The military flail didn't exist

[Noradin]

Katana's are vastly superior to European Broadswords though, even against plate armor.

In these cases designed to give it an advantage, yes.
Do you think European Broadswords were supposed to pierce or slash plate armor? That is just silly.
If you wanted to injure a knight while he was still moving around and defending himself you would use a mace.
A broadsword is more of a leverage to bring them down before you thrust through some opening.

Not like there where armies all staffed out with plate armor and broadswords cutting each other to pieces.

- - - Updated - - -

Gladiator combat wasn't about efficient combat practices though, it was literally all entertainment. They'd give them whatever scraps of metal/wood were laying about and said go and murder each other.

Kind of like fights involving plate armor and broadswords.
You do not bring that combination to meet the opposing commander in the middle of some melee between confused groups of peasants.

[jackofwind]

Isn't there plenty of evidence of flails in Roman gladiator combat?

Not at all, it doesn't fit in with the traditional weaponry of any of the three main gladiator types (Secutor, Retiarius, Samnite), or any of the offshoots like the Scissor or Thraex.

Maybe as one of the lesser games or executions where they just gave criminals or prinsoners random things and told them to go kill each other, but no gladiator type of note fought with a flail.

[nonameelf]

Katana's are vastly superior to European Broadswords though, even against plate armor.

[Logwyn]

Pssh... best weapon is a Bo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C5%8D.

[Noradin]

Meh I don't care if it exists. In fantasy settings weapons that would be ridiculous to use in the real world can be excused by a variety of reasons like:
armor-piercing materials like adamantine used in construction
magical enchantments that can overcome the weaknesses of certain weapons
supernatural strength and agility of combatants significantly changing how a weapon is used in combat
a focus on larger targets and/or soft targets that need to be locked down very fast

Yes, sure, magic can solve anything if it benefits the plot.

The main problem with this weapon is that it offers no benefit aside from looking scary and that it is actually most dangerous for the wielder unless used in melee where it will either be useless or endanger everyone, if it isn't use in melee just keep your distance. The one with a spiky ball on a chain that has to stay in motion will be less mobile and tire faster.

There is no real reason why any magic that might solve the problems of this weapon couldn't be used to make another weapon more effective instead.
(Well, I guess since it is fantasy you could invent some magical reason why magic only works on this kind of weapon, but then you could that for whatever happens to be your favourite or whatever.)

[Chrysia]

Katana made from glorious Japanese steel folded over a thousand times and is vastly superior to any other weapon on earth.

He's not talking about katana, which were made the way they were to make up for impurities in Japanese steel. He's talking about something similar to a zanbato, which were basically oversized katana that were used as anti-cavalry weapons.

[Noradin]

Pssh... best weapon is a Bo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C5%8D.

Certainly useful to know how to use one when you aren't supposed to know anything you could use against your occupiers, because sticks just happen to be everywhere.

There are specialized weapons for almost all situations imaginable, and more often than not in that specific situation they turn out to be more useful than the average weapon would.

[Dezerte]

Looks like an intimidating weapon, if that would have served any purpose at those times that is.

[Independent voter]

He's not talking about katana, which were made the way they were to make up for impurities in Japanese steel. He's talking about something similar to a zanbato, which were basically oversized katana that were used as anti-cavalry weapons.

I heard those never existed on the battlefield.

[Chrysia]

Katana's are vastly superior to European Broadswords though, even against plate armor.

[video=youtube;EDkoj932YFo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDkoj932YFo[/vido]

Sheet metal plate != actual plate. Those videos are horse shit.

- - - Updated - - -

I heard those never existed on the battlefield.

It's a matter of debate. There is some evidence they were used during the mid-to-late Heian period. At the very least, there are actual historical specimens available. Their prevalence is in doubt. Either way, it was a fairly short-lived weapon, quickly replaced by some form of glaive that offered much more control.

[Noradin]

Pretty much. They were never meant to be wielded in actual combat like that. They were anti cavalry weapons.

Basically mostly for show (which might include show combat, some of which were to the death) and could be used as a very costly stand in for a spear if you really had not other option. (A bit awkward with the hilt down there, but since they weren't supposed to have sharpened blades expect for the tip you could just grip that. Remember not to stay around until you pierce something or it will likely squash you. Bring some other weapons, too, because you won't be using that one anymore and there certainly will be others involved.)

- - - Updated - - -

Looks like an intimidating weapon, if that would have served any purpose at those times that is.

It did, that is why the idea was around.
No need to actually use a weapon and shed blood if you can just intimidate them. Know when to bring a real weapon though.

[Mihalik]

Katana's are vastly superior to European Broadswords though, even against plate armor.

That video is stupid as hell.

Beyond that, nobody half serious would ever go to war armed with a Sword as his weapon of choice in the Middle Ages. Swords are sidearms. It's like going into a modern battle armed only with a handgun.

Spears/Lances>Pole weapons>Maces>Axes>Swords. (Axes only win out because they are cheaper to make and maintain). Plus, plate armor will shit on everything short of Pole Weapons and Maces.

- - - Updated - - -

Pssh... best weapon is a Bo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C5%8D.

Or you mean the clearly superior version of it, the Quarterstaff?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarterstaff

[Noradin]

It's a matter of debate. There is some evidence they were used during the mid-to-late Heian period. At the very least, there are actual historical specimens available. Their prevalence is in doubt. Either way, it was a fairly short-lived weapon, quickly replaced by some form of glaive that offered much more control.

Since weapons are a traditional and common status symbol in almost every culture on earth there were always people who had the means to create some just because they could. Some of those turned out to be useful only for show but still survived to be found today. Some might have been usefull given unlimited ressources on the side of the user only (read: they were too costly and there were cheaper alternatives).

[Chrysia]

Since weapons are a traditional and common status symbol in almost every culture on earth there were always people who had the means to create some just because they could. Some of those turned out to be useful only for show but still survived to be found today. Some might have been usefull given unlimited ressources on the side of the user only (read: they were too costly and there were cheaper alternatives).

We know so little about pre-shogunate Japan that it's really hard to say how prevalent any given weapon was. The horse archer was highly prevalent in Japan prior to the rise of the samurai, though, so it's very likely that various anti-cavalry weapons were tried during this period.

[Noradin]

That video is stupid as hell.

Beyond that, nobody half serious would ever go to war armed with a Sword as his weapon of choice in the Middle Ages. Swords are sidearms. It's like going into a modern battle armed only with a handgun.

Spears/Lances>Pole weapons>Maces>Axes>Swords. (Axes only win out because they are cheaper to make and maintain). Plus, plate armor will shit on everything short of Pole Weapons and Maces.

- - - Updated - - -



Or you mean the clearly superior version of it, the Quarterstaff?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarterstaff

Swords were mostly used like spears but with different side benefits, I guess you think more of sabers when you say "swords".

Plate armor wasn't common, yes, you could start and try to hurt them immideately if you had a mace or axe (which is kind of somewhat like a mace if you squint), but normally you would try to immobilize them first, then try and hurt them when you have free access. (Yes, bystanders will complicate that, that is exactly why plate armor was useful, because it buys time for the commander wearing it.)

About that Quaterstaff. I like it, why not attach a blade or something to one end so you can use it in a group, too, where swinging it around might be impractical.
I like having allies, and nothing better to have in melee with your allies at your side than something you can thrust.

- - - Updated - - -

We know so little about pre-shogunate Japan that it's really hard to say how prevalent any given weapon was. The horse archer was highly prevalent in Japan prior to the rise of the samurai, though, so it's very likely that various anti-cavalry weapons were tried during this period.

Yes, that is certainly a possibility, but against archers on horses specifically you would prefer something that gives you a chance to actually harm them, so either a bow, or something you can hide with (could also be a bow), since they won't just come up to you and let you kill them when they could stay at range and shoot you.


That being said, I was just pointing out that the existance of weapons does not automatically mean that they were widely used. Some where never used at all.
In many cases we can make a good guess, but some really do not offer any good explanation why they specifically would be the weapon of choice, because we do not know enough about the situation they were envisaged for. It is always much easier to investigate the weaknesses of a weapon you happen to have at hand, then to come up with what they might be a good counter against.

[Reeve]

It's always interesting to me that people tend to judge medieval and ancient militaries by the armaments of the people who had the most money and were therefore outfitted the best.

[Chrysia]

It's always interesting to me that people tend to judge medieval and ancient militaries by the armaments of the people who had the most money and were therefore outfitted the best.

It's also interesting that people think "massed formation fighting," and are probably thinking of things on the scale of stuff from shows/movies like Rome or Troy, when for a huge chunk of history after the fall of the Roman Empire, you'd be much more likely to see something on the scale of something like Vikings. Armies were measured in the hundreds, if that, for quite a while. Having specialist units on your flank with weapons not necessarily useful in the middle of the formation in a battle on that smaller scale could be very advantageous, but again, how prevalent such a practice was or could have been is pure speculation.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

I'm not sure he is correct.

[Spray]

Katanas can cut through tanks.

Totally.

As funny as this trope normally is - as far as I'm aware, there were occurrences when World War I broke out when traditional cavalry faced the earliest tank prototypes. The cavalrymen, if to believe some history books and my grandpa (more on that later on), were sometimes able to drive their sabers through those "tank" turrets (due to the armor being such thin), killing/hurting the staff inside.

I remember my sort-of-grandfather (father of one of my Mom's best friends) telling me the stuff above when I was very young. Not only was he a historian, but he also had an impressive collection of mostly-Napoleon-related soldier figures (few thousands), most of them hand-painted by himself. He had a separate room dedicated for them including several bookcases full of tomes related to the infantry and cavalry of late-medieval and early-modern periods, so I'm guessing - he knew his shit.

Now, since I cannot find any explicit source on that - is anyone more knowledgeable in the matter than me (it's probably not that hard!) able to prove this or at least deem it plausible?

[Mihalik]

Swords were mostly used like spears but with different side benefits, I guess you think more of sabers when you say "swords".

Plate armor wasn't common, yes, you could start and try to hurt them immideately if you had a mace or axe (which is kind of somewhat like a mace if you squint), but normally you would try to immobilize them first, then try and hurt them when you have free access. (Yes, bystanders will complicate that, that is exactly why plate armor was useful, because it buys time for the commander wearing it.)
.

By the late Middle Ages as plate reached its peak it was extremely common. At least upper body plate was, it was so common that by the late 100 years war the English was even giving plate to their archers. Knights and Men at Arms were all fully plated, but you didn't even really needed plate to counter Swords, mail and Padded Gambisons will do the trick. That's one of the reasons why by that time shields went completely out of use.

But again, Swords were sidearms and not main battlefield weapons. Pole weapons did the wast majority of melee fighting, and cavalry used Lances. Most fighting was done in formations. Dueling doesn't really count if we are discussing war fighting and military weapons.

- - - Updated - - -

It's always interesting to me that people tend to judge medieval and ancient militaries by the armaments of the people who had the most money and were therefore outfitted the best.

By the mid to late Middle Ages, states reached a point where they could largely uniformly arm the armies they fielded. They might not have not done the contracting themselves, but they could pay their soldiers well enough to put equipment standards that their soldiers needed to buy.

Officers of course could invest extra in their gear, but that didn't mean European armies of the age fought with pitchforks.

- - - Updated - - -

It's also interesting that people think "massed formation fighting," and are probably thinking of things on the scale of stuff from shows/movies like Rome or Troy, when for a huge chunk of history after the fall of the Roman Empire, you'd be much more likely to see something on the scale of something like Vikings. Armies were measured in the hundreds, if that, for quite a while. Having specialist units on your flank with weapons not necessarily useful in the middle of the formation in a battle on that smaller scale could be very advantageous, but again, how prevalent such a practice was or could have been is pure speculation.

Again by the era we are discussing (Middle Ages) European states could regularily and reliable levy, field and arm armies of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands. Big enough to match anything Rome would field.

- - - Updated - - -

As funny as this trope normally is - as far as I'm aware, there were occurrences when World War I broke out when traditional cavalry faced the earliest tank prototypes. The cavalrymen, if to believe some history books and my grandpa (more on that later on), were sometimes able to drive their sabers through those "tank" turrets (due to the armor being such thin), killing/hurting the staff inside.

This is a WW1 tank.



It took direct artillery hits or bundled hand grenades to do anything to them. Like this.

By the late war they started making stuff like this



Absurdly scaled up bolt action anti-material rifles designed to disable, tho not destroy tanks.

Very late war, stuff like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_FT was being built. These were still armored enough to be immune to most small arms fire (let alone sabers, you couldn't be able to thrust through 2mm of steel let alone through 8 to 22mm), and as you might notice are armed with the weapon that made cavalry irrelevant. Machine guns.