www.ditl.org

Deepcrush wrote:

Mikey wrote:- a broad-bladed glaive-like spear,

Naginata? (Spelling please)

Yes, Naginata.

This guy, Mike Loades does some great shows about old weapons and tactics. Unfortunately I can't can't find the ep about armor but there's loads of stuff about his sword episodes at this Link

Most Samurai would use a weapon appropriate for the enemy, an ONO, basically a pole axe or a TETSUBO, a large club. Some tetsubo were made out of iron, others hardwood with iron studs, even the aforementioned naginata would be useful against both plate armored and chainmail armored opponents.

Vic wrote:Most Samurai would use a weapon appropriate for the enemy, an ONO, basically a pole axe or a TETSUBO, a large club. Some tetsubo were made out of iron, others hardwood with iron studs, even the aforementioned naginata would be useful against both plate armored and chainmail armored opponents.

Sorry bud but unless that armored opponent forgot to cover a spot, the naginata would be almost useless. The naginata was best served from horse back against light infantry or from Samurai on the ground facing a mounted enemy.

Precisely. It's a polearm. You either use it against unarmored opponents or to knock armored ones down so you can get in close with the real killing weapons. Almost all of medieval hand to hand weaponry was set up not to outright kill a knight but to incapacitate him in such a way that you could get in close and deliver a killing blow. The reason is that medieval armor was very, very, VERY good at protecting the man in it. About the only way to kill a man inside was to get him on the ground, find a joint near the neck or arm, and then slip in a dagger to do the final killing.

Bows finally found medieval armor's weakness, piercing, but even thing it required the long bow or crossbow to get the penetration power needed to get a killing blow, and even then it could take several arrows to actually find something vital to put a knight down. Heavy cavalry wasn't a dominant force on the battlefield for nearly a millennium just because their opponents were stupid.

Lighthawk wrote:Alright...

A) Stone age
B) Bronze age
C) Iron Age
D) Black powder age
E) World War age
F) Cold war age
G) Modern age

Well, I'm going to try to limit this to personal weapons, because otherwise it could expand exponentially, so you won't find Greek fire, chariots, or the BUFF in my list. Here goes:

Stone Age - While the bow has obviously had a far greater relevance to later history, I'm going to have to say the atlatl as having a greater immediate impact on neolithic warfare. Honorable mention to the kris - while technically it had an iron blade, it was made of unsmelted meteorite iron.

Bronze Age - the eye axe. Probably the first axe designed strictly as a weapon, and the first weapon of which I know that was created as a development to counter armor.

Iron Age - the pilum, specifically the light (or throwing) pilum. The idea of a weapon that was created less to kill (though it certainly could) but rather to cripple an enemy soldier's ability to move and defend was revolutionary. Also logical, as ranged warfare of the time was iffy as far as lethality in any event.

Black-powder age - kind of a self-answering question here, as any arquebus could be said to be the forefather of the modern firearm. I might include the Korean hwach'a here, though I'm not sure; it was a support weapon, and it fired arrows via gunpowder rather than balls. Additionally, it was considerably older than what I assume you're going for. I'd probably have to say either the percussion cap, as it changed firearms and led the way to the metallic cartridge; or the Remington 1858 Army and Navy - it was superior to Colt revolvers of the time in accuracy and in having a top strap; it also unintentionally paved the way for clip-loaded weapons in that even though it was a cap-and-ball revolver, it could be reloaded in under 12 seconds because the entire cylinder could be relieved and swapped for a fresh, loaded cylinder.

World War era - the Mauser 98k. No question. Honorable mention to the Sturmgewehr as the forefather of the modern standard infantry weapon, and the Maxim gun/Vickers gun as changing the methodology of war.

Cold War era - toss-up between the AK-47 and the M-16. Both, really, at once as the harbingers of the new, under-300-meter idea of warfare and the adoption of the assault rifle as standard over the battle rifle. This is no mean feat; the idea of having rifle rounds - incredible rounds, like the .30-06 or the .303 British - and instead using an intermediate round like the Soviet 7.62 or the NATO 5.56 was a hell of a thing to get one's mind around.

Modern era - I have to confess that I'm stuck here within my self-limitation to personal weapons. For lack of other ideas, I'd have to go with the M60 and MINIMI/M249 SAW as truly one-man-portable support weapons.

Tyyr wrote:Precisely. It's a polearm. You either use it against unarmored opponents or to knock armored ones down so you can get in close with the real killing weapons. Almost all of medieval hand to hand weaponry was set up not to outright kill a knight but to incapacitate him in such a way that you could get in close and deliver a killing blow. The reason is that medieval armor was very, very, VERY good at protecting the man in it. About the only way to kill a man inside was to get him on the ground, find a joint near the neck or arm, and then slip in a dagger to do the final killing.

Bows finally found medieval armor's weakness, piercing, but even thing it required the long bow or crossbow to get the penetration power needed to get a killing blow, and even then it could take several arrows to actually find something vital to put a knight down. Heavy cavalry wasn't a dominant force on the battlefield for nearly a millennium just because their opponents were stupid.

Hence the Naginata still being useful. I apologize for not being clearer.

The thing is that the Naginata isn't useful against armor enemies but against the horses they ride on.

Deepcrush wrote:The thing is that the Naginata isn't useful against armor enemies but against the horses they ride on.

I'm not convinced. While it certainly wasn't lethal against an armored opponent, it was effective against a mounted opponent in the same way that the Swiss made the halberd one of the most influential European medieval weapons. While the halberd had slightly better armor penetration qualities than the naginata, the real effectiveness of either one was in eliminating the advantage of a horsed opponent - i.e., dismounting him. The Swiss proved that in Savoy, etc., and it led to the development of all sorts of oddities like the Lochaber axe.

The main difference between the halberd and the naginata was in application, not in ability. The halberd was used by massed infantry to level the playing field, at which point the numerical superiority of infantry over cavalry could be brought to bear. The naginata was an aristocratic weapon, used by the samurai. While it may be admirable that the samurai didn't share quite the same disdain for combat on foot as the European knight, the samurai also didn't fight in infantry formations like the Swiss.

Mikey wrote:I'm not convinced. While it certainly wasn't lethal against an armored opponent, it was effective against a mounted opponent in the same way that the Swiss made the halberd one of the most influential European medieval weapons. While the halberd had slightly better armor penetration qualities than the naginata, the real effectiveness of either one was in eliminating the advantage of a horsed opponent - i.e., dismounting him. The Swiss proved that in Savoy, etc., and it led to the development of all sorts of oddities like the Lochaber axe.

You're not convinced but you point out things that seem to agree with me??? Did something get missed in here or am I just reading it wrong?

The main difference between the halberd and the naginata was in application, not in ability.

Quite wrong as the abilities of the weapons were very different which highly effected their application. The halberd was an armor piercing weapon while the naginata was mostly useless against armor. The halberd was heavy and slow, designed to be used for a crushing through heavy infantry. The naginata was light, fast and curved, meant for out reaching a swords and slashing at soft points such as a man's hands or the ankles of a horse.

The halberd was used by massed infantry to level the playing field, at which point the numerical superiority of infantry over cavalry could be brought to bear.

That was the point of any anti-cav weapon. Light or heavy... Not sure what this has to do with your point so if you could please explain further?

The naginata was an aristocratic weapon, used by the samurai.

In truth, it was more common for the wives of the Samurai (yes I know some women were Samurai but just in general). It extended their reach to help against the superior reach of men. Plus, women weren't bound by the same codes of honor in battle so they often paired up against single Samurai. Again, having the ability of reach is helpful here.

While it may be admirable that the samurai didn't share quite the same disdain for combat on foot as the European knight, the samurai also didn't fight in infantry formations like the Swiss.

The Samurai didn't fight in Swiss formations because they weren't Swiss. However the armies that marched with the Samurai did use battle formations. Spear walls with archers and mounted support.

***************************************

I said it above but I believe it bares restating. You say you're not convinced but everything you've said here says that you agree with what I've said. So I'm confused as to what you're not convinced about.

Deepcrush wrote:You're not convinced but you point out things that seem to agree with me??? Did something get missed in here or am I just reading it wrong?

I was referring to the last part of your prior post... i.e., I'm not convinced of your assertion that the naginata's main purpose was slaughtering horses rather than attacking riders. As to what you wrote earlier, I do pretty much agree with it.

Deepcrush wrote:Quite wrong as the abilities of the weapons were very different which highly effected their application. The halberd was an armor piercing weapon while the naginata was mostly useless against armor. The halberd was heavy and slow, designed to be used for a crushing through heavy infantry. The naginata was light, fast and curved, meant for out reaching a swords and slashing at soft points such as a man's hands or the ankles of a horse.

The halberd did often have a component to penetrate armor, but that was not a defining characteristic of the halberd, nor was defeating body armor the main purpose. The overarching design was to provide something to even the field between infantry and cavalry. Some halberds were made without a bill point at all; and there are considerable differences between them and contemporary weapons designed primarily to defeat armor (morningstar/gudentag, warhammer (for D&D historians, it's not really a hammer,) etc.

Deepcrush wrote:That was the point of any anti-cav weapon. Light or heavy... Not sure what this has to do with your point so if you could please explain further?

The point is only when you take the sentence as a whole. It's a difference in usage I was noting between a European-type anti-cavalry weapon and the naginata.

Deepcrush wrote:The Samurai didn't fight in Swiss formations because they weren't Swiss. However the armies that marched with the Samurai did use battle formations. Spear walls with archers and mounted support.

Wait... the samurai weren't Swiss?! OK, never mind, I have to go rethink this...

JK. Again, the point is evident if you look at the entire context of the post. As you have noted some of the minor mechanical differences between the naginata and the halberd, so I have noted the differences in application. In other words, the samurai weapon was applied differently (and made differently) precisely because they fought differently.

Ah, so you agree with me but you just can't say you agree with me and there for just have to say you disagree with me... Good to know there was a whole point to that...

Anybody else watch "The Deadliest Warrior"? I caught another rerun last night, where they matched up the Apache warrior vs a Gladiator. Some of those damned Gladiator weapons were badass. The Scissor for one. The Trident and net combo worked better that I would have expected as well.

What I found interesting is that the Samuri won his challange, yet the Knights lost theirs.

Mark wrote:What I found interesting is that the Samuri won his challange, yet the Knights lost theirs.

Who were they matched against?

Mark wrote:Anybody else watch "The Deadliest Warrior"? I caught another rerun last night, where they matched up the Apache warrior vs a Gladiator. Some of those damned Gladiator weapons were badass. The Scissor for one. The Trident and net combo worked better that I would have expected as well.

What I found interesting is that the Samuri won his challange, yet the Knights lost theirs.

Think I saw a clip of that show on a panel show over here - The IRA versus the Taliban.

In a parking lot.