Weapon damage

[Nightshade]

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

That seems unsupported by several of these items. When you see swordlike blades attached to wooden hilts in exactly the same fashion axe blades are, or things that look like nothing so much as axeblades with a knife or sword style hilt, to suggest that there is no crossover evolution is simply not supportable.

[drohem]

That seems unsupported by several of these items. When you see swordlike blades attached to wooden hilts in exactly the same fashion axe blades are, or things that look like nothing so much as axeblades with a knife or sword style hilt, to suggest that there is no crossover evolution is simply not supportable.

Incorrect.

[TRose]

hmmm...what's your secret?

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

hehe...just playing around.

Well I have 2 teenage daughters that insist that dinosaurs ruled the earth when I was born. And at times they insist that I am an ogre so maybe Ogres have long lifespans. So no offense

[Nightshade]

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.

In the case of many of these, its directly derived from traditional sojutsu instruction that, as far as I know, has never lapsed in Japan from the period when its a functional art. Now you can always argue that stylization has crept in, but at that point, no one in the modern world knows anything about fighting with a melee weapon by that standard.

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...

I'll admit I thoroughly mangled that part of the argument by conflating iron and bronze in that paragraph; the issue with bronze was not its functionality but its cost. Bronze does corrode (because copper does) but if properly cast its far more resistant to it than most steels, let alone simple cast iron.

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

Well, at least with horse pistols one had one advantage; they only needed one hand to fire. I do agree it was probably not a trivial task, and I suspect from what I've read that if not fired into mass targets, hitting was, shall we say, probably hit or miss (I've never seen an indication whether horse pistols were used exclusively with ball, or sometimes fired shot; if the latter, that certainly would have helped as its a bit more forgiving).

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.

Oh, of course not. As best I can tell it was en passant attacks.

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 think I wasn't clear; what I was suggesting was that the Roman Army was, in fact, rather distinctive just _because_ it did so so well. In fact, it appears its tactical doctrine virtually depended on that. The benefit of a shield wall was known even then, and the particular tactics used made the most of it. What I'm questioning was how many _other_ armies were nearly as good about that, including most that came after them.

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

And that was my point; that consistent formation fighting was not the whole issue there.

It's not a liability. One advantage of a (1 handed) spear is that it can hit at

I'm afraid I have to disagree, at least when used with a shield. Even moderate length spears become rather unwieldy when used up close; the haft has to go somewhere and when not braced with the other hand, the somewhere is often not ideal for using it as a weapon. As I mentioned elsewhere, if used by those who used them primarily alone, I expect staff-like techniques made up some of the difference (as it does in sojutsu), but its hard to picture this working well with a shield still present. I don't think it is at all a coincidence that the pilum was used a throwing weapon rather than one used normally in melee.

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).

I'm not speaking about the really long ones here; obviously those would be completely disfunctional at close ranges--but at moderate length ones in the 4-6' range. All the demonstrations I've seen suggest that most one handed techniques for spears in that size or longer are simply not very wieldy with one hand (obviously they _can_ be used with one, or shield and spear wouldn't be possible, but its notable that in that situation the usage is aided by the extra defensive capability of the shield to make up for some of its shortcomings).

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.

That may be part of the explanation, but in some cases that doesn't seem the whole one; there are also heavy early swords that appear to be simply axes with most of the haft removed.

(Of course none of this is is ever really tidy; polearms are hard to evaluate if the spear or the axe is their primary progenitor in some cases, as some appear like spears with more axelike blades, or axes with unusually long hafts, or even both. To some extent weapon categorization is often arbitrary).

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!

My apologies if I've gone at greater length than was you interest; for what its worth I thought you raised a number of good points.

[Trifletraxor]

Hehe, looks like the discussion is grinding to a halt.

I've seen some of the weapons you are talking about Nightshade. I've been to the Philippines a couple of times to train the weapon based martial arts you can find there (last used during the 2nd world war against the japanese in the jungle, so pretty reality-tested).

The main weapons they use are 1h swords & machetes, but also hardwood sticks and axes. Some of those axes had a very long blade stretching down to the hilt, and the use where pretty much the same with the sword.

Weither swords are developed from knives only, or both knives and axes I have no idea. Kindoff hard to know for sure too, as it's a pretty long time ago they were developed.

[Nightshade]

Incorrect.

I appreciate your certainty, but I do not see that as the case, nor does my reading support it.

[TRose]

As far as the Kukri being related to the Sword. many people believe the Kukri came from the Greek/ Macedonian shortsword called the Kopus which was introduced to India by Alexander the Great. The roman used a similiar sword befor adopting the Gladius Hispanius . Also look up the ancient Celtic Falcatta which is also very similiar the Kukri

[drohem]

I appreciate your certainty, but I do not see that as the case, nor does my reading support it.

My reading does not support your assertions as well. I agree to disagree.

[Nightshade]

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.

I don't believe I contradicted this, though as I noted, it only works well for light cavalry.

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.

I believe you're misinterpeting what RSM was saying there.

[Nightshade]

Hehe, looks like the discussion is grinding to a halt.

I've seen some of the weapons you are talking about Nightshade. I've been to the Philippines a couple of times to train the weapon based martial arts you can find there (last used during the 2nd world war against the japanese in the jungle, so pretty reality-tested).

The main weapons they use are 1h swords & machetes, but also hardwood sticks and axes. Some of those axes had a very long blade stretching down to the hilt, and the use where pretty much the same with the sword.

Yes. You also see the inverse, which is, of course, very top-blade-heavy swords (though most of those were apparently used as executioner's tools rather than weapons).

Weither swords are developed from knives only, or both knives and axes I have no idea. Kindoff hard to know for sure too, as it's a pretty long time ago they were developed.

Well, of course. That's why there's any contraversy on the subject.

[drohem]

Weither swords are developed from knives only, or both knives and axes I have no idea. Kindoff hard to know for sure too, as it's a pretty long time ago they were developed.

It is well supported by academics, scientists, and historians that the sword evolved from the knife, and the that the axe had a separate evolution.

Just because it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, does not necessarily mean it is a duck.

[Nightshade]

As far as the Kukri being related to the Sword. many people believe the Kukri came from the Greek/ Macedonian shortsword called the Kopus which was introduced to India by Alexander the Great. The roman used a similiar sword befor adopting the Gladius Hispanius . Also look up the ancient Celtic Falcatta which is also very similiar the Kukri

That wouldn't be suprising, as some of the weapons I was refering to are Indian (I was using "Asian" rather broadly). There are some that are essentially impossible to call sword or axe; they're swordlike in that they possess a distinct blad that proceeds off the top of the weapon, often with some back edge, but they're hafted and are clearly primarily chopping weapons (to the degree they're really weapons in the normal sense at all).

[Trifletraxor]

Just because it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, does not necessarily mean it is a duck.

Yes, it might be a durulz like the gloranthaphiles like to say!

(anyway, they taste the same! )

Cheers,

Sverre.

[drohem]

It all tastes like chicken anyway, right? LOL!

[TRose]

BTW if anyone wants to see what a Kopis looked like here a link. Its at right bottom of page

http://www.larp.com/hoplite/weapons.html

[badcat]

It's kind of funny. I remember wondering years ago if anyone would ever include the falcata in a weapon list in a roleplaying game. Now we are arguing over it!

[Joseph Paul]

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

Then I am afraid that I can't put much credence in your assertion if you are unwilling to support it with some sort of evidence.

[Nightshade]

Then I am afraid that I can't put much credence in your assertion if you are unwilling to support it with some sort of evidence.

That's perfectly reasonable, but I'm still not going to do a bunch of websearching just to make an RPG board argument right and proper. Its just not worth it to me.

[TRose]

2 more points here.

As far as development of axes and swords. The ancient Chinese used what is sometimes called a " dagger ax" in which the ax head was more like dagger blade then what we think of as a ax blade.

And I have always considered the Falcatta and Kopis the same weapon for game purposes as the Kukri. I really prefer the term falcatta over Kukri but if I use that term nobody knows what I'm talking about except Badcat

[badcat]

I read a book on the history of swords once upon a time and mostly found out that something like 90% of the stuff I thought I knew about them was wrong...curse you, Hollywood!

[SDLeary]

2 more points here.

As far as development of axes and swords. The ancient Chinese used what is sometimes called a " dagger ax" in which the ax head was more like dagger blade then what we think of as a ax blade.

And I have always considered the Falcatta and Kopis the same weapon for game purposes as the Kukri. I really prefer the term falcatta over Kukri but if I use that term nobody knows what I'm talking about except Badcat

As far as the Falcatta/Kopis is concerned, there are many who think that it is a refinement of what looks to be a sword/axe. The Khopesh (sickle sword) of the New Kingdom in Egypt. Ironically, it appears to have been edged on the outer sweep, not in the concave like a sickle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khopesh

Just for reference, I do NOT like Wikipedia as an authority, but it makes for a quick and dirty reference, and it had a pic!

SDLeary

[RMS]

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.

I know all of that. I was just noting how hard this is.

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.

Yes, you can charge them. What I'm refering to is the Hollywood portraits of the horse charging directly over someone. That's virtually impossible to do. Even after armor went out of vogue and before the rifle made infantry very deadly at range, properly formed up infantry were proof against cavalry charges becasuse there's no place to go were the horse won't be running directly into someone. Even if you did pull it off, it still result in loosing a very expensive horse and drop you in the middle of the ranks.

[badcat]

Yes, back in the nineties someone was touting AD&D as the 'ultimate' rpg reference for weapons. They were listing the 'khopesh' but not the 'kopis' or the 'falcata'. At least they had the description of the khopesh correct, as I remember.

[RMS]

OK. I can't stay away!

Well, at least with horse pistols one had one advantage; they only needed one hand to fire. I do agree it was probably not a trivial task, and I suspect from what I've read that if not fired into mass targets, hitting was, shall we say, probably hit or miss (I've never seen an indication whether horse pistols were used exclusively with ball, or sometimes fired shot; if the latter, that certainly would have helped as its a bit more forgiving).

Shot would make a lot of sense. Also, shooting from a stopped horse would make sense. Of course, later on fighting after dismounting was doctrine for the US Army, and probably most other armies. They used the horses for movement and then dismounted, with 3/4 of the men fighting and the other 1/4 tending mounts. This didn't come about until the 1860s with the advent of the repeating rifle though.

I'm afraid I have to disagree, at least when used with a shield. Even moderate length spears become rather unwieldy when used up close; the haft has to go somewhere and when not braced with the other hand, the somewhere is often not ideal for using it as a weapon. As I mentioned elsewhere, if used by those who used them primarily alone, I expect staff-like techniques made up some of the difference (as it does in sojutsu), but its hard to picture this working well with a shield still present. I don't think it is at all a coincidence that the pilum was used a throwing weapon rather than one used normally in melee.

The haft goes directly behind the head. I honestly don't see where you see a problem here. It's very easy to grip a spear closer to the head and let the extra shaft go over the shoulder and back behind the head. The pilum was specifically designed to be used as a javelin with a flexible head, but that also made it worthless as a melee spear.

I'm not speaking about the really long ones here; obviously those would be completely disfunctional at close ranges--but at moderate length ones in the 4-6' range. All the demonstrations I've seen suggest that most one handed techniques for spears in that size or longer are simply not very wieldy with one hand (obviously they _can_ be used with one, or shield and spear wouldn't be possible, but its notable that in that situation the usage is aided by the extra defensive capability of the shield to make up for some of its shortcomings).

Back to "formation" discussion here. I noted somewhere else recently that the spear is really a defensive weapon and the shield [wall] is the actual offensive weapon of the formation. Phalanx battles are won by breaking the other sides formation via a shield push, while the spears really just keep the other side at bay. FWIW, I still don't see the problems you're describing about the spear. I don't see it enough to even attempt to address it.

(Of course none of this is is ever really tidy; polearms are hard to evaluate if the spear or the axe is their primary progenitor in some cases, as some appear like spears with more axelike blades, or axes with unusually long hafts, or even both. To some extent weapon categorization is often arbitrary).

Didn't Gygax put together the ultimate polearm list in one of the AD&D books in the mid-80s?

My apologies if I've gone at greater length than was you interest; for what its worth I thought you raised a number of good points.

It's not your fault, so no need to apologize. I just have a lot of work to do that I'm not addressing because I'm reading and responding to online forums. I'm teaching two new (to me) courses this fall and am currently covering an additional 4 week night course for nontraditional students, so am swamped in prep work and grading. (No, my area of expertise is not history. That's a hobbie.)

[soltakss]

Hey, it's just like the Gloranthan Digest