[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.14545476 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

The rapier:
Too long for a smallsword to even think of attacking.
Strong enough to parry a full strength longsword blow.

>> No.14545498

>Strong enough to parry a full strength longsword blow.

Not if you make a habit out of it. Also, good luck trying to stab through armor unless you're REALLY precise or lucky and get it through a gap between two pieces.

>> No.14545517

The rapier: too long to fight a small sword in restricted quarters

too weak to be useable on a real battlefield of its time

a plaything of noblemen where people would stab each other 100 times before they both died

>> No.14545528

Well, yeah, that's the point of a rapier.

If you can't hit the head of a dime with it you should go back to your faggot claymores and bastards because you don't know shit about proper swordsmanship.

>> No.14545548

And that's why you have a crossbow bolt in your head since you can't wear heavy armor or anything that restricts movement with your rapier.

>> No.14545556


>Actually trying to use a rapier on a battlefield

I have no words for the shock I am feeling right now. A rapier is a weapon for rich rakes to use to kill one another, not for fighting in chaotic melee conditions.

>> No.14545562

The rapier: 500% more likely to deal a major blow on your first hit, 500% more likely to get you killed if this first hit doesn't incapacitate the enemy and he is lunging at you.

>> No.14545576

>doesn't know about the thirty years war

The rapier comes in many forms, some have seriously sturdy blades.

Are you trying to tell me you need a lot of room to lunge?

>> No.14545585

Use of a rapier does not need expansive space if done correctly.

...crossbows were developed specifically to pierce armor...because otherwise everyone would have stuck with vastly more efficient bows. Without armor, at least I could dodge the bolt that would then pass my shoulder, and lodge in your helmet...making it a bitch to get ur armor off, since ur helmet is now bolted (no pun intended) to your face.
Parry implies that the blade doesn't take any of the force. It's not blocking, it's redirecting the energy of the blow elsewhere, often with the intention of leaving an easy opening to exploit.


>> No.14545588


Heh pretty much this, although that's why you're supposed to cover yourself with your weapon while attacking and withdrawing.

>> No.14545607


Finally someone who doesn't think that the parry is a perpendicular block. It's difficult to find fech/tg/uys at the best of times.

>> No.14545612




>> No.14545634

I liked how the rapier was simply just a superior version of shortsword in D&D. It's like using a long needle and have it chip off equivalent damage to something with more volume.

>> No.14545639

Well, what can we expect? Unfortunately many fa/tg/uys derive all their weapon knowledge from the games we all play...and accept that they are solid truth, or rage at them without any understanding. There are very few instences in table top anythings where parrying is actually parrying.

>> No.14545647


Actually in real life a thrust from a rapier is far more likely to cause major damage.

>> No.14545650

Yes, because DnD weapons charts have always made sense in any way...because Greatswords deal more damage than Greataxes....hurr durr

>> No.14545657

I suppose
but it didn't make much sense when I'm trying to slice a zombie or cut up some green slimes

>> No.14545662

Except for 1 in 20 times.

>> No.14545665

>>14545585 Without armor, at least I could dodge the bolt that would then pass my shoulder

>> No.14545692


Fair enough, although any sort of training with historical martial arts tends to lead to extreme rage at games, movies, and books for ridiculous premises such as plate mail, lumbering armoured warriors labouring to swing tremendously heavy weapons, and true hearted heroes cutting through plate armour with swords.

>> No.14545699

to be fair a crossbow bolt would penetrate most armour if it was a solid hit.

As well, if you can dodge a wrench you can dodge a crossbow bolt...

>> No.14545708

It's incredibly hard to hit a moving target, much less one as small as a person's head.

>> No.14545721

Samurai VS European Knight thread.


>> No.14545728

>My Bard uses a rapier
>My Bard also happens to be the pussiest character in a party that also contains an Elf Archer

>> No.14545735

which is why their could be dozens if not hundreds of bowman on a field. crossbow or otherwise. Its not a matter of aiming, its for the defenders to take cover or get skewered.

>> No.14545740

I am suddenly imagining a giant vagina playing a lute.


>> No.14545744

Good luck not doing shit to anyone in even basic armor.

And no a rapier does not magically make you a better swordsman. I'd much rather have any other sword.

>> No.14545750


That's what shields are for.

You don't go striding down the field in plate armour expecting it to stop you from getting hit by arrows/bolts.

>> No.14545751

>does not need expansive space
Using "Expansive" incorrectly.
>since ur helmet is
Get completely fucked.
>now bolted (no pun intended) to your face.

>> No.14545754


Do you really except someone expertly trained with a ranged weapon to miss?

>> No.14545766

Yes you do. That's why most plate-armored soldier used polearms historically. They just didn't need shields.

Learn to fucking realism you bag of shit.

>> No.14545767


>> No.14545768

well ye- wait are you rapier guy? Just curious. Most people don't use a rapier/shield combo

You have to aim first, in order to be able to miss.

>> No.14545770

wasn't the life of the rapier pretty short lived due to the advent of powder anyway?

Also, medieval armour didn't restrict the knights at all, and it weighed less than the kit of an average soldier of fireman today. it's just the it's difficult to dodge a volley of bolts going at high speed.

>> No.14545772


Yeh...this is why I usually just shut up and let it happen, cause in all honesty, it'd be near impossible to derive a system that perfectly replicates reality, and the system's not the worse because of it. I only start raging when people start to treat that knowledge as if it's cardinal truth in reality.

>> No.14545779

most troops were not expertly trained
they gave em a crossbow, showed them how it works and basically said
"point this towards that big shiny guy on a horse"
"Pull on this little lever thingy"

>> No.14545781

I'm an above-average marksman and even I miss moving targets sometimes.

>> No.14545783

>That's why most plate-armored soldier used polearms historically. They just didn't need shields.

Are you from ARMA by any chance? It's only Clements who would come up with shit like that.

>> No.14545786

>Armchair swordsmen arguing amongst themselves while armchair archers throw fuel on the fire

>> No.14545787

Rapier and buckler, yes. Rapier and any heavier shield? No, it throws off your balance which is key when using a rapier.

>> No.14545791


Targets are also fine.

>> No.14545800

>point of a rapier.

They're not really meant as combat weapons, are they?

>> No.14545801

There is not historical evidence of any kind that a person in plate ever used a shield. Ever. Anywhere. It's all ceremonial bullshit that got carried over into current misconceptions about medieval times and further enforced by fantasy tropes.

A crossbow does not pierce plate armor. Not even rifles pierced plate armor for a long while.

>> No.14545805

The Rapier:
Awesome, but impractical.

>> No.14545807

Is English not your first language or something? What manner of weapon isn't used in combat?

>> No.14545811



Plate armor was specifically designed to protect the wearer from arrows. Without the massive surge of arrow usage, chainmail would have remained more than efficient. Subsequently, crossbows were then made to pierce plate armor.

It's the classic ladder of arms development. Make something deadly, make something to prevent the deadly, make something deadlier, make something to prevent the deadlier, etc.

>> No.14545816


>> No.14545824

>doesn't know how a rapier works


>> No.14545838

>A crossbow does not pierce plate armor.

I would stop if I were you. Only people who know nothing about historical weapons will believe you.

>> No.14545845

No. Targes are just small wooden shields. But they were still conventional shields.

Contrary to popular belief, bucklers were not conventional shields. They were much smaller than even a targe and were held in a completely different manner. Whilst conventional shields runs along the length of your arm, bucklers were held almost as if an armored fist. And they were exclusively used for directing and parrying blows and were the only type of shield to be effective with a Rapier due to their light weight and speed. Conventional shields could easily block a sword blow head on, but a buckler used in such a manner would only result in a broken hand.

>> No.14545861

You guys are forgetting the main reason to carry a rapier.

The bitches love it. Y'all can be more combat effective, I'll be swimming in young duchesses and count's daughters.

>> No.14545868

Sport weapons.

Something like a dueling pistol isn't really optimized for use on a battlefield.

>> No.14545871

>Hurf durf I'll just shoot you
See this is where you're wrong because since I'm a rapier using badass and swave motherfucker besides I'll just pay-off the obviously underpaid crossbros and then it won't even matter.

Then while you're busy cranking up your stupid baby toy I'll have cut your throught with my dagger and skewered your heart with my RAPEier.

>> No.14545876

See: Ceremonial Bullshit
Jousting is not real combat.

If crossbows would have been a serious danger to soldiers in plate armor, they would have used shields. The sum of all historical evidence strongly suggests that soldiers in plate armor did not use shields ergo crossbows were not a danger to them.

Stop just spouting meaningless words and bring something intelligent to the table.

>> No.14545877

You'd better hope they're necrophiliacs.

>> No.14545882

The Rapier: Victorious in all manner of blossfechten forever. Of dubious worth elsewhere.

>> No.14545884

>>14545728 here


I knew there was a reason I picked a rapier.

>> No.14545890


lrn 2 history

YES, some plate armor from some locations (notable some Italian plate armors) were fired in a way to increase the hardness, and could therefore deflect bolts. Some of the later periods of this armor (reproductions of course, using the same method) can even stop low powered modern bullets from a distance.

>> No.14545892


I realise that, however there are plenty of sources for using targes/targets together with rapiers (Manciolino, Marozzo, etc.). At that point the weapon was close enough to be considered either a rapier or sidesword.

>> No.14545913


This. Metal armour would fuck your point up, you're better off going with that dagger in your left hand.

>> No.14545929

ITT: Ignorance, Misspellings, and other Shenanigans.

>> No.14545935

The Halberd, way better than the effeminate rapier and actually effective in battle. This is how you kill a knight.

Except jousts where you really wanted that extra protection.

Also, only the highest quality armor would regularly deflect longbow and crossbow shots at close range. Almost all plate mail was arrow proof at mid to long range, though.

>> No.14545939

>plate mail



>> No.14545942

Oh look, the halberd, that thing that poor people use instead of poleaxes.

>> No.14545949

If you're trying to go through someone's armor with a rapier then you're a dead fool. A rapier has a long and slender blade so you can penetrate the chinks and joints of an armor.

Seriously do you know anything about swords?

>> No.14545950

Nobody can see what they've written through the blur of hot nerdrage tears.

>> No.14545958

If pikes would have been a serious danger to cavalry, they wouldn't have used horses. The sum of all historical evidence strongly suggests that cavalry used horses ergo pikes were not a danger to them.

>> No.14545964


What part of
>use your dagger instead
don't you understand?

>> No.14545967


You're making the logical assumption that if something threatens a soldier, they will get something to fix the problem. Even in modern times this isn't true, with US Humvees not getting correct armor for years after deployment, and in World War I, even after repeated failures, they still just tried to walk across no man's land against a hail of bullets.

The world is not so clear-cut logical, especially in matters of death.

>> No.14545970


4/10, incredibly obvious but you got some responses so obviously I was the only one that noticed or something.

As for anyone that is lurking and doesn't know, the Crossbow WAS invented to counter plate armor wearing knights, and it was the worst because you could take a peasant, show him how to use the crossbow in about 30 seconds, and take down a plate armor soldier who's trained their entire life.

>> No.14545972

Hell and damn yes. The rapier is the perfect weapon for saturating the noble girls.. It's elegant and razor sharp, but not too large or threatening.

>> No.14545976

>ITT Fags

>> No.14545980

I would contest that the proper way to kill knights is with surplus wealth. Halberds, tertiary after effective agricultural policy and underworked peasants.

>> No.14545983

No, that's bullshit. First grade plate armor was being smithed and constructed all over Europe. We have found very few actual remains of such smithies and workshops (the most that have been found are in the locations you listed) but historical documents and archaeological digs have shown that such armor was not at all geographically scarce but available to as good as every major court of the time.

The only real limiting factor was the quality of the metal, but we already know that was traded all over the globe. The expertise was not as hard to get a hold of as people might think. All masters, in any fields, accepted loads of apprentices over their time and many of the more promising ones were sent to work for other kings or lords as a part of a political agreement.

Trust me anon, I know my shit.

>> No.14545985

I just wanna point out that Crossbows probably got b& for a time.

>> No.14545992

Why are these threads always exactly the same?
Does no one on /tg/ ever learn anything?

>> No.14545995

if they were so plentiful then why can't they find the smiths that made them


>> No.14545999

At least they're not katana threads.

>> No.14546003

Wow, /tg/, I never knew you were so full of combat historians.

I never need to do research again!

>> No.14546004


>> No.14546013

Fuck rapiers

>> No.14546014

You know, a lot of countries prided themselves on having very skilled crossbowmen. Particularly the heavier varieties of crossbow required enormous skill and training to use, the Genoese were famous enough for it that France imported thousands of them for their army.
This business about crossbows being SHAMEFUR DISPRAY was mostly the Vatican bitching about nothing, combined with English contempt for the crossbow in favor of their western Katana stand-in: The Longbow.

>> No.14546017

>The sum of all historical evidence strongly suggests
You keep saying that, but I don't think you know what it means.

>> No.14546021

It's not the same thing because shields were readily available. If plate armor would not have stood up against crossbows, they would have just brought a shield with them. A shield would then be a very low investment to protect the life of a highly trained soldier.

Comparing that to having to produce new humvees with a completely new configuration is bonkers. They already knew shields worked pretty well against missiles. If plate didn't work as well as it did, they would use shields. Because they already had the capability to just pick one up. People in the middle ages weren't utter retards.

>> No.14546029

ITT people pitching weapon blows, armors and projectiles against each other without ever setting down the variables that they are personally using, sundering any chances of bridging the gaps between conversations and aiming for a meaningful goal.

Oh, and somebody who mentionned dodging a crossbow bolt. That's an all new derp that I didn't expect even from 4chan.

>> No.14546033

So to make this actually about traditional games, how would you balance mail and plate (like munitions plate or partial plate) in a game? I remember hearing that plate armor came around due to improved forge technology that allowed for larger pieces of metal to be worked with, whereas mail is based on small items linked together, but I can't find any sources for that.

>> No.14546040

>the Crossbow WAS invented to counter plate

Sorry, but you are absolutely fucking retarded and you have no fucking idea what you're even talking about.

Crossbows existed before plate armor did. You fucking, FUCKING retard.

>> No.14546042

No one on /tg/ actually knows anything about this. If a neckbeard got into an actual weapon fight he would be bisected faster than those pigs on Deadliest Warrior.

We're just huge nerds, so we just pretend we know things about them.

>captcha: pic unrelated
Well, if you insist.

>> No.14546051

This except for the longbow part. While they did take a lot longer to learn and therefore have the whole 'lifetime of training' shit that accompanies stuff like that, they were still used by peasantry so never devolved into best weapon ever crap. Also, unlike the katana, the longbow can quite easily be oreved to have a longer range and potentially more punching power than the average crossbow.

>> No.14546054


Actually, as plate armor developed, varying degrees of armor and types of armor would be geographically separated. Part of this is because any improvement in military sciences, just like today, were protected as secrets of the crown, and anyone sharing them would be charged with treason. Same as today. This is especially true with something like firing techniques which are not obvious on the battlefield until the guy doesn't die, and even then it just looks like you have good armor, and doesn't say how.

>> No.14546055

Balance? If you're fucking rich, you get shiny plate, if you're only sort of rich, you get mail, if you're as fucked and poor as a Swede in Chicago, you get nothing. Balance be damned.

>> No.14546067

>if you're only sort of rich, you get mail,
Except that producing a shirt of mail is way more work than producing munition plate.

>> No.14546071

Hrm. I will admit I had heard something like that. Perhaps from the Crecey comic?

Basically the crossbow had been banned because it was overly effective in ending life on the battlefield, by the pope or some other jack a nape.

Not that I would dare posit such a outlandish idea, but if another anon had reliable sources, feel free to speak up.

>> No.14546081

People can dodge bullets so it's not like dodging a crossbow bolt is that different, especially since it's moving much slower.

As long as you aren't walking slowly in a big group with a bunch of other guys making yourself a huge target then your chances of actually getting hit with it are pretty small unless you're standing right in front of some genoese motherfucker ready to gat you with his knight be good stick.

>> No.14546085

The same reason that potters or siege engineers weren't written about.

Except for a few very special cases, armorsmiths were just workers. They were very much not artisans. (except the few who made ceremonial armor, but that obviously doesn't apply). Artisans could get very well known because they made beautiful pieces of art that a noble could get more influence by being involved with. There was no incentive or reason for why most armorsmiths would be famous or be extensively chronicled. They're just workers.

>> No.14546087


That comic was full of longbow faggotry, and I would take it as simply entertainment if I were you.

>> No.14546091

The longbow does have a sort of populist triumph-fetishism attached to it, but this isn't something that is as visible as the Katana's is, and thus, not considered annoying except by the most picky of people.

Or, you know, anyone who read that Crecy comic and didn't like the protagonists. Hope you died at Patay, asshole.

>> No.14546092

As a fencer all I have to say is you better have wrist/arm protection. Pitch battle? Not that great, too much going on. Duel? You'll bleed out before you can even touch me. Three feet of razor sharp steel is nothing to laugh at, especially with enough training to hit the small targets. Side of the knee cap, pit of the elbow, etc. Each hit brings pain and blood loss. (Especially that elbow hit, it feels like being hit in the funny bone but worse. I've lost my grip after being hit there, and I do olympic fencing. Can't imagine what it would feel like to get a blade through there.)

>> No.14546104

Yeah, the part where they were fucking terrified of the crossbowmen and only survived (as in real life) because they forgot their pavises reeks of "longbow faggotry". As does the part where they acknowledge their arrows probably won't pierce the knights' armor, so they aim for the unarmored horses instead.

>> No.14546105

By your logic a scholar is automatically a supreme fighter.

You're fucking retarded. We can know a fuck-lot about the historical facts without having a clue how to put them into practice.

>> No.14546119

>Basically the crossbow had been banned because it was overly effective in ending life on the battlefield, by the pope or some other jack a nape.

completely inaccurate.

it is thought that the papal ban of the Second Lateran Council is intended to outlaw the use of the crossbow for shooting acts of skill - the classic "william tell" apple off the person's head and the likes.

it was certainly not some attempt to outlaw the crossbow as too powerful/unchristian/too easy to kill knights/other as so many people claim.

>> No.14546122

Yes, but the basics were still known by all. And making quality plate armor isn't as magical as some people believe it is.

It's like thinking kevlar armor is known to only a few countries today.

>> No.14546128

>By your logic a scholar is automatically a supreme fighter.
Actually no, by his logic a scholar would at least know how a supreme fighter functions. People in /tg/ have neither knowledge nor method.

>> No.14546141

I have a suggestion, gentlemen.

This is the internet.

We have ressources at our fingertips, unlike in real life. So let's not treat this like a real-life conversation that cannot go anywhere. How? When you present informaiton, post a link which hold said information.

Therefore there will be no more >>"HA HA HA you are so dumb and I am right!" going on. There will only be flat, pure information being shared followed by considerations of which sources is more credible.

We will have that instead of poorly-documented and agressive personal opinions that dubiously appears to be a way to blow off steam on the internet. Not that you gentlemen would EVER do that.

I repeat, post links.

>> No.14546145

>derp herp i know all about the historical whatsits and how everything works i'm so smart and i will know how fights go down and
>turns out i know jack shit, fancy that

>> No.14546148

Oh he did. They all did. Great spiel a few threads back about the odds of survival as a longbowman during the 100 years war. Basically 0 to None. You're too valuable to send back to England, and the enemy hates you far, far too much to let you live if they catch you.

>> No.14546151

> Actually no, by his logic a scholar would at least know how a supreme fighter functions. People in /tg/ have neither knowledge nor method.

actually, some of us do have the knowledge, and the practice in the methods.

specifically, 8 years studying german longsword and 6 training in italian school rapier, and a career as a spathologist studying those weapons.

would hold my own in a real fight if I was zapped back to 1550-something? I dont know. no-one alive does. but I certainly know that I, and the host of other WMA'ers on /tg/ are not as ignorant as you are.

>> No.14546162

The crossbow was first used in China, with a complete absence of plate armor. In Europe, both the crossbow and plate armor first appear in use by the Greeks around 500BC. However, after the fall of Rome, both plate armor and crossbows fell out of popularity because of price, and no doubt some of the knowledge was lost (i mean, the fucking forgot how to make cement...this isn't a stretch at all). They both became more prevalent over the next thousand years, with notable use by the time of the Battle of Hastings.

The argument is not that the crossbow was invented to bypass plate armor, but rather that it further developed to do so.

>> No.14546165

You obviously have no idea how the internet works.

If I had to look up and link a source on every argument I said, I wouldn't be on the internet. Even if I knew I had a source.

And neither would 90% of the people on the internet. Enjoy your empty silence.

>> No.14546186

>specifically, 8 years studying german longsword and 6 training in italian school rapier, and a career as a spathologist studying those weapons.

I have 100 years studying every weapon known to man and a career single-handedly cataloguing every weapon ranked by their power level, not to mention made appearances on every single episode of Deadliest Warrior and Modern Marvels.
I think I outrank your knowledge.

>> No.14546199

The Internet is actually one of the only places you can reasonably cite arguments during a live discussion since you can actually link to things and look up things.

Also, empty silence is better than a giant circlejerk / pissing contest. Enjoy being sticky and wet.

>> No.14546209

It wasn't used against plate at all. It was a popular weapon because it was much easier to raise a professional army when you didn't have to spend as much time practising only the weapon.

Basically it was used because to a king raising an army, it was the superior weapon. Much like raising an army of people with spears. There's a reason the spear was the most prevalent weapon in medieval Europe. Easier to use, so much easier to raise a professional army (or just to muster a quick one if you had to.) Just like the crossbow.

>> No.14546219

a 100 years? Hah talk about useless knowledge. I hope you can use your sword to beat cancer and old age.

>> No.14546226

No. This is better than no argument at all.

If you think this is worse than nothing you are completely free to leave this thread. You ain't gonna change shit.

>> No.14546244

>>rapier calling claymore a faggot

>> No.14546258

That was probably the worst rebuttal anyone has ever made. Regarding anything.

"Yeah we're wrong, but it's better to be wrong than to say nothing, and if you don't like it you can leave!"

>> No.14546293

Because we will keep on being "wrong" because this is the way we like it and if you don't like it you can kindly just shut the fuck up and get the fuck out.

Go to some intellectual forum or whatever if you want people to not be allowed to say shit without at least citing 5 sources. We're too busy having fun and there isn't fucking shit you can do about it.

>> No.14546297

What are you, thirteen?

>> No.14546303


>> No.14546316

what if

what if a crossbow was shooting rapiers against a person wearing a full half plate mail and a two-handed shield on each hand

which one would win

>> No.14546334

A gun would win. It would pierce all the armors and instantly kill whoever it hit.

It's like you're stupid or something.

>> No.14546340

>full half plate mail
I smiled

>> No.14546370

>Longbows weaker than crossbows
>Anecdotal evidence of people being nailed to horses/thick oak doors by arrows fired from longbows
>No such crossbow stories

Never change /tg/

>> No.14546469

Neither, because 30lbs on each hand is impractical and would never be used by anyone. There's a reason plate was designed to be mobile, so they could actually get to the fight AND be protected.

>> No.14546514

nonsense. everyone knows swords alone weighed 45lbs each........

>> No.14546532

I was talking about heavy shields. Some did. Iron and wood aren't light.

>> No.14546596

Oh, so you know about two-handed shields? That's good. I'm glad that you know about two-handed shields. I was afraid that I was making a serious post about two-handed shields without someone like you, who know about two-handed shields, being there to tell us exactly the specification and the viability of


>> No.14546619

On a completely different note.

>> No.14546652

Oh shut you 200lb neckbeard with penis envy.

>> No.14546697

Two-handed shields, you say...?

>> No.14546717

Two hands on that shield, bro.

>> No.14546838

Holy crap two handed shields

>> No.14546855

this man-child is an idiot. watch the history channel, or the military channel some time. they talk about this all the time. crossbows not only required less training to use, they could throw a bolt hard enough to pierce plate mail. admitedly not over the distances a longbow could loft an arrow, but then real battlefields were much more contained than in movies.

>> No.14546862

>the history channel
>the military channel
>plate mail

>> No.14546867

sorry, i meant this man-child

>> No.14546898

George silver would have few things to say to you.


>> No.14546983

I have a few deep cuts in my skull and chest and fingers that say otherwise, but I understand your position. I own a reproduction longsword (15th century windlass arms make, not entirely historically accurate in my opinion, but it still suits my purposes), several practice weapons and troll swordsmanship blogs, I am a member of myarmoury.com, I have had years of free sparring and drilling experience, especially against opponents with no style, some style, entirely different styles and completely different weapons.

After all that . . . . I can't even claim myself an amateur in The Noble Art and Science of Defence (archaic defense).

>> No.14546993


>Yeah, the part where they were fucking terrified of the crossbowmen and only survived (as in real life) because they forgot their pavises reeks of "longbow faggotry". As does the part where they acknowledge their arrows probably won't pierce the knights' armor, so they aim for the unarmored horses instead

It isn't really the depiction of tactics or events. It's the whole underlying spiel about common, hardy Englishfolk overcoming the effete asshole French nobility in defense of English FREEEEDOOOOOM.

Which isn't unique to the Crecy comic; most Anglo popular culture likes this version of the story, instead of a bunch of English aristocrats getting rich by pillaging the countryside while the French aristocrats followed them around having feasts and jousts instead of actually protecting their own lands.

>> No.14547020

Put 'er there.

>> No.14547068


>> No.14547171

George Silver was a giant asshole. I don't know about his fencing though.

Also i hate the word rapier. A guy says rapier, one interprets it as a blade shape, the other as a kind of hilt, a third as a blade length, a fourth as a sword from a certain time and a fifth as a sword for civilan life (probably the proper, if useless for classification, use). And in the end we don't even know what we're trying to discuss. It certainly doesn't help how most period text tend to just say "sword" for the common one handers of the era and something like "long sword", "two handed sword" or "big sword" for two handers. It's even worse when you add D&D on top.

>> No.14547198

Trained with sharps (are you craaaaaaaaaaaazy?), or was it with blunts but inadequate protection?

>> No.14547224

Also i hate the word rapier. A guy says rapier, one interprets it as "rap ear", the other as "rapey ear", a third "rappy ear", a fourth as "rape ear" and a fifth as "rape yer" (probably the proper, if useless for classification, use). And in the end we don't even know what we're trying to discuss. It certainly doesn't help how most period text tend to just say "sword" for the common one handers of the era and something like "long sword", "two handed sword" or "big sword" for two handers. It's even worse when you add D&D on top.

>> No.14547243

Maybe he's not a pussy and/or was in real fights?

>> No.14547254

I thought the rapier was a clearly-defined, specific style of sword with definite physical properties?

>> No.14547258


there is the A.V.B. Norman rapier classification system, published in
"The Rapier and the Smallsword, 1460-1820"
Hardbound: 464 pages
ISBN: 0405130899

Unfortunately, unlike the Oakeshott typology, its not particularly well-known at all, and the price of copies of the book have rather left it unpopular.

interesting volume for a spathologist, though.

>> No.14547303


no. just no.

rapier classification is an absolute fucking trainreck of a headache.

is a pappenheimer a rapier, or not? what about a spanish cup-hilted rapier? complex-hilted german with italian style blade? italian fashion? closed-cup hilt on northenr blade, etc etc, etc.

its a total clusterfuck. lets put it this way... this pic is an english rapier:

>> No.14547306

>The rapier:
>Too long for a smallsword to even think of attacking.
>Strong enough to parry a full strength longsword blow.

Hey OP, you you misstyped the cut and thrusht sword

>> No.14547318

i have heard you can cut bullets with it due to the steel being folded a thousand times and the spirit of rupert third living as an ashigaru mitsubishi in its blade

>> No.14547344

actually the cuts came from when we were just playing with sharps when I was about 17. The whole HEMA scene didn't exist then, or if it did, it was just a few places and the internet was never big where I come from until about 2002 or so.

After that I started to absorb what I could from the library, when I started with my first real job I started buying books online and study, study, study. To this day I wander from one bit of style to another, I went from Renaissance longswords (a.l.a Lichtenauer, Ringeck, Tallhoffer) to trying to study the saber and cutlass (possibly using my airsoft gun in my left hand)

>> No.14547364

I've seen it . . . with a static sword in a vice. You only have to fold a sword four or five times to get those thousands of folds.

Also cocks

>> No.14547365

and these are also rapiers, technically.

and I think you'll agree, the two on the left in particular are completely different beasts, with far, far broader, cutting blades to the thrust-oriented previous one, a completely different type of hilt design, different performance and handling characteristics.

its a total nightmare. "rapier" is about as accurate a description as "broad sword" really.

>> No.14547381

those are all flammard styles right?

>> No.14547384

The closest thing to a concrete definition i can think of is:

-Blade geometry inteded primarily for thrusting
-"Complex" handguard

And maybe "Intended for civilan use".

Even if we take all three it can still mean quite a few different things. There were blades shaped like an H-beam, so they could be really long without being too heavy and still remain stiff, but they couldn't cut. There were also blades quite capable of cutting, in fact one Spanish (where quite a few masters recommended "short" swords) fencing manual (Grandezas de la Espada) warns about a certain technique, a cut to the head, saying that you shouldn't do it if you want to avoid killing. There are hilts made of a number of rings, covering the fingers and hand, other hilts shaped like two shells, some others are semispherical, some are combination of rings and one of the other types, and some have holes on them to remove weight.

Some use the name cut-and-thrust for something more choppy than a rapier, but frankly, i don't know where to draw the line, and we'd still need a word for those completely incapable of cutting.

So as you can see, it's a mess.

>> No.14547392

Ancient weapons historian here. This is true. The rapier is not a flimsy bendy piece of aluminum foil. Most people are actually thinking of a foil when they picture a rapier. It's actually quite thick, decently weighty, and can soak some meaty hits. The ones with inch and a half width blades are strong enough to go through scale and chain.

Obviously you need a longsword for plate, but these are much faster for dispatching a light opponent such as a street duelist or citizen. Not a great sword to use on its own but definitely a fine backup for the battlefield.

>> No.14547412

>obviously you need a maul for plate
capcha: termed mplate

>> No.14547426


>Dodge bullets


>> No.14547428

I'd rather have a Lucerne hammer.

>> No.14547431

A proper longsword (not an arming sword) is going to be faster than a rapier simply because it's wielded with both hands. In fact, longswords are frighteningly fast in all aspects. Less suited to lunging than a rapier is traditionally intended to be, but the blade itself is longer so the range of each is similar.

>> No.14547447

Those are very nice flambard blades

>> No.14547452

>You only have to fold a sword four or five times to get those thousands of folds.

Attention, retard: Number of layers = 2^(folds). 2^10 = 1024. 2^4 = 16. 2^5 = 32 There is a BIG DIFFERENCE.

Also cocks.

>> No.14547461

flamboyant or flammard, yup. fullers are cut and peirced too, for even more flash gittishnes.

and here's a very bad photo of two more cut hilted rapiers, with blades so narrow they're virtually wires. lethal in the thrust, but in the cut? hrm.

>> No.14547474

sword taxonomy is really hard to pin down in general anyway often times the weapon was made for the benefit of a certain individual with certain preferences or it was the style of the time. Even then what would be out of style in one region could be in full bloom in another. amirite?

>> No.14547480

Yes, those are like can openers on a stick.

It helps but is not necessary. You actually can fight against plate well with a Longsword. You're better off with a Halberd, but if yours breaks or is parried away, your longsword might not get you killed.

>> No.14547485

Some of the more extreme rapiers could be longer than a longsword, but i don't think i've seen a single master recommending those.

On speed, i don't think there'd be much of a difference, while you have more power with two hands which would lead to more speed, the movements are also more complex.

The big advantage is in the bind, a one handed weapon would need quite an extreme bind to be able to move a two handed one, which can create openings.

>> No.14547500

are you implying that one has to fold a sword a thousand times to get the thousand folds? I don't speak math.

>> No.14547510

I dunno man. I don't buy that relying on cutting solid metal is a very effective ploy, and all them pictures of people just designing retarded "swords" that are really blunt weapons suggests to me that you're better with blunt weapons.

>> No.14547512

are we talking about glorious Japan and their secret techniques?

>> No.14547526


>> No.14547529

depends entirely on the longsword design, and the rapier design.

I've handled rapiers which have a definate blade presence which make them slow, I've handled others which have a point of balance such that you cna pivot on the point with lightning vast speed.
I've handled longswords that are tiring and weighty, I've handled longswords that are again, blindingly fast.

simple generalisations are rarely useful, the rapier can be faster, if the user is fast, the longsword can be faster if that user is fast. simple and as complex as that.

>> No.14547549

I'm not a fan of those simple stiletto style (top) main gauches. I prefer the full basket hilt. (middle bottom). That middle rapier looks like a fencing foil. This is the kind of civilian sword you just don't see used in the military.

This is very true and I applaud your accuracy.
This is true as a general rule. Though I already see people pointing out the outliers where this is not true.

>> No.14547550

He said 10 times if you start with 2 layers (2^10), but you could start with more so it'd be even less.

You're not supposed to cut them open with the sword, you grapple them to the ground, or shove the point in their weak spots (armpits, visor, neck, groin, etc). That's if you're also wearing plate though. If you're not i think you'd better run.

Also blunt is not what you're looking for. A stick is blunt, but the force is even more spread than on a sword, so it will do even less. You want weapons that are somewhat tip heavy and have a small impact area, so the force is concentrated. That's axes, picks, hammers, flanged or spiked maces, and the like.

>> No.14547551


I think by longsword versus plate mail he referring to the halfsword techniques, but you must be in a plate mail too for that

>> No.14547554

Nah, the enemy often would let them live. They would just cut off the middle fingers and index fingers before shipping them to a slave/labor camp. That's supposedly where the original 'fuck you' finger sign was from, when an Englishman would hold up those two fingers.

Also, that's supposedly what Churchill was actually flashing around 'backwards' to give a covert sign of fuck off to the enemies, not a peace sign, but I heard that from some fat military ROTC colonel dude, so take it with a grain of salt.

>> No.14547572

the middle left one is really sweet, even if I don't much care for the hilt...
is that an Oakeshott XVIII blade?

>> No.14547574


Folding just evenly distributes carbon. Viking and Japanese swords were folded so much because their iron was shit. Since continental Europe to this day has the most high quality iron reserves in the world they didn't have to worry about that shit. That's also why they had plat armor in the first place while other regions had lacquered with metal inserts or mail armor at best. Asian light armor was decent, but their heavy armor was shit almost universally or just nonexistent.
Asia Minor got around that somewhat because it was on all the trade routes.

>> No.14547577

>sword taxonomy is really hard to pin down in general

Gebig, Wheeler, Petersen and Oakeshott typologies for iron age, early migration period, viking, and medieval swords respectively would like to differ.

you say oakeshott type XVIIIb and I know exactly the archetype you're referring to.

>> No.14547583

actually harnisfechten with a longsword required turning the sword into a shortspear by chocking up on the blade and using it as a lever, often to stab in gaps in armor, or even using the famous murder stroke, a technique involving swinging with the blade and jamming the cross guard into the helmet or bare head.

>> No.14547584

You must really like that video, posting it in every thread...

>> No.14547592

>A proper longsword (not an arming sword) is going to be faster than a rapier simply because it's wielded with both hands.

Cutting mechanics, do you understand them?
I can cut as quickly with a longsword in one hand as I can with it in two, because it rotates around its centre of balance just as well, and my arm isn't generating force, it's my hips, shoulders and back doing the tiny amount of work that needs to be done. Of course I have more problem with edge alignment and getting decent push-cuts.
I can't cut as quickly with a (pointy style) rapier because its mass distribution isn't set up for that to the same extent. Depending on the flavour of rapier, it might not be designed for more than olympic style flick-cuts, or draw-cuts, so that might not be an issue.

Then again, I've barely fenced with a rapier. Years of Olympic fencing put me off poking matches. I find sabre/dussack/messer fun, and longsword gives me the intellectual/conceptual challenge.

I've always been surprised by the dead-weight of smallswords and rapiers that I've handled though, and the momentum of rapiers. Probably all that epee fencing catching up with me.

>> No.14547606


thats confirmed to be an urban legend. And why the flying fuck would they release a commoner? I mean you want a filthy peasant to be back in the enemies army using something else against you than a longbow? few fingers of he can still use a sword or a spear

>> No.14547612

Yes, you're going to want to be in plate as well. Commonly, you'll grab your blade and smash the pommel or grossguard into their plate at the weak spots to create an opening. Then switch back to Fool's position and feint and drive them hard until you can lunge double handed at your new armor chink. A good place to open up is the gap between the breastplate and leggings because you can then sever the femoral artery.

Alternatively, use your langschwert to parry them to the ground or feint, then tackle them, and stab a weak spot while in arm bar or similar.

>> No.14547614

yes but those are the styles of a certain age, even within these typologies had more survived we would have seen probably a greater variety right? I'm just sayin' is all.

>> No.14547634


I didn't "imply" shit. I outright stated that you had to fold a single sheet of metal 10 times to get a thousand folds. After that, it goes up pretty quick. Want 10,000 layers for example? Fold it 14 times.

>> No.14547637


nah, not every thread, just the ones where someone mentions glorious japan

>> No.14547638

>let's take turns beating a faggot and screaming
>this is a holy enterprise, it must involve much bowing and reverence

>> No.14547647

>Since continental Europe to this day has the most high quality iron reserves in the world they didn't have to worry about that shit

(do excuse any typos. my hands are wrecked today)

actually, the reason that the pattern-welded "viking" sword (which, by the way, was most commonly made not in scandinavia, but in Frankish or Saxon germany) was superseded by the homogenous steel sword of the medieval age was the adoption of the over-shot water wheel.

the overshot wheel increased the available power of a millwheel to about 3-4 horsepower, which could in turn be harnessed to more powerful bellows, which in turn resulted in a higher temperature in the bloomery process, and finally allowing effective seperation on bloom from slag.

That is the reason for the improvement in medieval steel, not any major inherent quality of steel ore, compared to india, the middle east, or africa. (though japanese ore was pretty crap)

>> No.14547657


>> No.14547658

well I did "imply" that I didn't understand your math speak. My response was overtly glib and for that I apologize

>> No.14547684

>even within these typologies had more survived we would have seen probably a greater variety right?

nope. things like the castillon hoard have shown that among the typolgies, there tend to be distinct family groups of sword archetypes which in combination were more popular.

pic related

>> No.14547694

Try Spanish rapier, it's hardly a poking match. It can be very fun, it's a defensive system, so you're not supposed to attack unless you're in a situation where you can't possibly get counterattacked, so there's a lot of bladework and binding.

>> No.14547704

> is the guy whom you have been responding to

Neat, as a man of the western tradition of scholarship I find there's always more to learn. I bow to your knowledge sirrah.

>> No.14547708

It's not so much the quality of the best ore that I was taking about but the quantity of good quality ore and it availability to primitive miners.

Europe just had a shitton of usable ore that happens to be exposed at the surface in a usable form, often in swarms through redox processes instead of BIFs like most asian deposits are. High quality in this case just means it can be worked by hand without much preparation or refining.

>> No.14547712


Sorry, but I'd have more patience if I hadn't literally said, right there, 2^10 = 1024 and described the math as 2^(foldings). That's a pretty obvious 10 foldings = 1024 folds, even if you don't "speak math".

>> No.14547713


So let's talk about Falchions and Kiljs. They are my all time favorite swords ever. The Conyers-type Falchion is a backsword with a curved tip that is wide and tapers off toward the hilt. It's extremely thick like a cleaving axe and they function the same as an axe near the tip of the blade. The rest of the blade can be used like a sword making it the perfect middle ground between axe power and sword versatility.

The Kilij is a wickedly curved and very wide scimitar similar to a shamshir. The large difference is that the tip is weighted for a heavy percussion cut (the impact of a cut) and the extreme curve which gives it an increased draw cut (time a blade stays on the surface). It out performs a katana at cutting flesh and it's only a single handed blade. They're also very fast.

>> No.14547731

hey it's no big, thanks for elaborating man.

>> No.14547761

Have to admit, I love falchions as well. Also an excellent weapon for someone who doesn't really know what they're doing - can't really mess up using one.

>> No.14547767

I hear tell that in the middle east they had a decent supply of tungsten for a while which with they forged their Damascus blades. Apparently the only way to have melted such a high grade metal is that they created the raw ore in a crucible. Or something, anyone know mroe on this?

>> No.14547793

If you rest one on the shoulder and hold an offhand shield, you really can't go wrong there. Just make wide cleaving strikes. They're known to bite into and even open up plate.

>> No.14547798

> You actually have time to think while half-swording? Then you need to train more intensely. Compare with this version:

Commonly you'll start half-swording, try and deal with their first attack, either by bum-rushing them with a better sense of tempo, or by displacing their first attack. You'll then drive into them with your body mass, row-boat-paddling with a half-sword grip in order to stop them getting a chance to recover. You're using your trapezoid muscles at this stage, the big ones in your back that you use in archery, but the real force is being generated by your legs.

You see your chance and take it, dipping the point of your sword under his right knee and heaving upwards with all your strength. He topples, but you're dragged down with him. Fuck. Your sword goes flying as you tumble ontop of him.

You've fallen to the floor in a fucked up tangle, a messy grapple, and now you're struggling over a piece of sharp steel. It's sandwiched between you, and he's got both hands on it. You want to be the fuck out of there, but you can't get away safely. Somehow you manage to get a knee on the fucker's right shoulder, the other one pinning his sword across his abdomen.

The cunt pulls out a rondel dagger. A fucking pig-sticker and a handle, designed for fucking up poor sods like you.

You lean over, desperately to grab your sword. You just about manage to reach without him managing to stick you, and you see your chance. Couching the grip of it under your right armpit, you use your left hand to guide the tip into the slit of his visor.

You push down with all your body weight, as the sword encounters resistance from his orbital.

His friend then hits you in the back of the head with a pollaxe.

Game Over. Start Again?

>> No.14547800

I heard the ore came from india. But india sucks at forging and always has. So they were forged in asia minor.

>> No.14547804

>Wide cleaving strikes
Enjoy getting stabbed from a thrust.

>> No.14547829

The manufacturing process for damascus/wootz steel isn't known anymore. For whatever reason it died out - perhaps because the metal deposits they sued (which some think contained trace amounts of tungusten or vanadium) ran dry. There's no doubt, however, that the steel used in those swords was of superior quality to what was commonly available at the time.

>> No.14547837

There's a reason I mentioned having a shield. Also this weapon is capable of deflecting oncoming blows from even the heaviest swords as it's attacking.

>> No.14547854

>So let's talk about Falchions and Kiljs. They are my all time favorite swords ever. The Conyers-type Falchion is a backsword with a curved tip that is wide and tapers off toward the hilt. It's extremely thick like a cleaving axe and they function the same as an axe near the tip of the blade.

No. wrong. wrong, Bad! Bad Tripfag, no cookie.

The conyers falchion is not, in any way, "extremely thick like a cleaving axe" - infact, it is exactly the opposite of that, with an exceptionally THIN distal profile in the cutting face. I have handled the conyers falchion, and it is light, and would've been exceptional in the cutting of unarmoured targets. its distal profile tapers from around 4.5 mm at the cross rapidly down to only 2.5mm thick in the middle third of the blade, and then tapers gradually to about 2mm on the broadest point of the blade.

this is a good 1-2mm narrower than the equivalent blade distal on an oakeshott XIV of the same date as the falchion.

Please, do not continue to propogate utterly inaccurate fallacies about weapons you have not handled, or even studied.

>> No.14547865

the sword was well used by peasants with no military training for its ease of use. getting stabbed wasn't really a problem because of shields.

>> No.14547869

>talkin' about exotic swords

It is inevitable.

>> No.14547879

>Fair enough, although any sort of training with historical martial arts tends to lead to extreme rage at games

No, that actually means that you had not humor in the first place.

>> No.14547887

I think he meant wide

>> No.14547891

Cutleranon, if that's you, I think yesterday someone asked about that jack (padded/coat of plates?) x-ray floating about.

Just figured I'd mention it.

>> No.14547902

Not a tripfag. This is a temp name. It's not even a tripcode.

You're also cherry picking your examples. As shown earlier in the thread with rapiers, there are thick and thin versions of the same sword.

I have both handled and studied this weapon extensively. Both with a round shield and florentine. Your attitude is shitty.

>> No.14547921

Oh fucking really? This falchion is as thick as an arming sword. As the tripfag said, quit cherry picking your shit.

>> No.14547938


>They're known to bite into and even open up plate.

.... ... wat?

>> No.14547945

When shields were still in use on the battlefield, peasants would have had spears. And they would have liked them. They didn't like spears? They could have some shitty arse pole-arm like a voulge or a bill, and they would have liked it as they got peppered by arrows.

They want swords? Tough, they can't have swords. Common infantry having swords happened later. I mean, sword and buckler fencing was popular, but only amongst the wealthy urban middle classes who stayed wealthy by not being poor bloody infantry, if they went to war at all.

By the time that most soldiers had swords, either they were pretty professionalised (like the English armies of the HYW), or the better off were running around in transitional plate and you want a pole-arm rather than a shield.

But yeah, successful troll is successful. Have +1 Trollhoffers.

>> No.14547958

yes you're right, my apologies. I meant width. Not the back-edge thickness. But that's actually wrong anyway since falchions are not always light swords. That is actually the exception rather than the norm.

Demon's Souls accurately depicts the length, width, and thickness of a falchion as well as the geometry and use.

>> No.14547978

yep, that was me, about this pic if anyone have more info about it maybe the original pic

>> No.14547985

and that modern toy is not a replica of the conyers falchion.

it is a bad modern knock off.

having handled the conyers and thorpe falchions, and makde detailed studies of the dresden falchion, plus the falchions in the Musee d' Armee and the Musee D Invalides, paris, I would happily state that the falchion is not in any sense the thick crowbar you seem to beleive it to be. their distal profile as far thinner than most expect, the thorpe falchion, for example is fullered only on one side, as its too thin to be fullered on both.

and yes, my mistake, just a namefag, not a tripfag. however that does'nt change the fact you're talking utter shit about the conyers falchion's physical properties.

>> No.14547987

"The falchion sword was developed from the sharp farming tools used by peasants. The falchion was a low quality sword and usually deemed unworthy of a knight who owned more expensive swords."


They weren't always and forever used by peasants but some were.

>> No.14547991


Really now?
A fa/tg/uy cannot into exponents?

I am ashamed.

>> No.14548044

To this idiot, I just checked this link and saw
"The Medieval Falchion swords had a short, heavy blade with a single edge."

Honestly, every single instance of a falchion I've ever heard about, encountered for real, or seen in a game has them being heavy. Your anecdote isn't compelling.

>> No.14548052

I'm a geek not a nerd sirrah.

>> No.14548069

Come on, try harder. Give me a region, a period, anything?

Here's a guy wielding a falchion in full armour. He's got a crest and everything. He's no peasant. It's also a completely different period to what you're talking about, and he's not carrying a shield.


>> No.14548074

yep, I'm the cutler-anon.

this Jack in the pic?

its in the national museum of scotland, the xray is one of the conservation notes on it I have... somewhere. though armour is less professional study, and more for the safety of not being beaten to fuck.

>> No.14548077

>cite a bunch of falchions that are just species of Conyers and Cusped. Dude, you're a joke. Quit trying to sound smarter than you are. And falchions are heavy one handed blades, quit trying to bullshit your way into a paradigm shift when reality disagrees with you.

>> No.14548095

Follow the link, it actually says Medieval Period right in the header.

I also never said falchions are peasent-only weapons. I'm very aware that some nobles used more decorated and well-made blades in battle and that it wasn't even a rare sight.

You are coming off as a troll and a dick in general. You should stop attempting to twist peoples' words and infer things that are not there.

>> No.14548108

It's also a picture...which may or may not mean it's accurate. Much like pictures that show swords cleaving through helmets and such.

>> No.14548112

>yfw you realize how many people would've dueled to the death over this shit if /tg/ was actually in a medieval fantasy world

>> No.14548116

>Cutlery disinformation thread
>no claims of outlandish performance of japanese swords
>no kukris
>no 'broadsword' flamewar
well it's a nice change

>> No.14548125

Oh boy, you sure love to be contrary. Are you seriously fucking implying you can't use a weapon with a shield because one picture doesn't have it? How many pills of stupid did you swallow today?

>> No.14548138

I would've dueled that retard claiming that falchions are light and thin and lashing out at everyone who tries to bring in some reality.

And I'd have cleaved his skull in twain.

>> No.14548143

except now we have some falchion troll.

>> No.14548160

Tangental rant of the day.

Do you know what's really annoying? The British Library manuscript catalogue website. You need to know exactly what you want and what they call it in their system in order to search, and there's no browse function. I wasted an hour today trying to find their description of the longsword section on folio 105r of Cotton Titus A XXV, (1450 – 1465). I managed to get the other two English works on sword-play after another hour, but the German libraries are so much better. Scans! Translations! Multiple catalogues!

Eugh. I give up for today. No more scans of FwtGL for you internets, either.

>> No.14548193

I'd be up for that, if you're based in Europe. Got an email I can contact you on?

>> No.14548204


>> No.14548222


Games are *not* archeological evidence.

Actual hard evidence? ok, and that meant pulling out documentation, and in that, I realised the conyers is thinner than I remember it being.

The Conyers Falchion weighs: 1,300gr, the
The blade is 734 mm long with a shallow fuller close to the spine, running about 75% of the blade's length and fading out.
Blade profile geometry is 39 mm (1.53") wide at the base, widening to a maximum of 109 mm (4.3") at 140 mm (5.5") from the point.
it is around 4.5 mm thick at the base, 6.5mm at the spine on the base, distal taper steep; to 2.5mm at the middle third, then to only 1.2mm at the widest point of the blade, and to 1mm at the tip.

The Thorpe Falchion: Weight 904g, missing grip.
Overall length: 956mm, with a blade length of 803mm
Profile dimension at cross 48mm, and a maximum blade width of 56mm at 225mm from tip

Distal profile is 4.75mm at the cross tapering to 2.5mm thickness at the widest point of the blade.
Point of Balance: 243mm (9.6") from end of pommel, or 133mm from the cross.

>> No.14548229


>my face then

>> No.14548256

>he seriously acts like there's a difference between a thorpe and a cusped
News for you retard, a thorpe IS a cusped.

And stop posting your ONE instance of a cleaving falchion. Not all of them are made exactly the same. That's a flimsy model anyway.

>> No.14548273


judicial duel? We could ask Herr Trollhoffer about the rules

>> No.14548291

Boo hoo. Want to come over here then?

>> No.14548311

He is rather busy on FriendFace these days. I like who-ever is running the operation, it's just the right balance of coolface and actual interpretation/research.

>> No.14548373


no, little child, what I just cade you was an example of each of the two primary blade profiles of falchion, the conyers cleaver type, and the thorpe cusped type, which have clearly demonstrated that your "games tell me falchions are heavy" nonsense is exactly that - nonsense.

Actual hard archeological evidence proves the weight of the cleaver falchion to be within 15% of the average weight of a single-handed sword of the same general date. measurements of the thorpe falchion equally demonstrate that the cusped falchion's weights were equally matched to conventional swords.

The examples in the musee d'armee, the Invalides, Dresden, and of course, the far more common later messers with similar blade forms all corroborate this evidence which you appear to be doing a good job burying your head in the sand and pretending it does'nt exist, much like the victorians and thier claims of the weight of armour, which are just as inaccurate as your notions of the physical properties of falchions.

>> No.14548378



I think the cause will be falsehood

>> No.14548415

cade you?

*gave you. even.

I can never type for fuck after a day raising armour plates peices. my hands are wrecked.

>> No.14548423


I think the real problem is that they don't know what heavy means

>> No.14548425

>> No.14548433


Your source is a page written by somebody who's other publications appear to be baby care books for teens and who has never heard of citation rules.... your source is of doubtful quality.

>> No.14548447

porblem RPGs?

>> No.14548457

Huh, I guess macs are good fro something after all.

>> No.14548460

well, that's a better academic standard than John Clements, and more honest than Brian Price, then....

>> No.14548493

You will never have a rapier-duel to the death, either winning the girl of your dreams or dying with honour


>> No.14548511


actually you can set a short spear against a charge too... But it won't be very effective and chances are you will be dead afterwards

>> No.14548540

>dying with honor
yeeeeaaaaah, you realiz ethat when people die they shit themselves and make squeeling noises?

>> No.14548564

That's kinda the point...

>> No.14548568


no, but I have had a rapier duel to the pub.

he lost, I got my drinks paid for after practice.

its not quite as dramatic, but it was more fun than pissing your insides over the floor.

>> No.14548569


>dying with honor

You mean the other guy who won and alive will be the one who is right, and you are the liar or whatever you were dueling about?

>> No.14548574

Thing is, ARMA does have Sydney Anglo, who is about the only English speaking academic to have serious looked at fechtbuchs from the medieval period.

Trying to decide whether I like his work or not.

>> No.14548638

Angelo's not bad... his translation of frederico ghislhero is somethin I'd have liked to see in more detail, but it seems it got abandoned somewhere along the line.... given my medieval italian sucks monkey cock, and I have access to a copy of Regole.

If I were a cynic, I'd say "but he'd have to be spectacular to make up for clements' arseholery" :)

have a pic of a page from frederico ghislhero.

>> No.14548677

True, true. To be fair, what other organisations were there in the states in the early 90s? The SCA?

I'm off tomorrow to try and find his article on Le Jeu de la Hache, from the good old days of 1991. Want me to scan it?

Also, any idea if you'll be at FightCamp this year? I should buy you a pint.

>> No.14548721


do you know any more about this armor? Like ho thick is it? And what kind of materials are those strips on the X-ray? I would say leather but not sure

>> No.14548760

That depends from person to person. Did you really believe that all people squeeled and shat themself on death?

>> No.14548806


Maybe he has a scat fetish or something

>> No.14548859

let me see if I can find the restoration notes, they're a hard copy somewhere in my library...

(by library, I do of course mean bookshelves about to collapse under the mountain of crap on them.)

summary from memory though is its around 0.7mm thick steel plates, centre-punched, and tinned on both sides. I think there was a reference to there being corrosion on the edges of some plates, so they were trimmed after tinning.

outer shell is linen, inner was a faustian cotton/linen mix, and there's a canvas interfacing onto the outer shell. ties are waxed point type cords.
one bullet hole in the right side of the breast, about 8-10mm dia, which has ruptured the plates but not peirced.
cord binding the plates is strong linen.

>> No.14548951


I thought the plates in padded jacks are hexes not rectangles

>> No.14549014

nope. they're squares, but aligned at 45 degrees...

erm... so instead of

[_] [_]

type shapes, they're


while overlapping, of course. if that makes any sense.

look closely at that xray and you'll see the square shapes, which are linked up into polygonal shapes, laced with hexagon shaped cord.

>> No.14549062


yeah but on the right side of the X-ray they don't really do that 45 degree align thing. Is there a reason for that, or just the jack is in bad shape inside?

>> No.14549163

the right side of that xray is the peice which folds underneath the other side, and as its flat on the midline of the chest, it only really curves in one axis, making it easier to shape with square plates.

I've outlined plates, and the thread for you on one single centrepoint for an example - 1 centre plate and 6 around.

yes, its a mess.

>> No.14549212

hexagons in squares

lets go deeper

>> No.14549250

So, to sum up - if I would like to have in my settings technologically advanced elves with rapiers (those heavy, early designs), would they massacre through human soldiers?

>> No.14549275

Only if they didn't actually use the rapiers and instead used something technologically advanced.

>> No.14549282


I now realize that the Rapier is the Katana of the west.

>> No.14549285


Yeah, I could see that. Also there are two holes that I don't know what they are, I'm moderately sure that the left one is the place where the bullet hit the jack the other one maybe something like that or just another plate hole, not sure

>> No.14549302

Unarmoured humans? In a one on one fight? Where the humans have the same weapons?

Yes. Ish.

Really, it all depends on context. What kind of combat, what kind of equipment etc.

I mean, if it's an elf with an slashy-rapier against a late-medieval professional human soldier, who is dressed to the nines in the finest Italian plate and is wielding a pole-hammer, then there's only so much that pointy ears can do for you.

Speaking of which, I think the above human is my choice as 'most dangerous person in the room' before the invention of quick-firing rifled firearms.

>> No.14549310

forgot pic

>> No.14549327

>Rapier is katana of the west
Culturally, yes. Of course the katana is a short, durable slashing sword, more of a 2-handed cutlass, while the rapier is 2 feet longer and 2 pounds lighter.

But that kinda shit happens when you base your culture on slicing a pile of disrespectful peasants in two.

>> No.14549337


or when noble teenagers stabbing each other for giggles and shit

>> No.14549342


Let's say that we have standard mercenary with longsword/axe and some shield. Medieval warrior vs. XVII century soldier.

>> No.14549354

The things that cannot be cut by my sword are next to none!

>> No.14549364

The guy with the longsword wins easy.

Also 17th century soldiers were nothing like that.

>> No.14549380


sadly european swords are amongst those things

>> No.14549392

also most armor.

>> No.14549399


huss, you will make her cry

>> No.14549411

You should realize that A) on-the-spot kirisute gomen was fairly rare and it was far more common to execute criminals as a sword test well after they'd been taken in by a magistrate, and B) a katana was primarily carried as a backup weapon to a polearm in actual battlefield condition.

>> No.14549427

Yeah, you gotta stab to get through that. Unless it's solid plate, in which case you're fucked. Oh well.

Also, has this been linked yet? Relevant in any case:


>> No.14549428

That's it. I'm sick of all this "Masterwork Bastard Sword" bullshit that's going on in the d20 system right now. Katanas deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.

I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine katana in Japan for 2,400,000 Yen (that's about $20,000) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even cut slabs of solid steel with my katana.

Japanese smiths spend years working on a single katana and fold it up to a million times to produce the finest blades known to mankind.

Katanas are thrice as sharp as European swords and thrice as hard for that matter too. Anything a longsword can cut through, a katana can cut through better. I'm pretty sure a katana could easily bisect a knight wearing full plate with a simple vertical slash.

Ever wonder why medieval Europe never bothered conquering Japan? That's right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined Samurai and their katanas of destruction. Even in World War II, American soldiers targeted the men with the katanas first because their killing power was feared and respected.

So what am I saying? Katanas are simply the best sword that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the d20 system. Here is the stat block I propose for Katanas:

(One-Handed Exotic Weapon)
1d12 Damage
19-20 x4 Crit
+2 to hit and damage
Counts as Masterwork

(Two-Handed Exotic Weapon)
2d10 Damage
17-20 x4 Crit
+5 to hit and damage
Counts as Masterwork

Now that seems a lot more representative of the cutting power of Katanas in real life, don't you think?

tl;dr = Katanas need to do more damage in d20, see my new stat block.

>> No.14549430

That's OK - if a rolled up tatami decides to get rough with someone, the katana is right there to stop it.

>> No.14549433

you should realize that post was between these two tags:<sarcasm></sarcasm>

>> No.14549451

Fair enough, but I've seen some people actually believe that shit.

>> No.14549463


well... about that...

>> No.14549464

>My sword is better than your sword
>I can dodge crossbows
>lololol guns
>whine whine, bla bla
Fuck all y'all bitches. /tg/ knows nothing about anything.

>> No.14549467


I love reading this copypasta. It makes me mad and giddy at the same time because I can only imagine the people who take it seriously.

It is the perfect troll. Hands down.

>> No.14549479

You sit your ass down.

>> No.14549481

one closest to your text is te bullet hole, the other one is just a slightly larger gap in the plate holes I think, caused by it being at the edge of the inner flap peice, where the plates change alignment etc.

>> No.14549482

Don't know if this has been addressed already...

I remember R. Lee Ermy used a rapier once on Mail Call, he was making fun of it until the expert explained it was made to stab through gaps in the armor LIKE THEIR FUCKING EYES and all the fancy footwork is to avoid the angry dude with plate in front of you.

It was a classy weapon to kill people in classy ways

>> No.14549488


>claims /tg/ knows nothing
>posting pic about an unusable flail

yeah... sure

>> No.14549495

Never mind, I fucked up the link. >>14549464

>> No.14549508

Clod Steel makes such good sword porn.

>> No.14549519


>> No.14549528

>Implying I'm not part of /tg/ as well.
I know just as much as you do. Which is to say, jack shit.

>> No.14549536

That's absolute nonsense. Nobody has a steady enough hand to be able to reliably penetrate the small gaps in late period plate armor. The rapier was not a battlefield sword. It was made to be used in unarmored combat and it's only military users were sailors.

Also, I hope that you aren't posting that picture of Napoleon because you think Napoleon EVER used a rapier. He didn't.

>> No.14549548

I would take that witha large pinch of salt.

like norway's annual salt stores for icy roads levels of large.

on the battlefield, you dont ponce about with a rapier poking eyes. it was primarily (but not wholly) designed for urban, civillian warfare.

the pappenheimer type rapiers are better in the cut, but you're still more likely to be using it from horseback as a cavalry troop when your wheellocks are used, than duelling on the field.

pic related, the sort of armour likely worn in conjunction with a pappenheimer rapier

>> No.14549557

I was kinda hoping someone would seriously reply to it. It's old enough to sometimes work.

>> No.14549561


but my E-dick is bigger

>> No.14549562

10/10. I raeged.

>> No.14549573


>> No.14549579


yeah it's old and fuckload of people reposting it all the time

>> No.14549610

Some elite guard units in armies were issued them as an item of dress/off-duty personal defense, too. The Musketeers of the Guard, for example. (Note that as "Musketeers", it's pretty easy to tell what they ACTUALLY took to war with them)

>> No.14549635

Well yeah but I meant more in a functional sense. Same thing with the useless cavalry of the period.

>> No.14549668

>The rapier:
>Too long for a smallsword to even think of attacking.
>Strong enough to parry a full strength longsword blow.

>loose against a guy with a quarterstaff


>> No.14549703

so fellows 1796 british light cavalry sword or 190-something something british light cavalry sword?

>> No.14549789


-2 for copypasta, but still perfectly executed. Good show, sir.

>> No.14549832

One must be very good with a rapier to do major damage to a man with plate armor. Then again, a man with plate armor would never catch up with a man with a rapier.

A rapier is made for an age in which guns were beginning to introduce themselves to major combat

>> No.14550009

>One must be very good with a rapier to do major damage to a man with plate armor. Then again, a man with plate armor would never catch up with a man with a rapier.

A man in plate is just as fast as an unarmoured man. plate does not turn you into some sort of slow-motion lumbering idiot.
what it does do is reduce how long you're as fast as an unarmoured man. in a 50-100m sprint, no difference. in a 1/2 mile run, a little bit of difference. in a mile, a good gap.

>A rapier is made for an age in which guns were beginning to introduce themselves to major combat

guns had been a major part of warfare, both in seige scale, and in handgonnes, hackbut and arquebus for 200 years before the development of the rapier.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.