Hello,

I can't exactly understand what half-swording means. So, you graspt the blade with your off hand and use your sword as short spear?
Does this mean that the weapon can only be used for thrusting, not cutting?
How do you avoid getting your off hand injured? isnt the blade that sharp?
And what about when parrying... arent your offhand's fingers in danger?

So, what i want to know is what half-swording actually is.. I had not heard about it before reading tros.


Thanks, and sorry for my poor English skills.

It's when you grip a two-handed sword (usually a doppelhander) so that your main hand is gripping the main grip while using your off-hand to grip it above the main cross-guard. This way, you have a fairly wide grip on the sword, using it a bit like a polearm. I think you can both swing or thrust in half-swording mode, but swings will lose much of their strength due to smaller leverage, but thrusts will instead be more powerful.

It can be done with any sword, and safely. The hand gripping the blade won't be injured by your own blade as long as you have a firm grip, or gloves.
When parrying at the half sword, it doesn't place your blade hand in any particular danger. It's like parrying with a polearm.
You can't "cut" at the half sword without hurting your blade hand, Newtons law and all, but you can slice. I think the general concensus is to use combt knife cut dmage for that.
http://www.schielhau.org/talfecht.html
Scroll down that page to tafel 36, which is a good example. If you look around that site there are plenty of others as well.

A few notes on the above:

Your safety (i.e. the safety of the hand holding the blade) is not dependant on your wearing a glove at all: the blade isn't really sharpened at the midsection (sicne the cuts are delivered with the very end of the blade anyway).

Just to be clear, half-swording can be done with lots of swords, not just dopplehanders, though it was more common with them due ot great length. With a longsword or such, you could easily switch to it mid-fight, or use it entirely if fighting someone in heavy armor.

I don't imagine cutting would be al that effective per se, but keep in mind that you could be doing a lot of grappling like that, so the weapons is still useful for more than just thrusting. Also remember that you can reverse the sword while half-swording (particularly if it's a longsword) and smash your opponent over the head with the handle, or pop him with the pommel.

Thanks a lot for your answers!

So I'll decrease the cutting damage a bit and everyone's happy =).


Thanks

What some forgot to mention is how some swords were actually designed to be half-sworded, having a leather-wrapped portion on the lower blade, or a specifically blunted portion. Some I've seen even have a second hand-guard, but I can't recall where I've seen them. I've heard this portion referred to as a ricasso grip, though I cannot back that up with any historical evidence.

Yeah, the blunt portion just past the guard is the ricasso. Some were long enough to be gripped, many had a very blunt ricasso for defending with. The renaissance two handed swords often had the second guard for short half swording.
As far as historical evidence is concerned pretty much all swords were just as sharp at the midsection, which doesnt really affect 1/2 swording.

Rounded edges.

At a demo given by Jake and John Clemens, they made a point of sending the swords out into the audience, and having you feel the edge. First you were encouraged to run you hand along the edge. European swords were not sharp like knives are sharpened. The edges are all rounded, the metal folded even there. This has some significant advantages over the sharpened sword, which because of the narrowness of the edge, will tend to nick when impacting other metal, whereas the rounded one will only dent slightly if at all under the same pressure. IOW, this means that thrusting would not be dangerous because there was no sharp edge to slip along and get cut by.

OTOH, then they asked you to grab the sword around it and squeeze. This hurts a little, but doesn't cut the skin. This points out that an edge that size is "sharp enough" that when swung it has an effect like that cord on your weed-whacker. Sure, technically blunt, but it'll cut just fine when going at velocity. Again, the point being that as long as the hand is on the sword, and not impacting it, you're unlikely to cut yourself with it with a swing.

OTOH, like I said, it'd hurt like a sonsabitch, so I'd definitely want a glove on there if I were to swing while half-swording. OTOH, given the lack of effectiveness, I'd just change back to a normal grip to swing. I'm sure that, as stated above, some swords were blunted "further" to accomodate this (I mean, nobody would question that an estoc was designed with this in mind), but all european swords seem to me to have been "Blunt enough" to use this way without significant harm.

Basically, don't try this with a Katana if you want to keep your fingers. :-) No surprise at the differences in technology given that the Katana didn't have to face metal armor. No need to half-sword when a swing is probably enough to cut your opponent nearly in half.

The ricasso, IIRC, was for another grip that was, something in-between half-swording and a more normal grip. Clemens pointed out that there were all sorts of modified grips (displayed weird pommel grips, for example). I think in game terms these come down to character proficiency, and in terms of game tactics there's only "normal" and half-sword grips. Half-swording, in this case meaning not the ricasso grip, but the firmly "polearmish" grip well down the blade that dramtically increases thrusting power, but decreases swining potence.

Mike

I thoroughly disagree. I hate to argue but that seems so far from the truth. I think you must've misunderstood them. Most surviving european swords meant to cut are as sharp as kitchen knives. Dull swords don't cut half as well as sharp ones, and they don't slice.
You can 1/2 sword easily with very sharp blades. I've seen this explained and demonstrated by mr. Clements as well.
It's a huge myth these days that because many soldiers wore metal armours in medieval europe that their swords must've been dull so they could beat on people with them. This is absolutely false.
Also on medieval blades meant to cut there was a large variety of ege geometries depending on the blade form, but they were all sharp, not "rounded". The closest I can think of would be a convex edge bevel, still going to a very sharp edge.
Most surviving swords that have seen a lot of use are narrower than they started due to so much honing.

Caz wrote: I thoroughly disagree. I hate to argue but that seems so far from the truth. I think you must've misunderstood them. Most surviving european swords meant to cut are as sharp as kitchen knives. Dull swords don't cut half as well as sharp ones, and they don't slice.
You can 1/2 sword easily with very sharp blades. I've seen this explained and demonstrated by mr. Clements as well.
It's a huge myth these days that because many soldiers wore metal armours in medieval europe that their swords must've been dull so they could beat on people with them. This is absolutely false.
Also on medieval blades meant to cut there was a large variety of ege geometries depending on the blade form, but they were all sharp, not "rounded". The closest I can think of would be a convex edge bevel, still going to a very sharp edge.
Most surviving swords that have seen a lot of use are narrower than they started due to so much honing.

Perhaps this is just an issue of semantics: what exactly is "sharp" or "not sharp?" It seems likely to me that in the demonstration that Mike saw, Mr. Clements was stressing the fact that swords are not razor sharp, nor even likely as sharp as many eastern swords, as is commonly believed.

Thanks Jasper. Semantics indeed.

The swords I observed were not blunt. By rounded edges, I mean that they had an edge about the same width as that weed-whacker cord. This is just me looking at the edges of their swords up close (they discussed that they were fairly accurate reproductions), and feeling them. Like I said, grabbing the sword bare-handed hurt. It wasn't what I'd call blunt. But obviously, just like they described, the metalurgy included folding the edge for strength. Which they pointed out was different than most knives and swords like katanas which are left without that folding on the edge (or which is filed off for cheap knives).

They then discussed that, occasionally, swords were made that were blunt for special applications (again, the estoc obviously). But that most swords were like the ones that they displayed.

It does seem to me that European swords would be fairly useless for slicing, if, by that, you mean dragging the edge along a victim (with enough velocity to penetrate, I'd call that a swing, I guess). Unless it was the point (or some part that was sharpened near the point) that caused the cut. Clemens at one point took his sword, and waved it around holding it by the blade to demonstrate that it wouldn't cut him, in addition to running his hand along the blade in a slicing motion.

They were very specific about this, and it all made internal sense with my observations. Jake, being as you gave the demonstration, could you elaborate? Has this information become obsolete?

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Thanks Jasper. Semantics indeed.

The swords I observed were not blunt. By rounded edges, I mean that they had an edge about the same width as that weed-whacker cord. This is just me looking at the edges of their swords up close (they discussed that they were fairly accurate reproductions), and feeling them. Like I said, grabbing the sword bare-handed hurt. It wasn't what I'd call blunt. But obviously, just like they described, the metalurgy included folding the edge for strength. Which they pointed out was different than most knives and swords like katanas which are left without that folding on the edge (or which is filed off for cheap knives).

They then discussed that, occasionally, swords were made that were blunt for special applications (again, the estoc obviously). But that most swords were like the ones that they displayed.

It does seem to me that European swords would be fairly useless for slicing, if, by that, you mean dragging the edge along a victim (with enough velocity to penetrate, I'd call that a swing, I guess). Unless it was the point (or some part that was sharpened near the point) that caused the cut. Clemens at one point took his sword, and waved it around holding it by the blade to demonstrate that it wouldn't cut him, in addition to running his hand along the blade in a slicing motion.

They were very specific about this, and it all made internal sense with my observations. Jake, being as you gave the demonstration, could you elaborate? Has this information become obsolete?

Mike

I agree with salamander, I think you got the wrong idea. But hey, here are a couple of quotes from the late Ewart Oakeshotte, who handled and knew more about antique swords than Mr. Clements (not their use mind you, but the weapon itself) He said they were "razor sharp" and exgeration mind you, but you get the idea, no sword, from any nation, was ever razor sharp. He also said that all cutting blades he'd handled that were still in decent condition were "kitchen knife sharp".
I'll take his word for it for one.

Tired of waiting for Jake, I did some of my own research. Seems that like all things in real life, that the answer is fairly complex.

From the ARMA site (http://www.thearma.org/spotlight/heymr.htm):

Another element of a real Medieval or Renaissance sword is its edge, or rather, the bevel from its center out toward the intersecting point of the planes of the two sides. The edge then is not just the sharp part but the entire surface angle. Commonly however, we refer to the edge of a sword as being its degree of sharpness, and here there is considerable misunderstanding and debate as there are different degrees of sharpness and ways of polishing edges. Even then, there are differences between edges for soft as opposed to hard targets. The variety of possible edge types for impacting different targets is considerable. Most cutting swords do not have a knife-like wedge-shaped edge (which can fold upon impact) but more of a rolled tear-drop cantle shape which is stronger. As well, edges for slicing soft yielding materials are not the same as those for shearing harder resistant materials. Expert swordsmith Dan Maragni explains the importance of the edge on cutting swords by noting: “The edge is in many ways the most important part of the sword. This is the interface between the blade and the target and must be properly shaped and presented to maximize the effects of the cut. If the edge is shaped incorrectly for the target, too thick or thin depending on hard or soft targets, it will either not ‘bite’ or it will fail by either chipping or collapsing on contact.” Paul Champaign also suggests, “Think of a sword edge as a shape moving through water, the least resistance will win. This has nothing to do with ease of sharpening, chip resistance, blade handling, or manufacture, etc. As the target gets harder you have to adjust the 'meat' of the rolled edge or the angle of the cantle, etc. You could also leave the edge the same and soften the edge so it won’t chip. There are multiple solutions to the problem...it’s all in the execution. The best solution is the one that holds up the best to the various things you have to cut.” He adds, “Different periods and sword types will use different bevel and edge geometries according to what they are intended to do, just as the blade shape changes between a cutting blade and a thrusting one.”

Mike Holmes wrote: Tired of waiting for Jake

Mike Holmes wrote: Tired of waiting for Jake, I did some of my own research. Seems that like all things in real life, that the answer is fairly complex.

From the ARMA site (http://www.thearma.org/spotlight/heymr.htm):

Another element of a real Medieval or Renaissance sword is its edge, or rather, the bevel from its center out toward the intersecting point of the planes of the two sides. The edge then is not just the sharp part but the entire surface angle. Commonly however, we refer to the edge of a sword as being its degree of sharpness, and here there is considerable misunderstanding and debate as there are different degrees of sharpness and ways of polishing edges. Even then, there are differences between edges for soft as opposed to hard targets. The variety of possible edge types for impacting different targets is considerable. Most cutting swords do not have a knife-like wedge-shaped edge (which can fold upon impact) but more of a rolled tear-drop cantle shape which is stronger. As well, edges for slicing soft yielding materials are not the same as those for shearing harder resistant materials. Expert swordsmith Dan Maragni explains the importance of the edge on cutting swords by noting: “The edge is in many ways the most important part of the sword. This is the interface between the blade and the target and must be properly shaped and presented to maximize the effects of the cut. If the edge is shaped incorrectly for the target, too thick or thin depending on hard or soft targets, it will either not ‘bite’ or it will fail by either chipping or collapsing on contact.” Paul Champaign also suggests, “Think of a sword edge as a shape moving through water, the least resistance will win. This has nothing to do with ease of sharpening, chip resistance, blade handling, or manufacture, etc. As the target gets harder you have to adjust the 'meat' of the rolled edge or the angle of the cantle, etc. You could also leave the edge the same and soften the edge so it won’t chip. There are multiple solutions to the problem...it’s all in the execution. The best solution is the one that holds up the best to the various things you have to cut.” He adds, “Different periods and sword types will use different bevel and edge geometries according to what they are intended to do, just as the blade shape changes between a cutting blade and a thrusting one.”

Interesting article, and really great pics of Clement and the other guys in a Sweedish armory. Check out the "Flambard" and the huge falchion looking thing. Who'd have imagined that that one.

Anyhow, it seems that European swords came in a variety of formats. I'd suggest that ones that were intended for Half-Swording would have had that "rolled tear-drop cantle shape" that they mention. "More meat" as the one guy puts it.

What's really cool about this is that you can come up with rules for this, I think. Have three classes of blade edge. Sharp, "normal", and thick. Sharp gets a +1 damage vs. foes unarmored, unaffected by leather, and may become damaged if it hits metal armor. Thick would be -1 overall, but negate two points of metal armor. Probably not really realisitic, but a potentially fun rule.

Mike

As it stands, they did do gruesome amounts of damage to the pumpkins.

Mike Holmes wrote:

As it stands, they did do gruesome amounts of damage to the pumpkins.

Happy Halloween (a little late).

To distil a bit: You're saying that a sharpened sword is safe to half-sword with? In addition to holding it by the blade, did they also run their hands along the edge? The question I have is what the effect would be if your hand slipped, which I'd imagine, sans grip, would be pretty common with a half-sword thrust.

BTW, I'd expect that more extant blades would be more recent, and in general that later blades would tend to be sharper, as armor became less and less common. Also meaning that Half-Swording would be less neccessary.

Mike

Don't forget, at any given period there were many different blade forms, for many different purposes, and not everybody and his mother in medieval europe went into battle with much in the way of armour.
And whether swords were your first choice or not is all personal preference. One master said that regardless of what weapon you use, if you face some one in armour with it, use only the thrust.
Maces and hammers are less skillful (less versatile) weapons and relatively less lethal than a well handled sword. A properly used sword can incapacitate and kill someone in armour far more efficiently than beating them down with a mace or hammer.
Most writings from the period plate armour was in use advise men at arms to use swords and estocs after the lance before resorting to anything else. And don't forget, swords were used just as much in self defense and duel as in battle. In fact it was only the minority who could afford much armour, and even then it was rare for one to use a full harness in battle.
Even in the 15th century there were a great deal of very sharp, wide flat cutting blades being used along side narrow and tapering, thicker sectioned thrusting blades.

Thank you. I wanted to get there, but you saved me the trouble.

Cool. It seems to me that there are some general points. The more your game parallels armor wearing periods, the more likely you are to encounter armor defeating geometries with swords. Some blades are less "sharp" to some extent to enable halfswording, and be better against armor. If you want to half-sword, and happen to have a sword that's sharper, then wear a gauntlet of some sort. That all sound roughly right?

Wyerth seems to strike me, as a fantasy world, as having more armor than historically would be available. That is, it's fun to have guardsmen in chain mail at times and such. Given that, in my game, I'd definitely have the same variety of swords that existed in the real world.

To get back to my point above, is it worthwhile to consider geometries in terms of rules? Seems to me to make choice of sword another interesting tactical consideration. Or is TROS too gross in effect to bother detailing this sort of minutia?

Mike

To beat a dead horse, half swording isn't a consideration in the blade geometry. The sharpness won't effect it. But coincidentally, if a blade is meant for use against armour, it's going to be pointier, narrower, and therefore thicker, which in turn means it can't be as sharp as a wide, flat cutter, so it will be that much easier to 1/2 sword with.

As for what you can do with it in the game, some of the differences are already there. You've got the bastard sword, estoc, cut and thrust, arming sword, longsword, etc.
But if you want to get further, here's what I do. For example, take your basic longsword stats. We'll say this one's more tapering thruster to mke use against armour easier. Shift one point over from the thrust ATN to the cut ATN, and shift one point of damage from the cut DR to the thrust DR. Now you have a spadone. Do the opposite if it's more a cutter than usual. I wouldn't reccommend shifting by more than one point either way though.

Would you do both? That's a pretty huge advantage. I'm thinking one or the other would be good enough.

The TROS damage system isn't very granular. 1 point means alot. To increase both the successes generated (lower TN) and the raw damage...I think is probably too much.

You're probably right. I haven't messed with it much. Do as you see fit, that's what it's all about

Mike Holmes wrote: Cool. It seems to me that there are some general points. The more your game parallels armor wearing periods, the more likely you are to encounter armor defeating geometries with swords. Some blades are less "sharp" to some extent to enable halfswording, and be better against armor. If you want to half-sword, and happen to have a sword that's sharper, then wear a gauntlet of some sort. That all sound roughly right?

Wyerth seems to strike me, as a fantasy world, as having more armor than historically would be available. That is, it's fun to have guardsmen in chain mail at times and such. Given that, in my game, I'd definitely have the same variety of swords that existed in the real world.

To get back to my point above, is it worthwhile to consider geometries in terms of rules? Seems to me to make choice of sword another interesting tactical consideration. Or is TROS too gross in effect to bother detailing this sort of minutia?

Mike

First off let me inform you of how half-swording was meant to be.
http://www.knightsedge.com/swords/german-landsknecht-flamberge-sword.htm
check out that picture, not the place above the hilt, and notice at which the point that your "off hand" would be in order to choke up on the sword. This is a doppel-hander, and a seriously large one mind you. The part at which you grasp in order to 'half-sword' as it were, is not actually part of the blade itself, as it is neither 'sharp' or edged in that respect. Also the second 'cross guard' or whatever is meant to protect the 'off hand' used while half-swording.
http://swordsofeurope.tripod.com/parts.htm
Above is a link to a page filled with definitions of the parts of swords, very interesting.
Another point to be made is that while choking-up/half-swording you should have more momentum/force/power/whatever and logic would dictate with that means more damage would occur on a hit, also it would make you a bit faster as you have more leverage of a 6' sword.
If you do not agree with this, go open a door. Then with one finger try to force the door closed pushing on a point as close to the hinge as possible.
Then try the same thing at a point furthest from the hinge. Note it takes less force to move the door when pushed on the outside edge.
Mmmmmmm physics, as tasty as the beer in hand.

-cheers
the ingenious one
p.s. my hypocracy knows no bounds, so don't bitch about the nuances of my grammar and ranting as i make no quarrel with the rest of yours

Ingenious wrote: First off let me inform you of how half-swording was meant to be.
http://www.knightsedge.com/swords/german-landsknecht-flamberge-sword.htm
check out that picture, not the place above the hilt, and notice at which the point that your "off hand" would be in order to choke up on the sword. This is a doppel-hander, and a seriously large one mind you.

The part at which you grasp in order to 'half-sword' as it were, is not actually part of the blade itself, as it is neither 'sharp' or edged in that respect. Also the second 'cross guard' or whatever is meant to protect the 'off hand' used while half-swording.

http://swordsofeurope.tripod.com/parts.htm
Above is a link to a page filled with definitions of the parts of swords, very interesting.
Another point to be made is that while choking-up/half-swording you should have more momentum/force/power/whatever and logic would dictate with that means more damage would occur on a hit, also it would make you a bit faster as you have more leverage of a 6' sword.

If you do not agree with this, go open a door. Then with one finger try to force the door closed pushing on a point as close to the hinge as possible.
Then try the same thing at a point furthest from the hinge. Note it takes less force to move the door when pushed on the outside edge.
Mmmmmmm physics, as tasty as the beer in hand.

-cheers
the ingenious one
p.s. my hypocracy knows no bounds, so don't bitch about the nuances of my grammar and ranting as i make no quarrel with the rest of yours

To address Mike's question.

In the game i'm currently in we worked out a way for me to get in my love of Iaijutsu (Japanese quick-draw dueling) and katanas. As has been discussed, Eastern blades weren't really designed to go up against metal armor. So when we made stats for the katana we ended up modeling this in the damage section. Cutting damage is ST+2 against flesh (or "soft" armor) or simply ST against metal armor. We haven't really had to deal with it much yet... But i think it should work.

Thomas

Um, it's late and this is a pretty convoluted thread, but for what it's worth...

First, I've handled the swords that Mike's referring to. One of the sharper ones was a Raven Longsword that cuts beautifully, and has an edge that you can run your hand along. I've also cut with razor-shart CAS-I swords, which could do nothing against a substantial target. Blade geometry is more important that "sharpness," for sure. I've also handled antique blades ranging from butter-knife sharp (you can run it along your throat safely) and chisel-edged (you can squeeze hard and carefully run your hand along it, but I wouldn't). Both were single-handed blades. Both were intended for use against unarmored opponents, both cut beautifully. I would rather not half-sword with either if I wasn't well practiced at the moment.

It's a technique issue. It is, where technique is lacking, a glove issue. Either way you're more likely to damage your hand from concentrated brusing and whatnot that from a cut. That's why all halfswording in "the manuals" is thrusting and deflecting, not striking. It's a bad idea to strike with a thin peice of metal in you hand.

Anyway, I just figured I'd pop in.

Jake

Thanks for the comments, Jake. I think a consensus view is emerging.

How would this apply to Wyerth best, do you think? Any thoughts about the idea of makeing rules regarding this? Too little detail to be concerned about?

Mike

It's covered. Half-swording, as a technique, works. That's that. You can't use the technique until you've got a high enough proficiency level anyway, IIRC. Making up rules for this would be like making up rules for hitting yourself with the crossguard because you can't hold the sword right...

Am I answering the right question? Hmmm...

Jake

I was more refering to rules about interactions of differing blade geometries and armors.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: I was more refering to rules about interactions of differing blade geometries and armors.

Mike

Salamander wrote:
I still think it is pretty much covered in the statistics for each weapon already.

Ah, Mikey, I see now.

Frex, the difference between a longsword, a bastard sword, and an estoc, when half-swording, in a more granular world.

Yeah, could be fun.

Jake

Mike Holmes wrote: Wyerth seems to strike me, as a fantasy world, as having more armor than historically would be available. That is, it's fun to have guardsmen in chain mail at times and such. Given that, in my game, I'd definitely have the same variety of swords that existed in the real world.

That's something that's kinda bugged me about the different social classes in weyrth only being legally allowed certain armours. In real history the only limiting factor seemed to be your purse. Even if you were a drafte peasant, your lord would obviously want you to be as combat effective as possible, hence the lists of equipment soldiers showed up with, and the full armouries and munition gear for the under equipped.

Yep, although if you fronted up to muster with better armour than your liege lord, I bet an enormous amount of social pressure would be applied to get you to onsell it to him! :)
Blanket rules for what is and isn't allowed per social class are hard to enforce, they're good constructions stopping PCs being powerhouses but history abounds with variation.

A wierd one would have to be the German Ministeriales, or 'serf-knights'. Unfree men, bound to the land like any other serf but occuping the same social (in the manorial sense) and military place as a knight.

Methinks you're reading too much into the law. As I see it, those serfs and lower freemen probably own kits of armor passed down, but they don't wear it around town. For one, why would they need to? For two, the governments would see peasants running around in armor as the signs of an incipient rebellion.

On the other hand, if those peasants or freemen are conscripted, you can be damned sure they'll be allowed to wear whatever armor they can muster, and provided with as much as their liege lords are willing to pay for, to make them more effective combat troops. The laws of peace don't apply to soldiers of war, and all that.

By the way.. any assumptions that Jake made such laws to nerf PCs from being powerhouses are most likely largely erroneous. While I have met a few scholars of history and sword on these forums who can surpass Jake's knowledge, for the most part, he is exceedingly knowledgeable, and any laws and customs cited for Weyrth are based on actual practices somewhere and somewhen in European history.

While Weyrth is not Earth, I think you'll find the Earth models the ruling were based on were aimed at law and order. In areas such as France that had blanket proscriptions on owning various weapons the fine for possessing such weapons were devastating. The ostensible reason for disallowing weapons was to inhibit the ability for lesser magnates to gather a large enough retinue and so prosecute feuds (Ger. fehdt 'private war'). Europe was wracked with these wars, especially in times of civil disturbance such as foreign conflicts, some of the nastiest northern English feuds were carried on while the Scots were raiding over the border nearby.
In Switzerland and many other places, burgesses were required to have a certain level of armour on hand for instant use, officers appointed to inspect this armour at musters were constantly catching people shifting the same harness around and saying it was their own to get out of a non-ownership fine. One of the reasons no one wanted to own a harness was that it was considered moveable property and effected your tax level, an expensive harness could catapult your tax well beyond your means to pay.
So there's this weird (but understandable) thing going across Europe in the late mediaeval/renaissance era where the royal governments want you to have the armour, but not if you're going to go and engage in unofficial war with it.
The War of the Roses is the classic problem where private ownership of weapons and armour coupled with powerful local magnates caused private wars to gradually add to the ground wave of violence, 'livery' (the granting of factional uniforms and badges in return for good lordship and the pursuing of the liveried person's rights) and 'maintenance' (the indentured service of individuals, possibly with their own retinues, for a indefinite contracted term in return for cash payments) caused huge local organisations to totally overwhelm royal power. When the wars finally erupted, these organisations marched en masse in service of one side or another.
Of course, it did have it's positive side. In a time when economics was only dimly understood and the royal power was totally unable to raise and maintain a defence force, livery and maintenance allowed the local magnate to march in defence of the realm with his own army.

Wolfen wrote: Methinks you're reading too much into the law. As I see it, those serfs and lower freemen probably own kits of armor passed down, but they don't wear it around town. For one, why would they need to? For two, the governments would see peasants running around in armor as the signs of an incipient rebellion.

On the other hand, if those peasants or freemen are conscripted, you can be damned sure they'll be allowed to wear whatever armor they can muster, and provided with as much as their liege lords are willing to pay for, to make them more effective combat troops. The laws of peace don't apply to soldiers of war, and all that.

By the way.. any assumptions that Jake made such laws to nerf PCs from being powerhouses are most likely largely erroneous. While I have met a few scholars of history and sword on these forums who can surpass Jake's knowledge, for the most part, he is exceedingly knowledgeable, and any laws and customs cited for Weyrth are based on actual practices somewhere and somewhen in European history.

Interesting topic, I was wondering what the term half-swording was, too.

Though I had never heard the term, I thought I would bring up that I had encountered half-swording in my kenjutsu training. Because the katana is single-edged, the way I was shown was to support or push on the back of the blade, rather than grip the blade. This was in the context of either supporting a block, or in a sort of "push" cut (place the edge on the target, then using the off hand push into the target as you slice into it).

Also, interestingly, the development of the nagamaki (a 3 ft blade on a 3-4 ft handle) was the direct result of half-swording techniques.

From Karl Friday (on another forum):

Because nodachi, with their short hilts relative to their blade lengths, were difficult to handle, the practice of wrapping the lower part of the blade down to the tsuba (ie guard) with thin cord, so that this part of the sword could also be grasped, was introduced. These were called nakamaki nodachi (and other names too). These were later developed into the nagamaki, which usually featured a 3 foot blade mounted on a 3 or 4 foot hilt.

Hi,

I decided not to start a new topic for my questions regardin half-swording. Here they come..:

I don't know much about historical fencing and the first time I've read/heard something about half-swording is when I opened TROS rule book.

Now, it says that H-S has ATN5 and DTN6. IMO they are amazingly low. Why would you ever need to do anything but half-sword with a bastard sword? The ATN lowers and thrusts are a lot more powerful against armor. The weapon of course looses some lenght, one step, but that isn't a big thingy.

What is not good with half-swording? Why wouldn't every just half-sword with a doppelhander or bastard sword? Shoult the ATN be 6 instead of 5?


kiD

Why? that one length difference can make a world of difference in the long run, plus I have an optional rule in my game that half swording leaves your legs open like shields do. Based on personal experience, no problem on full evades but for parries, minus some dice depending on how much you choked up. The the low ATN is reasonable based on my experience as well, it is easy to control and place your strikes where they need to be, and counters are very easy and wicked mean with the half sword.

I just wouldnt do it all the time as it removes alot of your versatility as well, no cuts and a limited striking range. Your opponent knows generally what to expect from your halfsword attacks. I simulate this in game by using the feint rules if I think the player has been camping in halfsword for too long. (1 extra die cost on attacks or extra die to the defender depending on my mood).

Sethren-

Those are good mods. I dig.

Jake

I like the new nick also, I may have to keep it.