Armour?

Ahriman · 26th September 2005, 10:01 PM

Indeed, faaaar better... One of my friends made one out of 1mm spring steel, and was quite suprised when most arrows bounced off without denting the metal... the rest left small dents, but none have pierced. The bow was, if I'm right, 60#.
I don't really like chinese harnesses, as I'm rather a m&p-maniac idiot

, but the last looks good... even to me.

Ham: I think your students are VERY lucky... most hungarian teachers, even quite many of the university teachers, are still thinking that a full-plate harness is too heavy to move in it, that the knights were put on the horses by cranes, etc...

Aqtai: nice examples, I'm convinced...

But I was still able to use something like these greaves for fighting... and it was good... Hm, maybe I invented something new???

BTW, I've added full fingers and a knuckle plate to the "vambrace", or "elbow-demigauntlet" on the first page. Looks less eastern than ever... more like a "muslimised" german elbow gauntlet. I'll post pictures of it in a few days. Reason of upgrade: idiotic owner became overconfident as it provided good defense, especially compared to a thin leather gauntlet used for semi-full contact. He didn't really bother to defend a back-edge cut to the wrist, as he had mail there... but that cut missed with about 5cm, and opened one of his non-gloved fingers down to the bone, AND splitted his fingernail.

I won't post photos of THIS.

Ahriman · 26th September 2005, 10:12 PM

Hm, isn't it a little familiar, Aqtai?

This is the guy who tested the lamellar.

Aqtai · 26th September 2005, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ahriman

Indeed, faaaar better... One of my friends made one out of 1mm spring steel, and was quite suprised when most arrows bounced off without denting the metal... the rest left small dents, but none have pierced. The bow was, if I'm right, 60#.
I don't really like chinese harnesses, as I'm rather a m&p-maniac idiot

, but the last looks good... even to me.

Ham: I think your students are VERY lucky... most hungarian teachers, even quite many of the university teachers, are still thinking that a full-plate harness is too heavy to move in it, that the knights were put on the horses by cranes, etc...

Aqtai: nice examples, I'm convinced...

But I was still able to use something like these greaves for fighting... and it was good... Hm, maybe I invented something new???

BTW, I've added full fingers and a knuckle plate to the "vambrace", or "elbow-demigauntlet" on the first page. Looks less eastern than ever... more like a "muslimised" german elbow gauntlet. I'll post pictures of it in a few days. Reason of upgrade: idiotic owner became overconfident as it provided good defense, especially compared to a thin leather gauntlet used for semi-full contact. He didn't really bother to defend a back-edge cut to the wrist, as he had mail there... but that cut missed with about 5cm, and opened one of his non-gloved fingers down to the bone, AND splitted his fingernail.

I won't post photos of THIS.

I'm looking forward to seeing your work.

I hope your client recovers from his wounds. What the hell was he doing anyway?!

About the lamellar armour, because it was made of rigid plates, it did indeed provide an excellent defence against arrows compared to mail, however it had quite a few weaknesses: it wasn't particularly good against swords and sabres because the lacing could be cut, furthermore because it was quite rigid, vulnerable areas like the armpits and groin were left exposed. Mail and plate armour provided a compromise: rigid plates over the abdomen and back, mail over the groin and limbs.

Another problem with lamellar of course was that the lacing would get soaked in wet weather increasing the weight, and the lacing sometimes got infested with lice etc.

This picture is a Tibetan lamellar armour from the Rubens server, the actual armour is in the Royal Armouries (Although it wasn't there when I last visited the the RA).
http://rubens.anu.edu.au/raid1cdroms...l/P1015070.JPG

Here's another 15th century mail and plate armour from the Royal Armouries:

According to the label it's Turkish, According to Robinson's "Oriental Armour" though it's Mamluk. It does ressemble the mamluk mail and plate shirts in the Topqapi.

Ahriman · 26th September 2005, 10:45 PM

He was fighting...

Semi-full contact.

Overconfident.

Not a very unusual thing here. A guy ordered greaves with knees because one of his friends lost his... patella, maybe? That piece of bone over the knee, I don't know it's english name. The surgery tool was the "spike" of a two-handed, rebated viking axe. Stupid people, we are... but as we have a few good armourers, more and more of these idiots realize that plate on vulnerable joints = life-long joint usage...

I bet you like Rubens, don't you?

That RA suit is nice, but it has HUGE links... And it seems rivetted.

Wait, I recall Ham telling us that mamluks used baydana as a primary defense... which means HUGE links... Ok, it's mamluk.

Did they ever fight europeans? Especially germans? Because this link size is EXTREMELY vulnerable to half-swording IMO.

Thanks for listing the reasons of my anti-lamellar mindset...

BTW, Norm wrote that there were samurai armours with long plates, opened only on one side, so the owner was helped into it by assistants who pulled it apart. Is it true? It seems quite a stupid thing to me, as the continuous opening-closing would stress the metal... which's not good.

Aqtai · 26th September 2005, 11:10 PM

The mamluks were a fascinating bunch. They were a caste of warrior-slaves, originally Turkish but later Circassian from the Caucasus, who ruled over Egypt, Syria, Arabia and parts of Asia minor from 1250 AD to 1517 AD. Their capital city was Cairo which they filled with beautiful Mosques, Khanqa's, madrassahs, hospitals and Wikalas (caravanserais). Even after the Ottoman conquest they remained the dominant military group in Egypt until 1807.

As I said before , they fought a wide variety of enemies. They fought the Crusaders in the 13th century and inflicted several defeats on them, eventually driving them out of the Middle-East. They managed to stop Mongol expansion into North Africa by defeating the Mongols in 3 major battles in 1260, 1281 and finally 1303, although a few mamluks were themselves of Mongol origin, including one Mamluk sultan.

They may have come up against German Crusaders, although to my knowledge they never fought an all-German army. In the 15th century the mamluks conquered Cyprus, the last surviving Crusader kingdom, I presume that the Crusaders of Cypus may have used Western European weapons and equipment. In the early 1500s the mamluks fought a naval war against the Portuguese in the Indian ocean. Since the mamluks were primarily heavy cavalry/horse archers I'm not sure how much of a role they took in a naval battle. I have a suspicion that much of the fighting in the Indian Ocean was done by Maghribi (North African) mercenaries.

Finally the mamluks fought Napoleon Bonaparte duing his invision of Egypt in 1798. they used virtually the same tactics they used against the Crusaders, the Mongols and the Ottomans. Needless to say Napoleon defeated them, although he then went on the create his own small unit of mamluks!

The mamluks certainly used lamellar armour as well as mail in the 13th and 14th centuries, in the 15th century however they abandonned lamellar armour in favour of mail and plate armour. They also continued to use mail right until 1798.

Ahriman · 29th September 2005, 10:08 AM

Thanks for the info! I think they (the mamluks) were rather lucky - in the 13th century they didn't have to face vollharnischers, as then even the italians used only a few knees, and elbows... I mean, plate defense for them.

I have asked earlier, but it seems that no-one replied... did eastern people ever develop halfswording? Especially when confronting m&p armour, or strong riveted, it'd be crucial... but I haven't heard of it. But, again, I haven't heard about this vambrace-greave debate before...

Aqtai · 29th September 2005, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ahriman

Thanks for the info! I think they (the mamluks) were rather lucky - in the 13th century they didn't have to face vollharnischers, as then even the italians used only a few knees, and elbows... I mean, plate defense for them.

I have asked earlier, but it seems that no-one replied... did eastern people ever develop halfswording? Especially when confronting m&p armour, or strong riveted, it'd be crucial... but I haven't heard of it. But, again, I haven't heard about this vambrace-greave debate before...

If mamluks took part in the fighting in the 1500s, they may have come up against Portuguese officers wearing full plate armour, but I doubt it as naval warfare is different, how many guys in full plate armour will be on the deck of a Nao reppelling boarders? The Mamluk navy did defeat the Portuguese in one naval battle in 1508, but as I said before, I think most of the fighting was done by Maghribi mercenaries, not mamluks.

I'm sorry to seem ignorant, but what is "half-swording"?

Ahriman · 29th September 2005, 12:19 PM

It's a gripping method that gives extraordinary control and force to thursts and slices by sacrificing real cuts. When halfswording, you grab the BLADE with one (mostly the left) hand, while the other grabs the hilt as usual. By this, you get a short and very light spear AND a good grabbing tool as well.

I'll describe a very simple scenario. You are holding your sword in halfswording, left on the blade, thumbs pointing at each other. Your opponent cuts from above in an angle, targeting your left collar-bone. You raise your left hand much more than your right and receive the blow between your hands in a quite sharp angle. His blade slides down and stops at the quillon. Then you lower your left and raise your right hand as if you were to sheath your sword to your left. By this, your opponent's blade is incapable to cut you, the point is far behind you, and he could only move it to your far left. Then you simply strike him in the face with the pommel. Even as it took quite long to tell, it's carried out lightning fast, and most likely wounds the opponent quite well, even if he was wearing armour.

Mostly halfswording is done in armour, where you have a good leather glove to protect your blade-grabbing palm, but there are pictures showing unarmoured use, mostly with either slender blades or some kind of cloth on the blade... and sometimes without any of these. Of course, it makes it clear that you NEVER block a blow fully, or in 90°, nor do you block with the edge. Imagine the effect of a two-handed full-power blade driving your sword into your... lower arm...

Or the bending effect of the same, if you received the blow to the flat in 90°.

BTW, my question came from that I saw half-swording advised for messers. (messers are huge knife-like swords, sometimes twohanded, mostly resembling wide-bladed, crossguarded katanas) So it'd logical that eastern fighters developed it as well - cuts for unarmoured opponents and strong thursts for the mail-armoured, or m&p wearing ones...?

Sorry for the long post, but I think that the more you know... well, then the more you know.

Which is a good thing.

In the 1500's, and especially in naval warfare, one would only wear a strong breastplate, or even less... say, a gorget. So that's doesn't count...

26th September 2005, 10:01 PM	#1
Ahriman Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Hungary Posts: 72	Indeed, faaaar better... One of my friends made one out of 1mm spring steel, and was quite suprised when most arrows bounced off without denting the metal... the rest left small dents, but none have pierced. The bow was, if I'm right, 60#. I don't really like chinese harnesses, as I'm rather a m&p-maniac idiot , but the last looks good... even to me. Ham: I think your students are VERY lucky... most hungarian teachers, even quite many of the university teachers, are still thinking that a full-plate harness is too heavy to move in it, that the knights were put on the horses by cranes, etc... Aqtai: nice examples, I'm convinced... But I was still able to use something like these greaves for fighting... and it was good... Hm, maybe I invented something new??? BTW, I've added full fingers and a knuckle plate to the "vambrace", or "elbow-demigauntlet" on the first page. Looks less eastern than ever... more like a "muslimised" german elbow gauntlet. I'll post pictures of it in a few days. Reason of upgrade: idiotic owner became overconfident as it provided good defense, especially compared to a thin leather gauntlet used for semi-full contact. He didn't really bother to defend a back-edge cut to the wrist, as he had mail there... but that cut missed with about 5cm, and opened one of his non-gloved fingers down to the bone, AND splitted his fingernail. I won't post photos of THIS.

26th September 2005, 10:12 PM	#2
Ahriman Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Hungary Posts: 72	Hm, isn't it a little familiar, Aqtai? This is the guy who tested the lamellar.

26th September 2005, 10:45 PM	#4
Ahriman Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Hungary Posts: 72	He was fighting... Semi-full contact. Overconfident. Not a very unusual thing here. A guy ordered greaves with knees because one of his friends lost his... patella, maybe? That piece of bone over the knee, I don't know it's english name. The surgery tool was the "spike" of a two-handed, rebated viking axe. Stupid people, we are... but as we have a few good armourers, more and more of these idiots realize that plate on vulnerable joints = life-long joint usage... I bet you like Rubens, don't you? That RA suit is nice, but it has HUGE links... And it seems rivetted. Wait, I recall Ham telling us that mamluks used baydana as a primary defense... which means HUGE links... Ok, it's mamluk. Did they ever fight europeans? Especially germans? Because this link size is EXTREMELY vulnerable to half-swording IMO. Thanks for listing the reasons of my anti-lamellar mindset... BTW, Norm wrote that there were samurai armours with long plates, opened only on one side, so the owner was helped into it by assistants who pulled it apart. Is it true? It seems quite a stupid thing to me, as the continuous opening-closing would stress the metal... which's not good.

26th September 2005, 11:10 PM	#5
Aqtai Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Merseyside, UK Posts: 222	The mamluks were a fascinating bunch. They were a caste of warrior-slaves, originally Turkish but later Circassian from the Caucasus, who ruled over Egypt, Syria, Arabia and parts of Asia minor from 1250 AD to 1517 AD. Their capital city was Cairo which they filled with beautiful Mosques, Khanqa's, madrassahs, hospitals and Wikalas (caravanserais). Even after the Ottoman conquest they remained the dominant military group in Egypt until 1807. As I said before , they fought a wide variety of enemies. They fought the Crusaders in the 13th century and inflicted several defeats on them, eventually driving them out of the Middle-East. They managed to stop Mongol expansion into North Africa by defeating the Mongols in 3 major battles in 1260, 1281 and finally 1303, although a few mamluks were themselves of Mongol origin, including one Mamluk sultan. They may have come up against German Crusaders, although to my knowledge they never fought an all-German army. In the 15th century the mamluks conquered Cyprus, the last surviving Crusader kingdom, I presume that the Crusaders of Cypus may have used Western European weapons and equipment. In the early 1500s the mamluks fought a naval war against the Portuguese in the Indian ocean. Since the mamluks were primarily heavy cavalry/horse archers I'm not sure how much of a role they took in a naval battle. I have a suspicion that much of the fighting in the Indian Ocean was done by Maghribi (North African) mercenaries. Finally the mamluks fought Napoleon Bonaparte duing his invision of Egypt in 1798. they used virtually the same tactics they used against the Crusaders, the Mongols and the Ottomans. Needless to say Napoleon defeated them, although he then went on the create his own small unit of mamluks! The mamluks certainly used lamellar armour as well as mail in the 13th and 14th centuries, in the 15th century however they abandonned lamellar armour in favour of mail and plate armour. They also continued to use mail right until 1798.

29th September 2005, 10:08 AM	#6
Ahriman Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Hungary Posts: 72	Thanks for the info! I think they (the mamluks) were rather lucky - in the 13th century they didn't have to face vollharnischers, as then even the italians used only a few knees, and elbows... I mean, plate defense for them. I have asked earlier, but it seems that no-one replied... did eastern people ever develop halfswording? Especially when confronting m&p armour, or strong riveted, it'd be crucial... but I haven't heard of it. But, again, I haven't heard about this vambrace-greave debate before...

29th September 2005, 12:19 PM	#8
Ahriman Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Hungary Posts: 72	It's a gripping method that gives extraordinary control and force to thursts and slices by sacrificing real cuts. When halfswording, you grab the BLADE with one (mostly the left) hand, while the other grabs the hilt as usual. By this, you get a short and very light spear AND a good grabbing tool as well. I'll describe a very simple scenario. You are holding your sword in halfswording, left on the blade, thumbs pointing at each other. Your opponent cuts from above in an angle, targeting your left collar-bone. You raise your left hand much more than your right and receive the blow between your hands in a quite sharp angle. His blade slides down and stops at the quillon. Then you lower your left and raise your right hand as if you were to sheath your sword to your left. By this, your opponent's blade is incapable to cut you, the point is far behind you, and he could only move it to your far left. Then you simply strike him in the face with the pommel. Even as it took quite long to tell, it's carried out lightning fast, and most likely wounds the opponent quite well, even if he was wearing armour. Mostly halfswording is done in armour, where you have a good leather glove to protect your blade-grabbing palm, but there are pictures showing unarmoured use, mostly with either slender blades or some kind of cloth on the blade... and sometimes without any of these. Of course, it makes it clear that you NEVER block a blow fully, or in 90°, nor do you block with the edge. Imagine the effect of a two-handed full-power blade driving your sword into your... lower arm... Or the bending effect of the same, if you received the blow to the flat in 90°. BTW, my question came from that I saw half-swording advised for messers. (messers are huge knife-like swords, sometimes twohanded, mostly resembling wide-bladed, crossguarded katanas) So it'd logical that eastern fighters developed it as well - cuts for unarmoured opponents and strong thursts for the mail-armoured, or m&p wearing ones...? Sorry for the long post, but I think that the more you know... well, then the more you know. Which is a good thing. In the 1500's, and especially in naval warfare, one would only wear a strong breastplate, or even less... say, a gorget. So that's doesn't count...