A sword for the day

For Historical European Fighting Arts, Weaponry, & Armor

Moderators: Webmaster, Stacy Clifford

User avatar
Grant Hall
Posts: 144
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 7:11 am
Location: Australia, Victoria

Re: A sword for the day

Postby Grant Hall » Thu Oct 13, 2005 10:17 pm

I'd say that that just about counts, and don't you just wish you wearing a good sturdy helm?
<<<<<<<<<<]==0
Grant Hall - Scholar
--ARMA Australia--
0==[>>>>>>>>>>

“The Nation that makes a great distinction
between its scholars and its warriors
will have its thinking done by cowards
and its fighting done by fools"
– Thucydides 5th c. BC

User avatar
Matthew_Anderson
Posts: 335
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 5:57 pm
Location: Virginia Beach, VA

Re: A sword for the day

Postby Matthew_Anderson » Fri Oct 14, 2005 3:52 am

You did see my avatar right? Apparently, I'm a wimp as well.
Matt Anderson
SFS
ARMA Virginia Beach

User avatar
Neil Bockus
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:00 pm
Location: New York

Re: A sword for the day

Postby Neil Bockus » Fri Oct 14, 2005 12:20 pm

From the original question, I'd probably carry a 16th century (styled) Dopplehander, but not that alone. In a cramped space, a 65" sword can't be too practical. I'd probably back that up with a Katzbalger or cut and thrust sword and maybe a daggar.

On the subject of armor, if more people carried swords today, it's not necessarily invalid to think that some form of plate would still be around. Kevlar uses some form of artificial ballistic fiber that is designed to catch blunt objects, which is why a seperate stab protection system is normally worn if knives are a threat (Kevlar Correctional is a product designed to beat knives). I think I'd definately wear some form of armor if more people out there were weilding swords; though wearing a full harness to classes would give me a lot of unwanted attention.

On the subject of armor making someone a "wimp" look at anyone who wore armor all the way up today. It's a practical survival tool, be it leather, chain, plate, or kevlar with concussion plates. It was and is worn by warriors to give them the ability to fight and to continue to fight through hits that would normally take their lives or incapacitate them. In my mind, wearing armor was/is smart above all else and gives a tactical advantange to the wearer. There is no doubt in my mind that if there was a high enough threat, or people weilding swords at their sides today, I'd wear armor as well.
Oh thank God! Some sorta...rescue...toaster!

User avatar
Brian Hunt
Posts: 969
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2003 2:03 am
Location: Price, Utah
Contact:

Re: A sword for the day

Postby Brian Hunt » Fri Oct 14, 2005 12:45 pm

Lets just take care of it all, and wear a kevlar arming jacket under our plate armour. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

Back on the orginal point of this thread, which is what you would carry if for one day if guns were not readily availible (no ammunition, whatever), and I assume society had declined into a semi-form of anarchy. Therefore kevlar (offtopic for this forum at best), isn't really revelevant to the topic of this thread.

As far as armour goes, remember that there were nobles who had armour made that was covered with cloth in such a manner that it looked just like normal clothing of the day. We also have doublets that had wooden slats or steel plates inserted into them for protection, etc. Armour wasn't always visible and shining in the sun.

just some further thoughts on this.

Brian Hunt
GFS
Tuus matar hamsterius est, et tuus pater buca sabucorum fundor!

http://www.paulushectormair.com
http://www.emerytelcom.net/users/blhunt/sales.htm

User avatar
Aaron Pynenberg
Posts: 533
Joined: Tue May 04, 2004 3:47 am
Location: Appleton WI

Re: A sword for the day

Postby Aaron Pynenberg » Fri Oct 14, 2005 1:43 pm

Quick thought on Kevlar being off topic or not..I disagree.
The wearing of armor whatever type has limitations and advantages which are specific to the type of armor being worn. I belive that in ancient times warriors would have had to take the same sets of variables into account then as we, (meaning professionals who need armor, and would also include RMA practictioners) also have to take into account with our types of armor.

So, to make the types of conditions and sets of variables they would have considered we must consider the variables which effect us now: cost, heat, movement, ballistics, availability, wearability, social concerns, etc...

these things are all considerations which can give us important insight when conducting research and thinking about how they may have viewed these considerations-so be careful when dismissing things as off-topic when actually if you sift down to the core considerations they may prove very revealing and relevant. Make sense?
-Aaron Pynenberg (GFS)- Study Group Leader ARMA-Appleton
"Because I Like It"

User avatar
Lorraine Munoa
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun May 15, 2005 9:11 pm
Location: Solo in SoCal

Re: A sword for the day

Postby Lorraine Munoa » Fri Oct 14, 2005 4:06 pm

Hm I dunno much about armor, but if I was headed where I'd be worried I think I'd go with some mail and possibly a brigandine sort of thing.... Definitely forearm protection at the very least, for blocking with.

As for weapons in the modern environment, I'd learn sword and buckler, I think..Or go with the staff and dagger, for the reasons other people have stated..

On my walks in the hills around my home I carry a stick in case I meet a few hungry/ill coyotes who feel desperate, a stray dog, or the occasional intinerant person who may not enjoy my stumbling upon their hideout... It's the best way I can think of to be armed yet "unarmed". In CA we can't carry weapons, since most laws prohibit weapons of any kind in public and the locals around here are panicky and will call the cops if you show up anywhere even bearing blunt steel. Just the waster gets me nervous looks enough. *sigh*.

At Renaissance faires, however, we can wear swords within some regulation, and there I go with my Bastard Sword steel blunt, finding intimidation to be a good self defense while among the populace. I'm accustomed to the reassuring weight at my hip, and old men in leather are less enthusiastic about hitting on me. When people point out, "it's not even sharp," I just grin and say, "It doesn't actually need to be."
"In a fair fight, I would have beaten you!"
"Not much incentive for me to fight 'fair' is it?"

User avatar
JeanryChandler
Posts: 978
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2002 1:45 am
Location: New Orleans, aka northern Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: A sword for the day

Postby JeanryChandler » Fri Oct 14, 2005 6:00 pm

As far as armour goes, remember that there were nobles who had armour made that was covered with cloth in such a manner that it looked just like normal clothing of the day. We also have doublets that had wooden slats or steel plates inserted into them for protection, etc. Armour wasn't always visible and shining in the sun.


Very true. The term "brigantine", used to describe the type of coat of plates armor also known as a wisby coat, was coined because the wearing of such armor was associated with brigands. This was because it did not look like armor from far away, and it wasn't until one was (too) close that you realised they were in fact armored, and theoretically ready to fight.

This has a lot of interesting implications. We know it was extremely common to carry weapons, particularly outdoors, in the period(s) in question. Full armor, especially plate or mail armor, would be suspicious. Wearing armor which looked like clothing was a way to allay suspicions until it was too late.

The implication to me is that the armor was considered far more of a threat. All of us who have ever sparred are aware how dangerous blossfechten really is, if you are truly unarmored. You are taking an enormous risk, perhaps too much of a risk for one armed person to be willing to attack another. However, if you have armor, the calculus changes considerably, particularly effective armor like a Wisby coat which could actually stop even a good cut or thrust.

One wonders where the helmet might come in...

Speaking of which I think from studying paintings it was also fairly common for people of certain classes to wear armor like Gambeson / Akheton / Jupon, particularly in the summer.

We tend to think, per the fectbuchs, in terms of all or nothing, blossfechten vs harnischfechten, but the reality was probably a lot more often somewhere in between. Even in a moderate state of alarm, like when a feud was going on, people probably didn't walk around in full harness in a city, while going about their business. But something like the armor worn in the account of the Duel of Jarnac (padded coat, mail shirt, gauntlets available if not worn, mail coif probably around neck if not actually on the head) would probably be feasable.

As for mail plus kevlar, I would think that would be awfully heavy, but I haven't seen the latest generation of kevlar. I dont think titanium mail would actually be very effective against cuts since titanium is kind of like aluminum, it's much softer than steel, it just happens to be considered so strong relative to how light it is.

Jeanry
"We can't all be saints"
John Dillinger

User avatar
s_taillebois
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 11:29 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: A sword for the day

Postby s_taillebois » Fri Oct 14, 2005 6:40 pm

Another historical possibility would be armour which worked via absorbtion rather than deflection.
Aztec armour, seemed to have been based on absorbing the blow...and couldn't have been that uncomfortable to wear, or it couldn't have been used in central Mexico. Close to a Gambeson, but the fibers used in Aztec armour might have been more 'springy". Seemed to have been functional against obsidian arrows, which were hellishly sharp, albiet brittle.
And the vex with this whole conceptual situation...is that any obvious armor, people will either strike around it (For example, the traditional Aztec 'wounding strikes" at the lower legs, ankles...gave the Spanish fits as thier lower ranks didn't have full harness), or use a weapon which compromises its weak points (ie stylets and roundels).
Perhaps that's another reason that outside of open warfare, people would reach a balance point on protective gear...enough to compensate for what was expected...not what was possible (as bad as the streets in Renn/Gothic cities were...being shot with a longbow, or skewered with a lance was likely a remote possibility.
Steven Taillebois

User avatar
JeffGentry
Posts: 1089
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2004 8:35 am
Location: Columbus Ohio

Re: A sword for the day

Postby JeffGentry » Fri Oct 14, 2005 11:18 pm

Hey guy's

The wearing of armor whatever type has limitations and advantages which are specific to the type of armor being worn. I belive that in ancient times warriors would have had to take the same sets of variables into account then as we, (meaning professionals who need armor, and would also include RMA practictioners) also have to take into account with our types of armor.


I agree, i doubt people just trapsed around wearing full plate armour "just in case", A lite mail shirt i can see depending on where they were going and what they were doing, i have spent more hour's in a kevlar flak jacket than i care to admit and after walking 25 mile's in one with full gear yea i could fight i was definately not happy though.

I do think we need to consider alot when talking about what armour was worn when and where.

Jeff
Semper Fidelis

Usque ad Finem

Grace, Focus, Fluidity


Return to “Research and Training Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests

cron

 
 

Note: ARMA - The Association for Renaissance Martial Arts and the ARMA logo are federally registered trademarks, copyright 2001. All rights reserved. No use of the ARMA name or emblem is permitted without authorization. Reproduction of material from this site without written permission of the authors is strictly prohibited. HACA and The Historical Armed Combat Association copyright 1999 by John Clements. All rights reserved. Contents of this site 1999 by ARMA.