Anime & Manga
Login or register
Login / Create Account
Click to Create Account
Login to FJ
Stay logged in
Click to Login
Log in with Gmail.
Shortcuts: "C" opens comments. "R" refreshes comments.
Enter Captcha Code:
Scroll to post?
Back to the content 'MCBHT 13-14'
Why would anyone bring a knife to fight skeletons? Everyone knows blunt weapon is the way to go.
This is Coal's first official adventure, she is still new. At least it wasn't goblins.
A lesser known fact is that most swords aren't very sharp, and are mostly used for stabbing through armor with the point... or breaking bone with the blade. The thin 'cutting' edge is only really there to focus the blow into a smaller area to more effectively break ----.
If it was actually sharp the blade would constantly get nicked and ----.
Comment edited at
Not true, most swords were sharp. That's the whole point with a sword. If you wanna break bones, you use a mace or war hammer, weapons that are actually desinged to kill with just raw force.
Stabbing through armor is not easy, and not something you would aim to do. If you have a sword and go up againts someone in plate armor, you go for the gaps in the joints, or you grab the blade and hit them with the handle, like an improvised club. Otherwise, you use a mace or warhammer.
I 100% guarentee you that the swords those two k---hts are wielding were dull.
What is an edge on a blade going to do against steel armor or another sword? Cut the steel? Cut the other blade?
Now... stabbing through armor actually works, of course, so keeping a good point on your sword was crucial... but using your sword as a glorified knife is not how it's done.
Some swords, SPECIFICALLY swords with curved blades, are meant for cutting and slicing, such as can be done from horseback when fighting foot soldiers with no real armor (especially around their necks)... but almost every straight-sword in history was dull unless it's owner was literally retarded.
ah yes, the plate armor that only the rich had, and they were k---hts, which say an average kingdom had 100 to 200 of them, now the foot soldiers who were the peasants had a thing called leather armor that could be cut, and most of them only covered the main body even then when guns started to become common plate was useless now.
TDLR: not everybody had plate armor, leather armor was common, guns ruined plate armor
Lethaer armour was never used. Leather, even boiled in salt water, has almost no useful properties as an armour.
leather armour, and by extension studded leather armour are entirely inventions of fantasy novels and TTRPGs. Quilted armour was used for a long time, such as gambesons, because that was a relatively light and easy way to make soemthing that'd stop a sword, axe or arrow.
closest you might get is jack of plate or something, which is a jack(et) that has plates sewn in. if you see someone wearing a gambeson-type deal with a lot of rivets, the rivets running through the cloth are where the small metal plates are.
swords were sharp. the only even slightly dull blade you would even consider using is something like the classic scottish claymore, or maybe the zanbato if you could lift the kruting thing, since it was a '---- you and the horse you rode in on' sword that was made as more o a test of a blacksmith's skill than anyhting practical... a kanabo was far more useful in that regard anyways.
the only other type of dull-edged sword used were entirely civilian designs, such as the smallsword, which was basically a stiletto dagger that learned how to be large enough to be a 'counts as' sword.
leather armor is a thing, just not in warfare, and studded leather is just normal leather with useless studs.
and after looking up quilited armour, thats just a padded jacket worn under mail or plate to help cushion blows
and the "Jack of plate" is called a Brigandine armor which is metal plates riveted to cloth, canvas, or leather
but there is also Scale armor which is a bunch of small metal plates put onto cloth or leather
or if you wanna talk about the eastern style of that stuff is which called lamellar armor which is are plates of different material ranging from metal to leather to even bone and stone tied together
so while metal as always been a very important part of armor, leather was also heavily used in combination of metal
I'm told leather does precious little more than standard cloth to resist a proper blow. that said, people did attempt to make cloth armour to stop daggers during assassination attempts, so I suppose nobility will pay for anything.
Gambesons were worn on their own, especially by footmen. The recreationists in the image I posted are pretty much ready to rock for War of the Roses or Hundred Years War era combat. Quilted armour is surprisingly effective, linen versions having stopped bowshots in addition to padding from blows and insulating from cutting attacks. and is in fact the basis for level 3 protective vests used by police forces... just, y'know, with kevlar instead of linen.
it's also cheap as heck to make too, far, far, far cheaper than chain and plate mails.
and if you wanted mroe protection, you can tie a 'Jack Chain' to it for a cheap, quick-and-dirty platemail. its major weakness is, like with paper-lamellar armour, you can't really get it wet, because then it jsut gets incredibly ehavy and cumbersome, soaking up all that moisture like a sponge. It's also not exactly cool to wear, but unless you have the 21st century tech to build a fan into your costume, armour is almost universally uncomfortable to wear in hot temperatures.
You need to login to view this link
I'm told Jack of Plate was only used for a brief period. too restrictive or something, or maybe it had long-term wear and durability issues.
Scale mail wasn't used for very long either. the scales tend(ed) to get caught on just about everything as the wearer moved, and could tear off. far from ideal.
Lamellar was used for centuries, and was pretty danged good for what it was... it's jsut that once Portugese tercos happened across Japan, solidified platemail started coming into fashion because it was that much more protective.
Ah yes, the sword so sharp it could cut through leather armor like it was cotton cloth.
yea, its not easy but can be done, still requires the sword to be sharp, and even then as i said it usually only covers the main body, leaving limbs exposed which you go for to cripple or to cause an opening and to stab the body,
in the end you really don't know how to do proper research, or after you read one thing its just becomes truth in your head
I'm 100% certain that this was tested by someone on the history channel, and the answer was that leather armor is sword-proof (even a katana couldn't cut all the way through) but not arrow-proof.
Honestly, not even modern-day kevlar body armor is arrow proof. You need steel.
okay please post proof on that because history channel is a not a good source of proof, only proving my point you cant do research, arrows can pierce Kevlar because its CUTTING through it, Kevlar was made to stop a bullet which is blunt, and steel armor also has the weakness of blunt weapons like mace or war hammers and even then your earlier point of trying to STAB steel armor and pierce it that also something really stupid to do as if you ever tried to stab steel? doesn't work well as most armor was almost made to divert blows away from the body, it wasn't just a square piece of metal
in the end:
leather was meant for the common solider, only covered the main body and is an organic resource that got weaker over time
Steel was made for the k---hts and rich folk, protected against swords but was weak to blunt strikes from maces or warhammers
kevlar was made to stop bullets, nothing else
chain-mail was the happy medium of steel and leather armor but the quality of chain-mail was very inconsistent
and you cant even do the simple research that took me less then 5 mins to look up
has deleted their comment
You need to login to view this link
Enjoy the soothing voice of Ronald Lee Ermey =D
Flawed test for the leather. He swung the longsword like a baseball bat horizontally. If he swung it diagonally and actually did a draw cut, instead of just smacking the blade into the leather, it would have sliced right through no problemo.
Source: basic ----ing physics
And yea, it's a flawed test, but it still provides a lot of insight into what a sword does and how it does it.
And in reality, leather armor isn't designed like a tank-top, but has shoulder pieces. A proper shoulder-protecting set of hard-leather armor would have stopped both blades easily, but the heavier claymore would have had a higher probability of breaking the collar bone through the armor, which is arguably much more incapacitating than a cut would be.
You can still move with a cut... but you need bones for your muscles to pull against.
They used soft leather, and only ONE layer.
I've never heard of such crappy leather armor EVER being used... and it stopped the straight sword.
Straight swords aren't for cutting. They're for bashing and stabbing.
You stupid ----ing retard, it's YOUR SOURCE. YOU ----ING POSTED IT, SO THESE PROBLEMS MAKE YOUR ARGUMENT WORSE, NOT BETTER.
Go snort some mercury, it might improve your negative iq
If a sword is dull, there is no point in using it, a mace or war hammer would be much better then.
And while you can't cut steel, you aren't likely to stab through it either. Yes, it is possible, but likely? No.
You aim for the gabs, use the sword like an improvised club, or use a mace or war hammer. These are much more reliable ways of dealing with someone in plate armor.
People would also knock the k---ht down, and then jump on them and pull out a dagger and stab them through the gabs with that. Daggers have likely killed more people in plate armor than swords have.
You also seem to forget that most people aren't wearing plate armor, only the rich people that an afford it did, meaning most soldiers could still be cut with a sword, and then you do what I have said you would do when you meet someone in plate armor.
Swords have longer reaches, and a more focused strike (smaller area of impact equals much higher breaking force for things like bones).
A sword and a mace, each of equal weight, will not perform the same. The mace will move slower (since the tip of the sword is basically on the end of a lever and can have much higher velocity) while retaining the same kinetic energy, and furthermore it will have much less reach while doing so.
The only advantage of a mace is that it's MUCH cheaper to make.
Comment edited at
A sword has most of it's weight concentrated in the handle, while a mace has most it's weight concentrated in the striking end. This means a sword is more nimble but doesn't generate as much force, while a mace generates more force but is not as nimble (and why it has to be so much shorter).
Yes, longer reach will increase the force a little, but the blade itself weigh so little that it's not enough. There is simply not enough mass behind the strikes, unlike a mace which will have a lot of mass behind it's strikes, and this generate more force. Swords compensate for this by being sharp.
Swords are not glorified clubs. They are mean to cut and/or stab, while maces and warhammers kill with blunt impact and are dedicated anti-armor weapons. This is why as plate armor got more advanced and become more common towards the end of the middle ages, maces and warhammers also became more common.
Bombs are good too. Pretty much every fight is better with bombs.
Back to the content 'MCBHT 13-14'
arrested Red deer