|
|
Post by swordnut on Mar 31, 2016 8:01:32 GMT
Say hello to prison shivs! I was expecting more quarterstaves and weaponized shovels, but hey, if they wanna use a sharpened spork, I'm game! Everyone is going to need a knife. Without this, life in a pre-industrial society is hard. If you ban weapons to the population, it's not so bad. Banning knives is a hardship. Look at Japan for examples of this where each "head of community" had the communal knife. It creates power structures, black markets, innovative clandestine solutions and symbolic meanings or rituals around blades. |
|
|
|
Post by friartook on Mar 31, 2016 15:29:08 GMT
Look at Japan for examples of this where each "head of community" had the communal knife. It creates power structures, black markets, innovative clandestine solutions and symbolic meanings or rituals around blades. Feudal Japan was the initial inspiration. I was thinking about this knife issue before you even brought it up, and debating with myself how strict the ban would be. And how well enforced. In general, the Empire is the sole law enforcement and militaristic entity within its borders. So, each community will have its own constabulary, larger communities (cities) will likely have a military garrison as well. Smaller communities might only have one or two constables, sparsely populated rural communities may even have one or two constables in charge of multiple communities. In this last case, one constable may end up in charge of a very large geographic area; a lot of farmland and a few small hamlets where the farmers live. All this means that big cities will have whatever laws are in place enforced very strictly; more constables=more enforcement. Smaller communities will have a little more wiggle room and remote rural districts would have even more. On the issue of punishment: I honestly hadn't really thought this one through. My initial assumption was that an illegal weapon=death (again, feudal Japan was the initial inspiration), but fines do make sense on an economic level. The question then becomes, is it a fine and confiscation of the weapon? Or just a fine for possession? If confiscation is involved, that opens the door to all kinds of black market and shady bribery deals between the constabulary and whatever underworld may be producing and/or selling illegal weapons. I was also thinking about bows. Bows are great weapons, but they are also necessary for hunting. Would they be considered weapons? Limited to short bows? Limits on types of arrowheads? Any historical context on this front would be most helpful! |
|
|
|
Post by DM Windhover on Mar 31, 2016 16:27:18 GMT
In slight contrast to the point swordnut made about bronze armor being made in bulky, thick plates; one of the earliest known examples of "plate armor" is the Dendra Panoply, a Mycenaean armor set. Here's a picture:
 This armor is pretty clearly not made of cast pieces, but rather beaten bronze. The level of flexibility and mobility would be somewhat lower than, say, 15th century steel plate armor, which you could do a cartwheel in if you wanted to (contrary to the absurd depictions in popular media of knights falling over and being unable to rise because of the weight of their armor.) But this Dendra set, too, only weighs in at about 35 lbs--no more than the average set of late medieval steel plate armor, and less than some.
The difference is going to be in level of protection. In order to make this armor light enough to be usable and not completely restrictive, the bronze has been hammered fairly thin--about 1 mm in most places. By comparison, medieval plate armor tended to range in average thickness between 1.5 and 3 mm depending on the part of the armor (and even hammered bronze is significantly softer than steel). It won't protect you as well as something like steel plate. That isn't to say that it wouldn't be pretty effective against the weapons of the time, though. We know that this type of armor was used with some frequency in the period, because there are fragment of similar armors which have been found (though none in as good condition.) So it must have worked well for its intended purpose.
|
|
|
|
Post by swordnut on Apr 1, 2016 8:07:04 GMT
This is somewhat separate from swords and shields, but what do we collectively as a forum know about bows and arrows? The ranger at my table wants to start crafting arrows in the fashion of oliver queen, arrows that do more than just pierce a foe. What forms of arrows have been used throughout history? Bow and Arrow WikipediaTrick Arrows The arrow is ancient. Really ancient, so there have been a lot of forms, some of which were successful and which weren't. Arrows tend to be specialised for the task.  Bodkin arrows (right) are designed to penetrate chain armour, but they don't do a huge amount of damage because of the small cross section. Barbed arrows (left) were designed to be hard to remove, causing more injury as the target moved Despite many claims to the contrary, no special plate-piercing arrows were produced. While it was possible, the amount of penetration and thus injury you would get is not worth it at all. There were fire arrows with cage-like heads for balls of fat-soaked fabric or fleece: ![]()  Leaf bladed arrows were designed to bleed out larger targets like people, but be easily removed for recovery. Fowling blunts were blunted or fabric-padded arrows that were designed to knock out small prey like birds without destroying them. The Mesolithic era saw little blades and barbs set into the tip and shaft of the arrow for various effects - mostly producing the same effect as a larger barbed arrowhead but easier to produce.  Poisoning an arrowhead is easy and there were not (to my knowledge) special means of doing that other than dipping the head There were some medieval arrowheads that are still the subject of debate: A crescent shaped head that could have been used to slice ropes/rigging or perhaps as a means of producing 2 points on one arrow to help it catch in a target. Above centre) A rhombus shape, where the "tip" is a flat cutting edge, sloping towards the shaft. Your Answer
Making arrows well requires a fetching jig - about. 1-2 feet long and can be portable if deconstructed. This allows you to set the flights properly. Then you need fine cordage or sinew and good quality feathers. Socketed heads can be glued on or interference fit. Tanged heads fit into the shaft, which is then bound with cord or sinew and probably resin for security.  Magic changes the game entirely. Perhaps the heads could be interchangeable and snap on to the shaft magically? As a pet hate: Western armour and melee weapons tend to be nerfed in fantasy, while archery is ramped up to OP levels. An arrow is not a one-hit-kill unless you hit the heart or brainstem (I've seen too many "this guy got shot in the head with an arrow and lived" stories for a headshot to be counted automatically fatal) I would be inclined to let an archer describe the arrow they are taking out and why it's the right tool for the job, then give them bonuses for cool RP, just like I would for combat manoeuvres from the sword person. |
|
|
|
Post by swordnut on Apr 1, 2016 8:15:29 GMT
In slight contrast to the point swordnut made about bronze armor being made in bulky, thick plates; one of the earliest known examples of "plate armor" is the Dendra Panoply, a Mycenaean armor set. Here's a picture:
This armor is pretty clearly not made of cast pieces, but rather beaten bronze. The level of flexibility and mobility would be somewhat lower than, say, 15th century steel plate armor, which you could do a cartwheel in if you wanted to (contrary to the absurd depictions in popular media of knights falling over and being unable to rise because of the weight of their armor.) But this Dendra set, too, only weighs in at about 35 lbs--no more than the average set of late medieval steel plate armor, and less than some.
The difference is going to be in level of protection. In order to make this armor light enough to be usable and not completely restrictive, the bronze has been hammered fairly thin--about 1 mm in most places. By comparison, medieval plate armor tended to range in average thickness between 1.5 and 3 mm depending on the part of the armor (and even hammered bronze is significantly softer than steel). It won't protect you as well as something like steel plate. That isn't to say that it wouldn't be pretty effective against the weapons of the time, though. We know that this type of armor was used with some frequency in the period, because there are fragment of similar armors which have been found (though none in as good condition.) So it must have worked well for its intended purpose.
That is a very cool suit :-). I'm still not convinced by the archaeology, but the evidence is still patchy, so I'll wait to make my mind up. As a gut feeling, I think status is a big factor in covering one's self in bronze. Like you said, hammered bronze is extremely soft, you could deform these plates by hand. Cast bronze is harder, and a spearhead would be able to pass through this pretty easily (a friend of mine is an experimental archaeologist and did his thesis on precisely this). It could be proof against glancing blows from arrows though. Perhaps it's a measure to protect people who won't be using a shield, like charioteers or archers? Perhaps a way of protecting a VIP who may not see the front line, but needs to be present and might make a tempting target for archers? |
|
|
|
Post by DM Windhover on Apr 1, 2016 14:52:37 GMT
Like you said, hammered bronze is extremely soft, you could deform these plates by hand. Cast bronze is harder, and a spearhead would be able to pass through this pretty easily (a friend of mine is an experimental archaeologist and did his thesis on precisely this). It could be proof against glancing blows from arrows though. I'm a proponent of the charioteer theory myself, for the same reasons you mention. That said, I take issue with the point about hammered bronze being extremely soft. My own research has indicated that swords of the bronze age were initially cast, but then afterwards given a hammered edge for the specific reason that cast bronze is softer than hammered bronze, not the other way around--the softer bronze in the center of the blade would give it flexibility, while the hardened sides would hold an edge better and cut more effectively. So I'm confused by your experimental archaeologist friend's thesis. It seems to directly contradict the information I have. Edit: Admittedly, if the Dendra panoply is made of mild bronze, that would blow my objection out of the water. And on further thought it probably is. I can't find a source definitely saying so one way or the other, though. |
|
|
|
Post by swordnut on Apr 1, 2016 19:27:08 GMT
Look at Japan for examples of this where each "head of community" had the communal knife. It creates power structures, black markets, innovative clandestine solutions and symbolic meanings or rituals around blades. Feudal Japan was the initial inspiration. I was thinking about this knife issue before you even brought it up, and debating with myself how strict the ban would be. And how well enforced. In general, the Empire is the sole law enforcement and militaristic entity within its borders. So, each community will have its own constabulary, larger communities (cities) will likely have a military garrison as well. Smaller communities might only have one or two constables, sparsely populated rural communities may even have one or two constables in charge of multiple communities. In this last case, one constable may end up in charge of a very large geographic area; a lot of farmland and a few small hamlets where the farmers live. All this means that big cities will have whatever laws are in place enforced very strictly; more constables=more enforcement. Smaller communities will have a little more wiggle room and remote rural districts would have even more. On the issue of punishment: I honestly hadn't really thought this one through. My initial assumption was that an illegal weapon=death (again, feudal Japan was the initial inspiration), but fines do make sense on an economic level. The question then becomes, is it a fine and confiscation of the weapon? Or just a fine for possession? If confiscation is involved, that opens the door to all kinds of black market and shady bribery deals between the constabulary and whatever underworld may be producing and/or selling illegal weapons. I was also thinking about bows. Bows are great weapons, but they are also necessary for hunting. Would they be considered weapons? Limited to short bows? Limits on types of arrowheads? Any historical context on this front would be most helpful! I really don't know about bows. Certainly any kind of hunting bow can kill a person, so I think they would be controlled tightly. In medieval England, while every able bodied man was supposed to practice archery, hunting with weapons or animal assistance was seen as the province of nobles. There were strict hierarchies of hunting bird species allowed to specific ranks of nobles. Hunting with spears or bows was a jealously guarded pastime, and large swathes of land were "emparked" - made into deer parks where there were different laws and customs (like forest law on a more local level). Peasants may have been permitted to hunt for animal husbandry purposes and to provide meat/products for the nobles estate, but only under tight control. This was not about keeping weapons away from the populace, but very jealously guarded rights for the nobility. Trapping and fishing were fine for peasants, subject to the usual feudal dues. |
|
|
|
Post by swordnut on Apr 3, 2016 10:23:06 GMT
That said, I take issue with the point about hammered bronze being extremely soft. My own research has indicated that swords of the bronze age were initially cast, but then afterwards given a hammered edge for the specific reason that cast bronze is softer than hammered bronze, not the other way around--the softer bronze in the center of the blade would give it flexibility, while the hardened sides would hold an edge better and cut more effectively. So I'm confused by your experimental archaeologist friend's thesis. It seems to directly contradict the information I have. Edit: Admittedly, if the Dendra panoply is made of mild bronze, that would blow my objection out of the water. And on further thought it probably is. I can't find a source definitely saying so one way or the other, though. Im not sure im remembering right (not a metallurgist) but its to do with the need for annealing the hammered sheets - heating so it doesnt crack when you work it. The hammered weapon edges dont need the same treatment. Thats as far as my knowledge of bronze metallurgy goes other than what happens to it when you bury it for thousands of years :-) |
|
|
|
Post by swordnut on Apr 3, 2016 10:45:07 GMT
Added some pics to the earlier posts
|
|
|
|
Post by swordnut on Apr 8, 2016 11:22:24 GMT
so here are some things you could stat as a longsword a kreigsmesser "war knife" - used to get around the law that forbade peasants from owning "swords"  kiribati shark tooth sword  |
|
