell!!!
Is that needed? What sort of crappie steel is it made of?
255Knights 3 years ago
They can be stainless steel or mild steel. Stainless is easier to maintain, mild is cheaper but more historic and rusts. The are 14 gage in thickness at the light end, and 12 gage at the heavy end.
I don't think you have been hit on the head at full power. Even with these heavey duty helmets and padding on the inside, people sometimes see stars when hit hard. People often add aventails to the helm for neck protection and to add more mass to the helm.
tsafa1 3 years ago
Just to clarify further, a sword tip weights about 1 lb and will often accelerate to 160 mph. That is about 160 lbs of force transferred from the edge of the sword to the head. When someone gets hit hard you will often see that 8 lb helm jolt. We might get hit 50 times in a single practice in the head. If the helmet was a historical 2 or 3 lbs, we would be getting cases of brain damage over time. Historically soldiers spent more time marching ,guarding and moving earth then anything else.
tsafa1 3 years ago
I see I see, but armor and helmets were not mild steel; they were made by Hardened Steel or Spring Steel which is very, very, very strong... But if you do that now a days it would cost a pretty penny for some reason. (Even though it was the standard for steel armor back then)
255Knights 3 years ago
The great thing about tempered steel is that you can have something that is as thin as 22 gage still stop a sword cut. If it is not tempered it would bend. That is fine over you arm or leg because you can take more punishment there and not get hurt. The head is a different matter. You have to do more then just stop the sword from cutting your head, you have to keep your head from getting jolted. When your head gets jolted your brain slams into the inside of your head and you get knocked out.
tsafa1 3 years ago
This is a similar to a situation of getting into an accident in a car or in a truck. In a car you bounce around more. In a truck, you will not unless you hit another truck of similar mass. So the mass itself is protection to being jolted. Tempering can not make up for the protection of mass. It is a compromise that allows you to cover your whole body at a fraction of the weight. Tempered plate was only used for a short period of time.
tsafa1 3 years ago
Prior to the 14 th century mail, leather or linen was more common. Coats of plates were used but this was just chest plate. Tempered plate was used in 15th century but as gun fire became common in the 16th century they went back to more thick untempered plates that covered just their chest and head. The compromise was to just protect the vital areas. You see this commonly in painting of Spanish Conquistadors. Those chest plates are to stop musket balls, not swords.
tsafa1 3 years ago
Modern steel helmets are made from better quality steel than helmets from a thousand years ago, but even so, I have to agree with their results to some extent. It's much more probable that the sword would glance of the helmet and hit the shoulder than actually cut through the steel. Greatly depends on the shape of the helmet too.
relicen1 3 years ago
intresting but its all on how well is the weapon is made (a katana manage to do a 3-4 inch gash on a helmet), what weapon is used(an ax or a pick will really be effective) and the method the blow is dealt
boomstix 3 years ago
Yes, well as we all know, Katana's if dropped actually cut through the whole earth and travel right the way through the centre to china. Western Longswords on the other hand at are made of concrete and are as sharp as my finger.
I have very little doubt that a katana would be no more succesful and would take even more damage from such a blow.
Asgath 3 years ago 41
heheh okay no need to be sarcastic, anyway i saw a sword vs katana test on youtube too long ago so i gope its still there
boomstix 3 years ago
watch deadliest warrior that chaimaille put a katana to shame.
aries772 2 years ago
well thats a bit logical sonsidering chainmail is soft enough to absorb blows, I mean the chain mail is made to protect against slashing not stabbing which katana ia a slashint weapon. but i gotta admit I still have this small flisker of anticipation the katana might scratch it
boomstix 2 years ago
The fuck you talking about?
savagesnowball 3 years ago
@Asgath as sharp as your finger?
come on..
Emanusmell 1 year ago
@Asgath one of the best commentt i have ever seen about katanas and swords
slavuBOG 1 year ago
hey
where i can get this film?pls help,very interesting!
bogatur 3 years ago
Weapons that made Britain, download on Bit Torrent.
tsafa1 3 years ago
a knight would have been far stronger and have been able to put much more weight behind the sword
antoriamemphis 3 years ago
wieght or no wieght a medieval knight was smaller than the modern man it dosnt matter admit it
aries772 3 years ago 3
Swords work on speed rather then power. If you accelerate the tip to 160 mph it is going to hit with a concentrated force of about 160 lbs. The advantage of strength is that a stronger man needs less of a windup to get to that speed. Less of a windup means less of a tell to your opponent.
tsafa1 3 years ago
He didn't see if it damaged the sword at all. I'd think it might.
chorkybrenner 3 years ago
it does i do these kind of test alot and you would be suprised at how useless swords become against armour.
aries772 3 years ago
What show is this? Seems rather interesting.
1337pede 3 years ago
It's called "Weapons that made Britain" & is part of a series.
Drzacksmith 3 years ago