OT: Buying Weapons

[Bankuei]

Want to see a supersword made with modern metalurgy.

Its meteroric iron no less

Rather interestingly, many of the kris blades and other swords in Indonesia also use meteor metals, either due to lack of materials or magical properties associated with it.

I'd say that the number one thing that usually determines our technology is need.  We can't build the old battleships, because we can't get that much metal together without an outrageous amount of expense and effort of building the tools to build the tools to build the ships...

As far as blades go, the only "ancient blades" that I consider superblades are the Masamune blades, simply because they have proven in combat to be unchippable, which is absolutely insane.  How unchippable they would be against modern materials, who knows?

Chris

[Jake Norwood]

I have read a lot of stuff from David Edge and Dr. Alan Williams, who are both experts on this sort of stuff, and the Earth period that this game is to model (late Medieval to early Renaissance) had a wide range of metals from simple wrought iron to the crucible steel or "Wootz" of the Middle-east and India.  Does the rules take into account the quality of the metal used for this equipment, and if so, how does it?

High-quality swords and weapons get an improved DTN or ATN for only 5-10x the price.

Val-

I think we both agree absolutely here. I think it can be done, but it hasn't been. Yeah, we have amazing knives now. If someone put that kind of tech into a sword, it'd be something else for sure. As for Paul's stuff, one of his blunt swords (the one I handled) took a 6-ince diameter tree down with three moderate one-handed cuts. They are incredible, and he agrees that we have purer steel now, but that getting it exactly right is still just barely beyond us.

Jake

[Bob Richter]

Most experts (every one that I've read or know of) agrees with Lance. If it's possible, then it can't be done. As for Old European Metallurgy--it was phenomenal. Armors and swords from the west were unrivalled in the mideast (any good book on the Crusades will support this). European swords were light, flexible, and all that other stuff.

Jake

Not to challenge you, but all the information I've had (from various sources) supports the idea that European steel at the time was simply too impure and brittle to make a truly good weapon. Most swords would snap with the first use, and few would survive the fourth.

Perhaps I simply haven't researched the subject enough. Do you have any particular sources to recommend?

[contracycle]

Most swords would snap with the first use, and few would survive the fourth.

That I cannot believe.  I remain rather cynical about claims that European metallurgy was anything much - Europe has been pretty much a cold and uninteresting backwater for most of history.  But I'm pretty confident that even Celtic metallurgy was more reliable than the description above.  Something that fragile is simply not a weapon.  We know Crusader swords sometimes passed from generation to generation and saw much use - I'm still of the opinion that Western matallurgy was inferior to Eastern, but not to THAT degree.

[Jake Norwood]

European metallurgy was fantastic. It wasn't what we have today, but it was the basis for what we have today (it's not like the 20th century introduced everything we think of now as modern...it had to establish itself somewhere). There are many fine sources on this. I reccoment Ewart Okeshott's books on swords and medieval weaponry as a good place to start with a sword-and-armor perspective. The barbaric metallurgy is another myth from the same pot as the "stupid clumsy knight."

Jake

[Valamir]

I read a translation from part of a period French training manual for knights (yes, even back then they had training manuals).

The training expectations for a knight were not much different than that for a modern GI in full pack.

Among the requirements knights were expected to:

be able to chimney climb to the height of a city wall (i.e. wedged feet and back between two walls).

vault into a horses saddle without touching stirrups.

and several other somewhat surprising things.


All while wearing full armor.

I read an interesting theory about the end of armor once, though I've been unable to find it since.  The theory said that ideas of armor becoming less useful due to bows, and pikes, and gunpowder was only a small part of the story.  The big reason, according to the theory, was climate.  Late in the period, Europe was coming out of a period of sub normal temperatures (the little ice age was in there somewhere), and the theory said that it just got too hot to wear.  I've never seen that theory espoused again, so it may have been crackpot conjecture, but what reminded me of it here was that the author (whom I unfortuneatly cannot remember) went to great lengths to establish just how good and effective period armor was, as a prelude to concluding that some other reason was necessary to explain its discontinued use.