Weapon damage

[soltakss]

Obviously, there is a time when it's possible to build a spear and not a sword, but that's not what this conversation has ever been about and it completely misses the point.

What was this conversation about? I forget .....

[TRose]

As far a the development of weapons go. The ax started out as a tool and had a big advantage for part time warriors in that you could use it to cut wood when you where not cutting off people head. Might add one of the first pole arms to see large scale use was the English Bill , which was first used to prune tree limbs before the English used to to prune limbs from French Knights. The Flail also start out as an agriculture tool. And BTW Wooden tip spears where still used in Scotland and Norway by those who could not afford better even in the middle ages. I remember how at the start of William Wallace rebellion how some English Knights scoffed at the Naked Scots, many armed with only sharpen wooden stakes.

[drohem]

I remember how at the start of William Wallace rebellion how some English Knights scoffed at the Naked Scots, many armed with only sharpen wooden stakes.

hmmm...what's your secret?

Are you an immortal (i.e. Highlander), vampire, etc.?

hehe...just playing around.

[drohem]

hmmm...what's your secret?

Are you an immortal (i.e. Highlander), vampire, etc.?

hehe...just playing around.

Ok, I apologize. I realized that English my not be a primary language for some posters. I meant no offense.

[Nightshade]

Umm...maces and axes are not an evolutionary trend towards swords.

Swords evolved out of knives due to better metallurgical technology.

Both are true. Swords certainly show a relationship to knives, but they also are a progression of the idea of focused force. A basic mace delivers force in an extremely broad fashion (spikes confuse this, but they still tend to spread the force around); the axe does the job better, but still has wieldiness issues because its mass is not really balanced. The cutting sword is (at least with simple material technology) the ultimate derivation of concept; it provides the best comprimise of force over area against anything but completely rigid armors, while still staying comparatively wieldy.

[Nightshade]

Knights, the elite warriors of Western Europe, fought each other with spears on foot in tourneys and used cut down lances when on foot in battle. Boar, bear and deer were taken with spear on foot. The spear can be a dandy offensive weapon and can be used at long and short ranges, just choke up on it. They are not handed out to just the militia.

"Just choke up on it" is overly blaise; doing so has some serious effects on wieldiness as I've seen when watching martial arts students train with them. Some of this can be overcome if one is trained to also use the haft effectively, but that's effectively a seperate skill (mostly staff work) than using the working end.

I don't doubt knights sometimes did so, but I have no evidence they were considered anything but a secondary weapon off horseback and outside of formations.

Hunting usage is an entirely different issue than war usage; among other things the reach issue becomes a very serious consideration there (especially with boar).

[drohem]

Both are true. Swords certainly show a relationship to knives, but they also are a progression of the idea of focused force. A basic mace delivers force in an extremely broad fashion (spikes confuse this, but they still tend to spread the force around); the axe does the job better, but still has wieldiness issues because its mass is not really balanced. The cutting sword is (at least with simple material technology) the ultimate derivation of concept; it provides the best comprimise of force over area against anything but completely rigid armors, while still staying comparatively wieldy.

No, they are not both true. Maces and axes did not evolve from knives.

Swords are directly related to knives: swords evolved from knives.

[drohem]

I don't doubt knights sometimes did so, but I have no evidence they were considered anything but a secondary weapon off horseback and outside of formations.

The Celtic and Germanic societies used spears extensively. Almost every culture across the planet has used spears as a martial weapon, and yes, outside of formations.

[Nightshade]

That doesn't surprise me. There's a lot of misinformation on how actual combat works floating around due to reenactors. Just keep in mind that your sources here are hobbiests, not professionals. They frequently don't have the correct techniques, or even technology, for a specific era.

Actually, they're as close to professionals as exist in the modern world, given they were instructors in general martial arts and sojutsu in specific. Given they've actually at least made actual use of the spear (albiet not out for blood) again, I have to consider their information _at least_ as valid as historical interpetation.

Oh, and it's your choice whether to listen to me or not. It doesn't affect me one way or the other. (You could argue there's a little difference here and there with a specific sword design and technique vs. a specific spear and technique, but any blanket statement is impossible.)

I none the less feel its my obligation to explain _why_ I find your counterargument dubious.

Sure, a spear can be created without metal, which is a bonus. So can an axe or a club/mace for that matter. However, metallurgy is advanced enough to produce swords for over 3000 years now, so I'm willing to skip the time periods before casting bronze was developed.

Even bronze swords were, shall we say, not as good as they could be. Bronze isn't brittle but it also doesn't hold an edge worth a damn unless you work it constantly. Now an razor edge isn't a critical element in a sword (in fact, when used against armor too much of one is pretty much useless), but the worse an edge you have, the less any benefit shows against an axe. As to clubs--I've never claimed spears are unattractive compared to clubs/maces. I've also seen little sign that's true in the game, so its not terribly relevant to the topic at hand.

Don't forget the bow as a dominate horseback weapon and the javelin (still a spear, granted). Both saw large scale horseback use throughout history.

The bow is a complex case; decent horse archery is, by all evidence I have, a hard skill to learn, and for self-evident reasons, it pretty much precludes a shield. Barring certain sorts of light cavalry, I don't really see much sign its compareable in its impact to the spear in that situation. (Obviously, you can make the same comment about the horse pistol to some degree, but by the time it became dominant armor was becoming less and less important and anything you'd consider heavy cavalry was on its way out anyway).

All premodern professional armies base their core around disciplined formation fighting. The exact details of this vary significantly, and obviously some formations have advantages on one environment over another. This carries well into the era of firearms dominating the battlefield and doesn't totally dissappear until the 20th Century.

That's quite true, but the reality is that you still have a lot of armies that didn't attempt to keep tight formations once initial contact was made. That was, in fact, one of the distinctive traits of the Romans, and was followed, at best erratically, even by many medievel armies. Of course part of this turns on what one classes as "professional"; I'm not sure I'd class most medievel armies as professional. None the less, the issue still was once things got in close and dirty, anything but extremely short spears (like the late Zulu assegai) was a liability. It was great as long as you could keep a hedgehog intact or the equvilent, but insufficent past that. Given that's almost entirely parallel to the choices presented to a typical RQ PC, its also what's relevant to the discussion at hand.

As already mentioned, swords develop from knives. Maces and axes have their own parallel evolution, but both start as tools that are adopted for warfare on and off. Spears are the only weapon, I can think of, that starts and ends as a weapon: granted initially a hunting weapon.

As I said, its not that tidy; in particular, if you study weapons from Asia, you'll see interim cases where there are weapons that seem to be transitioning from axes to swords, presumeably for the reasons I mentioned in another post. Axes and maces, because of their movement arm, are intrinsically unwieldy. The degree of that unwieldiness varies, but its an issue with almost all use, and the tradeoff against light-to-medium armored opponets are not ideal.

The issue is more that spears are used in abundance (by more than just militia) in time periods when metallurgy is sufficient to build excellent swords. Obviously, there is a time when it's possible to build a spear and not a sword, but that's not what this conversation has ever been about and it completely misses the point.

I don't think it does, because weapons don't disappear immediately just because there's a better weapon; they have to become actively counterproductive before that happens. The spear has its virtues in terms of keeping someone at a distance, and in terms of ease of use; as such, it survived beyond the axe and the mace (and in fact, is likely only semi-obsolete now because modern firearms are generally too flimsy to be used with bayonets well) as weapons. But that didn't mean it was as good a general use weapon as others available by the medievel period. The one isn't required for the other.

[Nightshade]

No, they are not both true. Maces and axes did not evolve from knives.

Swords are directly related to knives: swords evolved from knives.

Read what I wrote again: both are true because swords evolve from both knives _and axes_. There's enough interim forms to indicate that.

[Nightshade]

The Celtic and Germanic societies used spears extensively. Almost every culture across the planet has used spears as a martial weapon, and yes, outside of formations.

And all of them fell progressively out of favor as use outside of horseback and formation fighting almost precisely as better choices of close in weapons became available.

[drohem]

You are incorrect about bronze swords. The Celtic and Chinese producted bronze that 3,000 years later are still razor sharp. Even with today's technology, we cannot reproduce the level of craftsmenship of those weapons.

[drohem]

Nightshade, I believe you are incorrect on most of your points in this discussion.

Let's just say I disagree with almost everything you have said thus far on this subject.

I can agree to disagree.

[Joseph Paul]

Read what I wrote again: both are true because swords evolve from both knives _and axes_. There's enough interim forms to indicate that.

Where? (added because I have to have at least 10 characters to post. WTH?)

[Nightshade]

You are incorrect about bronze swords. The Celtic and Chinese producted bronze that 3,000 years later are still razor sharp. Even with today's technology, we cannot reproduce the level of craftsmenship of those weapons.

Sorry, I was thinking iron when I said that, not bronze. The biggest problem with bronze was its expense; its not until you get to some of the primitive steels that you actually get any better an edge (if anything iron, holds its edge worse than bronze, and is vulnerable to corrosion to boot). But of course the difference does matter in terms of accessibility, as iron weapons would have been far cheaper than bronze (and once located, iron is easier to find than either of the two component metals of bronze in most areas, making it even cheaper preportionately).

[Nightshade]

Where? (added because I have to have at least 10 characters to post. WTH?)

Most of the ones you see are in Asia, but there's remnents of it in a lot of the more utility-oriented blade forms such as the machete and the kukri.

[Joseph Paul]

"Just choke up on it" is overly blaise; doing so has some serious effects on wieldiness as I've seen when watching martial arts students train with them. Some of this can be overcome if one is trained to also use the haft effectively, but that's effectively a seperate skill (mostly staff work) than using the working end.

It is not 'blaise', it is my own and several other people's experience with spears. Also if you are not using the whole weapon you are not getting the most out of the weapon so I seriously doubt that it was ignored.

I don't doubt knights sometimes did so, but I have no evidence they were considered anything but a secondary weapon off horseback and outside of formations.

From Fighting for Fun? What Was at Stake in Formal Deeds of Arms in the 14th Century? by Steven Muhlberger

"Similar combats were being done on foot, usually with sharp weapons, spears, swords, daggers, or axes. Some jousts were major events staged by royalty, for instance at royal weddings; others required only the simplest preparations."

and in regard to a formal deed at Vannes in 1381-

"The original challenge by a Frenchman, de Pousanges, against an English ally, de Vertain, had involved each delivering to the other three blows with spears, three with swords, and three with axes."

http://www.aemma.org/misc/muhlberger.htm

The upshot is that spear on foot by knights and men-at-arms is common. English and French knights both took readily to using shortened lances when on foot in the HYW.

Hunting usage is an entirely different issue than war usage; among other things the reach issue becomes a very serious consideration there (especially with boar).

Not by this class of people it is not. Hunting together whether ahorse or afoot was a way of training for war.

What differences do you see and what is the 'reach issue' you claim exists?

[Joseph Paul]

Most of the ones you see are in Asia, but there's remnents of it in a lot of the more utility-oriented blade forms such as the machete and the kukri.

I will have to disagree with you at this point as machetes and kukris are directly related to knives and swords. There is no axe form that gets longer, thinner and then trades a haft for a crossguard and pommel. Just because it has a forward balance point does not make it an axe.

[Joseph Paul]

And all of them fell progressively out of favor as use outside of horseback and formation fighting almost precisely as better choices of close in weapons became available.

Would you like to support that assertion? I would like to see examples of what you are talking about.

[Nightshade]

It is not 'blaise', it is my own and several other people's experience with spears. Also if you are not using the whole weapon you are not getting the most out of the weapon so I seriously doubt that it was ignored.

Depends on whether the training was with it as a standalone or primarily with shield. As a standalone, you're almost certainly right. With shield, its almost impossible to do much with the haft.

And that kept being done until quite late, but like most stylized methods, it doesn't tell you whether all those weapons were routinely used in warfare.

I seriously doubt it doesn't predate that. It certainly would have helped in general training against something that was trying to kill you, but if you're suggesting that it was done _specifically to train you in spear use on foot, I remain extremely unconvinced.

Boar (and I'd expect bear, though I don't know this) were nortorious for continuing up at you even after mortally wounded; in fact, boar were often viewed as the most dangerous animal you could hunt. As such, anything that held one at a distance was critical there.

[Nightshade]

I will have to disagree with you at this point as machetes and kukris are directly related to knives and swords. There is no axe form that gets longer, thinner and then trades a haft for a crossguard and pommel. Just because it has a forward balance point does not make it an axe.

You see just that among a number of Asian forms. It can be argued which direction the influence goes (where they attempts to make axes more knifelike or knives more axelike?) but to suggest that suggest things such as the cleaver-like swords don't have a relationship to axes is simply nonsensical.

[Nightshade]

Would you like to support that assertion? I would like to see examples of what you are talking about.

If you ask whether I'm going to go to the trouble of searching for citation pointers, no I'm not.

[RMS]

Actually, they're as close to professionals as exist in the modern world, given they were instructors in general martial arts and sojutsu in specific. Given they've actually at least made actual use of the spear (albiet not out for blood) again, I have to consider their information _at least_ as valid as historical interpetation.

I none the less feel its my obligation to explain _why_ I find your counterargument dubious.

I won't go any farther discussing this, but will point out for clarity that I'm not knocking their goals or what they're doing and have no doubt that they're as close as anyone comes in the modern world to being professionals with those weapons. This isn't a knock on them, but just acknowledgment of the limitations of such attempts, and the fact that most of their knowledge, generally, comes from trial and error and is not developed to the point of a true professional (ie. someone who's putting their life on the line in real battle) with generations of direct experience to fall back on.

Even bronze swords were, shall we say, not as good as they could be. Bronze isn't brittle but it also doesn't hold an edge worth a damn unless you work it constantly.

As you note down thread, bronze is actually very good at holding an edge and I'm sure you realize that you don't work bronze. You cast it. In fact, it only fell out of common use due to supply shortages of tin for large areas, so iron (initially untempered) was adapted. It's quite a ways into the Iron Age before steel evolved to the point of actually replacing bronze across the board. Plus, Bronze has the advantage of not rusting away on you! Aside: I always wandered if Glorantha bronze rusted or not...

The bow is a complex case; decent horse archery is, by all evidence I have, a hard skill to learn, and for self-evident reasons, it pretty much precludes a shield.

No doubt, it's extremely hard to learn. Becoming a ground based, skilled archer is a very difficult task to learn. I've done both independently (riding and shooting), am pretty natural with both, and still find it nearly incomprehensible how anyone could pull both off at the same time. I can barely imagine hitting a target with a gun while riding at anything faster than a walk on a horse, not to mention all the training it'd take to make a horse not panic in that situation: horses are very skittish. In fact, one of the things about spears/lances in real like that I think many people don't understand is that a horse won't charge into someone (like in the movies). Even at their most advanced, a knight wasn't charging full bore into formed heavy infantry. A horse, no matter it's training, simply won't do that...not to mention that it'd be suicide for the knight.

That was, in fact, one of the distinctive traits of the Romans, and was followed, at best erratically, even by many medievel armies. Of course part of this turns on what one classes as "professional"; I'm not sure I'd class most medievel armies as professional.

I'd argue that the Roman army did in fact keep it's organization. In fact, when it lost it was when it was defeated. Armies don't have to be literally shoulder-to-shoulder to be organized, and in most instances the Romans did fight very close to that, even though they used a sword instead of a spear.

I wouldn't classify most medieval armies as professional, at least not until late in the period.

None the less, the issue still was once things got in close and dirty, anything but extremely short spears (like the late Zulu assegai) was a liability. It was great as long as you could keep a hedgehog intact or the equvilent, but insufficent past that. Given that's almost entirely parallel to the choices presented to a typical RQ PC, its also what's relevant to the discussion at hand.

It's not a liability. One advantage of a (1 handed) spear is that it can hit at several ranges. In fact, it can be effective at both a shorter and longer range than a typical broad sword. It does not have as much power to damage someone with heavier armor on, which is a problem in later period. You're correct about longer 2 handed spears, such as carried by Hellenistic phalanxes and late medieval pikes. Of course, those are already handled quite nicely in RQ3 (and maybe 2 - don't remember there).

As I said, its not that tidy; in particular, if you study weapons from Asia, you'll see interim cases where there are weapons that seem to be transitioning from axes to swords, presumeably for the reasons I mentioned in another post. Axes and maces, because of their movement arm, are intrinsically unwieldy. The degree of that unwieldiness varies, but its an issue with almost all use, and the tradeoff against light-to-medium armored opponets are not ideal.

The term you're looking for there is angular inertia, in case you're interested. Yes, there are weapons that appear to be a sword that leans towards an axe. As I understand it, these develop from a shorter sword and are actually there to strengthen the blade of longer swords before metallurgy catches up and long straight blades can be produced.

I started to respond to this, just for the first part and then did the rest. I'm ready to let it drop as it's gone well beyond by interest in the discussion. It's very evident that you're far more interested in carrying these discussion than I am!

[drohem]

You see just that among a number of Asian forms. It can be argued which direction the influence goes (where they attempts to make axes more knifelike or knives more axelike?) but to suggest that suggest things such as the cleaver-like swords don't have a relationship to axes is simply nonsensical.

No, it cannot be argued. Axes and swords have completely different evolutions, and are not related at all.

[drohem]

Horse cultures that make use of the bow have trained since early childhood. There are numerous example of horse culture societies that use the bow from horseback quite effectively. The Mongol invaders almost sweep all of Europe due to their recurve bow and effective use of it from horseback.

Horses can be trained for war and charge opponents. I was a knight in a jousting company that worked Renn Faires across the country. I charged my horse regularly against an armored foe with a 12-foot lance. Sure, some horses took to this training better than others, and some you had to stay on top of or they would turn. However, if you are an experienced rider and have control of your mount, you can make your mount charge an opponent.