Any armorers/blacksmiths on here?

[Beaushizzle]

Imagine what battles were like when the weapons were actually sharp enough and swung with enough force to cut right through the armor....

They'd all have been dead in minutes.

EDIT:

Lol @ 0:20 and 0:27. "I don't need a sword to beat your fuckin' ass".

Interesting you say that. The armor most of them are sporting is late 14th/early 15th century armor. You see a sharp decline in one handed bladed weapons, and an increase is blunt weapons and two handers to defeat the armor. Swords would never make it through plate, so you either crush it with a hammer, stab through it with a very specialized sword, exploit gaps using various half-swording techniques, or knock the knight out cold with maces and flails.

 

[Gonzalez]

to cut right through the armor....

Never happened. Read above post.

Even with mail, you could try to pierce mail, but cut? It would have to cut trough mail and even possibly gambeson if we are talking about early/high middle ages, you just don't cut trough it, that's why it was worn in the first place, and why it was so successful for so long. That's the reason why the roman gladius was made for piercing more than cutting as well, and this was the classical era.

Of course swords were also used for cutting in the battlefield since not everyone wore mail, even less plate armor.

Long story short these crazed poles probably cause themselves as much damage as the real thing (perhaps more in some cases, since even the swords they use are made heavier since they know they will be facing armored targets) short of finishing each other off once they are in the ground.

 

[SnapSlav]

There's sharp enough, and then there's massive enough. You do CLEAVE through mail and plate with massive enough weapons... that's what claymores and zweihanders were made for, after all. You DO cut through lesser armors, provided the armors are fabric/hide/fiber based, and provided the blades are sharp enough. BUT more importantly is the skill with which the weapons are wielded. Even if the sword is massive enough to collapse several fully plate armored knights with a single swing, all Guts style, good luck having the physical strength, proper posture, timing to set up, and space to make a full arc to ACCOMPLISH such a damaging blow. Less cumbersome weapons were designed with the specific intent of breaking heavier armors, like flanged maces and war hammers, but it's a popular romanticizing of weaponry to just think about the swords, the swords, the swords. As mentioned above, spears and polearms and arrows were used specifically because they were so much more effective at this task, and it didn't take a superhuman to wield them.

But armor CAN be cut/sliced through. Just, like I said, it's not metal armor that's gonna be getting cut. A sharp enough sword, with the right shape, and the right force applied at the right angle, and it will slice through many layers of leather like a hot knife through butter. This is what the katana was used for. It was a very fragile blade, it wasn't designed with piercing in mind, but with drawn slicing. Proper kendo (the art of the blade) teaches withdrawing the blade as you swing it, to create a slicing movement that better utilizes the blade's razor sharpness, rather than a chopping downward stroke. The slicing, focusing all that energy on an INCREDIBLY small surface area (the edge of the sword) goes through light armors like nobody's business. And most samurai and warriors of feudal Japan (Hell, fairly recent Japan, even, because it went through VERY different modernizing than the West) wore something not too dissimilar to brigantine armor; layered leather. These were excellent against piercing weaponry, but very susceptible to the slicing weapons used by samurai.

But, you're not placing archers who wear lighter armors instead of plate in these Western-centric battles out on the front lines for them to be faced with warriors wielding gigantic exacto knives. Medieval warfare in the West focused on heavy armors and shields, and weapons designed to get past those. Not sharp weapons that were made to cut through softer armors.

 

[BigBawss]

There's sharp enough, and then there's massive enough. You do CLEAVE through mail and plate with massive enough weapons... that's what claymores and zweihanders were made for, after all. You DO cut through lesser armors, provided the armors are fabric/hide/fiber based, and provided the blades are sharp enough. BUT more importantly is the skill with which the weapons are wielded. Even if the sword is massive enough to collapse several fully plate armored knights with a single swing, all Guts style, good luck having the physical strength, proper posture, timing to set up, and space to make a full arc to ACCOMPLISH such a damaging blow. Less cumbersome weapons were designed with the specific intent of breaking heavier armors, like flanged maces and war hammers, but it's a popular romanticizing of weaponry to just think about the swords, the swords, the swords. As mentioned above, spears and polearms and arrows were used specifically because they were so much more effective at this task, and it didn't take a superhuman to wield them.

But armor CAN be cut/sliced through. Just, like I said, it's not metal armor that's gonna be getting cut. A sharp enough sword, with the right shape, and the right force applied at the right angle, and it will slice through many layers of leather like a hot knife through butter. This is what the katana was used for. It was a very fragile blade, it wasn't designed with piercing in mind, but with drawn slicing. Proper kendo (the art of the blade) teaches withdrawing the blade as you swing it, to create a slicing movement that better utilizes the blade's razor sharpness, rather than a chopping downward stroke. The slicing, focusing all that energy on an INCREDIBLY small surface area (the edge of the sword) goes through light armors like nobody's business. And most samurai and warriors of feudal Japan (Hell, fairly recent Japan, even, because it went through VERY different modernizing than the West) wore something not too dissimilar to brigantine armor; layered leather. These were excellent against piercing weaponry, but very susceptible to the slicing weapons used by samurai.

But, you're not placing archers who wear lighter armors instead of plate in these Western-centric battles out on the front lines for them to be faced with warriors wielding gigantic exacto knives. Medieval warfare in the West focused on heavy armors and shields, and weapons designed to get past those. Not sharp weapons that were made to cut through softer armors.

Rep/rads for knowing this already.

 

[TheChosen1]

The only way is to end him rightly.

 

[Gonzalez]

Did you just contradicted yourself and said first that it could cut steel and then said it couldn't?

Either way, lets get something clear, and limit ourselves for a second to the type of armor worn in the video, the historical one that is, since my reference to mail, made only to illustrate how slashing became every less effective as armor evolved led to talking about armor more often found in D&D than in real life (leather, especially in Europe and the middle ages) and weapons and martial arts that never existed in Europe and still couldn't cut trough plate.

Claymores and sweihanders (the German name for any two handed sword) were never intended to cut trough plate, ever, that's why half sowrding techniques were adopted, you had more chances to do more damage to someone in a suit of plate armor taking a claymore by the blade and hitting them with the guard or pommel than you would ever had by trying to cleave at them with their sharp edge.

That being said, if they were hitting each other with sharp blades it would probably be even less effective to bring your opponent down, if you look closer in the video, you'll see hat the "swords" that they use are blunt, but at the same time heavier and with a center of gravity that goes towards the tip, making them more of a sword/mace hybrid, and putting a lot more blunt damage in the target than you would achieve with a sharp sword for obvious reasons.

Also, if they were using historical bladed weapons their fighting techniques would be far less brutal and much more precise, a rather very different thing than what you see in the video.

Real life vs crazed poles:

 

[Crni Vuk]

Very great video!

you had more chances to do more damage to someone in a suit of plate armor taking a claymore by the blade and hitting them with the guard or pommel than you would ever had by trying to cleave at them with their sharp edge.

Indeed!

 

[BigBawss]

Did you just contradicted yourself and said first that it could cut steel and then said it couldn't?

Either way, lets get something clear, and limit ourselves for a second to the type of armor worn in the video, the historical one that is, since my reference to mail, made only to illustrate how slashing became every less effective as armor evolved led to talking about armor more often found in D&D than in real life (leather, especially in Europe and the middle ages) and weapons and martial arts that never existed in Europe and still couldn't cut trough plate.

Claymores and sweihanders (the German name for any two handed sword) were never intended to cut trough plate, ever, that's why half sowrding techniques were adopted, you had more chances to do more damage to someone in a suit of plate armor taking a claymore by the blade and hitting them with the guard or pommel than you would ever had by trying to cleave at them with their sharp edge.

That being said, if they were hitting each other with sharp blades it would probably be even less effective to bring your opponent down, if you look closer in the video, you'll see hat the "swords" that they use are blunt, but at the same time heavier and with a center of gravity that goes towards the tip, making them more of a sword/mace hybrid, and putting a lot more blunt damage in the target than you would achieve with a sharp sword for obvious reasons.

Also, if they were using historical bladed weapons their fighting techniques would be far less brutal and much more precise, a rather very different thing than what you see in the video.

Real life vs crazed poles:

He said that, if you want to get technical, there are weapons that can CLEAVE through armor, but not technically CUT. Which is what I meant in my original post, until you guys decided to get technical on me. The difference being, the sheer amount of weight and force, along with the curved edge of the blade of say, a claymore, can effectively rip armor open rather than actually cutting it/slicing through it due to the effectiveness of how sharp it is...

And I'm pretty sure there weren't many armies in Europe, during any period of Medieval history, that was able to afford to clad every single soldier in fine-grafted steel armor.

In fact, in the early middle ages, soldiers often used their own weapons and armor, rather than the weapons and armor being provided to them by the Kingdom's government. Meaning that, only knights or other soldiers who had earned title, money, land through fighting for their king could afford the best equipment, while other's had to use handed down equipment and/or stuff they scavenged off a battlefield. It wasn't until much later that "professional armies" were created where the Kingdom not only bought all of their soldier's weapons and armor for them, but also paid to train every single last soldier. And even when they did do this, lighter armor was still preferable to an army with soldiers clad in nothing but plate armor, but that is beside the point.

Annnnyyyywayyssss...........

 

[Gonzalez]

the sheer amount of weight and force, along with the curved edge of the blade of say, a claymore, can effectively rip armor open rather than actually cutting it/slicing through it due to the effectiveness of how sharp it is...

What, plate armor? No, it didn't. And during the entire middle ages all armor was purchased by it's owner, and it was prohibitively expensive, professional armies didn't reappeared in Europe until after the renaissance and the emergence of state troops, armies were raised/hired and then disbanded as needed.

And I'm pretty sure there weren't many armies in Europe, during any period of Medieval history, that was able to afford to clad every single soldier in fine-grafted steel armor.

Excuse me, what type of armor are the poles wearing in the video? Did you even read what I post? Where am I talking about every single soldier wearing plate armor? What are we even discussing? Because if we are talking about swords or any cutting weapon cleaving trough double layered historically accurate steel, worn over mail and even gambeson under the mail, then no, it didn't happen.

As long as that's clear then yes, it is obvious that not everybody worn armor and the sharpness of a sword would had hurt them, otherwise no one would had used them... as I did mentioned in my post already if you cared to read them.

All that aside, point being, the polish fighters in the video wear plate armor.

 

[valcik]

That move no. 4: Lutter.. He grabs opponent's crotch with steel gauntlet and pulls it up, what a dirty move!

 

[Crni Vuk]

Your first mistake. To assume that a fight about life and death contains honor.

 

[SnapSlav]

Did you just contradicted yourself and said first that it could cut steel and then said it couldn't?

I'm in the process of changing up my approach to stupidity. It's far from complete, and FAR from regularly practiced to the point of being reflex, so I fall back on old habits quite easily. I WANT to find a swift and effective means of countering and ending certain stupidities with the least amount of attention granted to them, because they are just undeserving of more than a swift dismissal. But, while falling back on said old habits, suffice it to say, thusly:

"No! No, I did not say that. Learn2read."

 

[BigBawss]

the sheer amount of weight and force, along with the curved edge of the blade of say, a claymore, can effectively rip armor open rather than actually cutting it/slicing through it due to the effectiveness of how sharp it is...

What, plate armor? No, it didn't. And during the entire middle ages all armor was purchased by it's owner, and it was prohibitively expensive, professional armies didn't reappeared in Europe until after the renaissance and the emergence of state troops, armies were raised/hired and then disbanded as needed.

And I'm pretty sure there weren't many armies in Europe, during any period of Medieval history, that was able to afford to clad every single soldier in fine-grafted steel armor.

Excuse me, what type of armor are the poles wearing in the video? Did you even read what I post? Where am I talking about every single soldier wearing plate armor? What are we even discussing? Because if we are talking about swords or any cutting weapon cleaving trough double layered historically accurate steel, worn over mail and even gambeson under the mail, then no, it didn't happen.

As long as that's clear then yes, it is obvious that not everybody worn armor and the sharpness of a sword would had hurt them, otherwise no one would had used them... as I did mentioned in my post already if you cared to read them.

All that aside, point being, the polish fighters in the video wear plate armor.

Claymores didn't just bounce right off of plate armor as if it was indestructible.

Well you know what, this argument is going absolutely nowhere. Instead of continuing it for six more pages, I'll just let it die and say you win. Fair enough?

 

[SnapSlav]

Except for the fact that a one-sided landslide like that is BY DEFINITION "unfair"?

Just saying...

 

[Gonzalez]

What you fail to understand is that 14th century plate armor could even bounce off projectiles from the early firearms of the period, to get trough them you would literally need a light piece of artillery.

But ok, I'm telling you that I studied this period and the armors in particualr and when I tell you something you just want to win the argument, fine, believe what you want to believe.

If you are seriously interested however, research it on your own, since you, for some reason, will completely refuse to believe me in things that have already been historically researched and believe Skyrim and other fantasy sources instead. Here is a good documentary to start with, some reading wouldn't hurt either.



And please make sure your sources are reliable and don't get your facts from shows like the following just because Lee Ermey is on it (not even taking it seriously either):

 

[Beaushizzle]

I agree with Gonzalez. Snapslav, you are wrong. Yes, you can cleave through armor. If you are particularly strong and throw everything you have at it. But you also have multiple layers, rounded surfaces, a moving target, and the opponent's attempt to kill you to consider. Bladed weapons were just not effective enough against armor to justify their use against plate armored opponents.
Explain why I'm wrong.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Well the real medival can openers are maces and warhammers, that's at least what I always thought.

 

[Gonzalez]

You don't need to "open" a can, with a mace or a warhammer you can knock a knight out without having to, effectively leaving him out of combat. And what's better, if he actually survives the blunt trauma you can ransom him to his family for money (a completely legal and accepted thing since you defeated him in fair combat).

 

[valcik]

Bladed weapons were just not effective enough against armor to justify their use against plate armored opponents.

Yup. That's why Franks, Vikings, or Slavs used huge battle axes for this purpose with great success in 9-15 century, as has been proven by excavations on European medieval battlefields.

 

[Beaushizzle]

Franks didn't make it to the 15th. They became the French around 1100, and adopted similar armor to the rest of continental Europe. The axe lost use as much as the sword against armored opponents.
The Slavs didn't generally use full plate, as they usually fought incursions from Turkey and the Middle East, who also didn't widely use full plate. The Vikings were done as a major power after about 1100, and dispersed into the Swedes, Danes, and Dutch who then adopted full plate and saw the decline of axes as well.
Against mail, axes are wonderful. Plate? Not so much.