meh... I would have to go to sleep not posting images on a chineese cartoon forum
That's a pommel son. Keeps your hand from slipping off the hilt.
heh, just found this in my folder. Remember kids, this is one of the reasons why you shouldn't overdraw your bow
also on the note of safety
yep, although that happened with a modern bow, but I'm pretty sure with enough practice you can do that with an authentic one too. It's just a question of stupidity and willpower
well, the X is probably a wire under the leather or the wood is carved that way.
About the other stuff is either the wood is carved under the leather that way or it's pressed into the leather. Another possibility that it's carved into the leather
well, either leather or wood. Or sometimes horn/bone/whatever. but there were metal ones too, probably someone but some kind of textil on it too. Ray-skin works too. There are lots of possibilities
Since there's at least a few examples of books bound in human skin, there was probably a few weapons with handles or scabbards in human skin, but that has since been lost, has rotted away or whose origins have been forgotten.
Even in medieval times, there were edgelords.
the method that Peter Johnsson has shown me (and others) is to use a vegetan leather, that's wet-formed and sewn into place, cord risers are placed under the wood if you're doing the X shapes, then the leather is scribed witha sharp knife to edge the design, and then tooling is used to impress down into the leather and make the surface ground. the cut sections keep the edges crisp (the cuts are only 1/4 of a millimetre deep - just enough to ensure a crisp line, not deep enough to go through), and then the raised areas are tooled to add more 3-d depth.
and that's just scratching the surface of all the shit that actually happened
How the fuck does that happen? Is that the aiming or drawing hand?
How the hell did he manage to get the arrow through his hand while holding the bow? And what are those other spikes?
IF my informations are correct then it's his aiming hand, and the guy overdraw the bow may or may not had some resting for the arrow that makes this easier (as I said modern bow) and fucked up something in the process, probably wanted to do it quickly.
What really amuses me is that the arrow shaft shattered/splintered when those are usually either carbonfiber or something similar
I could imagine, since this was a modern bow, that he yanked it back way too fast, he loses his grip for a second, and it just happens to loose into his own hand, splintering along the way.
Pic is an overdraw guard. Paying attention to the length of your arrows and you're length of draw is important.
So I was reminded recently that in Soul Calibur III, one of the optional armor pieces you could wear was Rubber Armor/Cuirass/something like that. How viable is rubber as armor? I'm a layman, so I wouldn't think there'd actually be any, and rubber doesn't seem like the kind of thing that's been around for long enough to really be used as armor, but I'm willing to accept the possibility that some culture somewhere used rubber armor.
more space to dent, more structural integrity and it leads away blades from vital areas and off from the armour.
And it looks cool
>All these sexy book scans
I need more historic warfare books in my life, /tg/. Preferably heavily illustrated.
in the fallout series some people uses armour made out of car tires.
every well made sword is comfy anon.
That is the sexiest crossbow I've ever seen.
Thanks, was wondering why all the later armors have them
Though I prefer the cleaner shapes of earlier armors, the ribs just look weird.
Fallout isn't well know for sticking to science
If my setting has a tech level around the 1230s (think Frederick II Hohenstaufen), what armour should I avoid portraying if I want to stay as true to life as possible? Full plate comes to mind, but was there any amount of plate at all? Greaves, maybe? What was the heaviest that European heavy armour got?
>armour made out of car tires.
This would be pretty effective, as the rubber would absorb some of the blow and the steel belts would prevent penetrations.
Though car tire armor would also be pretty heavy and the tackiness/stickiness of the rubber would prevent otherwise glancing blows from being deflected.
How the fuck would you even use most of these arrowheads
14 thru 17 and 36 are for bird hunting, as I'm guessing are 18 and 37.
29 might be for fishing?
That's the historical wargame threads? I'll remember to have a look from time to time.
mine, The Longsword
1. Double sided to allow versatility and longevity over single sided weapons
2. Fuller insures structural integrity similar to that of an I-beam and prevents wobbling
3. Hand guard not only protects the hands but can also be used as a strike weapon
4. Pommel can also be used as a strike weapon
5. Handle length allows for one hand + shield or two handed techniques, overall very versatile
6. It can slash, stab, and bash
7. Made out of good European steel
8. Is faster and has longer reach than axes and maces
9. Easier to carry around than a spear or great weapon
10. fuck yeah
I'd like to share my only picture of an actual sword.
Sutton Hoo swordd
Bow 7 and 8 are pretty silly. #7 because it looks like it has a brace height of about half an inch, making it basically impossible to use (arm hits, hand hits, can't nock an arrow without drawing the bow at least a little bit). #8 because it'll stack rapidly, i.e. the limb tips will rapidly reach an angle where they're no longer levering efficiently resulting in an inflated draw weight from that point onwards that does absolutely fuck-all for performance.
Those can't be real. They're just too bad.
Also, a lot of them look like variations on your usual cutting-oriented broad head, so hunting medium to large game or to be used militarily against unarmoured opponents and horses I'd guess.
#36 looks like a medieval judo point - used to hunt small game. The idea is basically you use them on things you're likely to either miss or blow straight through. They tend to get snagged in stuff rather than bury themselves like a blade does, so your arrows are easier to find and they're less likely to blow straight through small game while killing them (again reducing arrow loss).
Speaking as an archer (not a historian), I reckon exaggerated barbs probably means military as opposed to hunting.
Regarding the size of some of these heads and how you'd use them, keep in mind arrows were often pretty chunky back then. English livery arrows weighed over 3 times as much as my arrows and were something like 1/2" at their thickest, which is massive. Even besides war arrows, wooden arrows for traditional bows of any sort of useful power (i.e. 40-50 pounds and up) tend to be pretty big/heavy in order to be stiff enough for the bow.
The big arrowheads thing has another purpose. The more weight up the front of your arrow (relative to the weight of the rest of your arrow) brings the balance point forward which in turn gives useful benefits like greater accuracy and better penetration, albeit with a tendency to shed trajectory a bit faster.
Well, at the very least they're all things that appear in the historical record - I own this book, and it's very much focused on reproducing things that are historically attested. Maybe some of the less likely seeming ones are being reconstructed from medieval paintings or other images like pic related.
Perhaps someone here can help me out.
Are there any real-life examples of swords designed specifically for disarming one's opponent? Further, are there any corresponding techniques or disciplines for such a weapon?
Here's a modern suit of armor for the thread's benefit.
The slotted daggers wielded in the offhand by Spanish fencers come to mind. Not so much for disarming as they were for catching an opponent's blade.
The era of pike and shot did not last long enough.
who makes a nice longsword like this, what's an affordable longsword that i could be happy with as a wall-piece/walk around my apartment with?
i don't expect to go use it steel vs steel to learn historical european swordfighting, but i wouldnt be satisfied with "dull, weak sword-shaped thing" either.
what's the price range i'm looking at for an "entry level" good one? what's the companies/smiths/whatever to look at?
Fuck /his/ with a barrel cactus in the eye socket.
On a second look, #7 would make a lot of sense were the string shorter (increasing the brace height) and the limb tips reflexed further to address stacking.
Not having a go mate.
8# actually could be portrayed strung backwards, which if this were the case, means it's actually a fairly practical reflex/deflex bow similar to a lot of modern longbows. I think there's some precedent to that, at least a few people have attempted to string recurved or reflexed bows backwards and subsequently destroyed them when they try to shoot them.
>Fallout isn't well know for sticking to science
true, but that's the only example of rubber armor that I could think of.
two handers for posing.
Halberds for shit hit the fan situations
sideswords for light hearted fun
Sadly I only have the sidesword right now but in a few months probably I will have my halberd and in the next year or two a twohander
>Are there any real-life examples of swords designed specifically for disarming one's opponent? Further, are there any corresponding techniques or disciplines for such a weapon?
swords? not reall,y there are a few parrying dagger that COULD be said for disarming/parrying, but no dedicated sword for this.
Techniques on the other hand exists (for every kind of weapon) but varies wildly.
A Phrygian helmet specifically refers to the peaked construction, the "point" of the helmet tips forward.
They are named after the Phrygian helmets of antiquity, but the kind described here appear in the mid-12th century.
Unlike what many modern manufacturers claim, Phrygian nasal helms are not limited to Siculo-Normans, but were infact a pan-european style. They were the single most popular helmet design in Britain and France from about 1140-1180, where they start to lose ground to domed nasal helmets. They become much less common but are still sometimes depicted in the first decades of the 13th century, though by this time nasal helms in general begin to decline in favour of kettle hats, proto-great helms and secrets worn under a maille coif.
Pic related is an illumination from the Winchester Bible showing the profile of a nasal helm with a Phyrgian tip, alongside the domed nasal helms that would overtake them in popularity.
As to the facemasks? Stick around for part 2
The pairing of a Phyrgian helm with a facemask, particularly of the "duckbill" kind depicted earleir in the thread is one of my personal hot button topics.
The main evidence we have for them is a single wallpainting in a church in the Italian city of Spoleto. It depicts the murder of the english archbishop and saint, Thomas Becket.
This is the logic behind the usual date of 1170 given to these helmets, though considering he was killed on the 29th of december I somehow doubt that the painting dates to that year. I am unaware of any attempt to date the painting beyond its subject matter but several features (domed nasal helmet alongside a Phyrgian facemask helmet, integrated maille mitten on one hand and maille chausses) make me wonder if the painting is more likely to have been created towards the end of the 1170s or perhaps the early-mid 1180s. However 1170 does at least give us a solid terminus post quem.
My personal issue is that while it is a fairly cool looking helmet, everyone seems to try to extrapolate that it was an exceedingly common design that can be handed out to every culture in the area, your normans,your italians your byzantines etc.
There are to my knowledge one or two related designs found in French manuscripts, but even then this is clearly an extremely rare design compared to pretty much any other helmet type you could name for this period. Almost every use of the helmet is based off this one picture.
As to the name, there isn't any sort of consensus. Duckbill is a fairly apt description. Italo-Norman has been hijacked to mean any Phyrgian helmet, and that is wrong anyway.
I usually call it a "Spoleto Helm", as that is where 99% of the evidence comes from and there is no ambiguity to what you are talking about.
I will say however that >>43470164 is actually a fairly good likeness of the armour worn in the painting.
>My personal issue is that while it is a fairly cool looking helmet, everyone seems to try to extrapolate that it was an exceedingly common design that can be handed out to every culture in the area, your normans,your italians your byzantines etc.
I think we can blame the SCA for that.
I don't know why but transitional armour is my favourite.
There is a great deal of debate whether during the Early Medieval period depictions of a piece of headgear with a phrygian tip is a genuine design of hat/helmet or whether they are a purely artistic convention.
The argument rests on the idea that the artists were blindly copying from Roman traditions, which might explain the somewhat unusual proportions these items often exhibit. Sometimes these items appear to be soft hats, at other times helmets.
It is true that nothing resembling these has ever been found, but on the otherhand we have very few surviving helmets from this time. It is an argument that has been raging for over a century now and we are still no closer to an answer.
However, I have never heard anyone doubt the existence of Phrygian (excuse the misspelling in the previous posts) style nasal helmets in the 12th century. These are clearly helmets and quite different in form to the earlier items, with a consistency and regularity of depiction across Europe.
I am given to understand that the Royal Armouries in the UK have a surviving example, but their collection search has been offline for the past year and is now several months behind its scheduled resumption of service.
The picture is from the Stuttgart Psalter which shows examples of the questionable Phrygian caps/helmets of the Early Medieval period.
alright, let's see this armor first because this is my favorite so far
and now let's see Tobias Capwells armor
there is a thread limit now or some other reason that we can't start a new one?
Not at all, more that variety is the spice of life. Though it is lovely to have a fairly high turnover on the threads.
Have an illustration from the Jacob Album of the garniture of Sir Henry Lee, Queen's Champion and Standard-bearer to Elizabeth I.
look at from this viewpoint: these are higher resolution pics than in the gif and still one so you can watch them as much as you want to look for little details. Also as you can see there are other pics that isn't in the gif as well
Its not a ring pommel, but an indented wheel pommel.
Not that wheel pommels were not a thing, but that was mostly found in Irish/Scottish, Finnish and rarely German swords.
I love the infantry sword look.
Ugg. That fiberglass shaft was obviously also old and uncared for.
If the shaft is old, fuck yeah. Fiberglass does not last forever.
>14thC is shit
Fluting. It created ridged spines that distribute impact better, and strengthens the steel, allowing for lighter, thinner plate.
>And it looks cool
No, those are quite real. https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4127/5042726954_9fe02214ae.jpg
No specific style of sword, but there are many guides on using upswept quillions for locking and disarming, especially with rapier.
What the fuck is up with the sallet's face plate, and why is that spaulder so shallow?
>wall-piece/walk around my apartment
Functional, decent, cost effective: Hawei's Tinker Pierce long sword.
They also make the bated (blunted) version.
I want to argue this is not by design, but by fashion.
And its mostly the 14thC.
Which is trash.
I did it!
I can even do dodges and rolls just like in the video game (medium encumbrance animation).
Fire/chem blackening and black paint were crazy common. Its a layer of protection to keep the steel from rusting.
Not bad, but that arm seems way off, from the prospective of practical armouring.
>Not bad, but that arm seems way off, from the prospective of practical armouring.
Which arm, left or right? My right arm is actually pretty bad because the only thing protecting my right hand is a thin leather glove. I got into a sparring match; I had a greatsword and he had a katana. He got me pretty quickly by going for my right hand.
Didnt know you knew Reece, Gropey.
small world sometimes.
Not personally, no. Talked to him on forums. That was just the first pic I had of blackened armour. I was sharing with another friend who is an amputee that wants to keep fighting.
Understandable, looks kinda like my old one.
But I have more taste than wearing 14thC.
You mean standard armour of the day with a surcoat bearing a cross?
Because thats all that made templars look like templars.
What do you define as "holy knight armour"? Lots of bling? This is an honest question to help get you what you want.
It was exactly the same as secular armour, the only difference would be order-specific livery.
The Hospitaliers wore black cappas over the armour, until 1252, when the Pope allowed them to wear red surcoats in combat zones. Black remained as the colour of the civilian arm of the order and of military members when not in battle.
The picture is a painting of the Siege of Malta (1565) where the Ottoman Turks attempted to conquer the island and destroy the naval power of the Hospitaliers. The Knights and soldiers of the order can be seen sporting red livery jackets with white crosses over 16th century plate armours.
The beidana looks awfully similar to the cleavers in the maciejowsky bible which the BotN & co cleavers are mostly modelled after
Also just because the modern beidana design goes back to the 16th century doesn't mean they didn't have something similar 2 extra centuries prior
The V shaped arrows are for hunting big game (which includes unarmored people and horses)
The ones with holes might be whistling arrows to send various messages.
In general big bladed arrow shaped arrows perform well on soft armor and unarmored targets and thin "bodkin" ones supposedly work best on chain and rigid armor, most arrows (in europe) were a hybrid shape (the closest one there would be 31), thin enough to penetrate, broad enough to cut, barbed enough not to come out easily
37 is the key to leaving the underground and conquering the stars
I am pretty sure the current thinking is that bodkins were cheap arrows that could be mass-produced more easily, rather than a specific device against mail or armor penetration in general.
That's why I said supposedly.
That said it makes sense for the needle like ones to be made to penetrate maille, since they wouldn't really be good at much else and it's a pretty extreme specialization.
And the classic stiff square section bolt is similar to other armor penetrating weapons (daggers, poleaxes, estoc, etc.) so it would be weird for the design to be coincidental. Of course the unhardened ones couldn't possibly be effective, but arrows in general were more of an harassment weapon in the age of plate, the accounts are mostly about arrows bouncing off or sticking to the amor harmlessly, and even when they got trough, there are accounts of italian knights surviving arrows that stuck to their face or trough he neck..
But if you have a proper source for the current accepted function of the various arrowhead designs I'm very interested.
I have some Maximilian, my favorite sort of plate armor (right up there with three-quarter plate)
I have never been sure of what the gold-coloured hood worn under the helmet was meant to represent. A leather hood perhaps?
Several of the Osprey illustrations have in conjuction with that helmet, despite not having any parralel in historical depictions of the time.
The decision to draw scale sollerets is also confusing as in this period any foot protection would be maille feet integrated directly into the leg armour. At least the spurs are of a twelth century pattern.
And something to finish it up with
That's all from me, cheers
Alas, I am afraid I do not have tomes on arrows to hand to back up my recollections. Though I must admit to being irked when people take modern reproduction maille and say "look how easily a bodkin slides through the links!", unaware that said links are too large and historical examples do not featre such accomodating gaps.
Even during the age of maille, there are accounts of men-at-arms walking off the battlefield looking like pincushions due to the volume of arrows that have stuck but not wounded the man. Certainly in the Alexiad, Anna Kommena remarks on the Norman milites in Italy being virtually proof to arrow fire.
>The beidana looks awfully similar to the cleavers in the maciejowsky bible which the BotN & co cleavers are mostly modelled after
>Also just because the modern beidana design goes back to the 16th century doesn't mean they didn't have something similar 2 extra centuries prior
While I'm waiting for blades to temper...
the maciejowski bible weapons, which I'd rather see considered proto-messers than "cleavers" - a very misleading term for them - have virtually no association with the beidana. There is absolutely no evidence of beidana predating the 16th century, and very little evidence for them in the 16th C - they appear in the 17th C in art and in archaeological findings. There are typological similarities, they have similar handles. That's not surprising, given the same handle style has been a lombardic regional fashion since at least the 8th century, demonstrated by langobardic domestic cleavers which have U shaped hooks, the Villiard De Honnencourt illustrations of the 13th C, and the Beidana alike. Its a bit like trying to say that seaxes and 16th C whittle-tang knives are the same thing solely because they have a whittle-tang.
Typological similarities aside, there is absolutely no evidence of there being any association between them - for a start, beidana are civilian farming tools, a regional style of machete, in effect, whereas the maciejowski bible proto-messer are a dedicated weapon with features like fullering and back-spikes that are specifically for military use.
saying " just because the modern beidana design goes back to the 16th century doesn't mean they didn't have something similar 2 extra centuries prior" is a bit like looking at a rifle stock, and then saying " just because the modern AR15 design goes back to the 1960s doesn't mean they didn't have something similar 2 extra centuries prior"
It is entirely erroneous, and completely lacking in any form of credible source.
The problem is while Osprey peddle lots of outdated misconceptions and occassionaly make stuff up it has just enough fact to have the veneer of legitimacy,
People see Osprey books and think that it is well-researched history in neat little packages.
The quality varies massively and while they can be a harmless enough overview of a topic, treating them as an authorative source past the age of 10 is a mistake.
I have also had fun over the years in spotting the exact moment when a minature designer has obviously read an Osprey book and included an error into thier work.
The Conquest Norman plastics spring to mind, as one of them is clearly wearing a set of scale armour which is blatantly from that one Osprey pciture of four knights on horseback, one in scale and another in lamellar.
We can have the argument about whether Normans may or may not have worn lamellar as a result of contact with Byzantium (the answer is no by the way), but scale at Hastings? Really?
That could only have come from that one bloody Osprey book.
Your similitude is whack, the speed of development of modern factory made weapons isn't even comparable to pre-industrial times. Just like we can't compare different models and patterns before such things existed.
Also you pretty much concede my whole point and then some: that they have similar typology, similar handle, similar square tip, I'm guessing the picture is a stab at BotN "falchions" which are equally as a similar to either the maciejowsky warknives or the beidana or any long knife with hook handle and square tip.
And you add to my point in saying that they did have something similar even in the 8th century, but by god no beidanas sooner than the 16th, just "domestic cleavers" with the same handle (and an illustration from 3 centuries prior rather than 2) which is exactly what I was implying, so thank you for giving me a source on that I guess.
Those shitty things are almost entirely phased out of BoN/ACL, as they are not a knightly weapon. Peasants RARELY used them, and would quickly aquire a proper weapon.
The guy gets it.
Have a propa choppa.
If I didnt "get it", I'd be worried by now, given my work's being published and used by museums now. :/
also, techincally, that falchion you've pictured is probably not a "proper" one. there's a very high chance that's actually a 19th C fake...
not huffy at all - must just If I didnt get, I'd be bloody scared, 'cos someone who does know better would be pretty soon to see my stuff and yell "GOBSHITE"...
(that previous comment would've had a smiley-face, if such things were socially acceptable around here - it was mostly joking. )
rather unlikely its a 14th C blade - firstly they're more a 13th C type - they die out by about 1310, 1320. but also there's some really odd stuff going on with that one and two others which all share a provenance up to the 1920s supposedly. Though sourcing that has been difficult - even the museum of the former owner doesnt have any auction data of their sales.
its... there's too many coincidences in terms of proportion and design, if that makes any sense, the three falchions feel like they're out of the same workshop, and have some very odd details that I wouldnt expect to see on an original. (hard to explain, and cant use an image now the threads' at image limit). I need to get to the Castlerock museum in wisconsin and handle one of the other ones from that trio and cross-reference it, to realistically work out if its a very odd 13th C one, of a 19th C forgery.