Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
In DnD terms a Falchion is similar to a 2H Greatsword and a Scimitar is a 1H longsword replacement.
The D&D designers have had 46+ years to research . . .
And there are no such categories of swords in past or present. There are various shorter bladed historical weapons all with their own name. The dnd ones closely resemble gladius. One-handed swords are called arming swords. Longsword is a two-handed weapon which hardly will be effective as a one-handed. Bastard swords are more accurately named hand-and-a-half swords. They are predominantly two-handed weapons too that are slightly more suited for one-handed use should you really have to. Broadswords are usually basket-hilted swords(although throughout history anything that had a wider blade than what was commonly used would be called that). Two-handed is a general family of swords that includes anything from bastards to what's colloquially called warswords(stuff like zweihanders). Also most of the classification is modern. And people of old would refer to whatever was commonly used at the time as just 'sword'.
Leather wasn't really used in the medieval period for armour though components of armour, straps and padding were made from leather. You want a D&D type game set in a 'pike and shot' era world then there would be plenty of leather. Ring mail and chain mail are different terms for essentially the same thing. Non-metallic medieval armour was padded textile (see gambeson) which was also worn under mail and later plate as padding.
Shields I think it says are wood or metal. Shields were made of wood; an all metal shield would be impracticably heavy or alternatively too thin to be of use. They might be faced with leather, perhaps metal 'ribs' for reinforcement. If held with a central grip rather than with straps that would be covered with a metal boss to protect the shield hand. Why combine two materials; obviously the shield blocks, but also the metal or leather can deflect, while the wood can absorb some of the impact.
D&D rules also don't seem to consider 'coverage'. Does the armour only go down to just above the elbow or all the way to the wrists, are the hands protected ?
Some of the weapons listed, particularly pole arms were battlefield weapons, by that I mean formed companies of infantry would carry and use them on a battlefield, but they're not weapons to carry in a skirmish.
The money system also has never been revised and is 'silly'. Electrum coins were only ever used in the ancient Kingdom of Lydia (SW Asia Minor). It is an alloy of silver and gold and was used because the mines produce intermingled gold and silver ore and they didn't have the technology to separate the two. They could easily have 'borrowed' a real medieval system or created something closer to one.
But, in the game, it is considered a light weapon, and in the pen and paper is considered suitable for throwing. That's dork weapon lore for you.
The nomenclature prevalent among English speaking HEMA enthusiasts considers bastard sword just a misnomer for longsword.
And longswords are not hard to use with a shield. Technological advances made the longswords light enough that they are similar to arming swords in weight, and better balanced. Short of the longer hilt, nothing makes the longsword worse than an arming sword for one-handed use, and all surviving medieval manuals emphasize when you should be using it with a shield.
Of course, when you use both hands, the strikes became much faster and more powerful, and rapid changes in direction became much more dangerous. And leverage increases to the point that longswords remain relevant against anything but the heaviest armor, especially with changes to the grip like half-swording or murder-stroke.
But the main reason that you see HEMA guys using longswords without shields is that it is considered cooler, and that HEMA sparring is done between supposed equals. In warfare, practically everyone would carry a shield, because for fighting people less armored than you, the combination is simply safer. When facing a plate armored opponent, you'd drop the shield and use it two handed. Well, that's if you are armored yourself. Or else you will die. Dodging is another dork mechanic.
Using a bastard sword and a zweihander has little in common. One is used as a sword, the other is constructed and looks like a sword, but it used like a polearm.
The proper term, in English, for two-handed swords that are unsuitable for one-handed use is simple two-handed sword, or if you want to be fancy and misunderstood, greatsword. Even modern German HEMA guys are not using the Zweihander name for two-handed swords, but
And that's really the most important part. What I know and use daily (or at least used to) in just Anglo-HEMA jargon that an academician would poo-poo in favor of Oakeshott typology. The former focuses of use, the latter on construction and dimensions.
We know that in the past, there were people who were waxing rhapsodic about smallsword, and called them the ultimate sword that Man could design short of divine inspiration, while anyone today knows they are sнiт.
Who knows how people will classify swords in the future?
And two-handed swords having little in common is exactly the point. It's a grip, not a weapon type.
Leather armor as seen in Western movies, and as you explicitly described is biker gear. Historical leather armor was not tanned supple, but hardened by boiling, and is heavy, restrictive, and absolutely not supple nor conductive to stealth.
I have no idea where to start. You have completely mangled everything.
Yes, silk armor is a thing. Yes, you can liken it to Kevlar. Yes, it is great at catching arrows, but not at not stopping them and distributing the impact.
No, it has nothing in common with soft lather armor. It has nothing in common with historical leather armor, either.
Yes, Japanese used small overlapping leather plates in armor. Yes, this was technically both leather armor and scale armor. Yes, it was somewhat effective against arrows, although where it really shines is against slashes, not thrusts.
No, it has nothing in common with soft leather armor. No, it is neither light nor quiet. No, it looks nothing like what you described in your first post.
Lemme quote it for you:
This clearly describes biker gear. So does the fact that leather armor is considered nonrestrictive, quiet, light, etc. And the studs do nothing, as in absolutely nothing, against either piercing or slashing.
This is historically accurate, but directly contradicts the above, which tells you that whoever wrote it did not understand whatever research he had access to. Cuir bouilli (I have no idea what bouli is, and I speak French) is heavy and stiff. To attach metal crap on it, you would have to drill it, and ruin its protection. It would be classified as non-metal plate armor, not something a sneaky scout would wear.
And here is another dork fantasy, based on misunderstanding.
Padded armor is not like clothing, which AD&D makes it sound like. It is bulky, encumbering, and relatively expensive. It is horrible to sleep in, it is extremely vulnerable to moisture, it requires a lot of care in the field, and is NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING like what AD&D makes it be.
It is made of a lot of layers of cloth, and it offers surprisingly good protection. The problems are everything I listed above - it is supremely inconvenient. Depending on the number of layers and the manner of use, it is properly called padding or gamberson. Neither is anything like AD&D's padded armor. The former is not meant to be used by itself, and the latter is not light and comfortable.
Seriously, dude, do not mix AD&D light, medium, heavy armor and historical armor. Apart from the names, there is little overlap. Everything is absolutely jumbled up, and you get gems like chain mail giving less of a Dexterity penalty than field plate, or leather armor being less protective than biker chic.
PS. NO CAPES!
Historically, there was no clear split between the blade length of arming (or knightly swords) and longswords. When the most common sword became the longsword, it was not because the blades became longer, but because handles became longer. The metal technology was the bottleneck, and once crucible steel came along, arming sword blades started creeping up, all the way to 90 cm, which is also the lower and earlier end of longsword blades' range. Yes, longswords went longer and longer. Arming swords did not, because they were no longer the high end model. They became sidearms. While they are not much easier to use onehanded, they are one hell of a lot easier to carry on your belt comfortably than a longsword. That hilt juts out.
Duh indeed. And that was a huge advance in technology. Before that, using a longbladed sword one handed was much harder, because it was bulky and heavy, because you needed more metal to make a reliable long blade.
People experimented with what can be called longsword hilt designs as soon as crucible steel came to Europe, i.e. in the 11th century. Actual longswords appeared in the 13th century. By the early 14th they were the predominant primary armament sword in Europe.
Everyone in HEMA has his favorite medieval manuals. Mine are
- Hanko's Fechtbuch
- Flos Duellatorum in Armis
- Talhoffer's Fechtbuch
Each has over 10 pages on longsword use with a shield. Ridolfo Capo is not one of my favorites, but he actually has half his manual on shield use. I'd give you the links, but unless you are a member, you cannot get the PDFs from http://www.thearma.org/manuals.htm. So I will just link to some publicly available images from the manuals. Here[i0.wp.com]
You know, I will not. All the links are third party sites explicitly linking around thearma.org members controls.
If you want to know, you can do your own research. Or get a membership.
In any case, yes, 10 pages in about a hundred is not much, but that's because you would not use the shield in anything 'cool' like facing an equal, especially in a duel. But at least Hanko's manual really emphasized training with a shield, exactly because the hilt makes it somewhat awkward, and one needs to practice, in case he needs it. Not in a duel, but on the battlefield, when facing numerous, less well equipped enemies.... like an adventurer clearing crap.