What works and what doesn't work.

[Vitus von Atzinger]

I now understand what the WMA crowd has been saying all along. The Beatdown is not something that the average guy can rely on when in a life-and-death situation.

The Beatdown can be effective in single combat, but it takes time. It takes time to outfight and outwind your opponent. If you are lucky, or huge and fully armoured, you can make the beatdown work alot more easily- sometimes with one blow of a weapon.

The Beatdown works great in a 2-on-1 or a 3-on-1 situation. However, somebody can get killed by the guy getting the beatdown. I was able to stab people in the crotch, underarm and face while groups of guys were trying to convince me to stop. I discovered if you keep moving you can save yourself from the Beatdown. If you get stopped you are screwed.

The Thrust-at-Distance is potentially very effective, but you are rolling the dice. The lucky thrust of a footlance has been known to go right through even the strongest plate armour. However, judging effective spear and poleaxe thrusts with arms of peace is extremely difficult, the same way it is to judge how long a shield would believably last in combat.

The thrust of the dagger is the most dangerous and most reliable. However, you are in extreme danger when using the dagger. You can get the Beatdown, or get stabbed yourself.

The Halfsword is also super-effective, but also keeps you in a dangerous place...you can get overwhelmed and given the Beatdown or get halfsworded yourself.

Grappling, joint locks etc. are extremely effective. However, the most effective ones are not usable in our re-creations. Period.

I'm taking a second look at Fiore.

The best defense in a real fight is teamwork.

[Skutai]

Of course, many of the techniques you've identified as effective against a man in armor are sharply mitigated if he is on a large, moving horse. One really does get an appreciation for how potent the armored horseman was during his technological prime, and how vulnerable he could become once unhorsed, outnumbered, prone, or all three at once.

[Vitus von Atzinger]

TOTALLY

[Russ Mitchell]

Or put up 1-on-1 against a better rider on a more nimble horse. We had a hussars-vs-turks event a few years back that pit re-enactors against guys whose other hobby was weekly polo. It was so one-sided that the audience couldn't help losing it.

[Jean Paul de Sens]

Or put up 1-on-1 against a better rider on a more nimble horse. We had a hussars-vs-turks event a few years back that pit re-enactors against guys whose other hobby was weekly polo. It was so one-sided that the audience couldn't help losing it.

QFT.

I've seen boffer people who are horse people easily best SCA knights when on horseback.

[Dafydd]

Or put up 1-on-1 against a better rider on a more nimble horse. We had a hussars-vs-turks event a few years back that pit re-enactors against guys whose other hobby was weekly polo. It was so one-sided that the audience couldn't help losing it.

QFT.

I've seen boffer people who are horse people easily best SCA knights when on horseback.

Similar experience here. I've seen our kingdom Equestrian Champ beat a Knight (himself an experienced horseman and no slouch in the saddle) at crest combat on the strength of her superior horsemanship. She didn't win every fight (like I said, he can ride well), but more than half, and this in spite of being markedly inferior at swordsmanship.

[Vitus von Atzinger]

I believe that 100%.

[Josh W]

The lucky thrust of a footlance has been known to go right through even the strongest plate armour.

Great points, except for this one.

I am aware of a couple of incidents of spears being thrust through breastplates in the 14th century. But IIRC, the men in those breastplates weren't killed, only injured. Also, what makes you think that those breastplates represented the strongest plate armour? I suspect that the strongest plate armour, especially that of the 15th century and later, was indeed proof against even the stoutest thrust of a lance wielded on foot. There's just no way I'm going to believe you could ram a spear through a breastplate that could be more than 4mm thick in the middle.

What exactly was meant by the term "breastplate" in those accounts that mention them being penetrated by foot-spears? Are they indeed solid, one-piece breastplates? Or does the author really mean to say that the point passed between two plates in a coat of plates or somthing like that?

[Hedinn]

and dont forget, some of these later breastplates were literally bullet proof. As in proven to be proof against a bullet.

I find it hard to beleive that it could stop a bullet, but not a spear.

[Dante di Pietro]

I find it hard to beleive that it could stop a bullet, but not a spear.

Kevlar vests aren't knife-proof. I'm sure someone with more knowledge of physics can explain the particulars, but if I recall, the main points are that bullets are dull and don't continue to exert pressure after contact.

[AngusGordon]

I find it hard to beleive that it could stop a bullet, but not a spear.

Spear points don't expand (mushroom) upon impact. That's why you can shoot an arrow through a sand bag but not a bullet. (Anybody remember that show from the late 70's called "That's Incredible!" They did it over and over with field pointed arrows and several calibers of bullets. NONE of the bullets penetrated until they used an armor pirecing round (no pun intended there).

[RenJunkie]

Somewhere deep withing the recesses of threads long past, there was a link to a study by a physicist. The numbers actually say a spear (actually I think an atlatl) was really more effective on impat than a bullet. A bullet moves very fast, so it has lethal power. The spear, tho much slower has much bigger mass, and a cutting edge, which produces more force at the impact point. I don't remember the details, but that's the gist of it.

Also, as far as bullet proofing, wasn't the bullets they were proffing against big, round things with a lot of surface area? In addition to being prone to flattening on impact?

Christopher

[Vitus von Atzinger]

Crap, Josh...that's true. The strongest of breastplates is a goddamn strong breastplate. I keep forgetting that 99% what I have personally handled ain't made right. Wade Allen's thread on breastplates is very enlightening.

[Thaddeus]

Also consider the homogeneity of the steel in use during the era the mafia is focused on. The 'BEST' armours may have been pretty uniform. But the quality may have dropped off remarkably from there yielding uneven hardening, no hardening, overly brittle alloys etc...

I am thinking back a couple of years where Murdock had the experience of having one of his new made 1050 spaulder lames snap as a modern example. That was made with the benefit of a high tech controlled environment furnace.

There is a lot we are assuming here, things that are very difficult to know for certain.

It is I think reasonable to assume that the spear was a far more dangerous weapon historically than it is in any of our recreations. And for certain our use of spear simulators with their great big gooby safety tips has not let us come even close to a proper approximation.


[/i]

[Diglach Mac Cein]

Also, the bullets and firearms used then were not nearly as effectvie as there were even 100 years later. VERY soft rounds and inconsistent charges.

and dont forget, some of these later breastplates were literally bullet proof. As in proven to be proof against a bullet.

I find it hard to beleive that it could stop a bullet, but not a spear.

[James B.]

I find it hard to beleive that it could stop a bullet, but not a spear.

Kevlar vests aren't knife-proof. I'm sure someone with more knowledge of physics can explain the particulars, but if I recall, the main points are that bullets are dull and don't continue to exert pressure after contact.

Not even close to the same thing. Kevlar is a layered artifical cloth not metal.

Hedinn lots of people died in "proff" plate because the maker would mark it with a gun with a half charge too

[Kilkenny]

There is a lot we are assuming here, things that are very difficult to know for certain.

It is I think reasonable to assume that the spear was a far more dangerous weapon historically than it is in any of our recreations. And for certain our use of spear simulators with their great big gooby safety tips has not let us come even close to a proper approximation.

I think the simple fact that the spear was the foot soldier's primary weapon through a vast period of history should tell us pretty clearly that we're missing something in our recreations.

However - a big piece of what it is telling us may be about the economics of equipping armies, not so much the military effectiveness of the spear....

[Sigurd of Jorvik]

It is I think reasonable to assume that the spear was a far more dangerous weapon historically than it is in any of our recreations. And for certain our use of spear simulators with their great big gooby safety tips has not let us come even close to a proper approximation.


[/i]

+1

[jester]

There is a lot we are assuming here, things that are very difficult to know for certain.

It is I think reasonable to assume that the spear was a far more dangerous weapon historically than it is in any of our recreations. And for certain our use of spear simulators with their great big gooby safety tips has not let us come even close to a proper approximation.

I think the simple fact that the spear was the foot soldier's primary weapon through a vast period of history should tell us pretty clearly that we're missing something in our recreations.

However - a big piece of what it is telling us may be about the economics of equipping armies, not so much the military effectiveness of the spear....

I agree, your Grace. Logistics drives military organization, strategy, and tactics far more than technological innovation in weapons systems does. The spear is far easier to manufacture than the sword, easier to use (particularly in large numbers), and keeps the enemy at a distance that is psychologically comfortable. In terms of calculating combat power the spear also allows a commander to concentrate greater combat power on his front since it requires less frontage space to effectively wield.

Please note that the spear is the primary weapon of the cavalry as well, either as a lance or as a light spear/javelin.

[Kilkenny]

Please note that the spear is the primary weapon of the cavalry as well, either as a lance or as a light spear/javelin.

I skipped the cavalry side, on a couple of counts: percentage wise cavalry is generally a small portion of an army (exceptions, I know - and those exceptions I think generally aren't making that much use of lance or javelin), and we're all reasonably familiar with that couched lance and it's destructive impact. Or at least we generally share perceptions of same

[Dante di Pietro]

Not even close to the same thing. Kevlar is a layered artifical cloth not metal.

I mentioned that to illustrate that a thing can be bullet resistant and edge vulnerable; knife resistance does not automatically follow from bullet resistance.