I'm no expert in armor at all. But if I would guess I would say that they have different pros and cons. Both would stop a sword cut effective and a thrust to some degree. Riveted ringmail is more flexible than lamellar. This will let you move freely. But because it have more flex it does not distribute the force of a blow as well.
@gurkfisk89 Yeah i would say lamellar is good for all purpose defense but riveted chainmail worn over padding could be equally effective but just more flexible
@gonefishingstudios lamellar. both are effective against cuts though the lamellar does distribute the force better, resulting is less blunt trauma. Against pierces the lamellar is better hands down. mail armor has always been poor against piercing blows simply due to how it's made, and the design philosophy behind it.
@Yeomanv10 : Riveted maille is actually quite effective at stopping thrusts. This has been demonstrated many times. Could it go through? Yes. Is it likely to go through? No.
In the viking sagas there are accounts of warriors using their spear to lift up and under the maille of another warrior to stab them. If that wasn't necessary, they wouldn't have done it.
@gonefishingstudios : It depends on what you're going for. Both would stop a cut fine. Both would (if wearing proper padding underneath) likely stop a pierce from most weapons. The disadvantage to protection with maille is that crushing attacks would kill you, while you'd be more likely to survive in lamellar. Though maille would be more maneuverable. Don't listen to tripe about maille not taking thrusts, they don't know what they are talking about.
In combat there are many light and annoying hits, that wouldn't kill you, but they can cut skin. It's hard to fight when you have many shallow, but bleeding cut wounds. Chainmail was to prevent them.
@Oskareczekeczek If you check out "Mail, Unchained" at myarmoury.c om (remove the space) there's a lot of sources saying riveted mail did vastly more than that. IE: it stopped arrows and lances charging from horseback.
There are few surviving examples of butted mail, and it is generally excepted to not have been in widespread use in europe due to this fact.
What is under the mail is important as it was never used standalone; modern tests and study have shown that mail was practically useless without some form of padding.
I suggest reading this: ww w. myarmoury .c om/feature_mail. h tml
The padding that is completely necessary for mail to do it's job partially protects against blunt trauma. While a solid hit to the weak joint of the knee might still break it, the area the impact force is spread across makes it bearable on places like the torso. A Mace or hammer now, is another story.
Whoa, what kind of sword is that? And to everyone btw: enough with the sword vs sword boys vs girls vodka vs moonshine wars. Why not learn to go beyond the basics of whatever is out there and then dominate with whatever choice you love? A true master of swordplay knows its only a tool - creativity, ability, and passionate sincerity are much more powerful. How else can a stick beat a cutting tool?
@SavageInsight That's a falchion. And proper equipment matters in war, when you pit two trained men against each other. Stick can beat a cutting tool when there is no armor involved and one strike will be fatal anyway.
@WitheringintheDark That's weird. From what I've gathered, messer and falchion are pretty much the same thing, the only element that distinguishes them from one another is the pommel - round for falchion, curved lopsided for messer, and this sword has a round pommel...
just saying, the video is from thearma.org and it states it's a Messer, and i've read that there are Some minor differences but i have to get back to work, so maybe i'll find and post them later.
Here's something on the topic: ww w. myarmoury. co m/talk/viewtopic .php?t=8806
Hilts is the biggest difference, falchion having a typical sword hilt, while the messer had a hilt like modern steak knives, with a very knife-like blade profile that lacks the 'flare' that a falchion has at it's center of percussion and is slimmer in general. The article explains and links to more. Take care and good hunting, mate.
@conncork I'm pretty sure that the producers of Deadliest Warrior were using a single layer of simple butted mail (the individual rings are pinched shut) with nothing backing up the mail. I would be willing to bet that if they had substituted a proper riveted mail the results would have been much, much different (and less dramatic).
@DeusEx1977 In some episodes they use riveted mail (like against a katana), in other they use butted mail (against katar). I guess it's just another proof of that show being just that, a spectacle, when they need dramatic outcomes and everything is directed.
@HaNsWiDjAjA you wouldnt just wear maille over your skin, you wear it over a padded gambison that has leather over that as well. then on top of that you wouldn't try to block an attack with your arm... c'mon man, think at least a little bit before posting.
@seanschwei I know all that you nimrod, but a powerful blow from a two handed sword is still quite likely to cause an awful bruise if not a broken arm. Now a halberd or dane axe, that would definitely shatter some bones although it would still be hard to penetrate the maille (!). And who ever thinks that the point of wearing armor is so that you can block an attack with your body parts? What are shields for then?
@HaNsWiDjAjA you made an incomplete statement and punctuated it with "?", just thought i'd get that out of the way first. never said the point of armor is to block with your body part. nobody is going to stand and let you hit them hard enough with a good clean shot to break your bones, not unless you sneak up and get a good "sucker punch" in, but then why not just go for the head? at this point with the armor technology, to win a fight, the combatants had to outlast their enemy.
@seanschwei I am just trying to emphasize my point by asking an obvious question, of why someone would be stupid enough to think that in my first comment I was implying the point of wearing armor was to let the other person hit me while I stood around doing nothing. At this point of armor technology you can also win a fight by hitting the person where he is not protected by armor (face, lower arms and legs) or by using a concussive weapon like a mace.
@HaNsWiDjAjA your original comment leads into the idea that you didnt not know how maille was meant to be worn or the concepts of dodge and parry, it's not my fault you don't express yourself the way you mean to.
No doubt on the blunt force comments. That's why you don't want to take a direct hit. You want to turn in, deflect out, and so forth with light armor or no armor.
just don't use "Mail" as a gorget, your neck could smart to a retardation from the colotial arterie rupturing your left hemi. I would imagine also, that could break an arm if inside that chain mail.
In my opinion if you were wearing chainmail and got hit like that it would still kill you or injure you severely. All that chainmail is doing is taking the edge off that sword, its doing nothing to save you from the blunt trauma.
It would be no different that getting hit (wearing no armor) by a narrow heavy length of steel, its still going to fuck you up. You dont have to get cut to die in my opinion.
Mail was usually worn over a padded Gambeson or Aketon which absorbed the blunt trauma of a blow. Thats not to say that blunt trauma was never a problem but the combination of mail over padding was a very effective defence.
@mrbeast85 Well i have seen a video (forgot what it was called). In which about 10 pigs we're laid out on the ground with a Padded leather layer under riveted mail, and a Longsword was smashed against it. When they looked at the sword there was some imprints of the mail on the blade. When they removed the mail no damage was done to the leather. However when they removed the leather Pig flesh was stuck to it as they were peeling it up. Not a pretty sight.
One thing to remember... sometimes armour won't prevent you from getting hurt, but it still might prevent you from getting killed. Better to have a broken wrist than a severed hand, for example.
O yea? well how about getting smacked in the chest on top your vital organs? you dont think that would ruin your day? if nothing else a broken rib,sternum, clavicle etc. would take you out of the fight.
Hmmm, I already tried that after I read your first comment and didn't find any. Which leads me to conclude that there aren't any. Which is in line with the fact that Katanas or any other sword for that matter won't cut through mail 'like butter'. Thats why people all over the world used it as protection for somewhere around 2,000 years.
Yea, chainmail is pretty tough stuff. Arrows and spears can punch through it sometimes. And ofcourse a heavy sword or an axe would probably break an arm or rib. But that stuff is pretty damned slash resistant. I realy dont see anything lighter than a scottish claymore wielded by a professional body builder actualy cutting that. Simple physics will tell you a hard but flexable material with a squishy backing=hard to cut. The opposing forces just arent there.
I was not able to find these alleged videos. And anyway, the katana is not a magical weapon. The Celts were using the same folding techniques nearly 2000 years earlier, and abandoned them in favor of superior techniques developed later on (for example, the plaited blades used by the vikings).
That's all very well, but unless you had a bloody thick arming jacket under that you'd probably still be in trouble if sombody were to go for you like that.
The majority of bone breaks can be fairly easily reset with simple medical knowledge...of course some breaks would be death for people in those times but there were many who recovered from horrendus injury - people were harder in those times because the weak died off before adulthood mostly.
I still think that the majority of the warriors were at least crippled after such a blow. Even the toughest man can be taken down by a blood poisoning even if he would survive the broken bone.
Again it depends...there are records of people literally having the faces smashed in and wax and glue being used to piece them together again and they survived. In the stone ages some people survived having holes drilled in their head....humans wouldn't be at the top of the food chain if most people died easily from wounds. Again natural selection ensured the weak died young in previous ages...today the weak are kept alive by medincines and better nutrition.
Dude, thats an old way of thinking. There MAYBE SOME truth of what you said, but thats is not 100% at all.
I was premature baby and burned very weak. They say I was suppose to be weak, or be in a wheelchair. Here I am, played 6 years of football, sword fighting in ARMA, and about to go in to the army soon. Tank God for modern medincines.
Natural selection, is more random selection, as for death takes the weak or the strong, as well the rich or the poor.
But yea, there is SOME truth on what he says. But not 100%
To a point I agree with him, but not 100%
Natural selection a bit is more random then not... Sense it is, the strong has a better chance to survive on that environment... My point was the main flaw was that; the Spartans were killing off weak babies because they thought they would be weak people when older. That is not true what so ever... Those babies had so much potential later on...
Dont forget a live human would move to absorb the hit and come out unharmed, while conversely such a forceful blow leaves you wide open for parry and riposte.
"Ah, you have demonstrated the strength of your arm, but not the sharpness of your sword." Saladin to Richard the Lion Heart in some old black and white movie I forgot the name of...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The katana was an amazingly crafted blade....but that doesn't make it the best. Mostly, their quality came from the folded steel and...THE BLACKSMITH! A more skilled smith would craft a better sword, plain and simple. I feel that if the same master smith made bot a European longsword and a katana, they would be equal. I'm sure that some European smiths were able to make far better swords than some Japanese smiths. The main reason katana were often better (if they were) was Japanese smiths looked
Why do people keep on going with this "X country had better swords/martial arts/monkeys than Y country"? The katana is no better or worse than the European bastard sword. It has a wee bit of a disadvantage when it comes to range, but the poor quality of Japanese iron is made up for by the folded metal that people seem to think made katanas better than all other swords. Fighter > Nationality of Equipment.
@blackking1 The katana is basically the Desert Eagle of swords; over-hyped and over-rated. That isn't to say that they aren't excellent swords, they're just no 'better' or 'worse' than other swords from other countries like you said.
Actually in that respect, comparing a katana to a Desert Eagle doesn't do them much justice (let's ignore that I'm drawing an analogy between a sword and a gun, here) because katanas are still as effective and reasonable as any other sword. Desert Eagles, well...
@MGlBlaze well, lol, not exactly... (i'm only picking this apart for fun btw) but a desert eagle can do WAY more damage than say... 9mm. in terms of firing into a vest rated for small arms fire the 9mm wont penetrate but the much more devastating desert eagle would pierce it like it wasnt even there. so saying that the katana is like the d.eagle in a sense that its overrated and just as effective as any other sword is terribly inaccurate..... lol, and i know what you meant but bad analogy.
@seanschwei I never said the Desert Eagle was usueless, but it is stupidly impractical most of the time. It's not much lighter than an M4A1, for a start. That and I'd like to see it get through any millitary-grade body armour. Comparing it to other handguns, the S&W 500 is still lighter (depending on the model) and it can't beat the practicality of am M1911 (It's been in service for over 100 years for a good reason).
It works, but I'd rather have almost anything else given the choice.
@seanschwei I will qualify my statement by saying I don't know THAT much about guns; I'm just going by what I've managed to dig up. I could be wrong (and if so; ok.) but right now I still don't think a Desert Eagle is much use. Maybe it's okay for hunting (and I would expect the .357 version to be a bit more practical) but I doubt it has much use beyond that besides looking impressive.
@MGlBlaze tactical vests even worn in our military are only rated for small arms fire up to 9mm, it's the balistics plate in the vest that ups the rating, i wore one for 5years including 2tours in iraq and i was hit twice, i have personal experience and know what the vests can take. i don't think anybody would go into combat with one as a main weapon but it could prove useful to have that pwr handy if needed. you could pop a guy behind a brick wall with a d.eagle, wouldnt be able to with an m4a1
@seanschwei much lighter than an m4a1, i'm assuming you dont have any idea how much an m4 loaded with lots of combat goodies weighs, do you? with a tac light, acog, ir lazer, front grip, loaded magazine with an attached second magazine it weighs twice as much. even more with a 203. nobody carries 1911's into combat, we dont even really carry the barreta and it's actually in service, i never had one and i was even a driver for a year. and S&W 500's are revolvers, deagles are semi so no contest
@seanschwei Deagles are semis, but they are rather wobbly in the reliability department which cancel out the advantage of faster reloading, etc. The recoil is also rather punishing for any kind of long firefight, it's nowhere near as good for long range target compared to an M4 and rate of fire sucks.
Conclusion: I'd rather a coupla of extra magazines for my M4 rather than the deagle; not that I'll pick an M4 as my rifle given the choice. My preference is for the M14 or AR-10.
@HaNsWiDjAjA i never said replace a main weapon choice with a d.eagle for combat situations, and why would you pick an m14 or ar-10 over an m4 or m16a4 for any kind of combat situation? do you even have any combat experience with any of those to even have a real opinion or is that all based off of playing CoD or something, or do you go hunt deer with an ar-10? you know the "rate of fire" for most all semi-auto weaps is faster than you can pull the trigger?
@seanschwei Even as a sidearm I won't pick the desert eagle because of its questionable reliability and excessive recoil. By rate of fire I meant the effective amount of hits I can get on target in a set amount of time, this category is in my consideration very important in the choice of a combat pistol, thus I'll take a 1911 or Hi-power over a deagle any day. Granted my choice of a .308 calibre weapon over a .223 one is not suitable for every combat situation, but it would be for most.
@HaNsWiDjAjA ok, here's the deal on pistols in actual combat and why a d.eagle is your best friend over w/e you decide on. bottom line, if in any case you are reduced to the use of a side-arm in a fire-fight your chances of survival drop to nearly nothing, odds are you're gonna die. talking about versatile/reliability of a pistol in combat is pointless. once you lose your rifle you are percieved as less threatening and the enemy moves in on you. 1911's aren't much of a deterrent.
@seanschwei now on the other hand. if the enemy starts to move in and the next sound they hear is from a d.eagle and they don't see it. they don't know wtf could be wating for them. d.eagles are a hell of a lot more intimidating than a 1911. that and if you manage to hit someone with it especially in a limb and others see the damage caused by it, that's a scary thing to move in on. thats the reality, a d.eagle would at least give you more time to hold out for help if theres any coming
@seanschwei While the noise and muzzle blast a deagle cause is definitely intimidating, it also make it so much harder to hit ur target properly. A hit from a .50 AE is not that much more devastating than a hit from a .45 ACP, it won't chop off limbs, etc especially if it's firing FMJ rounds that the military uses exclusively (assuming FMJ .50 AE rounds actually exist, that is) Talking about holding out, the deagle only has 7 rounds in it, how long do you think you can actually last?
@HaNsWiDjAjA m16/4s arent built like tanks, neither are m249s, or the baretta 9mm. you keep bringing up reliability as if a well maintained d.eagle has a supremely high chance it wont fire when needed, thats just crazy. and you also cling to the idea that a sidearm is going to last you in a shootout against assault rifles. you dont need to hit your target, it would be better for obvious reasons. if nobody is coming to the rescue and you have only a pistol youre dead anyway, scarier = better
@seanschwei I didn't say all military firearms are built like tanks, apparently the American military uses many that aren't. I never said that a pistol can replace an assault rifle in a firefight, whoever give you that idea? And you don't need to hit your target? What happened to the riflemen's creed?
@HaNsWiDjAjA i can tell you've never been in a firefight before, even if you are in the military you still havent actually experienced combat on a front line. you could be a cook or something. you're judging weapons like you're picking them for an online match in CoD. you have absolutely no real world experiance. why do you continue? and yes, the d.eagle is better for that specific situation because it's more intimidating. only 7 in a mag, true, so have a few extra. don't weigh that much.
@seanschwei Apparently you have something against military cooks, well lets just say that whatever the quality of food they serve I respect the service they provide for this country. That said I'd say that bottom line the desert eagle is never used in the American military by real front line combat soldier, even by Spec Op guys who have the means to use them (many of whom preferred the 1911).
@HaNsWiDjAjA have nothing against cooks it was an example of a non-combat mos, don't try to make it into something it isn't. you didn't take into account the rest of the statement i made about hitting the target so i'll just leave that alone, the creed is exclusive to the marines and it's not 100% true. it's also very cultish served with a side of brainwash. this whole arguement is speculation and opinion. i gave my opinion and the reasons i support it that arent false.
@seanschwei So you believe that the Deagle is a much better sidearm because the noise it made is so intimidating? Well in that case reliability is VERY important, b'coz what's the point of hauling around a four pound hunk of metal when it won't go bang coz it can't tolerate a little bit of dirt or some bad ammo from foreign suppliers? That's why most military firearms are built like tanks.
Aye, I agree with you, but I wouldn't compare the katana to a European bastard sword, both the grip and the acute point vary too much and the katana is actually a cutting sword, which would make me compare it to a much favored European cutting sword instead - the falchion. I believe that the falchion could produce roughly the same results as a katana.
@Lotharswe Isn't a falchion usually heavier and rather less stabby than a katana? In that case, falchions and katana would be rather different in their use.
@Lotharswe Falchion's mostly a one handed weapon, so probably not. The results would be pretty similar though. The european equivalent to the katana in terms of blade design would be the grosse messer.
@WitheringintheDark Im sorry but that video you sent me I really dont find to be neither scientific nor historically accurate enough to be taken seriously.
No targets where hanging from a thread in a real medevil battle, they were either standing up or laying down. As ilustraded in many books and paintings the more armored knights and important persons were often taken to the ground before being stabbed to death by various stabbing weapons, including the bastard sword.
The punching bag was used to simulate the give and movement of an actual foe on a battlefield. The padding used was quite accurate. Pierce was the wrong word, meant break(late night posting) as none of the links were broken as can be seen, but the XVIa pierced several inches in on a few occasions, which could have been lethal. If you have a better demo i'd Love to see it, but as it stands those are probably the most true to form tests available on youtube for the time being.
@WitheringintheDark Theres no give and take when a target is laying down. Also on a battlefield theres not enough room to move around, you are in formation with men to your left, right and behind you.
Here is a video that will prove my point about swords vs chainmail. It is not a bastard sword but it is a one handed sword. Just imagine what a two handed grip could do...
/watch?v=O-9I-Imp5BE&feature=related
No katana could do that so theres not really any point in arguing. Sword > katana.
You do realize the mail shown in that video is butted right? THAT, is historically inaccurate and unscientific. It also isn't supported properly nor does it have padding. See? I can dismiss a video too.
There also is no proof saying a katana couldn't do that as well.
While it is true stabbing at a fallen foe would be far more effective, the Arma hellas video applies quite well to a standing opponent.
@WitheringintheDark Butted chainmail is not inaccurate at all. It was the earliest form of mail which later evolved. It was also cheaper than any other mail which is why it was used to such extend.
What was under the mail has no meaning what so ever because the test is only to prove that its possible to break the mail itself, not the person under it.
A swinging target will not act anything alike a stationary target. The impact and the momentum wont be the same. Its the laws of physics.
@WitheringintheDark The reason behind so little butted chainmails being found in europe is because it wasent something to be burried with. It was for the common soldier not a king or a rich noble. As we know, most found items are from rich people. In Asia butted mail was infact used by rich people.
What is under will not change the impact on the mail itself, thus it is of no importance.
A step back isint a swinging motion. Again, there was rarley room to even take one step back in formations.
In regards to 2, tests have shown that the addition of thick felt or leather padding greatly increases the force it takes to compromise the mail, as told in the article I linked you. It Does change the impact on the mail itself.
Asian butted was also different; theirs was oft double layered wire, which negates the weaknesses of regular butted mail as it cannot simply be pulled open.
Also, I was refering to the Hellas video, not the one on the punching bag.
You see this also in the videos on the side by tarrachalfson; the spear penetrates the mail alone easy, but fails when it is placed over leather. Padding effects the amount of force it takes to break mail, period.
@WitheringintheDark Watched the testing he did. In that case he only used a small piece of mail and small pieces of fabrik and leather. Having layers of small pieces hanging loose like that will make the "package" slide around on impact. Add a swinging target on top of that... Again its the laws of physics speaking.
Historically speaking, there is a reason why mail was removed from the battlefield, it could be penetrated by various weapons. Funny that you removed your previous post btw.
@moOswe Is there any reason to believe butted mail was used by anyone? I ask because butted mail vs padding or hardened leather, butted mail is more expensive, less protective and heavier - why would anyone wear it? About mail being removed from the battlefield, it lasted for a good while from 400 BC to around 1400 AD, far longer than it would have lasted if it was easily or reliably penetrated by various weapons. Butted mail could be the earliest form of mail, but would not remain in use long.
@Railstarfish Why was it used? Larger metal parts were very expensive also very hard to make and it took time to produce. Small rings on the other hand could be massproduced. Therefore it became much cheaper compared to any other metal armor.
Compared to padding and leather even a butted mail is way more protective against cuts and glancing blows. Of course you didint just use mail as it was because of the heavy impacts any weapon dealt at the time. Broken arm > chopped off arm.
@moOswe The expense argument does not fit when riveted mail does not require larger metal parts and yet still provides *vastly* more protection than butted mail. If you can make mail for combat, you can make it riveted.
According to the video you provided (the Conquest one) butted mail does not stop much. I'll try to find tests involving leather armour, but generally what I have seen does as good if not better than the mail in that video. Hardened leather + padding can be worn together as well.
@Railstarfish What you fail to understand is that riveted mail requieres much more advanced technology and skill to produce. What many people also fail to understand is that mail does not only come in one pattern. What you saw in the video I sent was a simple 4 in 1 pattern. Theres more patterns that are at least twice as strong if built right. 8 in 2 was one of them
But then again, riveted mail is ofcourse the better version. More expensive perhaps but way stronger even in the weaker patterns.
@moOswe Perhaps I fail to understand because you fail to explain it. Why would riveted mail require much more advanced technology and skill? The extra technology and skill required (ww w.forth-armoury.c om/research/theory_and_technique.h tm# _ Toc456772087) appears to be a hammer, tongs, a hole punch, and a plate to rest the ring with a small hole for the rivet, none of which seem difficult for any period smith. If you make mail at all you have already done most of the work towards riveted.
@Railstarfish You speak of these tools as if you could go down to the supermarket and pick one up just like that... Every added tool would cost you a great sum of money. If it costed you it would cost your customer.
You must also understand that every added process is time consuming. Time means money. Before you can even get your mail done you have to make the rings. Only making the rings took time. For every reveted mail you could at least make 2 butted ones. Ive made em myself, I know.
@moOswe You speak as if a smith wont have a hammer and tongs, or as if a flat surface with a small hole or depression in is a great expense. The hole punch may be harder to produce, but is reusable and not unreasonable to expect of one getting orders for mail in the first place.
I certainly see butted being cheaper/easier, but even at 1/3 the price of riveted, butted mail still has minimal protection while weighing as much as the heaviest armours of the day. I think it would phase out fast.
@moOswe I did some research on the time/cost of butted v riveted mail, and fully riveted can take 4 times as long, but with alternating riveted & solid rings it would only take around 2 times as long. Labour costs were lower prior to the Black Death, materials were the major cost, and the raw materials were the same for butted or riveted mail. My point is that the protection difference between butted & riveted mail is huge, but the weight and materials (main reasons not to use mail) were small.
@moOswe Like I said, 1000-1350 AD, aka, prior to the Black Death. After 1400-1450 plate armour is cheaper than either form of mail so the whole issue becomes moot. Pre-Black Death, the raw materials are simply too costly to deliberately make terrible armour from.
The sword weilder is the Shit! Awsome guy, saw him on the discovery channel showing medevil sword techniques and he destroyed my movie thoughts about how they used to sword fight. love it, give us more vids!
Huh? Arguments of katana fanboys? You clearly don't know enough about katanas and the people you usually argue with don't even know how to use them so they shouldn't even deserve to argue about them.
I know plenty about katanas. I also have the common sense to know that no sword, katana or not, can cut through other swords, plate armor, or whatever bullshit you people claim it can do.
You clearly don't know enough about european swords.
heh, there is for example a discovery channel documentary, where alleged "experts" state with all seriousness that katana can cut through other swords, metal armor and such bullshit, and there is a frightening amount of people who still adhere to this mentality. I don't mean to imply that you are one of those of course.
Wait, do you have two accounts or something, because it says that NetVoyagerOne said that to me. Any way, Discovery Channel? Bleh! National Geographic is better and they only proved that the katana was the ultimate sword, not that it could cut through other swords lol.
Hold on a second there. Why exactly would katana be "the best sword in the world?" I really can't see any reason for that, it's a very good sword yes, fast, excellent cutting ability, but thats it. other swords can be just as good or better at certain tasks, some are either more versatile or specialized for different things(thrusting, etc). And before you bring the whole process of production, folding and all that, it's nothing special really.
Oh no, I wasn't going to say the forging process. That would be pointless to say. I was going to say what you are able to use if for. Like you said, it's a very good sword, fast, excellent for cutting/slashing, AND you can still thrust with it. It has all the qualities a sword can have. Besides having a hidden gun, stop watch, calender, etc(swords have those things???? jk)
No design can have all qualities a sword can have. When you optimize one quality, it's going to downgrade a second one. ie, if you make a curved blade to optimize slashing, you are sacrificing thrusting ability. if you make a shorter blade in order to fasten it, you sacrifice reach, and so on.
There are swords that are more versatile, some have longer reach and better thrusting ability, some offer better guarding capabilities due to crossguard, etc.
LOL, ok. So a katana has the same reach as a zweihander? no. Does it have the same maneuver speed and point control as a rapier? no. Does it have the same thrusting and warding ability of a longsword? no. Can it be used effectively with a shield? no. etc. no sword can have "all the qualities", each is specialized for certain thing, just as a submachine gun is close quarters and a sniper rifle is long range. is one better than other? no. If you can't understand this simple thing I can't help you.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Ok, reach has nothing to do with it, if you are good with a katana you can be just as fast as with a rapier, and it is a good thruster. How can it not be used effectively with a shield? ANY sword is usable with a shield. Don't tell me I can't understand it, I understood what you meant with the guns, but that's different. And no offense, but I did not, nor do I WANT you help.
It is a fairly good thruster, but you can hardly argue that there are swords that are BETTER at thrusting than katana is. It's basic common sense that a straight double edged sword will thrust better than curved single edged one. And reach has a lot to do with it, try fighting with a katana against a polearm if you don't believe me. Anyway if you want to stick to your history channel convictions at all costs regardless of any arguments I rest my case.
So why are we having this conversation if you basicly admit that that every sword is optimized for something? That if I need superb thrusting I better take something else, since nothing can have "all the qualities"? That basicly it comes down to specific circumstances and personal preference, rather than one design being "the best"?
No, you said that it has all the qualities and is the best sword ever created, which is plain ridiculous .
Next time say that katana is the best overall sword IN YOUR OPINION(as opposed to some objective truth) and noone will bother you.
I could brag about how cruciform swords are near as fast while being better at thrusting, have the crossguard for parrying and binding, have longer reach and employ more various techniques but that's really not my point.
Unless you were knocked down, then the swordsman standing could go in for the kill... either with a dagger or his sword... daggers penetrate better though.
Japanese armour was *sometimes* lighter, but then the O-yoroi could often be heavier than European full plate harness. That's because although the individual parts of the armour is often lighter, there's more of it. A full suit of Japanese armour is very boxy, making the samurai LESS agile than a fully plated knight. I dare say the O-yoroi afforded the same protection, though.
Yes well, that's why O-yoroi were not used, for the infantry.
Though japanese armour was often lighter and less protective. In europe, we had more protective armour, and therefore weapons that could better get through armour.
None of that affects speed.
Endurance perhaps, but not speed.
That is affected by the mobility of the armour, which I believe, was more advanced, in europe. (the japanese may have been able to compensate for that, at the cost of the protection, on certain areas, though)
I would beg to differ. Even clothing affects speed. Try running buck naked, fully clothed and fully armoured. You will notice differences in speed between all of these.
Now, this does not mean that you'll be SLOW in armour, not at all. But to say that speed is unaffected is inaccurate. Rather, speed is not affected as much as many people would think.
Also, just like in Japan, most European infantry didn't have that great armour. The knights were the ones with the best (and most) armour, just as the samurai were. Now, the O-yoroi could only be afforded by the most high ranking samurai. What restricted movement was the size and shape of the helmet, shoulder guards, thigh guards and what was common to all samurai: the puffy hakama. While far from difficult to move in, it is nevertheless not as aerodynamic as it could be.
"Japanese maille was mainly used to armor joints."
...for which European mail was also, sometimes used.
"It's also lighter, which is better for Japanese combat, which places more emphasis on speed, rather then raw power."
That is pure prejudiced nonsense.
Medieval combat was not about raw power. Any medieval army, that would have emphasised raw power, at the expense of speed, would quickly have been eradicated.
That aint really true, alot of medieval sword fights wer slow, and relied on the skill and fitness of the fighter often using the swords weight along with raw power to drive through enemy armour such as plate and chain, because the only way to break chain is the crush through it or simpley bludgen the enemy to death. Alot of people on the medieval battlefield composed of lines of men using long spears/ pikes/ polearms with fewer knigths either on horse back or skirmishing on the field
And what is your source, for that (mis)information?
First of all, none of that, implies that the fights would become slow.
Also there is no reason to break mail. I've seen a video clip where they cut a slab of meat, protected by mail. The mail is intact, but not the meat.
As to plate armour, you don't hack, cut or slash at it, unless you are using a mace or war hammer (or possibly hitting the head, to stun). As to how you use a sword vs plate, check the terms "harnisfechten" and "half sword"
yea thats why i said you can bludgen through chainmail, sorry i didnt mean crushin through plate armour but the best way if you want to slice your enemy is to crush through the chainmail breaking the links. Depending on the weapon such as a Bastard Sword along with full plate the combat would be slow especially when wairing chain and plate, or faster if wearing a brigadeen.
Oh and my source for the information is Medieval Renacting, do you do it and if so what period?
I think that sword is supposed to be falchion/messer, but looks FAR more like a Chinese Dao. Anyway, still a cool video.
mojothemigo 1 month ago
What would be more effective , Steel plate Lammelar or riveted chainmail?
gonefishingstudios 5 months ago
@gonefishingstudios
I'm no expert in armor at all. But if I would guess I would say that they have different pros and cons. Both would stop a sword cut effective and a thrust to some degree. Riveted ringmail is more flexible than lamellar. This will let you move freely. But because it have more flex it does not distribute the force of a blow as well.
gurkfisk89 5 months ago
@gurkfisk89 Yeah i would say lamellar is good for all purpose defense but riveted chainmail worn over padding could be equally effective but just more flexible
gonefishingstudios 4 months ago
@gonefishingstudios lamellar. both are effective against cuts though the lamellar does distribute the force better, resulting is less blunt trauma. Against pierces the lamellar is better hands down. mail armor has always been poor against piercing blows simply due to how it's made, and the design philosophy behind it.
Yeomanv10 3 months ago
@Yeomanv10 : Riveted maille is actually quite effective at stopping thrusts. This has been demonstrated many times. Could it go through? Yes. Is it likely to go through? No.
In the viking sagas there are accounts of warriors using their spear to lift up and under the maille of another warrior to stab them. If that wasn't necessary, they wouldn't have done it.
Halofreakanoid 1 month ago in playlist All ARMA Vids
@gonefishingstudios : It depends on what you're going for. Both would stop a cut fine. Both would (if wearing proper padding underneath) likely stop a pierce from most weapons. The disadvantage to protection with maille is that crushing attacks would kill you, while you'd be more likely to survive in lamellar. Though maille would be more maneuverable. Don't listen to tripe about maille not taking thrusts, they don't know what they are talking about.
Halofreakanoid 1 month ago in playlist All ARMA Vids
In combat there are many light and annoying hits, that wouldn't kill you, but they can cut skin. It's hard to fight when you have many shallow, but bleeding cut wounds. Chainmail was to prevent them.
Oskareczekeczek 7 months ago
@Oskareczekeczek If you check out "Mail, Unchained" at myarmoury.c om (remove the space) there's a lot of sources saying riveted mail did vastly more than that. IE: it stopped arrows and lances charging from horseback.
Railstarfish 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@moOswe
There are few surviving examples of butted mail, and it is generally excepted to not have been in widespread use in europe due to this fact.
What is under the mail is important as it was never used standalone; modern tests and study have shown that mail was practically useless without some form of padding.
I suggest reading this: ww w. myarmoury .c om/feature_mail. h tml
WitheringintheDark 7 months ago
Does anyone else see that that isn't a Katana?
TemplarBard 9 months ago
even with chainmail i would be so scared to get slashed. your not getting cut but your going to get a lot of your bones broken in the process
ishouldplayzelda 9 months ago
@ishouldplayzelda
The padding that is completely necessary for mail to do it's job partially protects against blunt trauma. While a solid hit to the weak joint of the knee might still break it, the area the impact force is spread across makes it bearable on places like the torso. A Mace or hammer now, is another story.
WitheringintheDark 8 months ago
Whoa, what kind of sword is that? And to everyone btw: enough with the sword vs sword boys vs girls vodka vs moonshine wars. Why not learn to go beyond the basics of whatever is out there and then dominate with whatever choice you love? A true master of swordplay knows its only a tool - creativity, ability, and passionate sincerity are much more powerful. How else can a stick beat a cutting tool?
SavageInsight 11 months ago 2
@SavageInsight That's a falchion. And proper equipment matters in war, when you pit two trained men against each other. Stick can beat a cutting tool when there is no armor involved and one strike will be fatal anyway.
Ranziel1 11 months ago 2
@Ranziel1
The website the video is from states it is a messer. Just sayin'. I agree with the rest of the post.
WitheringintheDark 8 months ago
@WitheringintheDark That's weird. From what I've gathered, messer and falchion are pretty much the same thing, the only element that distinguishes them from one another is the pommel - round for falchion, curved lopsided for messer, and this sword has a round pommel...
Ranziel1 8 months ago
@Ranziel1
just saying, the video is from thearma.org and it states it's a Messer, and i've read that there are Some minor differences but i have to get back to work, so maybe i'll find and post them later.
WitheringintheDark 8 months ago
@Ranziel1
Here's something on the topic: ww w. myarmoury. co m/talk/viewtopic .php?t=8806
Hilts is the biggest difference, falchion having a typical sword hilt, while the messer had a hilt like modern steak knives, with a very knife-like blade profile that lacks the 'flare' that a falchion has at it's center of percussion and is slimmer in general. The article explains and links to more. Take care and good hunting, mate.
WitheringintheDark 8 months ago
@SavageInsight many fell in the vodka vs moonshine wars so much loss so much blood and precious alcohol spilled
lockbreak12 8 months ago
Please take a look at this video Deadliest Warrior : Thrand's reply to Roman Vs. Rajput 2 of 2
conncork 1 year ago
@conncork I'm pretty sure that the producers of Deadliest Warrior were using a single layer of simple butted mail (the individual rings are pinched shut) with nothing backing up the mail. I would be willing to bet that if they had substituted a proper riveted mail the results would have been much, much different (and less dramatic).
DeusEx1977 1 year ago
@DeusEx1977 In some episodes they use riveted mail (like against a katana), in other they use butted mail (against katar). I guess it's just another proof of that show being just that, a spectacle, when they need dramatic outcomes and everything is directed.
Ranziel1 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I tested chainmail against shorter blades if you guys want to see it.
PcGenie1 1 year ago
So verdict....mail can stop sword cuts but not its wearer from getting broken bones?
HaNsWiDjAjA 1 year ago
@HaNsWiDjAjA you wouldnt just wear maille over your skin, you wear it over a padded gambison that has leather over that as well. then on top of that you wouldn't try to block an attack with your arm... c'mon man, think at least a little bit before posting.
seanschwei 1 year ago
@seanschwei I know all that you nimrod, but a powerful blow from a two handed sword is still quite likely to cause an awful bruise if not a broken arm. Now a halberd or dane axe, that would definitely shatter some bones although it would still be hard to penetrate the maille (!). And who ever thinks that the point of wearing armor is so that you can block an attack with your body parts? What are shields for then?
HaNsWiDjAjA 1 year ago
@HaNsWiDjAjA you made an incomplete statement and punctuated it with "?", just thought i'd get that out of the way first. never said the point of armor is to block with your body part. nobody is going to stand and let you hit them hard enough with a good clean shot to break your bones, not unless you sneak up and get a good "sucker punch" in, but then why not just go for the head? at this point with the armor technology, to win a fight, the combatants had to outlast their enemy.
seanschwei 1 year ago
@seanschwei I am just trying to emphasize my point by asking an obvious question, of why someone would be stupid enough to think that in my first comment I was implying the point of wearing armor was to let the other person hit me while I stood around doing nothing. At this point of armor technology you can also win a fight by hitting the person where he is not protected by armor (face, lower arms and legs) or by using a concussive weapon like a mace.
HaNsWiDjAjA 1 year ago
@HaNsWiDjAjA your original comment leads into the idea that you didnt not know how maille was meant to be worn or the concepts of dodge and parry, it's not my fault you don't express yourself the way you mean to.
seanschwei 1 year ago
i think its a dao, or chinese broad sword.
1aken2 1 year ago
*has not read other comments*
These look like ARMA guys.
AndPious 1 year ago
No doubt on the blunt force comments. That's why you don't want to take a direct hit. You want to turn in, deflect out, and so forth with light armor or no armor.
Lachdenan 1 year ago
just don't use "Mail" as a gorget, your neck could smart to a retardation from the colotial arterie rupturing your left hemi. I would imagine also, that could break an arm if inside that chain mail.
fucheduck 1 year ago
with the mat they used it looks like he would have broken a leg. the mats are ment to be equale to bady parts and that one looks leg sized
kokofan50 1 year ago
The actual tatami test requires a bamboo shaft in place to simulate bone where as the mat by itself is meant to simulate human meat/flesh.
Also remember that they mention he hit "in the same spot" which suggests that that area has been beat on before.
brainplay 1 year ago
i know it needs the bamboo i just didn't know if it had it in it or not. the hit in the same spot i din't hear
kokofan50 1 year ago
I'm curious as to what kind of sword he is using. Is it a Falchion, Langes Messer?
elbowtko 2 years ago
Comment removed
Fargbollen 2 years ago
In my opinion if you were wearing chainmail and got hit like that it would still kill you or injure you severely. All that chainmail is doing is taking the edge off that sword, its doing nothing to save you from the blunt trauma.
It would be no different that getting hit (wearing no armor) by a narrow heavy length of steel, its still going to fuck you up. You dont have to get cut to die in my opinion.
crudestkill 2 years ago 3
Mail was usually worn over a padded Gambeson or Aketon which absorbed the blunt trauma of a blow. Thats not to say that blunt trauma was never a problem but the combination of mail over padding was a very effective defence.
mrbeast85 2 years ago 6
@mrbeast85 Well i have seen a video (forgot what it was called). In which about 10 pigs we're laid out on the ground with a Padded leather layer under riveted mail, and a Longsword was smashed against it. When they looked at the sword there was some imprints of the mail on the blade. When they removed the mail no damage was done to the leather. However when they removed the leather Pig flesh was stuck to it as they were peeling it up. Not a pretty sight.
runescapefreak1245 7 months ago
One thing to remember... sometimes armour won't prevent you from getting hurt, but it still might prevent you from getting killed. Better to have a broken wrist than a severed hand, for example.
Kunstdesfechtens 2 years ago 6
Getting smacked in the arm with a metal stick isn't going to kill you dipshit.
Osutin 2 years ago
O yea? well how about getting smacked in the chest on top your vital organs? you dont think that would ruin your day? if nothing else a broken rib,sternum, clavicle etc. would take you out of the fight.
crudestkill 2 years ago
I think this is why they sometimes wore semi-thick leather underneath the chain-mail. It helped absorb and distribute some of that force.
Theshadowrazor 2 years ago
agreed
SuperSaydrian 2 years ago
They have videos of katana cutting through chain mail like butter.
Godisthebest9 2 years ago
And where are these videos located?
mrbeast85 2 years ago 2
youtube
Godisthebest9 2 years ago
But you could actually point to one of these videos?
mrbeast85 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yea search for it under katana cutting chainmail, I could careless if you belive me, but look for yourself
Godisthebest9 2 years ago
Hmmm, I already tried that after I read your first comment and didn't find any. Which leads me to conclude that there aren't any. Which is in line with the fact that Katanas or any other sword for that matter won't cut through mail 'like butter'. Thats why people all over the world used it as protection for somewhere around 2,000 years.
mrbeast85 2 years ago
If you say so....
Godisthebest9 2 years ago
Yea, chainmail is pretty tough stuff. Arrows and spears can punch through it sometimes. And ofcourse a heavy sword or an axe would probably break an arm or rib. But that stuff is pretty damned slash resistant. I realy dont see anything lighter than a scottish claymore wielded by a professional body builder actualy cutting that. Simple physics will tell you a hard but flexable material with a squishy backing=hard to cut. The opposing forces just arent there.
hybredmoon 2 years ago
I was not able to find these alleged videos. And anyway, the katana is not a magical weapon. The Celts were using the same folding techniques nearly 2000 years earlier, and abandoned them in favor of superior techniques developed later on (for example, the plaited blades used by the vikings).
zenbastard0 2 years ago
I have to say, you're full of shit, Godisthebest9.
Ranziel1 2 years ago
Whatever you say.
Godisthebest9 2 years ago
Well, getting your ribs broken in combat means death. Since, the enemy wouldn't stop after one strike.
Ranziel1 2 years ago
holy crap!
medievallover120 2 years ago
That's all very well, but unless you had a bloody thick arming jacket under that you'd probably still be in trouble if sombody were to go for you like that.
T'is a good test of strength though.
dom1940 2 years ago
Indeed - but better a broken bone than severed arm lol
Optimusnorm 2 years ago
I dont think it matters, back then I think they pretty much both meant death.
Bombur86 2 years ago
The majority of bone breaks can be fairly easily reset with simple medical knowledge...of course some breaks would be death for people in those times but there were many who recovered from horrendus injury - people were harder in those times because the weak died off before adulthood mostly.
Optimusnorm 2 years ago
I still think that the majority of the warriors were at least crippled after such a blow. Even the toughest man can be taken down by a blood poisoning even if he would survive the broken bone.
Bombur86 2 years ago
Again it depends...there are records of people literally having the faces smashed in and wax and glue being used to piece them together again and they survived. In the stone ages some people survived having holes drilled in their head....humans wouldn't be at the top of the food chain if most people died easily from wounds. Again natural selection ensured the weak died young in previous ages...today the weak are kept alive by medincines and better nutrition.
Optimusnorm 2 years ago
Dude, thats an old way of thinking. There MAYBE SOME truth of what you said, but thats is not 100% at all.
I was premature baby and burned very weak. They say I was suppose to be weak, or be in a wheelchair. Here I am, played 6 years of football, sword fighting in ARMA, and about to go in to the army soon. Tank God for modern medincines.
Natural selection, is more random selection, as for death takes the weak or the strong, as well the rich or the poor.
255Knights 2 years ago
Thank*
255Knights 2 years ago
Modern medicine? OMG
valueoftruth 2 years ago
Yea I meant to say medicines...
But yea, there is SOME truth on what he says. But not 100%
To a point I agree with him, but not 100%
Natural selection a bit is more random then not... Sense it is, the strong has a better chance to survive on that environment... My point was the main flaw was that; the Spartans were killing off weak babies because they thought they would be weak people when older. That is not true what so ever... Those babies had so much potential later on...
255Knights 2 years ago
Dont forget a live human would move to absorb the hit and come out unharmed, while conversely such a forceful blow leaves you wide open for parry and riposte.
Dabljuh 2 years ago
He cut a piece of tatami with a very weak strike in the beginning.
Ranziel1 2 years ago
"Ah, you have demonstrated the strength of your arm, but not the sharpness of your sword." Saladin to Richard the Lion Heart in some old black and white movie I forgot the name of...
cryora 2 years ago
Yet strength helps, as well as skill, you can't have one or the other and expect to use larger weapons.
Go 2-h swords (That weight out at 7-8lb)
Adalore 2 years ago
2-h swords that are 75n long that is. And even then they are about 61/2 lbs...
255Knights 2 years ago
61 Pounds... 30'ish Kilos...
Have you ever held a sword?
Or lifted any thing that heavy and swung it about?
Adalore 2 years ago
oops duur, no space made me think 61, not 6 and a half, spaces are your friend.
But on the 6 pounds, that would be more of a large bastard sword, possibly a armed sword.
Adalore 2 years ago
A Long Sword is about 3 to 3 1/2 lbs....
255Knights 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
saying which martial art is better doesn't make a person different than KKK members.
siegfried 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
...at sword crafting as a spiritual art and therefore may have done better job most of the time.
atterucedbarra 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The katana was an amazingly crafted blade....but that doesn't make it the best. Mostly, their quality came from the folded steel and...THE BLACKSMITH! A more skilled smith would craft a better sword, plain and simple. I feel that if the same master smith made bot a European longsword and a katana, they would be equal. I'm sure that some European smiths were able to make far better swords than some Japanese smiths. The main reason katana were often better (if they were) was Japanese smiths looked
atterucedbarra 2 years ago
Why do people keep on going with this "X country had better swords/martial arts/monkeys than Y country"? The katana is no better or worse than the European bastard sword. It has a wee bit of a disadvantage when it comes to range, but the poor quality of Japanese iron is made up for by the folded metal that people seem to think made katanas better than all other swords. Fighter > Nationality of Equipment.
blackking1 3 years ago 41
finally someone with a clear head. i totally agree with you.
haniffali 2 years ago 5
@blackking1 The katana is basically the Desert Eagle of swords; over-hyped and over-rated. That isn't to say that they aren't excellent swords, they're just no 'better' or 'worse' than other swords from other countries like you said.
Actually in that respect, comparing a katana to a Desert Eagle doesn't do them much justice (let's ignore that I'm drawing an analogy between a sword and a gun, here) because katanas are still as effective and reasonable as any other sword. Desert Eagles, well...
MGlBlaze 1 year ago
@MGlBlaze well, lol, not exactly... (i'm only picking this apart for fun btw) but a desert eagle can do WAY more damage than say... 9mm. in terms of firing into a vest rated for small arms fire the 9mm wont penetrate but the much more devastating desert eagle would pierce it like it wasnt even there. so saying that the katana is like the d.eagle in a sense that its overrated and just as effective as any other sword is terribly inaccurate..... lol, and i know what you meant but bad analogy.
seanschwei 1 year ago
@seanschwei I never said the Desert Eagle was usueless, but it is stupidly impractical most of the time. It's not much lighter than an M4A1, for a start. That and I'd like to see it get through any millitary-grade body armour. Comparing it to other handguns, the S&W 500 is still lighter (depending on the model) and it can't beat the practicality of am M1911 (It's been in service for over 100 years for a good reason).
It works, but I'd rather have almost anything else given the choice.
MGlBlaze 1 year ago
@seanschwei I will qualify my statement by saying I don't know THAT much about guns; I'm just going by what I've managed to dig up. I could be wrong (and if so; ok.) but right now I still don't think a Desert Eagle is much use. Maybe it's okay for hunting (and I would expect the .357 version to be a bit more practical) but I doubt it has much use beyond that besides looking impressive.
MGlBlaze 1 year ago
@MGlBlaze tactical vests even worn in our military are only rated for small arms fire up to 9mm, it's the balistics plate in the vest that ups the rating, i wore one for 5years including 2tours in iraq and i was hit twice, i have personal experience and know what the vests can take. i don't think anybody would go into combat with one as a main weapon but it could prove useful to have that pwr handy if needed. you could pop a guy behind a brick wall with a d.eagle, wouldnt be able to with an m4a1
seanschwei 1 year ago
@seanschwei much lighter than an m4a1, i'm assuming you dont have any idea how much an m4 loaded with lots of combat goodies weighs, do you? with a tac light, acog, ir lazer, front grip, loaded magazine with an attached second magazine it weighs twice as much. even more with a 203. nobody carries 1911's into combat, we dont even really carry the barreta and it's actually in service, i never had one and i was even a driver for a year. and S&W 500's are revolvers, deagles are semi so no contest
seanschwei 1 year ago
@seanschwei Deagles are semis, but they are rather wobbly in the reliability department which cancel out the advantage of faster reloading, etc. The recoil is also rather punishing for any kind of long firefight, it's nowhere near as good for long range target compared to an M4 and rate of fire sucks.
Conclusion: I'd rather a coupla of extra magazines for my M4 rather than the deagle; not that I'll pick an M4 as my rifle given the choice. My preference is for the M14 or AR-10.
HaNsWiDjAjA 1 year ago
@HaNsWiDjAjA i never said replace a main weapon choice with a d.eagle for combat situations, and why would you pick an m14 or ar-10 over an m4 or m16a4 for any kind of combat situation? do you even have any combat experience with any of those to even have a real opinion or is that all based off of playing CoD or something, or do you go hunt deer with an ar-10? you know the "rate of fire" for most all semi-auto weaps is faster than you can pull the trigger?
seanschwei 1 year ago
@seanschwei Even as a sidearm I won't pick the desert eagle because of its questionable reliability and excessive recoil. By rate of fire I meant the effective amount of hits I can get on target in a set amount of time, this category is in my consideration very important in the choice of a combat pistol, thus I'll take a 1911 or Hi-power over a deagle any day. Granted my choice of a .308 calibre weapon over a .223 one is not suitable for every combat situation, but it would be for most.
HaNsWiDjAjA 1 year ago
@HaNsWiDjAjA ok, here's the deal on pistols in actual combat and why a d.eagle is your best friend over w/e you decide on. bottom line, if in any case you are reduced to the use of a side-arm in a fire-fight your chances of survival drop to nearly nothing, odds are you're gonna die. talking about versatile/reliability of a pistol in combat is pointless. once you lose your rifle you are percieved as less threatening and the enemy moves in on you. 1911's aren't much of a deterrent.
seanschwei 1 year ago
@seanschwei now on the other hand. if the enemy starts to move in and the next sound they hear is from a d.eagle and they don't see it. they don't know wtf could be wating for them. d.eagles are a hell of a lot more intimidating than a 1911. that and if you manage to hit someone with it especially in a limb and others see the damage caused by it, that's a scary thing to move in on. thats the reality, a d.eagle would at least give you more time to hold out for help if theres any coming
seanschwei 1 year ago
@seanschwei While the noise and muzzle blast a deagle cause is definitely intimidating, it also make it so much harder to hit ur target properly. A hit from a .50 AE is not that much more devastating than a hit from a .45 ACP, it won't chop off limbs, etc especially if it's firing FMJ rounds that the military uses exclusively (assuming FMJ .50 AE rounds actually exist, that is) Talking about holding out, the deagle only has 7 rounds in it, how long do you think you can actually last?
HaNsWiDjAjA 1 year ago
@HaNsWiDjAjA m16/4s arent built like tanks, neither are m249s, or the baretta 9mm. you keep bringing up reliability as if a well maintained d.eagle has a supremely high chance it wont fire when needed, thats just crazy. and you also cling to the idea that a sidearm is going to last you in a shootout against assault rifles. you dont need to hit your target, it would be better for obvious reasons. if nobody is coming to the rescue and you have only a pistol youre dead anyway, scarier = better
seanschwei 1 year ago
@seanschwei I didn't say all military firearms are built like tanks, apparently the American military uses many that aren't. I never said that a pistol can replace an assault rifle in a firefight, whoever give you that idea? And you don't need to hit your target? What happened to the riflemen's creed?
HaNsWiDjAjA 1 year ago
@seanschwei
desert eagles are novelty weapons with a cool name and giant bullet, theyre not serious
theyre the equivalent of the "parade swords" of late medieval times, stuff embarrassing teenagers are into
Novantii 1 year ago
@HaNsWiDjAjA i can tell you've never been in a firefight before, even if you are in the military you still havent actually experienced combat on a front line. you could be a cook or something. you're judging weapons like you're picking them for an online match in CoD. you have absolutely no real world experiance. why do you continue? and yes, the d.eagle is better for that specific situation because it's more intimidating. only 7 in a mag, true, so have a few extra. don't weigh that much.
seanschwei 1 year ago
@seanschwei Apparently you have something against military cooks, well lets just say that whatever the quality of food they serve I respect the service they provide for this country. That said I'd say that bottom line the desert eagle is never used in the American military by real front line combat soldier, even by Spec Op guys who have the means to use them (many of whom preferred the 1911).
HaNsWiDjAjA 1 year ago
@HaNsWiDjAjA have nothing against cooks it was an example of a non-combat mos, don't try to make it into something it isn't. you didn't take into account the rest of the statement i made about hitting the target so i'll just leave that alone, the creed is exclusive to the marines and it's not 100% true. it's also very cultish served with a side of brainwash. this whole arguement is speculation and opinion. i gave my opinion and the reasons i support it that arent false.
seanschwei 1 year ago
@seanschwei So you believe that the Deagle is a much better sidearm because the noise it made is so intimidating? Well in that case reliability is VERY important, b'coz what's the point of hauling around a four pound hunk of metal when it won't go bang coz it can't tolerate a little bit of dirt or some bad ammo from foreign suppliers? That's why most military firearms are built like tanks.
HaNsWiDjAjA 1 year ago
@blackking1
Aye, I agree with you, but I wouldn't compare the katana to a European bastard sword, both the grip and the acute point vary too much and the katana is actually a cutting sword, which would make me compare it to a much favored European cutting sword instead - the falchion. I believe that the falchion could produce roughly the same results as a katana.
Lotharswe 1 year ago
@Lotharswe Isn't a falchion usually heavier and rather less stabby than a katana? In that case, falchions and katana would be rather different in their use.
FrisianDude 1 year ago
@FrisianDude katanas are not "stabby" weapons, however, anything with a point an be used in a thrusting fassion. katanas are slashing/cutting weapons
seanschwei 1 year ago
@Lotharswe Falchion's mostly a one handed weapon, so probably not. The results would be pretty similar though. The european equivalent to the katana in terms of blade design would be the grosse messer.
halfassedfart 1 year ago
@blackking1A katana was a cutting weapon while the bastard sword was WAY more versatile. For example:
A bastard sword could penetrate chainmale with a stab unlike the katana. Thus they are nothing alike.
moOswe 8 months ago
@moOswe
While I agree, the contention that a bastard could pierce mail with a stab is false. See here:
watch?v=kAm8FTScXWA and watch?v=kl-ec6Ub7FM
WitheringintheDark 8 months ago
@WitheringintheDark Im sorry but that video you sent me I really dont find to be neither scientific nor historically accurate enough to be taken seriously.
No targets where hanging from a thread in a real medevil battle, they were either standing up or laying down. As ilustraded in many books and paintings the more armored knights and important persons were often taken to the ground before being stabbed to death by various stabbing weapons, including the bastard sword.
moOswe 8 months ago
@moOswe
The punching bag was used to simulate the give and movement of an actual foe on a battlefield. The padding used was quite accurate. Pierce was the wrong word, meant break(late night posting) as none of the links were broken as can be seen, but the XVIa pierced several inches in on a few occasions, which could have been lethal. If you have a better demo i'd Love to see it, but as it stands those are probably the most true to form tests available on youtube for the time being.
WitheringintheDark 8 months ago
@WitheringintheDark Theres no give and take when a target is laying down. Also on a battlefield theres not enough room to move around, you are in formation with men to your left, right and behind you.
Here is a video that will prove my point about swords vs chainmail. It is not a bastard sword but it is a one handed sword. Just imagine what a two handed grip could do...
/watch?v=O-9I-Imp5BE&feature=related
No katana could do that so theres not really any point in arguing. Sword > katana.
moOswe 7 months ago
@moOswe
You do realize the mail shown in that video is butted right? THAT, is historically inaccurate and unscientific. It also isn't supported properly nor does it have padding. See? I can dismiss a video too.
There also is no proof saying a katana couldn't do that as well.
While it is true stabbing at a fallen foe would be far more effective, the Arma hellas video applies quite well to a standing opponent.
WitheringintheDark 7 months ago
@WitheringintheDark Butted chainmail is not inaccurate at all. It was the earliest form of mail which later evolved. It was also cheaper than any other mail which is why it was used to such extend.
What was under the mail has no meaning what so ever because the test is only to prove that its possible to break the mail itself, not the person under it.
A swinging target will not act anything alike a stationary target. The impact and the momentum wont be the same. Its the laws of physics.
moOswe 7 months ago
Comment removed
WitheringintheDark 7 months ago
@WitheringintheDark The reason behind so little butted chainmails being found in europe is because it wasent something to be burried with. It was for the common soldier not a king or a rich noble. As we know, most found items are from rich people. In Asia butted mail was infact used by rich people.
What is under will not change the impact on the mail itself, thus it is of no importance.
A step back isint a swinging motion. Again, there was rarley room to even take one step back in formations.
moOswe 7 months ago
@moOswe
In regards to 2, tests have shown that the addition of thick felt or leather padding greatly increases the force it takes to compromise the mail, as told in the article I linked you. It Does change the impact on the mail itself.
Asian butted was also different; theirs was oft double layered wire, which negates the weaknesses of regular butted mail as it cannot simply be pulled open.
Also, I was refering to the Hellas video, not the one on the punching bag.
WitheringintheDark 7 months ago
@moOswe
You see this also in the videos on the side by tarrachalfson; the spear penetrates the mail alone easy, but fails when it is placed over leather. Padding effects the amount of force it takes to break mail, period.
WitheringintheDark 7 months ago
@WitheringintheDark Watched the testing he did. In that case he only used a small piece of mail and small pieces of fabrik and leather. Having layers of small pieces hanging loose like that will make the "package" slide around on impact. Add a swinging target on top of that... Again its the laws of physics speaking.
Historically speaking, there is a reason why mail was removed from the battlefield, it could be penetrated by various weapons. Funny that you removed your previous post btw.
moOswe 7 months ago
@moOswe Is there any reason to believe butted mail was used by anyone? I ask because butted mail vs padding or hardened leather, butted mail is more expensive, less protective and heavier - why would anyone wear it? About mail being removed from the battlefield, it lasted for a good while from 400 BC to around 1400 AD, far longer than it would have lasted if it was easily or reliably penetrated by various weapons. Butted mail could be the earliest form of mail, but would not remain in use long.
Railstarfish 7 months ago
@Railstarfish Why was it used? Larger metal parts were very expensive also very hard to make and it took time to produce. Small rings on the other hand could be massproduced. Therefore it became much cheaper compared to any other metal armor.
Compared to padding and leather even a butted mail is way more protective against cuts and glancing blows. Of course you didint just use mail as it was because of the heavy impacts any weapon dealt at the time. Broken arm > chopped off arm.
moOswe 7 months ago
@moOswe The expense argument does not fit when riveted mail does not require larger metal parts and yet still provides *vastly* more protection than butted mail. If you can make mail for combat, you can make it riveted.
According to the video you provided (the Conquest one) butted mail does not stop much. I'll try to find tests involving leather armour, but generally what I have seen does as good if not better than the mail in that video. Hardened leather + padding can be worn together as well.
Railstarfish 7 months ago
@Railstarfish What you fail to understand is that riveted mail requieres much more advanced technology and skill to produce. What many people also fail to understand is that mail does not only come in one pattern. What you saw in the video I sent was a simple 4 in 1 pattern. Theres more patterns that are at least twice as strong if built right. 8 in 2 was one of them
But then again, riveted mail is ofcourse the better version. More expensive perhaps but way stronger even in the weaker patterns.
moOswe 7 months ago
@moOswe Perhaps I fail to understand because you fail to explain it. Why would riveted mail require much more advanced technology and skill? The extra technology and skill required (ww w.forth-armoury.c om/research/theory_and_technique.h tm# _ Toc456772087) appears to be a hammer, tongs, a hole punch, and a plate to rest the ring with a small hole for the rivet, none of which seem difficult for any period smith. If you make mail at all you have already done most of the work towards riveted.
Railstarfish 7 months ago
@Railstarfish You speak of these tools as if you could go down to the supermarket and pick one up just like that... Every added tool would cost you a great sum of money. If it costed you it would cost your customer.
You must also understand that every added process is time consuming. Time means money. Before you can even get your mail done you have to make the rings. Only making the rings took time. For every reveted mail you could at least make 2 butted ones. Ive made em myself, I know.
moOswe 7 months ago
@moOswe You speak as if a smith wont have a hammer and tongs, or as if a flat surface with a small hole or depression in is a great expense. The hole punch may be harder to produce, but is reusable and not unreasonable to expect of one getting orders for mail in the first place.
I certainly see butted being cheaper/easier, but even at 1/3 the price of riveted, butted mail still has minimal protection while weighing as much as the heaviest armours of the day. I think it would phase out fast.
Railstarfish 7 months ago
@Railstarfish I have to ask you what era you think we are talking about here?
moOswe 7 months ago
@moOswe I didn't have a particular era in mind, but if picking one I'd go for 1000-1350 AD. Would different eras cause any major differences?
Railstarfish 7 months ago
@moOswe I did some research on the time/cost of butted v riveted mail, and fully riveted can take 4 times as long, but with alternating riveted & solid rings it would only take around 2 times as long. Labour costs were lower prior to the Black Death, materials were the major cost, and the raw materials were the same for butted or riveted mail. My point is that the protection difference between butted & riveted mail is huge, but the weight and materials (main reasons not to use mail) were small.
Railstarfish 7 months ago
@Railstarfish Yet again; what era do you think we are talking about here? It makes all the difference you see.
moOswe 7 months ago
@moOswe Like I said, 1000-1350 AD, aka, prior to the Black Death. After 1400-1450 plate armour is cheaper than either form of mail so the whole issue becomes moot. Pre-Black Death, the raw materials are simply too costly to deliberately make terrible armour from.
Railstarfish 7 months ago
The sword weilder is the Shit! Awsome guy, saw him on the discovery channel showing medevil sword techniques and he destroyed my movie thoughts about how they used to sword fight. love it, give us more vids!
TheShnuz 3 years ago
Do you have any links? I love seeing vids that destroy the arguments of katana fanboys.
NetVoyagerOne 3 years ago
Huh? Arguments of katana fanboys? You clearly don't know enough about katanas and the people you usually argue with don't even know how to use them so they shouldn't even deserve to argue about them.
marcos57431 3 years ago
I know plenty about katanas. I also have the common sense to know that no sword, katana or not, can cut through other swords, plate armor, or whatever bullshit you people claim it can do.
You clearly don't know enough about european swords.
NetVoyagerOne 3 years ago 2
Whoa whoa whoa whoa, what? Cut through other swords????? Who ever said that?????? Don't insult me by putting me into that pathetic group!
marcos57431 3 years ago
heh, there is for example a discovery channel documentary, where alleged "experts" state with all seriousness that katana can cut through other swords, metal armor and such bullshit, and there is a frightening amount of people who still adhere to this mentality. I don't mean to imply that you are one of those of course.
Konane12 3 years ago 2
Wait, do you have two accounts or something, because it says that NetVoyagerOne said that to me. Any way, Discovery Channel? Bleh! National Geographic is better and they only proved that the katana was the ultimate sword, not that it could cut through other swords lol.
marcos57431 3 years ago
There is no ultimate sword, as there is no ultimate gun, car or whatever.
Konane12 3 years ago
I mean the best sword in the world kind of thing. It has all of the qualities.
marcos57431 3 years ago
Hold on a second there. Why exactly would katana be "the best sword in the world?" I really can't see any reason for that, it's a very good sword yes, fast, excellent cutting ability, but thats it. other swords can be just as good or better at certain tasks, some are either more versatile or specialized for different things(thrusting, etc). And before you bring the whole process of production, folding and all that, it's nothing special really.
Konane12 3 years ago
Oh no, I wasn't going to say the forging process. That would be pointless to say. I was going to say what you are able to use if for. Like you said, it's a very good sword, fast, excellent for cutting/slashing, AND you can still thrust with it. It has all the qualities a sword can have. Besides having a hidden gun, stop watch, calender, etc(swords have those things???? jk)
marcos57431 3 years ago
No design can have all qualities a sword can have. When you optimize one quality, it's going to downgrade a second one. ie, if you make a curved blade to optimize slashing, you are sacrificing thrusting ability. if you make a shorter blade in order to fasten it, you sacrifice reach, and so on.
There are swords that are more versatile, some have longer reach and better thrusting ability, some offer better guarding capabilities due to crossguard, etc.
It comes down to personal preference.
Konane12 3 years ago
Uh....yeah. A katana has all the qualities. I even know how to use one. If you don't believe me, look it up
marcos57431 3 years ago
LOL, ok. So a katana has the same reach as a zweihander? no. Does it have the same maneuver speed and point control as a rapier? no. Does it have the same thrusting and warding ability of a longsword? no. Can it be used effectively with a shield? no. etc. no sword can have "all the qualities", each is specialized for certain thing, just as a submachine gun is close quarters and a sniper rifle is long range. is one better than other? no. If you can't understand this simple thing I can't help you.
Konane12 3 years ago 9
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ok, reach has nothing to do with it, if you are good with a katana you can be just as fast as with a rapier, and it is a good thruster. How can it not be used effectively with a shield? ANY sword is usable with a shield. Don't tell me I can't understand it, I understood what you meant with the guns, but that's different. And no offense, but I did not, nor do I WANT you help.
marcos57431 3 years ago
It is a fairly good thruster, but you can hardly argue that there are swords that are BETTER at thrusting than katana is. It's basic common sense that a straight double edged sword will thrust better than curved single edged one. And reach has a lot to do with it, try fighting with a katana against a polearm if you don't believe me. Anyway if you want to stick to your history channel convictions at all costs regardless of any arguments I rest my case.
Konane12 3 years ago 7
Yeah, I didn't say it was the BEST at thrusting.
marcos57431 3 years ago
So why are we having this conversation if you basicly admit that that every sword is optimized for something? That if I need superb thrusting I better take something else, since nothing can have "all the qualities"? That basicly it comes down to specific circumstances and personal preference, rather than one design being "the best"?
Konane12 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I'm just saying the katana has more qualities than other swords and you just wanted to prove me wrong.
marcos57431 3 years ago
No, you said that it has all the qualities and is the best sword ever created, which is plain ridiculous .
Next time say that katana is the best overall sword IN YOUR OPINION(as opposed to some objective truth) and noone will bother you.
I could brag about how cruciform swords are near as fast while being better at thrusting, have the crossguard for parrying and binding, have longer reach and employ more various techniques but that's really not my point.
Konane12 3 years ago 4
poor sword
SanitySource 3 years ago
Does anyone happen to know who the maker of that messer is? I've looked around but haven't found one like it anywhere.
Arcople 3 years ago
incrdible, really shows chain mail are effective protection against slashing
boomstix 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
STABBIN!! OLOLOLOL BUULLETS!!!
JarvidO 3 years ago
It's called 'study of historical weaponry'. LOLOLOLOL!!
andy7666 3 years ago 2
It's almost as if mail was designed for this. ;)
Kortoso 3 years ago 3
Does this guy wield a falchion?
Malachayas 3 years ago
Seems so, I have to wonder how the chain mail would of done against a heavier weapon such as the Kriegsmesser.
I doubt the Kriegsmesser would cut through it, but the force would be enough to knock a man down.
relentlesssinner90 3 years ago
That would hurt
BelligerentAuthority 3 years ago
ya but you'd still be in one piece....
mustbe18 3 years ago
Unless you were knocked down, then the swordsman standing could go in for the kill... either with a dagger or his sword... daggers penetrate better though.
relentlesssinner90 3 years ago
Japanese armour was *sometimes* lighter, but then the O-yoroi could often be heavier than European full plate harness. That's because although the individual parts of the armour is often lighter, there's more of it. A full suit of Japanese armour is very boxy, making the samurai LESS agile than a fully plated knight. I dare say the O-yoroi afforded the same protection, though.
Gilmaris 3 years ago 2
Yes well, that's why O-yoroi were not used, for the infantry.
Though japanese armour was often lighter and less protective. In europe, we had more protective armour, and therefore weapons that could better get through armour.
None of that affects speed.
Endurance perhaps, but not speed.
That is affected by the mobility of the armour, which I believe, was more advanced, in europe. (the japanese may have been able to compensate for that, at the cost of the protection, on certain areas, though)
ZarlanTheGreen 3 years ago
"None of that affects speed.
Endurance perhaps, but not speed."
I would beg to differ. Even clothing affects speed. Try running buck naked, fully clothed and fully armoured. You will notice differences in speed between all of these.
Now, this does not mean that you'll be SLOW in armour, not at all. But to say that speed is unaffected is inaccurate. Rather, speed is not affected as much as many people would think.
Gilmaris 3 years ago
Also, just like in Japan, most European infantry didn't have that great armour. The knights were the ones with the best (and most) armour, just as the samurai were. Now, the O-yoroi could only be afforded by the most high ranking samurai. What restricted movement was the size and shape of the helmet, shoulder guards, thigh guards and what was common to all samurai: the puffy hakama. While far from difficult to move in, it is nevertheless not as aerodynamic as it could be.
Gilmaris 3 years ago
Yeah, that's true. Thank you for the correction.
ZarlanTheGreen 3 years ago
"Japanese maille was mainly used to armor joints."
...for which European mail was also, sometimes used.
"It's also lighter, which is better for Japanese combat, which places more emphasis on speed, rather then raw power."
That is pure prejudiced nonsense.
Medieval combat was not about raw power. Any medieval army, that would have emphasised raw power, at the expense of speed, would quickly have been eradicated.
ZarlanTheGreen 3 years ago
That aint really true, alot of medieval sword fights wer slow, and relied on the skill and fitness of the fighter often using the swords weight along with raw power to drive through enemy armour such as plate and chain, because the only way to break chain is the crush through it or simpley bludgen the enemy to death. Alot of people on the medieval battlefield composed of lines of men using long spears/ pikes/ polearms with fewer knigths either on horse back or skirmishing on the field
LordDagonn 3 years ago
And what is your source, for that (mis)information?
First of all, none of that, implies that the fights would become slow.
Also there is no reason to break mail. I've seen a video clip where they cut a slab of meat, protected by mail. The mail is intact, but not the meat.
As to plate armour, you don't hack, cut or slash at it, unless you are using a mace or war hammer (or possibly hitting the head, to stun). As to how you use a sword vs plate, check the terms "harnisfechten" and "half sword"
ZarlanTheGreen 3 years ago
yea thats why i said you can bludgen through chainmail, sorry i didnt mean crushin through plate armour but the best way if you want to slice your enemy is to crush through the chainmail breaking the links. Depending on the weapon such as a Bastard Sword along with full plate the combat would be slow especially when wairing chain and plate, or faster if wearing a brigadeen.
Oh and my source for the information is Medieval Renacting, do you do it and if so what period?
LordDagonn 3 years ago