Conquest

[Super Squirrel]

There is an awesome show on the History Channel called Conquest. It is all about combat using the episodes theme of the day. I'm not sure what range of weaponry it covers but I have seen the program on Knights, Tournaments(Jousting Kind), Swords, Axes, and Archery. The show is phenominal. I have learned more about Fantasy warfare through this show than any other source out there.

For example, Axes are very overpowering weapons to use and should have an END Drain in the multipower than includes the attack.

Check the show out if you get a chance.

The show is starting this second on the theme of Armor.

[Keneton]

A large axe in Fantasy Hero has a strength min of 15. This cost 3 end to use before adding any DC's to the weapon. That is an end drain when you are a normal with a 10 Con and 20 End!

[mudpyr8]

Agreed. I captured all 5 episodes on my ReplayTV.

Tournament
The Axeman Cometh
Wierd Weapons
Knights Armor
The Bow

I'm sure H-Channel will reshow them. They are definitely worth the watch.

I think you could handle the END thing by making unbalanced weapons x2 END. However, if you did this I would bump the DC by 1.

[mudpyr8]

How do you think the poleaxe would look?

2-H, STR 13, multipower:
5 KDC, +1 Stun, x2 END, Hammer
6 KDC, x2 END, Axe
4 KDC, AP, Spike
+1 OCV (Block only)

[Storn]

I love Peter Woodward. He is a blast. Best thing about B5: Crusades (about the only good thing) and I've watched a lot of his Egyptian documentaries. he has a great joy about him, like he loves what he is doing and makes no bones about it.

I saw preview of upcoming shows where he "conquers" NASCAR racing, after admiting he has never done it before and then a shot of the car, TOTALLY BANGED UP! ha! That should be fun.

HIm chasing a guy with an axe, screaming bloody murder, was another fav moment of mine!

[Shadowpup]

Watching that show is really fun. The Bows and Wierd Weapons episodes were pretty neat. I'm no expert but I'm sure I could have made a bow better than the ones those guys made. For the Wierd Weapons episode I cringed thinking about the kind of damage those weapons would do to a man.

Overall I would pay good money to participate in their activities.

[Super Squirrel]

My Axe reference was not talking about END usage for the player wielding it but the END damage done to a person. One of the advantages to the axe is that it weakens enemies very quickly because they have to expend a ton of energy blocking shots.

[Toadmaster]

I've only seen part of the series (axes, armor and part of wierd weapons) but I agree it looks like it will be great for FH ideas. One thing I was thinking is how much martial arts is appropriate with some weapons. The axe inparticular made me think of that, Axe defensive manuever (the constant movement of the axe and the weakness being when the axe strikes a blow, ie you stopped using this manuever for a strike manuever), knock target off balance (- to DCV next round) etc. Throughout what I saw was how much more effective the fighters were as the host explained the intricasies of the various weapons (I really liied the bit about the Danish Bearded axes being used from the leftside to exploit the difficulty of defending on the non shield side. Many of the weird weapons had "use UMA" written all over them.

I can't wait for this series to come out on DVD so I can sit down with a note pad and disect each episode as they apply to FH.

[Super Squirrel]

I will forever encourage all ranger types in my games to purchase CSL +1 DCV Only in Wooded Areas (-1) and CSL +2 OCV w/ Bow Only in Wooded Areas(-1).

[Thirdbase]

The show was good, but I question some of his facts. A 150lb bow seems a wee bit excessive to me. Otherwise it was pretty good.

That isn't NASCAR, he is entering a derby, an ancient and honorable sport, in CA, and that aired Christmastime, but will probably re-air.

[Intrope]

Originally posted by Thirdbase
The show was good, but I question some of his facts. A 150lb bow seems a wee bit excessive to me. Otherwise it was pretty good.


Didn't catch this show (don't have cable. or a TV, for that matter). But, I believe the Mongols were actually supposed to have used 170 lb bows; they were heavy enough that they couldn't do a draw and hold, or even a normal draw. Instead, they'd hold the bow above their head, and then draw it while lowering it into position and fire immediately.

[MarkusDark]

Originally posted by Intrope
Didn't catch this show (don't have cable. or a TV, for that matter). But, I believe the Mongols were actually supposed to have used 170 lb bows; they were heavy enough that they couldn't do a draw and hold, or even a normal draw. Instead, they'd hold the bow above their head, and then draw it while lowering it into position and fire immediately.

Funny enough, it is called a "Mongol Draw" or at least that is what my teacher called it. You begin by pointing the bow above your head while holding the string against your cheek - without the bow drawn yet so the arm that holds the bow is bent. Then, as you move the bow forward into a normal position, you push out with your arm, basically drawing the bow in reverse. Once you reach the full draw, you release. With this method, the body mechanics of pushing instead of pulling and the lever action of the arm allows you to draw a bow that is heavier than you could draw normally.

As for the show Conquest, I like it too - however as I have found with other sources there are some things they say that other sources contradict. I won't go into details as it would be long winded and just reinforcing the idea of where one source says yes the other says no. But I would like to point out that they only briefly touched upon the Welsh Bowmen (for about 90 seconds) and yet it was them and their bows were the major factor deciding the vicotry of the battle - and weren't the fodder the show made archers out to be.

In the end, if anything inspires someone to work and enjoy themselves it is good. ;)

[Max Callahan]

I have to call BS on at least one episode of Conquest.
In the Joust episode they demonstrated how weak maile armor was, the problem is that the maile they were using was modern recreation maile where the rings are just bits of wire bent into a circle. Real maile armor had rings that were riveted closed, and thus MUCH stronger that the costume piece they were demoing on. Watching the show you were left with the impression that an axe would just tear clean through maile, and thats just not true. Also in the same episode they claimed that knights fought with 15 pound swords, and that is also just not true.
I'm forced to the conclusion that much of Conquest is staged for dramatic presentation, not historical accuracy.

[DarkGreen]

Hmmm....

I don't know about the maille episode (I only ever saw part of the bow episode), but the 15 pound sword number is right for the early middle ages -- around the same time maille was as good as it got.

As the steel got better the blades got lighter but back before carbonizing came to Europe via the Wootz process a good sword could be HEAVY. As a former blacksmith's apprentice I assure you that making a sword out of black iron results in a friggin heavy end result, even WITH a fuller. I've held plenty of black iron swords (modern remakes and museum pieces) and have several very old weapons in my collection, they are very heavy and a moments work with my nathroom scale confirms that several weigh more than 15 pounds. (I tried using my mailing scale first but they are too heavy for that).

Having said that, I think maille was primarily to stop the cutting action only. The padding beneath the mail was the only thing to cushion the blow.

-DG

PS: I agree they should have been able to make moerately good bows improvisationally - at least for the short term. I have made reasonable bows from scratch, although they do not age well and are worthless in a week if you don't start with properly aged material.

[archermoo]

I'd have to disagree on the sword weight. I've never seen or handled any sword (that was intended to be used as a weapon) anywhere close to 15 pounds. Here (http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/cariadoc/shield_and_weapon_weights.html) is a good link on historical weapon and shield weights. There is one sword on that list that is close to 15 pounds. A 78" long 16th century two handed sword. These are weights taken from surviving examples of period weapons and shields.

[DarkGreen]

Archermoo-

Hmmm.... those weights seem wrong to me.

I was thinking 9th to 11th century time frame. On the list you give they have a 75.5cm sword (30in) weighing in at 1 pound (0.5 kg).

6.62 grams per centimeter? Ridiculous.

The density of wrought iron is pretty well established at 7600kg/m3.

This implies that the medieval sword referenced above has a cross section 0f 0.8cm2 or, assuming about 2 inches wide (which I get from looking at my wall of weapons), a thickness of 1.6mm (or about one half of one 32nd of an inch). a one inch wide balde (more common in later times) would still only be 1/32nd thick at this length-density.

I can't come up with a reasonable permutation of geometries to arrive at the densities cited. Try using this to calculate volumes if you like:
http://www.allmeasures.com/Formulae/static/materials/19/density.htm

I note that the web site you linked appears to be someone trying to convince an SCA-type society to reduce their weapon weight for recreations. Perhaps this individual is mostly referring to show swords or thinner modern-looking "saber" styles which would have commonly been considered a "knife" in the middle ages.

While I'm not saying their aren't lighter weapons (15 pounds is probably a broadsword in pre-steel times), basic physical calculations make me very skeptical of the numbers on that web page you cited.

-DG

[archermoo]

My guess is that specific "sword" is probably more of a long knife. The 30.125" 9th to 10th century sword at the top of the list is listed at 2 pounds and 8 ounces. Keep in mind that these weights are taken from weighing actual examples of weapons from the periods, not from modern replicas of said weapons.

And it isn't a page trying to convince an SCA-like society to make their swords light. It is a page speaking out against a rule at the time (don't know if it is still in place) in one of the SCA Kingdoms that required a specific minimum weight for weapons and shields, and using historical data to back it up.

If you can find an example of an actual weapon from the period you are refering to that weighed in the 15 pound range, I'd love to hear about it. Not a replica, but an extant weapon from the period that people have weighed, like the examples on the page I refered to.

[DarkGreen]

Archermoo-

Well, I have in front of me a spanish "cutlass" blank from pre-conquistador times (circa 1300?) that weighs a little over seven pounds. I also have on my wall a Burmese ceremonial weapon which (with ornate scabbard) weighs in at 15.1 pounds. I have seen and handled heavier weapons in museum collections, although these were definitely the giants of the times -- the sorts of things that the middle age versions of the WWF would probably carry. I specifically remember taking photos with a friend that worked at a museum in San Francisco with a huge broadsword from the Roman era. It wasn't bound for display but was traveling with a collection, and it was heavier than the Burmese weapon I have here to weigh.

This contrasts to my late 1800s longsword, which feels like it must weigh a pound. It's amazing how much the weight changes over time.

-DG

[archermoo]

It is indeed amazing. However I'll point out that it is not unusual for a cerimonial weapon, particularly with an ornate scabbard to weigh many times more than what a weapon intended to be used in combat would weigh. Out of curiosity, how much does it weigh without the ornate scabbard? And a 7 pound cutlass is not at all surprising. It was a hacking weapon, and so was a fairly heavy weapon.

Going by your density numbers, a 6.8kg (15 lb) broadsword would have 895 cubic cms worth of metal. Assuming a long (call it 90 cm) and wide (call it 6 cm) blade, it would have to be over 1.5 cm thick as an average across it's width to weigh that much. And this assumes a blade that doesn't taper at all at the point. Doesn't seem realistic to me.

[Nelijal]

Okay, I'll bite.

First, let me suggest Medieval Swordsmanship by John Clements. It offers a lot of insight into this subject. Mr. Clements, based on his own research and practical experience, states that the weight of most sword types, even larger ones, that were not ceremonial but actually used in combat, have been highly exaggerated by a large number of sources.

Second, I've done a few calculations on my own. Using the density of steel from the above website (7850 kg/m^3), a bar of steel 1000mm long by 50mm wide by 2.3mm thick would have a mass of .91kg (2.0 lb). This sounds like a good place to start for the size of a Medieval sword of ~30" blade length. Now, if you change that bar's cross section from rectangular to a flat diamond, more like the cross section of a blade, my geometery tells me that the bar's weight just dropped to 1.0 lb. After that, you can throw in such variables as a narrower tang, a slightly thicker blade, or a tapering blade, add the weight of cross, handle, and pommel, and 2.5-3.0 lb doesn't seem so absurd.

This is according to my trusty HP 28S. I use Reverse Polish notation, therefore I cannot be wrong. ;)

[MarkusDark]

One source will say light swords, others will say heavy swords. Both are correct. I even have a reference to a Knight bringing a Katana with him on Crusade in the 13th Century.

This was one of the reasons I got out of the SCA. Too many dang know it's. I still chuckle over my armor - padded shirt and skirt with 4" square plates riveted to the outside of it. For the first 6 months, I was 'politely' informed at least twice in any event I fought in that I had the plates on the wrong side of my brig. They were meant to be on the inside, not the outside. Then Braveheart came out, with all those English soliders with the plates on the outside of their armor. From then on, it was "Nice Rig!" from even those who corrected me a month before.

[Nelijal]

Originally posted by MarkusDark
This was one of the reasons I got out of the SCA. Too many dang know it's.I know how you feel. I'm also irritated by all those other people who think they know it all. . . :eek:

[archermoo]

Originally posted by MarkusDark
One source will say light swords, others will say heavy swords. Both are correct. I even have a reference to a Knight bringing a Katana with him on Crusade in the 13th Century.

This was one of the reasons I got out of the SCA. Too many dang know it's. I still chuckle over my armor - padded shirt and skirt with 4" square plates riveted to the outside of it. For the first 6 months, I was 'politely' informed at least twice in any event I fought in that I had the plates on the wrong side of my brig. They were meant to be on the inside, not the outside. Then Braveheart came out, with all those English soliders with the plates on the outside of their armor. From then on, it was "Nice Rig!" from even those who corrected me a month before.

Sorry if I came off as a know it all. That was not my intent. I just personally have never seen any source indicate that broadswords at any time in history would have weighed 15 lbs. Nor can I come up with a reason why they would weigh that much.

And it sounds like you had/have a cool rig. :) Which I would happily have told you before Braveheart came out had I seen it.

[DarkGreen]

Indeed, I think we lost the core of the discussion. Specifically apparently on "Conquest" they said that swords could have weighed "up to 15lbs" -- or so I'm told, I never saw that episode.

I think we would all agree that is much heavier than the normal weapon. My argument was simply that the statement could be technically correct since I have seen ONE OR TWO actual weapons on that scale.

I also definitely am skeptical of the website put out earlier. Someone should check the sources he cites and the formula he uses.

As for Nelijal's example, I think you should start with a bar twice as thick if your sword will be wrought iron (as opposed to actual steel). Otherwise you're building a lengthy screwdriver :) I have something of roughly those dimensions I tried to make into a blade back when I was starting blacksmithing, we now use it for opening paint buckets :)

If someone just asked me the typical weight for the swords weilded by most combatants in the late middle ages I would say 2-4 pounds.

-DG

[archermoo]

Well, I don't have the material that he cites as being the sources for the numbers, but I'll point out again that he didn't use any formula to get the numbers. Those are not figured weights from known sizes and densities of materials. Those are the results of weighing actual period weapons that have survived intact (or mostly intact, as one is listed as being an incomplete weapon) to present.

And I agree about the average sword weight you list, although I wouldn't limit it to the late middle ages.

[Nelijal]

Originally posted by DarkGreen
As for Nelijal's example, I think you should start with a bar twice as thick if your sword will be wrought iron (as opposed to actual steel). Otherwise you're building a lengthy screwdriver :) I have something of roughly those dimensions I tried to make into a blade back when I was starting blacksmithing, we now use it for opening paint buckets :)

If someone just asked me the typical weight for the swords weilded by most combatants in the late middle ages I would say 2-4 pounds.

-DG My starting point was a bar that would weigh 2.0 lb, which came out to be 2.3mm thick. As for iron vs steel, I would question whether swords of any length were made from iron; Mr. Clements suggests that one of the things that created the mystique (and expense) of the sword was that for such a long blade to be usable, it had to be good quality metal with a good spring temper to avoid bends and breaks. Other weapons (axe blades, spear tips) did not require this. Blade quality varied, of course. I personally cannot say for sure as I was not present at the time.

My intention was not to state more than I really know (ahem), but to offer an example to counter to wide notion (everywhere, not this forum) that all weapons and armor of the period were unbearably heavy. Some are fascinated with extremes, the bigger the better, the more interesting the story.

Then again, maybe I am just a blowhard. Never been accused of that before. :eek:

[Agent X]

Originally posted by MarkusDark
One source will say light swords, others will say heavy swords. Both are correct. I even have a reference to a Knight bringing a Katana with him on Crusade in the 13th Century.

This was one of the reasons I got out of the SCA. Too many dang know it's. I still chuckle over my armor - padded shirt and skirt with 4" square plates riveted to the outside of it. For the first 6 months, I was 'politely' informed at least twice in any event I fought in that I had the plates on the wrong side of my brig. They were meant to be on the inside, not the outside. Then Braveheart came out, with all those English soliders with the plates on the outside of their armor. From then on, it was "Nice Rig!" from even those who corrected me a month before.

Could you give me the source on the katana in the crusades? I would find this absolutely fascinating to read about. I teach advanced placement world history and there is always some kid who just wants to talk about military history. In this case, one of the big themes of AP World History, the degree of cultural exchange between civilizations though extremely limited had broad possibilities in incidental contact, could be illustrated with something that most of the kids would find fascinating.

[Thirdbase]

In one of the episodes they mentioned that a Falchion weighed about 6-8 lbs. As to the accuracy of this I can't say, but it does seem to be a good weight.

Now I see why Steve doesn't what to add a large historical database to FH.

[Roland]

Falchions did not weigh 6-8 pounds. More like 3-5 pounds (which is still on the heavy side for a single-handed sword).

I saw that episode of Conquest. They were totalling up the weight of a knight's equipment. They were clearly going for a high number, so I think it was implied that all the weights were upper bounds. And the total relevant weight must include all the gear that comes with the sword - e.g., scabbard and belt or baldric. Still, I don't see how that would come to more than 10 pounds.

[DarkGreen]

Originally posted by Nelijal
As for iron vs steel, I would question whether swords of any length were made from iron; Mr. Clements suggests that one of the things that created the mystique (and expense) of the sword was that for such a long blade to be usable, it had to be good quality metal with a good spring temper to avoid bends and breaks.

Hmm... I am under the impression that even with all the issues of iron it was still a hefty advance over the bronze weapons they were used against. Also I recall hearing theories that "excalibur" was a sword made of steel (possibly meteorite steel) in a world of iron swords. I have an excellent book on the subject but there is a dog asleep on my lap so I can't go get it :(

-DG

[Nelijal]

Originally posted by DarkGreen
Hmm... I am under the impression that even with all the issues of iron it was still a hefty advance over the bronze weapons they were used against. Also I recall hearing theories that "excalibur" was a sword made of steel (possibly meteorite steel) in a world of iron swords. I have an excellent book on the subject but there is a dog asleep on my lap so I can't go get it :(

-DG I should not have implied that swords were never made of iron. (Mr. Clements quotes instances of sword blades being bent during battle, and the wielder straightening it instead of discarding it--a nod to the value of any sword.) I meant to suggest that advances in metallurgy would have been seen first in swords in order to accommodate longer blades that would not easily bend or break. I do not doubt that bladed weapons were at one time or another made of iron.

To keep the right frame of mind, I would also suggest that all our posts on this subject are conjecture. As I have said before, I wasn't there. I enjoy bouncing ideas back and forth as much as the next guy, but it is easy for such debates to degenerate (e.g., the "Speed Chart" thread in the Fantasy Hero forum--a nice thread gone bad).

Speaking of that, this thread was originally about the TV show Conquest. Yes, it is an interesting show, but I also would take the info presented with a grain of salt.

[MarkusDark]

Originally posted by Agent X
Could you give me the source on the katana in the crusades?

I saw it in a book a friend showed me about 8 years ago. I have just left a message for him to give me Title, Author, Chapter and possibly page number. Of course he enjoys recreational activities that have been having an adverse effect on his memory so I won't promise anything.

But you bring up a perfect point. If you have a source that says swords weighed 15 pounds, give the source name. I don't personally like shows, I prefer the hard books as anyone can go to a good library and look it up. Likewise if you have a source that says that they never weighed more than 7 pounds, that'd be cool too.

Oh, BTW, if anyone thought I was implying that they were a 'know-it-all', I wasn't. The argument began to seem a bit like the ones I would witness with SCA people who, for the most part, ARE (IMO). It got so bad that I just agreed with whatever they said. "What? Hitler was skilled in the use of a crossbow? Okey." ((Actually heard it at an SCA event!))

[Nelijal]

Originally posted by MarkusDark
"What? Hitler was skilled in the use of a crossbow? Okey." ((Actually heard it at an SCA event!)) I thought everybody new that. :p