Medieval thread- Discussion edition.
Something I've always pondered was what sort of weapons fit what body type. A man with longer arms would have more reach, he could either use a shorter weapon like a gladius and have the same reach as a man with a longsword but with more control, or he could use a spear and give himself an even greater reach advantage. Basically, what I'm trying to figure out is this: What sort of weapon is ideal for a huge man (aka game of thrones mountain), a short stocky boxer type guy, an average sized fellow, ETC. Example, I'm short as hell (5'5". Manlets, when will they learn?) but have big long arms and large torso (40" chest, 69" reach) What sort of weapon lets me capitalize on the great leverage I have, while mitigating my shorter stride (can't maintain ideal distance as easily) and overall average reach?
Post a body type or weapon and its ideal match! Explain why they fit well together!
spear goes in all fields
>>30501957
Tell that to the Romans. Though it has some merit, I think a spear works at least pretty well for anyone.
>>30501906
First off, cool pic, if not for the ugly asymetrical wings.
To answer your question, I didn't have that much of an expirience, some 7 months and going, but I work as a blacksmith and I study historical arms, armour and crafts, among other things, so... there's a bit.
The notion that long-armed man needing shorter weapon is bullshit. Imagine a bind. Now you have less reach with a weapon and more vulnerable arms. Hey ho. That being said, it would be useful with normal-sized things. Reach is king.
About leverage, mantlets, big torsos... Fuckin' shield and an axe. If you've got big upper body strength, axes are the shit. Axes are shit for defense, though. If only there was an obscure thing that could easily be held in one hand and provides very significant defense. That's right, a shield! From my expirience, boss-held shields require more strength and are more actively used. Man, did my left arm get swole after few months of swinging 5kg bossheld shield around! And being a mantlet is actualy a plus with a shield, since you can hide behind it more easily. Footwork is also a little bit more forgiving with a shield.
As for the other body types. I guess it is a bit of stereotype, but I've seen it in real life, so hey, stereotypes are true sometimes.
-This one really lanky guy, real flamboyant and agile, he liked to use two light-ish swords to a fair effect, also things like crouching below attacs, even rolls sometimes, really agile fellow. Most of the time it worked. One time, I smashed him in the head instead of his gut because of that. Ow.
-Another dude, sorta small, sorta light-ish, he was a skilled archer and knew his way around a sabre, good with a shield, too. Me being 6'4" 250lbs though? One time we got really hardcore on eachother - smacked him with my shield on his, whith all my weight put into it. Sent him flying on his ass maybe 7ft away.
(1/2? to be continued? Ask away btw)
>>30501906
The best weapon is a shield with a huge as fuck boss.
>>30502079
>One time we got really hardcore on eachother
I like where this is going.
>>30501906
A proper bill would work if you've got good arms.
>>30502079
I thought axe would fit well too for me. I don't know how much a difference the smaller striking surface would matter regarding maintaining an ideal difference. With an axe you can't stab, so if someone grapples with you, you may not be able to swing it at all. I suppose the same is true for maces, which I'm also partial to. Unlike you though, despite being very strong (for my weight, 155 lbs) I have no weight to throw around, so flooring someone with a shield bash like that would probably fail unless I got really low to push against the ground. But then I suppose that being shorter helps with that.
Your weapons should always be adapted to your length. If you're tall you can use a longer weapon, if you're short and try to swing a two handed sword you can end up hitting the ground when you swing. Fencing is very much a game of reach, so being tall and using longer weapons will give you the upper hand.
A short person has some advantage if they get close enough to a tall person since it's a lot easier for them to knock the tall person to the ground in a wrestling situation with a hip throw or something because of the lower center of mass.
But generally it depends on the situation. If it's formation combat then halberds and other polearms are extremely good. In individual combat longswords or sword and shield could be better.
>>30502079
-This guy, who was teaching us. About the same size as me, but older guy, proper gut, wonky leg. But man, was he a beast. He replaced youth with skill. In all that time I spent training there, I only managed to get a proper hit on him like four times. And when we had FFA sparring, when he picked up a big hefty longsword (think claymore kinda thing), everyone just fucking legged it.
-One girl there, really lithe, she really liked rapiers AND daggers. She managed to weave all around you poking you in the ribs like you wouldn't believe. Once you got her into a bind though, she was lost. Got together as fuckbuddies. Was a wild one! And even better in bed than with a sword.
And we even had a girl there who wore fuckin' high heels into sparring and never had a problem with that. Plus, she used those wierd-ass falchions from Maciejowski bible.
Got rambly there. Just use whatever the fuck suits you, but remember that spears are insane to deal with, and hence it was the main battle weapon for a reason. All the other stuff was kinda just a sidearm. But for heavy armour, axes, hefty swords and polearms, you have to be stronk. For pokey swords and other stuff like that, it's nice to be agile.
Oh, and also one thing - one handed weapons are actually more tiring and strength-demanding than two-handed. 'Cause, you know, you've just got one hand to handle it, eh?
(2/2)
>>30502217
are axes and maces always to be swung full force in a wide arc for max power? is there any room for finesse?
>>30501906
Understand the premise, but I wonder if it would be more about the fighting style or needs of the army (placement in the ranks)?
This could be a question of context or practicality.
For example, as an aggressive 5'11 230 lb mesomorph in Medieval times, I'd expect to have been given a large horn of mead, hand full of mushrooms, and an axe and told to go a-berserk.
In modern times, when we can choose our own training and weapons, however, I have experience in contact sports, wrestling, grappling; so favor close-in weapons like push daggers, knuckle knives, etc.
>>30502123
Oh rngeezus, the wording I used! Well, anyway, one time I got hardcore with the dagger girl, she passed out, twice, from strangling , and I got bite and claw marks all over myself. Hah! Good times, good times.
>>30502164
Smaller striking surface does absolutely make a difference. But that being said, you don't want to kill the other person WHEN SPARRING. Narrow axes work wonders for penetration (ba-dum tss), while broad axes, dane axe style, can even be used to push or draw cut. Remember that maces are goddamn short - shorter than axes (also why you need a shield.) and made for fighting in armour, against armour. Maces aren't really that good compared to cutting implements against lightly armoured people, considering you can't make 'em bleed out with a mace! And that you cannot stab with an axe - nah, you can, with certain types. Dane axe stab can even burst riveted mail rings, and some bearded or broad axes for one-handed use can do so as well. But that's more of a stab in the unprotected throat or face kind of business. And another awesome thing about bearded axes is that when you get into shield-on-shield or grapple kind of close combat, you can slide your hand all the way to the head, grip it there, and now, you've got yourself a nice bladed knuckleduster that you can cut, punch and protect your hand with! Axes are awesome, man!
>>30502257
If you swing any weapon full force you'll take too long to begin the swing and take too long to recover from it. It'll be seen coming and either dodged or parried, and you'll be left a sitting duck.
>>30502298
Yeah, asking more about personal choice here. Like a knight or a barbarian warrior may have. I don't imagine some mountain village warrior militia being handed out many identical mass-produced weapons, or some noble in a melee being relegated to only to cheap uniform weapon.
>>30502327
Good points all. had not thought much about choking your grip with an axe like that. I do have a fetish for flanged maces though.
>>30502353
Well, as hard as you can without some sort of silly huge wind up
>>30502374
>>30502353
Important thing is to keep up the momentum, if we're talking about longer axes here. If someone steps into your reach as you're swinging away you have to be able to come back around fast. So there's some skill involved in simply swinging around without losing momentum.
>>30502257
Naw, not really. Most of the time, you don't really have the time or the space to do that. Another reason you want your weapons sharp. But using a shield, you might find that wrist-powered "snap cuts" at the other guys unprotected hands is goddamn effective. Imagine someone chopping you in your fingers with a sharp axe or sword when all you have is a leather glove, and even if mail gauntlet, it would still hurt. And room for finesse? Absolutely. Battle axes are light things, really, most axe finds from early medieval peroid are lighter than most swords. Damn, even the heads of the famed twohanded Daneaxes are around 700g (That's... uh... 1 1/2pounds? More or less)
>>30502298
Not really. Horns were goddamn impractical and were kind of a fashion statement. For shrooms there is no real evidence (altough hey, back at home, some sage and shrooms could be fun. In battle? Naw. No records of such thing.) Berserks are largely a myth, too. IIRC, I've read about that the word "berserk" is used only very seldomly in the written remains, and that one of them berserk refered to an elite retainer that dealed with chieftain's legal matters. Including "trial by combat". Don't quote me on that exact thing though, It's been some time since I read about that stuff.
>>30502426
I never cease to be amazed at the level of knowledge here. Thought for sure there would be a bunch of edgy Skyrim stuff to wade through. Thanks!
>>30501978
Why would I?
The Romans started out using spears, then mixed in swords while still using spears(not just pila), and then went back to spears as their main weapon in the end.
>>30502364
Goddamn, that image is cheesy. Flanged maces are really cool things, but consider that they are all pretty much within 2ft long. Now imagine something that front-heavy against a guy with 3ft+ sword, both of you in light armour. Go figure. Maces are for armour.
Also, what >>30502424 and >>30502374
said. With those hefty weapons, being able to quickly defend yourself and keep up momentum so you don't tire yourself so quickly is really important. Also, when fighting, you get tired and fuckin' thirsty quite quickly. More if you use a shield. Even moreso when you're in armour. And a tired combatant is severely at an disadvantage against a fresh one.
>>30502488
Well, yeah, Maces may be no good against light armor, but hey, there's room for variety depending on the opponent.
>>30502474
No probs. As said, I've been doing blacksmithing for past 5 years, studying history (and making friends from historians and archeologists ever since) of medieval crafts and arms for some 4 years and now I've been practicing. That being said, there's a bleeding fuckton of myths, halftruths, anachronisms, lies and bullshit in the scene, in reenactment, blacksmithing, and archeology alike. Friend was just telling me that he was citing his thesis and found out that one universally accepted statement in the field is some sketchy speculation made 90 years ago, heh.
Oh, and don't get me wrong, Skyrim is all fun and Conan the Barbarian with glorious Arnie Blacknigga got me into smithing and medieval stuff, and I still love good fantasy! You just asked for... well, actual advice.
>>30502474
>Thought for sure there would be a bunch of edgy Skyrim stuff to wade through
We get a bit of a pass this early, most Americans are off celebrating, and so are most of the younger demographic that has friends and shit to do today, so what's left is old fuckers, or knowledgeable fuckers.
>>30502532
Guess I'm just a friendless American then.
>>30502551
You're not the only one.
>>30502532
>what's left is old fuckers, or knowledgeable fuckers.
Kek. Thanks.
>>30502528
What I'm saying is that you need heavy armour to use that thing. It's a conjuction. And for lightly armoured people to deal with the heavy armoured, there's other tools. Spears, half-swording, swords with narrow pointy blades, some axes, high-poundage crossbows, zerg rush, halberds and other hefty or heavy duty pointy polearms. But hey, you can always have a sword, too. Anyway, dude, ask away, I'm kinda tired, it's midnight in the land where beer does flow and czechnology gets made.
>>30502602
>ask away
Thanks!
I was wondering if different elements of an extremely large battle (several thousand soldiers for each side) such as the vanguard, the companies on the flanks, etc, would they receive different types of weapons based on what location on the battlefield they are? Excluding archers, the obvious one.
Did the vanguard have better weapons or worse, since they were the first to the slaughter?
>>30502600
Another one here. Was literally just sitting around reading Joachim Meyer's Art of Combat after i oiled my longsword. My fiancee is away so i guess now is a good time to drink beer, dick around with swords and shitpost on 4chan.
>>30502679
I just started CW2 by Layne Haeth.
Bretty gud so far, about Vietnam helicopter pilots. Crazy motherfuckers they are, but I guess at the time any warrant officer was fucking nuts. Comes with the territory and the situation I guess, but it's still surprising.
>>30501906
You know if your reach was 2in shorter they would give you a 2in longer stick or sword. These things were by no means standardized back then.
>>30502651
Well, that's a pickle. Since I don't really know all that much about late medieval battles and since there's fuckall written accurately about the early ones, I can't really tell you. I don't really know what you mean by "vanguard". If you mean a separate group from the main army going to engage the enemy, I know fuckall. If you mean literally the guys up front? I can answer that. Thing is that battles of this scale didn't really happen that much in the early medieval europe. Just a few.
But if you meant the literal guys up front, that would be guys that are armoured the heaviest, have the most expirience, the best weapons (spears there as well, but also axes both 1h and 2h[twohanded were kind of rare, though] made specifically for war, often imported, good swords also often imported, quality shields, combat knives and/or saexes. maaaaybe NOT-flanged maces) and are the bravest, because you have to have balls to be in the front line, and all of that means nobility and their retainers. The rest had mainly spears, way less armour (many relied only on a shield. A good, sturdy leather or felt hat/cap/hood can help too, though), some had war axes, some had "all purpose axes" (think NOT splitting axes. Kinda the type that can do pretty much anything. Cut a tree, de-limb it, do some carpentry and crafts, butcher an animal, kill a dude), rarely swords (a bit more common in Norway. Look up "norse single-edged sword") sometimes combat knives, common knives, some had clubs, some had javelins, some odd thrown axe or a club (Bayeaux tapestry is showing a norman throwing a club) and some threw rocks. There's a snippet of saga that says one jarl refused to face the other because his army was near a recent landslide - plenty rocks to throw. Maybe even a bow among the common infantry, for shits and giggles. Altough that is for early medieval period. Later? I think covering your good shit with bad shit was way more common.
>>30502790
And most of the time, it wasn't given out anyway. You had to provide your own for most of the middle ages.
>>30502855
Yeah, at the battle of Visby in 1361 some of the farmers had swords that were over 200 years old while other richer ones had more modern weapons. This was before uniforms and standardized weapons. Everyone had different weapons and armor.
>>30502895
True dat, Battle of Visby was a major clusterfuck. Looking at the skeletal remains gives you the chills sometimes. I try to imagine how wierd of a combat situation it must've been for the defender to get his heel chopped off with an axe, for example!
Anyway, OP, hope I helped, going to sleep. I'll be gone most of tomorrow, but if this is alive, I'll write some more knowledge.
>>30502651
Depends on the time period. But typically it would be less about their location on the battlefield and more with their location within their battalion or for a specified role. For example, pole arms on the flanks of a pike block.
