One lightsaber or two?

[Happy_Puppy]

Please stop spreading misinformation, kthnx.

 

plz show where its misinformation... or ****

[llayles]

plz show where its misinformation... or ****

Hilda Ellis Davidson's The Sword in Anglo-Saxon England. Even in the late 700s they had smiths specially trained to put extremely sharp edges on swords.

[Happy_Puppy]

Hilda Ellis Davidson's The Sword in Anglo-Saxon England. Even in the late 700s they had smiths specially trained to put extremely sharp edges on swords.

 

wow you're ignorant....

 

700ad they were still using roman style weapons.

 

Plate wearing Knights did not show up till around 1200-1400ad, we were discussing full plate wearing knights and combat in that era. Not pre full plate era where armor was much less and chopping and slicing would of been more effective.

 

They did not go to extreme to sharpen there blades like the Japanese did. So no your wrong, they used semi sharpened blades.

 

You are trying to bring up swords that were used pre plate mail.. at the height of the Viking era where full armor was not being used and slicing and chopping weapons were at the height.

 

We were discussing combat at the height of plate armor use where blunt weapons and thrusting weapons were at there peak in European medieval combat. So before spouting off read the context of what was being discussed.

Edited March 16, 2015 by Happy_Puppy

[llayles]

wow you're ignorant....

 

700ad they were still using roman style weapons.

And who were they fighting? That's right. The romans. And what did the romans wear? That's right. Banded and chain maille.

 

Plate wearing Knights did not show up till around 1200-1400ad, we were discussing full plate wearing knights and combat in that era. Not pre full plate era where armor was much less and chopping and slicing would of been more effective. I have some terrible news for you. Knights were the exception, not the rule. And even more uncommon was a full suit of plate. Even as it became more common you would still have to hack through droves of peasants in gambesons.

 

They did not go to extreme to sharpen there blades like the Japanese did. So no your wrong, they used semi sharpened blades. They didn't have to go to extremes. They used grinding wheels instead of dragging a piece of sandpaper down the edge a million times. Steel can only mechanically get so sharp. Also katana got thicker as the japanese figured out lacquered bamboo sooo....

 

You are trying to bring up swords that were used pre plate mail.. at the height of the Viking era where full armor was not being used and slicing and chopping weapons were at the height. Plate had not rolled around, but chain, banded and scale maille had. You're going to have about as much luck cutting through those. Pretty sure I already addressed this point.

 

We were discussing combat at the height of plate armor use where blunt weapons and thrusting weapons were at there peak in European medieval combat. So before spouting off read the context of what was being discussed.

I'll take halfswording for 500, Alex.

Mind you, I'm not saying dedicated thrusting swords (namely the Tuck) didn't exist. Just that a cut and thrust would never not be sharpened. Are all SCA members so quick to anger?

[Happy_Puppy]

Mind you, I'm not saying dedicated thrusting swords (namely the Tuck) didn't exist. Just that a cut and thrust would never not be sharpened. Are all SCA members so quick to anger?

 

Dude you need to not type anything anymore.. you have no knowledge or education on the subject.

 

Rome abandon Britain by 400ad, The roman Lorica segmentata (and other armors patterned after it such as Lorica hamata ringmail) the primary armor of roman infantry only covered the upper body, they were not in full plate that did not come about till the around the 1200ad to 1400ad.

 

I clearly said roman style... as many countries patterned there weapons on roman design.

 

Hate to break it to you but your reading comprehension is a tad lacking as I already said in a previous post that the bulk of a medieval army was not in plate armor. AS I said already in a post above "The bulk of a medieval army was not armored knights of course. So the sword was a great way to cut through the less armored foot soldiers of a enemy army. "

 

If you knew your history you would know that banded and chain, scale mails did not cover 100% of the body for the typical soldiers. You would also know that is why weapons like the Roman Galdius and Spatha swords were also thrusting weapons as well as slashing. This was carried on to European swords in later eras.

 

Maybe if you read the posts, actually under stood the context of what we were discussing and knew your history I wouldn't have point out how blatantly wrong you have been.

 

Oh and FYI we were not just discussing the SCA, as we linked and talked about many different organizations.. but if you actually read the posts you should of understood that.. or maybe your reading comprehension was off today. Also I'm not the one that tried to call some one out and call them in essence a liar. So a bit of advise. If your going to interject in to a conversation, know the subject mater first.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Happy_Puppy

[llayles]

Literally none of what you just said addresses my point of medieval swords always being perfectly sharp, all the way up through the age of the knight and into the age of the cuirassier. Or maybe it did. It's entirely possible you muddled your point in your obsession with full plate and your personal offense (for little reason, I might add.) I don't care enough to dissect any more of your rambling.

[Happy_Puppy]

Literally none of what you just said addresses my point of medieval swords always being perfectly sharp, all the way up through the age of the knight and into the age of the cuirassier. Or maybe it did. It's entirely possible you muddled your point in your obsession with full plate and your personal offense (for little reason, I might add.) I don't care enough to dissect any more of your rambling.

 

Are you trying to act dense about the subject?.. they were semi sharp.. that means they did not have a fine edges.

 

In De Arte Gladiatoria Dimicandi, a late-fifteenth-century Italian fighting manual, Phillippo di Vadi wrote that swords for armored combat should be dull up to a few inches from the point.

 

Reread that.. for "armored combat".. and that is what we were discussing.

 

That's why they use the term semi sharp.. also you're not going use a double edged razor sharp blade using Harnischfechten or what is referred to as halfswording using your hand on the blade to assist in thrusting attacks.

 

Just like modern times there were weapons made for certain jobs, for armored combat, knight on knight they did not use sharpened swords they used semi-sharp. Not sure why that is hard for you to understand that in armored combat in the 12th-14th century they used semi-sharp blades.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Happy_Puppy

[llayles]

Are you trying to act dense about the subject?.. they were semi sharp.. that means they did not have a fine edges.

 

In De Arte Gladiatoria Dimicandi, a late-fifteenth-century Italian fighting manual, Phillippo di Vadi wrote that swords for armored combat should be dull up to a few inches from the point.

 

Reread that.. for "armored combat".. and that is what we were discussing.

 

That's why they use the term semi sharp.. also you're not going use a double edged razor sharp blade using Harnischfechten or what is referred to as halfswording using your hand on the blade to assist in thrusting attacks.

 

Just like modern times there were weapons made for certain jobs, for armored combat, knight on knight they did not use sharpened swords they used semi-sharp. Not sure why that is hard for you to understand that in armored combat in the 12th-14th century they used semi-sharp blades.

-sigh-

I.33 - ????

Wittenweiler - 1500

Tallhoffer - 1459

Dorbringer - 1389

Oakeshott's typology

 

All armored combat treatises from varying fencing schools, none of which referencing absurdities as partially sharpened swords, or swords only sharpened at the tip. Some true and false edge, maybe a little ricasso here and there, but no bullshido. I wish I could give you some British or French texts, but unfortunately they were busy duking out over a parcel of land. However,

British-museum.org

ARMA's official website.

Alexandria arms collection

Alexandria arms again

 

All clearly having very sharp (or remnants thereof) of perfectly sharp blade. I am well aware of Italian dueling swords and am also well aware they they were a fad. It appears to me you're basing your entire perception of swords in the medieval world solely on the musings of an Italian fencing teacher (creative anachronism indeed). Considering you couldn't even be bothered to get halbschwert right, it wouldn't surprise me in the least. You can totes halbschwert a razor sharp blade and it was frequently done.

 

I don't know what I expected, arguing with a glorified LARPer.

[Rhyltran]

I also want to leave this here for anyone interested.

 

http://www.thearma.org/

 

ARMA is a great wealth of information for those interested in this topic. They definitely know their stuff. Forgot to include them in my previous posts.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Rhyltran

[Happy_Puppy]

-sigh-

I.33 - ????

Wittenweiler - 1500

Tallhoffer - 1459

Dorbringer - 1389

Oakeshott's typology

 

All armored combat treatises from varying fencing schools, none of which referencing absurdities as partially sharpened swords, or swords only sharpened at the tip. Some true and false edge, maybe a little ricasso here and there, but no bullshido. I wish I could give you some British or French texts, but unfortunately they were busy duking out over a parcel of land. However,

British-museum.org

ARMA's official website.

Alexandria arms collection

Alexandria arms again

 

All clearly having very sharp (or remnants thereof) of perfectly sharp blade. I am well aware of Italian dueling swords and am also well aware they they were a fad. It appears to me you're basing your entire perception of swords in the medieval world solely on the musings of an Italian fencing teacher (creative anachronism indeed). Considering you couldn't even be bothered to get halbschwert right, it wouldn't surprise me in the least. You can totes halbschwert a razor sharp blade and it was frequently done.

 

I don't know what I expected, arguing with a glorified LARPer.

 

omg.. reading comprehension took a nose dive with your post....

 

its not dueling its armored combat. WE were discussing armored combat.. platemail on platemail..... not sure why that is so hard to get through your head. They did not use sharpened blades vs other platemail wearing knights.. they used semi-sharp blades. As slicing attacks were totally ineffective vs platemail. The only reason you need a sharp blade is for slicing attacks. They used thrusting attacks to get through the joints in the plate and the underarmor or chopping attacks to try to knock the other knight down or to disable a limb though kinetic force.

 

You keep bring up a area of combat that was not being discussed... As I have already said they had different weapons for different foes. The discussion was platemail vs platemail combat. I think you have a screwed perception of a edged weapon vs a sharpened weapon. You can have a edged weapon that's not sharpened.

 

Not one of your pictures shows a sharpened blade.. They are just showing edged blades. Shows you have a total misunderstanding of the difference between sharpened, semi-sharp and blunt edged weapons.

 

Also Harnischfechten / halfswording is not for dueling nor was De Arte Gladiatoria Dimicandi the part I quoted was for ARMORED COMBAT.. that is not dueling. /facepalm.

 

You do not even seem to understand why European swords were designed the way they were. They were for most thrusting weapons, secondary chopping/slashing. This is why there are straight edge weapons vs slight curve vs Japanese blades as Japanese weapons were priamy slashing/chopping weapons vs thrusting weapons. The slight curve in Japanese blades was better suited for slashing/chopping attacks.

 

Now ask your self.. why did Europe need and use primarily thrusting weapons. Its simple really. Armor and Shields. Handed down from Roman Era tactics Europe armies and tactics required a primarily thrusting weapon to get around the defense of a enemy. Hence the straight edge sword and halfswording technique. This allowed a user to use the sword as a thrusting weapon vs armored and shield using opponents but also as a chopping weapon vs light and no armor opponents. You do not need or want a full sharpened blade when you are halfswording to get more thrusting power from your sword. A semi sharp sword will still cut a mans arm off.. you do not need a fine edged weapon for that.

 

 

Funny thing is you try to insult me with the " LARPer" comment... when a avg LARPer probably knows more then you do on the subject.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Happy_Puppy

[MiaowZedong]

You do not need or want a full sharpened blade when you are halfswording to get more thrusting power from your sword.

Why do you assume halfswording was the main purpose of the sword, or even a common form of combat? Half-swording is what you do if you really want an awlpike, but don't have an awlpike. Similarly, the mordschlag is what you do if you really want a hammer, but don't have a hammer.

 

Swords had to fill both a symbolic role and be practical sidearms a warrior would pretty much always have available. That applies to both the swords of Europe and Japan. The difference between the two were largely due to historical, rather than practical, reasons. You'll note that from the Gempei War to the Edo period, Japanese sabres actually became much straighter.

[llayles]

-turbosigh-

 

I even took the time of day to highlight dueling for you.

 

 

du·el

/ ˈd(y)o͞oəl/

noun

historical

noun: duel; plural noun: duels

1.

a contest with deadly weapons arranged between two people in order to settle a point of honor.

 

As opposed to a melee or clash in which most combatants would be wearing gambesons or plates of jack at very best. But of course you're just going to flail about and hurl insults, so here. Credentials.

He addresses your sword ~5 minutes in. If you won't take an educated professional's word for it, then you really are hopeless and should go back to playing around with glorified bar maces.

[Happy_Puppy]

Why do you assume halfswording was the main purpose of the sword, or even a common form of combat? Half-swording is what you do if you really want an awlpike, but don't have an awlpike. Similarly, the mordschlag is what you do if you really want a hammer, but don't have a hammer.

 

Swords had to fill both a symbolic role and be practical sidearms a warrior would pretty much always have available. That applies to both the swords of Europe and Japan. The difference between the two were largely due to historical, rather than practical, reasons. You'll note that from the Gempei War to the Edo period, Japanese sabres actually became much straighter.

 

It's do to how common Halfswording was. It took a lot of force to punch through the joint armor of fully armored knight. As they wear padded and chain under there plate that required a lot of thrusting power to get through. so griping the blade with your off hand for added power was very common. This is in regards to armored combat.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Happy_Puppy

[Happy_Puppy]

-turbosigh-

 

I even took the time of day to highlight dueling for you.

 

 

du·el

/ ˈd(y)o͞oəl/

noun

historical

noun: duel; plural noun: duels

1.

a contest with deadly weapons arranged between two people in order to settle a point of honor.

 

As opposed to a melee or clash in which most combatants would be wearing gambesons or plates of jack at very best. But of course you're just going to flail about and hurl insults, so here. Credentials.

He addresses your sword ~5 minutes in. If you won't take an educated professional's word for it, then you really are hopeless and should go back to playing around with glorified bar maces.

 

OMG.. did you watch it?

 

Are you trying to make your self look foolish?

 

He says that semi-sharp was used for halfswording for ARMORED COMBAT.. what have I been saying.. you do not use fully sharpened blades for ARMORED COMBAT!! get that through your head lol. We were discussing ARMORED COMBAT. You keep bring up other fighting other then ARMORED COMBAT. So thank you for proving my point. So please unless you can bring up something in regards to ARMORED COMBAT stop typing.. and go away.

[llayles]

Some people just can't be helped.

[Happy_Puppy]

Some people just can't be helped.

 

It's about time you recognized that in your self.

[Rhyltran]

OMG.. did you watch it?

 

Are you trying to make your self look foolish?

 

He says that semi-sharp was used for halfswording for ARMORED COMBAT.. what have I been saying.. you do not use fully sharpened blades for ARMORED COMBAT!! get that through your head lol. We were discussing ARMORED COMBAT. You keep bring up other fighting other then ARMORED COMBAT. So thank you for proving my point. So please unless you can bring up something in regards to ARMORED COMBAT stop typing.. and go away.

 

The part you're talking about starts at 5:05 and then on. He's talking about a very specific type of sword that is used for halfswording. This doesn't mean that all "half swords" were designed in this manner. Matt was also speaking about it as being an exception to the rule and never once implied that it was the main sword used by armored soldiers. To be more specific this sword came about for armored duels. Not mass warfare and not only that but was only used for a brief period of time in history.

 

Vadi is one guy and what he came up with gained some traction but never became the norm. Not only that but you claimed that swords like this existed much further back than they did. In the end for the most part you're wrong. Medieval swords, as a whole, were designed to be sharp the entire length. You can't take the exception to the rule as the norm. It doesn't work that way.

 

Why do you think Vadi had it right when the entirety of history had a completely different opinion? This was even true after him as well. I'm not attacking you in this but I'm curious why you give his teachings so much credence?

Edited March 17, 2015 by Rhyltran

[Happy_Puppy]

The part you're talking about starts at 5:05 and then on. He's talking about a very specific type of sword that is used for halfswording. This doesn't mean that all "half swords" were designed in this manner. Matt was also speaking about it as being an exception to the rule and never once implied that it was the main sword used by armored soldiers. To be more specific this sword came about for armored duels. Not mass warfare and not only that but was only used for a brief period of time in history.

 

Vardi is one guy and what he came up with gained some traction but never became the norm. Not only that but you claimed that swords like this existed much further back than they did. In the end for the most part you're wrong. Medieval swords, as a whole, were designed to be sharp the entire length. You can't take the exception to the rule as the norm. It doesn't work that way.

 

you didn't watch the whole vid did you? He talks about swords with blocked or dulled sections right before the hand guard that were made for halfswording. Halfswording came about for armored combat. Why would they need to do that.. because standard swords were ineffective vs armored knights. The whole issue we have been discussing. If you also watched he stated that it was a weapon and style used for armored combat not everyday use. As I already said so many times we were talking about armored combat.

 

Half-sword is used for leverage advantage when wrestling with the sword, as well as for delivering a more accurate and powerful thrust. Both of these are critical when fighting in plate armour, because a slice or a cleaving blow from a sword is virtually useless against iron or steel plate.[1] Most medieval treatises show armoured combat as consisting primarily of fighting at the half-sword; the best options against an armoured man being a strong thrust into less-protected areas such as the armpits or throat or, even better, the same against a man who has already been cast to the ground. Some weapons may have been modified specifically for this purpose, sporting what is called a ricasso. Some longswords had a short ricasso, usually too close to the cross and hilt of the blade for practical use in half-swording except as a point of extra leverage in a thrust. The ricasso on larger swords, such as the two-handed sword, provided a longer area more fitting for gripping during half-swording. Filippo Vadi suggests that a sword be sharp only at the tip. It has been suggested that some swords were left unsharpened in a part of the sword a hand's breadth wide about halfway down the blade in order to facilitate this technique.

 

Secrets of German Medieval Swordsmanship. Chivalry Bookshelf. pp. 287–289

 

The problem here is that we were talking armored combat, plate wearing knights vs plate wearing knights. Then someone comes in scream lies lies then brings up totally different realm of general combat trying to argue that its what is used in knight on knight combat.

[Rhyltran]

you didn't watch the whole vid did you? He talks about swords with blocked or dulled sections right before the hand guard that were made for halfswording. Halfswording came about for armored combat. Why would they need to do that.. because standard swords were ineffective vs armored knights. The whole issue we have been discussing. If you also watched he stated that it was a weapon and style used for armored combat not everyday use. As I already said so many times we were talking about armored combat.

 

Half-sword is used for leverage advantage when wrestling with the sword, as well as for delivering a more accurate and powerful thrust. Both of these are critical when fighting in plate armour, because a slice or a cleaving blow from a sword is virtually useless against iron or steel plate.[1] Most medieval treatises show armoured combat as consisting primarily of fighting at the half-sword; the best options against an armoured man being a strong thrust into less-protected areas such as the armpits or throat or, even better, the same against a man who has already been cast to the ground. Some weapons may have been modified specifically for this purpose, sporting what is called a ricasso. Some longswords had a short ricasso, usually too close to the cross and hilt of the blade for practical use in half-swording except as a point of extra leverage in a thrust. The ricasso on larger swords, such as the two-handed sword, provided a longer area more fitting for gripping during half-swording. Filippo Vadi suggests that a sword be sharp only at the tip. It has been suggested that some swords were left unsharpened in a part of the sword a hand's breadth wide about halfway down the blade in order to facilitate this technique.

 

Secrets of German Medieval Swordsmanship. Chivalry Bookshelf. pp. 287–289

 

The problem here is that we were talking armored combat, plate wearing knights vs plate wearing knights. Then someone comes in scream lies lies then brings up totally different realm of general combat trying to argue that its what is used in knight on knight combat.

 

Even swords that were dull just before the handguard were still sharp up until that point. There's a very tiny section that didn't have an edge. Not to mention that even then this isn't the norm. You can grab a sharpened edge while halfswording. I don't know why you're implying that you can't.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rqP1F36EMY

 

 

This is a video on how to safely do so. I will also point out that excerpt that you linked me is once again referencing Vadi and his teachings. Vadi is not the be all end all of medieval authority when it comes to swordsmanship.

 

*Edit* I linked a better video as the second one.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Rhyltran

[Happy_Puppy]

Even swords that were dull just before the handguard were still sharp up until that point. There's a very tiny section that didn't have an edge. Not to mention that even then this isn't the norm. You can grab a sharpened edge while halfswording. I don't know why you're implying that you can't.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rqP1F36EMY

 

 

This is a video on how to safely do so. I will also point out that excerpt that you linked me is once again referencing Vadi and his teachings. Vadi is not the be all end all of medieval authority when it comes to swordsmanship.

 

*Edit* I linked a better video as the second one.

 

Umm.. that's why I said semi sharpened... why is this so hard for some of you to understand?

 

The reason Vadi is brought up he had the definitive teaching of halfswording.. the fact that it was being used over 200 years before his book or teachings came out doesn't give you a clue on to its usage? Also halfswording is used in many different teachings.

 

Even in the vid that was brought up the guy talks about blunting the weapons hand grip in length just above the guard. This was for halfswording. The rest of the blade is sharp.. hence semi-sharp.

 

But please go show me texts or usage of slicing with sharp blades vs plate armor you wont find any as slicing was totally ineffective vs full plate.. As I already stated there were many different type of swords even Matt Easton pointed out that there was a difference between general swords and swords used for armored combat. As the discussion started with armored combat what I said still stands.

 

You also have to look at time period. How do you think halfswording came about? Well they had normal long swords and were fighting people in armor. AS armor got better and better and the need for more and more force more dedicated designs came to being. By the 12th century came about the use of fully sharpened swords had turned to semi sharp for armored combat. If full sharpened blades were just as effective they wouldn't of changed how they sharpened the blades. As we were discussing full armored knight combat which was at its height in the 12-15th century the comment that they used semi sharp swords in armored combat is accurate more so then trying to argue they used fully sharp blades in armored combat.

 

Edit: just wanted to add something.. both vids issue are one there in a controlled environment and both say with out slipping. The problem with the vids both users are not taking into account real combat issues, one being blood and such on your blade, and twisting of your blade in combat. When you strike a flat target the energy goes right back up the blade its predictable. Now try that vs rounded armor, a target moving there is a much great chance of the blade twisting and then sliding as the twisting of the blade will loosen your grip. Many people on these vids were pointing this out. This is why they started to dull or creating a ricasso on the blade allowing you to grip it more safely and became very common practice for use in combat vs fully armored knights..

Edited March 17, 2015 by Happy_Puppy