安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
AFAIK, lances did break frequently, at least in tournaments. Virtually every darn fresco/painting depicts it. (Some famous dude got his eye put out due to it... and the back of his head.) There's a painting/whatsits from the period showing lances breaking in "three pieces" upon impact. For some reason, this has been interpreted as significant by aficionados and historians. Not because of the number, itself, just because it is supposedly a common reference.
Most modern reenactors use(d) balsa wood composite sorts of lances so there would be a guaranteed "break." However, some got brave and decided they'd use pine. To their surprise, it worked and they didn't all kill themselves. And... the lances broke exactly like in the pictures - three pieces. (Likely the way the compression wave traveled down the lance.) A good set of strikes would generally see both lances break. Which is good... since that's energy that isn't channeled into someone's shoulder or sternum. (That protective cap was, indeed, to prevent the tip scoring off a shield and along the armor and finding a vulnerable spot. But, of course, it's also because they weren't using real "warheads.")
On a battlefield, if a charging lance got a hit... That's 1200+lbs of deadweight, not including the momentum factor, all focused on a single, tiny, sharp point. You don't stop that kind of force. It doesn't stop. It doesn't care what's in front of it... Either it's going to shatter or it's going to penetrate and there aren't any exceptions for a clean hit. If it penetrates... it's not impossible that it could keep on going. It's not a boar spear. Heck, you could kill several people with one shot. Shrapnel from a virtually exploding lance would be a nightmare, too.
I would imagine a knight would judge whether or not he's going to let go immediately, just before, or hold onto it for a bit based upon his likely target. And, he wouldn't likely be using any fancy looking lances, either - they'd be disposables. Though, I'm sure that lancers in some periods wanted to look as fabulous as possible on the battlefield.
PS: @ the OP - There comes a moment when there is enough force focused on a small enough area than anything which would otherwise be thought of as "blunt damage" becomes, due to natural law, piercing damage... A telephone pole duct-taped to a bus is a piercing weapon whether or not it's pointed. :)
Ooooh .. don´t give me crazy ideas, I am all about experimenting in the name of science, I already have a bus ... now I just need to find 2 more things, the right duct-tape is going to be an issue though.
.... and a third thing ... the right target!!!
Piercing damage really when you get down to it is about pushing through with minimal force, whereas a canonball blowing right through you does all that damage bluntly.
It's... neither here nor there. But there are game systems out there that analyze it all.
see, this is something i've researched myself- even though it's out of my period-
AND guess what?
- opinions have changed alot on several things I was taught were "proven" when I was in SCA- *1
seems there's been alot of renewed interest- and attempts to TEST claims-
so, again not my favorite periods, but super-interesting;
and last few times I've looked at it; i get... conflicting sources.
i definitely agree with Sheepify on this:
met him on the "bad hollywood tropes" thread in fact-
and i don't think he was saying any specific source, I think he's had the same bad experience where 1/2 your sources are quoting something *else* you find out is provable bs a week later...
and you get to try to remember where you read which to get it all straight.
- and that ON TOP of- when the legitimate experts can't agree.
YOu can spot the fake experts by who has a "easy answer" to what is hotly debated by experts, I find ;)
my favorite example will remain "10% brain use" - that bit of misinformation has spread with such .... amazing virulence. I do recall, somone esaid the true definition of "meme" was - mind-virus, and I am still amused. So many virulent mental plagues.
Not just in hollywood or video games.
ps: Sheepify: this?
http://mikeprendergast.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/THE-COLLECTION-OF-RENAISSANCE-MILITARY-ARTS-AND-EXERCISES-1.4.pdf
nice find. i had a paper copy of something similar, i treasured it so of course i don't own it anymore- love stuff like this.
I wa strying to make it through some transaltions of old byzantine manuals not too long ago. It hurted my little brain.
footnote:*1 : no one I was around did any mounted *anything* -
there was *some* cross-over with ren-faire folk, but--- that was always a weird and uneasy ... relation. Some of them *DID* but.. i didn't know any f them, and again, I wonder how much *they* thought they knew as set in stone has been overthrown of late.
I don't really have an opinion on whether lances are supposed to break or not, but I would like to address how you are approaching your argument. I don't want to pick a fight, but I also don't really like to see this kind of behavior (on the internet or otherwise).
You claim that the other person is wrong, and that he has provided no sources for his opinion and proceeded to mock him in addition to just disagreeing. Meanwhile you yourself have provided no sources. Additionally, you have admitted you are not an expert in this field. What makes you so confident you are right and everyone else is wrong in something you have yourself admitted no expertise and have no reference to support you? How do you propose and any other rational observer actually agree with you when you construct your argument this way?
Personally I find this behavior akin to bullying. You may very well be right but this is not the way to demonstrate it, or engage in a civil discussion. Poljanan deserves an apology.
I get your point, but i think you're assuming a center of mass hit and aren't taking into consideration the fact that the impact of the lance is also going to throw the target backwards. If you spear someone in the shoulder and they are falling backwards and down wouldn't you think that would tend to pull them right off the lance tip? Especially if you were pulling back at the same time?
A lecture given by Tobias Capwell, Curator of Arms and Armor for "The Wallace Collection."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fa9pTtF87FQ
He was an enthusiasstic member of The Medieval Society AFAIK. The lecture is largely about The Medieval Society and its jousting practices. IIRC, he has another vid up on the overall "History of "The Medieval Society" as well. But, I couldn't find that one. I think this one directly mentions the evolution from Balsa Wood lances, for the guaranteed break, and the first Tournament Joust uses of Pine Lances in Australia. The confirmation of the breaks was really wonderful to see - It's like "history" jumped up and slapped everyone in the face by saying "See? This is why these things happened! WTF R U STOOPID?" And, a few other things were discovered as well, like why Tournament Lances have a vamplate... (To prevent hand injuries... duh. :))
SAVED! :) (I'm going to have to see if this is still in print somewhere. :))
In the vid there's mention of something that is also mentioned in the text - The concept of not lowering one's lance until the strike. In the text, it was mentioned how easy it is to counter someone charging at you with a lowered lance. It's basically your choice to do whatever you want with that situation, from knocking their lance aside, etc... The modern day practice reflects that as well. Lancers simply did not announce their intentions too soon. :)
Considering how many horses have been described as being dead on a battlefield, I'm sure the somewhat overly Chivalric ideas we have don't always appear applicable. Chivalry changed many times, of course, but I think that some things "in practice" didn't change that much - "Kill the guy who's trying to kill you" is an important practical rule.
Already saved for full reading. :) And, I'll keep it on my "try to find hardcopy" list.
Just to try to be clear, are you suggesting the Medieval use of pine was probably motivated by safety? But perhaps not the hollowing?
I am still retaining in my mind the seemingly very relevant reference to Hussars having hollow lances that were nevertheless entirely military in their intent.
A pine lance might prove to be lighter, which in its turn has a military use in not wearing down the wielder.
So funny that a relatively innocuous comment can spur this much discussion. hehe
Pointy stick will go through, but if the person with it stuck in them is falling backwards it would tend to pull right back out unless it stuck on bone. If you hit them center of mass i can see how that would be likely, or that they would fold up over the lance. However, if you are targeting the head or shoulders i think that most of the time the lance would tear itself loose as they fell. You also keep bringing up torn rotators, but wouldn't the lance rest make that unlikely? The real impact is going to be absorbed by your breastplate, not your shoulder.
Compare how much a straw carries in comparison to a twig of similar diameter. The lengthwise strength is comparable. (The straw is even slightly less prone to bending and snapping when the force is led along the length.)
Another piece for thought: What is the most dangerous piece of debris during a heavy storm or tornado? (A length of wood, like a tree trunk or pole of a power line. It will easily go through brick and 'thin' concrete walls. Wooden walls do not have any kind of stopping power against those. If you want to be protected from such projectiles, you use heavy concrete and/or brick walls and Earth, loads of earth.)
Not at all. I'm saying that the modern reenactor's discovered the exact same sort of effects we see in the murals when they switched from the very safe "balsa wood" break-away tournament lance to a pine lance in an attempt to get as close as possible to "real" jousting. Repeatedly, they witnessed first hand the three-piece breakaway depicted in some murals when lances shattered. It makes a kind of sense - Depending on the type and density of the wood, the compression shockwave is going to rebound/resonate very quickly and that energy has to go somewhere. IMO. when such a blow was struck, the knight wanted either the lance to pierce or shatter rather than accepting that shock, themselves. So, perhaps, some wood was generally preferred for that reason. (Weight mattered, too, I'm sure.)
And, the vamplate, which wasn't as frequently present on the modern balsa lances, had its true utility discovered as well - Without it, hand injuries from lances and even shattered lances seemed to be very common.
The reenactors discovered other things, as well - It's not really possible to block a lance using the balsa-wood lances they had been used to. For obvious reasons, of course. But, when using sturdier lances that were closely modeled on what they could find mentioning medieval tournament lances, a whole new strategy opened up. True "Tactics" came to light that would have never been revealed had they not taken the risk to incorporate realistic lances.
And, that brought to light the reason for certain armor pieces that balsa-wood re-enactors had been ignoring - Gorgets. No need to worry too much about a lance scathing up one's breastplate or shattered wood sneaking into one's throat if there's no lance left to do that, is there? :)
Saddles were a thing, too. They had previously been using a modded modern saddle. But, that's because they never had to really worry too much about staying on a horse when hit by a big pine lance moving at a fast clip with a whole horse&rider's weight behind it... Balsa-wood lances just didn't communicate that level of force. As soon as they brought in pine lances, all of that changed... Saddles that were designed to keep the rider in place were very important things, it seems. :) To that effect, and as evidence, they found mention of knights who were noted for being able to quickly dismount. Why would that be noted by some enthusiastic Medieval writer? Because doing so would not have been particularly easy due to the fact their saddles were likely designed to keep them on their horses a bit better than a modern one. ;)
In essence, as re-enactors got closer to "realistic" jousting, questions started to get answered very, very, quickly when it came down to what a knight of the period would use and how they would have really used it.
As a result of purposefully trying to get closer to using all of the things a Medieval Knight would have armored and armed themselves with as well as changing their tactics during a joust, realistic jousting reenactments actually became safer. Imagine that? :)
It is the hunt for knowledge, the exchange of dialogue, and the enthusiastic sharing of common interests that fuels such widely ranging deviations from an opening post... :)
And, there's lots of good resources that often surface in such threads that many others might find interesting as well. (That pdf is very cool! That lecture is pretty good and he has done several on arms&armor as well as some relating to specific Medieval battles.)
it's a bit like the arch. fellows that were trying out reconstruction theories-
so much sounds good on paper - ( or makes no sense on paper )- and then, testing.
that was really quite a good read. I'll have to look more into it, i mentioned earlier no one i knew did anything of this sort, and - some things I was taught as "obviosuly true" - even in some of my weapons encylopedias from museums etc- has been upset by new testing and research.
I need to really get down with that lecture... if only i didn't have the attention span of a caffinated ferret.
ps: i'd like to ask - anyone a fan of Mike Loades? the weapons that made england fellow?
Thanks! And, exactly so! There's a huge amount of information that can't be gleaned from just "reading how it was done." All sorts of subjects have had their "historical re-enactors" that tried to replicate ancient methods and the discovered something mind-blowing. It's experienced, practical, knowledge that opens up those secrets. :)
The vid is great and he does a wonderful job in exploring his experiences and noting interesting things for the viewer. Guess that's one reason why he's a real Curator of Arms and Armor. :) There's a host of great info, there. Watch it while eating dinner, remember/save your "pause" spot, then return another day.
(He's done some really nice vids/interviews about ancient battles and some other experiments like the classic question "Can a Medieval Longbow penetrate Medieval Plate Armor?" The unambiguous answer is absolutely not. But, it could penetrate mail, kill horses, shatter and splinter, possibly blinding the foes, etc... It just could never penetrate real Medieval plate and nobody during that period thought it could, either. :))
It is not the case that all lances break on impact all the time, or were designed to.
Some styles of lance training include the ability to withdraw the lance as the lancer rides through...in one smooth move.