Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XII

[Mr. Mask]

Though armour's heaviness is regularly exaggerated, it is certainly true that over a long period of time, performing a variety of labours, strength becomes far more necessary.

I do wonder how much physical strength can make a difference in damaging someone in armour. It could make the difference between a sword blow bruising or stunning them through their armour.

[Knaight]

In modern warfare though, fitness is far more important - once you're above the minimum strength requirement, there's diminishing returns on being significantly stronger. It's why most modern soldiers look like tri-athletes rather than power lifters.

Ancient soldiers tend to look more like that as well. Strength is nice and all, but power lifters often hit the point where their mobility is significantly hampered, and being able to move well is absolutely key when fighting, regardless of how up close and personal it is.

[Spiryt]

Ancient fighters usually wouldn't look like power lifters due to not much power lifting available.

Still, if we believe Greek art and writings, those rich and privileged citizens who could afford to, aimed for powerful and harmonic musculature.

[fusilier]

Especially when several companies are walking over a wooden bridge.

I'm also a big fan of little historical anecdotes they have, like the soldiers' marching chants or ralling cry like the (obviously) Parliamentarian cry of "No king but King Jesus!".

That must sound awesome! Reenacting is too small scale where I live (New Mexico), for there to be anything like multiple pike companies on a wooden bridge. I'm impressed by the sound a half-dozen pikemen make when trailing pikes along a hard-packed road -- I can't imagine how cool companies of pikemen must sound. :-)

I like those little aspects too; I've heard of English pikemen shouting Saint James as they advanced (one word as each foot came down, kind of like a call and response). The Spanish soldiers were known to use "Santiago" at the same time too.

[fusilier]

In modern warfare though, fitness is far more important - once you're above the minimum strength requirement, there's diminishing returns on being significantly stronger. It's why most modern soldiers look like tri-athletes rather than power lifters.

I would imagine that even historically there are some diminishing returns on being physically stronger, and overall fitness would still have been important. The hand-to-hand physical fighting could be very fatiguing, and, while historically the weight of armor has often been exaggerated, armor itself could be very fatiguing to fight in. For full plate it's not just the mass, but the lack of ventilation must have made it quickly uncomfortable, especially in summer and hot climes (like on Malta). Keeping in mind that full plate consists of multiple layers of material, and not just the outer metal armor (with joints and gaps that may have provided some degree of ventilation -- although I don't imagine much).

There's still a difference though. While, to a certain extent, fitness is fitness, training to fight for relatively long periods of time in armor, is different from the kind of physical training that most modern soldiers have -- which I suspect is mostly marching long distances carrying a considerable amount of weight (at least that's what it was during the World Wars).

Having said all that, I don't believe that being physically strong and being fit are mutually exclusive. Although towards the extremes there may be problems.

[Storm Bringer]

I remember one historical education show (I think it was Weapons that Made Britain, youtube it, cos even if it isn't what I am on about, it's really good viewing for medieval warfare)

they took a modern re-enactor, slapped him in full plate armour, and basically kept attacking him with fresh opponents until the enactor was so tired he could no longer defend himself. it only took about 10 minutes of all out fighting to render the guy literally so exhausted he was barely able to lift his sword.

now, accepting that a medieval warrior was going to be fitter than a modern re-enactor, it's clear that in any historical battle that was stated to last all day, their must have been significant periods of time where the two battle lines were very close but the two sides did not advance into contact, instead resting, with short, sharp bouts of fighting (i.e. scrap for 20 mins, then rest for 40 or so, then scrap again). they also hypothesized a buddy-buddy system where one man fought while others rested and switched around at regular intervals.

[Galloglaich]

Not just in hot climates. Supposedly overheating was a major factor in the battle of Towton, amidst snow-flurries.

G

[fusilier]

It is reported that Aztec commanders would rotate reserves in and out to keep the men fresh. I imagine at the very least, a medieval commander might commit his reserves when fighting had gone on for a long time with no result. Bracceschi tactics, involved micro-managing small units, rotating them in and out of combat, to make sure those in the thick of the fighting were kept fresh. (In one battle fought on a hot summers day Fortebraccio had the foresight to place water barrels near the front, so his troops could remain hydrated).

[fusilier]

Not just in hot climates. Supposedly overheating was a major factor in the battle of Towton, amidst snow-flurries.

G

It wouldn't surprise me. I've overheated in wool in very cold weather surprisingly quickly.

[warty goblin]

Not just in hot climates. Supposedly overheating was a major factor in the battle of Towton, amidst snow-flurries.

G

I've gone walking in the woods in winter while wearing chainmail. Once I got moving, my core was plenty warm, although fingers and toes could still get kinda chilly.

[Brother Oni]

That must sound awesome! Reenacting is too small scale where I live (New Mexico), for there to be anything like multiple pike companies on a wooden bridge. I'm impressed by the sound a half-dozen pikemen make when trailing pikes along a hard-packed road -- I can't imagine how cool companies of pikemen must sound. :-)

Best thing about re-enactment with lots of people is all the additional roles they can now fill, like drummers and pipers.

For example, the drums here (link) are very loud, to the point that you can feel the vibration as they march past you. Given that they're used for battlefield communication, it's understandable, particularly they needed to be heard over musket and cannon fire and the screams of men fighting and dying.

As a point of note, the video's sound balanced the musketry/cannon fire so it sounds a lot quieter than it actually is. Additionally this battle is within town limits so there's a cap on how much powder they can put into each cannon shot - I went to one they hosted on the actual battlefield (which is a few miles away from any town) and when the larger cannons went off, the ground shook.

I can only imagine what it was like in the actual battle when there was upwards of 400 cannon on each side.

[Knaight]

It wouldn't surprise me. I've overheated in wool in very cold weather surprisingly quickly.

I've overheated in some pretty light clothing (somewhat thick cotton) in freezing temperatures, even while somewhat wet - and this was with biking, which is significantly less strenuous with combat. That combat involving wool padding under armor can wear one out isn't surprising at all.

[Brother Oni]

So English Civil War pikeman did carry a sword as a sidearm and most had a smaller dagger for emergencies.

I was speaking to a musketman (damn, those muskets are heavier than they look) and they pretty much do the same. Their muskets also have an iron strip over the stock butt so it can be used an impromptu club (he was saying the musket was probably more dangerous used that way!).

One thing I didn't know is that the bayonet post-dates the ECW by about 30 years, which surprised me.

He also had a quite nice example of a mortuary sword:

Spoiler

Show

Something like this:

Again it's heavier than I expected for a single handed sword, but that might be because it's a replica rather than a proper fighting weapon.

Finally a 12lb firing demi culverin is ear splittingly loud - I could feel the shockwave from it firing from about 75m away

[Galloglaich]

I'm always pretty impressed with the medieval guns, they tend to get dismissed as sort of nuisance weapons in a lot of your pop culture type accounts, but in person they seem pretty scary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...xz3lfneu5Z98Hg

same for the cannon of the same era

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lr-5F...xz3lfneu5Z98Hg

G

[Incanur]

Most of the images I've seen of pikemen from the late 16th and early 17th centuries show them with relatively long swords (they certainly don't look like "short swords") -- but at the same time several commentators state that pikemen *should* be equipped with shorter swords. Which to believe? What military men claimed their soldiers should be equipped with? Or what artists decided to depict? I believe there was probably a bit of both. There are certainly some images that I would trust, but not all.

Which author(s) do you mean? Sir John Smythe thought many soldiers carried swords too long to draw quickly but he still considered a blade length of 36 inches acceptable. (He recommended 27-36 inches.) While 36 inches is a pretty long blade, Smythe's complaints make sense when read Joseph Swetnam recommending a 4ft rapier and 2ft dagger about fifteen years later. Raimond de Beccarie de Pavie, Seigneur de Fourquevaux didn't give any specific figures, but he noted that the swords of his era - 1548 - were somewhat longer than ancient Roman swords. Various other sixteenth-century English military manuals I've reader specify a three-foot blade. Many longswords have a blade around that measure, so I don't see any contradiction between the manuals and the artwork in this respect. One textual account of the Flodden Field 1513 describes the Scottish pikemen as fighting with "great and sharp swords" after their pikes were spent.

As far as pike combat goes, I compiled this list of sources. Blaise de Monluc described the Swiss method of pike handling as more aggressive than the Landsknetcht approach, which may in part explain why the Swiss most always won. (Of course, bad war was bad war, and winners at times might take nearly as severe losses as the losers, particularly in the front ranks.)

Regarding katzbaglers, Francesco Patrizi (1595) didn't have much nice to say about them.

[lsfreak]

I've overheated in some pretty light clothing (somewhat thick cotton) in freezing temperatures, even while somewhat wet - and this was with biking, which is significantly less strenuous with combat. That combat involving wool padding under armor can wear one out isn't surprising at all.

While I know what you're acclimatized to will influence comfort, in winter I don't consider anything heavier than a sweatshirt until 25F, and a sweatshirt + trenchcoat is ends up unzipped during a couple-mile walk down to 10F. The referenced battle took place near York, where 10F is a breath away from record lows, let alone a late-March snowstorm (average temp: 35ish low, 50ish high). It doesn't surprise me overheating would be an issue there. Those pansy Brits and their "cold."

[fusilier]

I was speaking to a musketman (damn, those muskets are heavier than they look) and they pretty much do the same. Their muskets also have an iron strip over the stock butt so it can be used an impromptu club (he was saying the musket was probably more dangerous used that way!).

Yeah, I've gotten to handle a reproduction of a heavy mid 16th century musket; it was very heavy, and long, although not totally unreasonable. By the ECW they were getting lighter, so I'm not sure how much the one you saw may have weighed. Even in the American Civil War muskets were still in the 9-10 lbs range -- which I'm basically accustomed to now. ;-) I can see why they were often allowed to store muskets in wagons during long marches in the late renaissance period.

One thing I didn't know is that the bayonet post-dates the ECW by about 30 years, which surprised me.

And those early bayonets were "plug bayonets", which were daggers with round, tapered hilts that were literally placed in the muzzle of the musket. So you couldn't fire the gun with it in place.

Finally a 12lb firing demi culverin is ear splittingly loud - I could feel the shockwave from it firing from about 75m away

A 12lber gun is actually pretty big, especially at a reenactment. It would depend upon how big the charge of powder is, but it's going to be loud! Where were you standing when it was fired, relative to the piece?

Best thing about re-enactment with lots of people is all the additional roles they can now fill, like drummers and pipers.

We actually have a decent fife and drum section here in New Mexico, and, at least for a while, they were pretty well known nationally. They add a ton to the experience, even from the reenactors point of view, and I'm always glad when they can make it to an event.

[fusilier]

Which author(s) do you mean? Sir John Smythe thought many soldiers carried swords too long to draw quickly but he still considered a blade length of 36 inches acceptable. . . .

It's information I've gleaned years ago, I think primarily through ECW reenactor websites. Smythe may have been one of the authors quoted. One may have stated that you should give the soldiers something like falchions, or he may have just implied it: part of his complaint was that if you gave them nicely made rapiers, they would use them to chop branches, thus breaking the swords. :-/ EDIT-- One of the commentators recommended that soldiers should be given a strong stiff "tuck"; which I thought was a rapier, or cut-and-thrust sword kind of weapon. Now I'm not so sure, as one of the images I just found looked kind of like a cutlass --EDIT

Just for clarification, I did write that they suggested using "shorter swords", not "short swords". Although I remember that other commentators thought rapiers were fine for battle field use, I recall them being something of a minority.

[fusilier]

While I know what you're acclimatized to will influence comfort, in winter I don't consider anything heavier than a sweatshirt until 25F, and a sweatshirt + trenchcoat is ends up unzipped during a couple-mile walk down to 10F. The referenced battle took place near York, where 10F is a breath away from record lows, let alone a late-March snowstorm (average temp: 35ish low, 50ish high). It doesn't surprise me overheating would be an issue there. Those pansy Brits and their "cold."

Historically, Europeans tended to wear more clothing all year round, until rather recently, and often the outer layers were wool. So they may have been more accustomed to heat.

[Brother Oni]

I'm always pretty impressed with the medieval guns, they tend to get dismissed as sort of nuisance weapons in a lot of your pop culture type accounts, but in person they seem pretty scary.

Especially by the time of the ECW, muskets were the primary weapon of the infantry and pikes were solely around to keep the cavalry off the musketmen/cannon. Apparently the ratio of pikes to muskets drifted from 2:1 at the start of the war, to 1:2 by the end, as muskets proved their worth against pikemen.

I would agree that they're nuisance weapons firing at a single target, but when you're firing at troops, it doesn't really matter if you hit your target or his fellow soldier 10m away, you've still incapacitated an enemy soldier.

Yeah, I've gotten to handle a reproduction of a heavy mid 16th century musket; it was very heavy, and long, although not totally unreasonable. By the ECW they were getting lighter, so I'm not sure how much the one you saw may have weighed. Even in the American Civil War muskets were still in the 9-10 lbs range -- which I'm basically accustomed to now. ;-)

A bit more than 10lbs I think; I thought it was heavy while my daughter couldn't even hold it level.
The re-enactor was saying how they don't like doing weapon drills after they've been fired a couple times as the barrel gets too hot to hold.

A 12lber gun is actually pretty big, especially at a reenactment. It would depend upon how big the charge of powder is, but it's going to be loud! Where were you standing when it was fired, relative to the piece?

To the side and in front, somewhere between 80-100m according to google maps. (The piece was in the far right corner of the field and I was in the crowd on the opposite side).
I managed to get closer to some smaller pieces (about 10-20m) and they're fairly loud by themselves.

I can hear the cannon going off now and I'm ~2km away. You can even distinguish between the various light cannon and the three piece Parliamentarian heavy cannon battery, especially 'Barratt/Barrack' that big 12lber (it was named after an earlier Parliamentarian commander).

We actually have a decent fife and drum section here in New Mexico, and, at least for a while, they were pretty well known nationally. They add a ton to the experience, even from the reenactors point of view, and I'm always glad when they can make it to an event.

Given you mentioned pikemen earlier, I assume you're part of an earlier than American Civil War era re-enactment group?

I had a girlfriend whose father was in an ACW re-enactment group and even though he lived in New Jersey, he was Confederate (his car had the bumper sticker 'If at first you don't secede...').

[Gavinfoxx]

Hi there, I am trying to figure out names for several 'tiers' of a weapon for a (starting in bronze age, extending for rapidly increasing tech levels) fantasy strategy role playing game.

The idea is this:

-Primarily One Handed
-Tool-like weapon rather than weapon-like tool (ie, a weapon that happens to be useful as a tool as well)
-Wood Hafted Weapon (so it's an axe or a hammer)
-With Axehead and pick-head or warhammer-head on the other side
-Not necessarily good for throwing, but that's okay if it is

What is the lowest tech to highest tech versions of this weapon archetype? Or at least 'earliest to latest invented'?

Tomahawk? Scythian Axe? Boarding Axe? Sagaris? War Dolabra?

Help!

[warty goblin]

Hi there, I am trying to figure out names for several 'tiers' of a weapon for a (starting in bronze age, extending for rapidly increasing tech levels) fantasy strategy role playing game.

The idea is this:

-Primarily One Handed
-Tool-like weapon rather than weapon-like tool (ie, a weapon that happens to be useful as a tool as well)
-Wood Hafted Weapon (so it's an axe or a hammer)
-With Axehead and pick-head or warhammer-head on the other side
-Not necessarily good for throwing, but that's okay if it is

What is the lowest tech to highest tech versions of this weapon archetype? Or at least 'earliest to latest invented'?

Tomahawk? Scythian Axe? Boarding Axe? Sagaris? War Dolabra?

Help!

It sounds like you are talking about axes.

We tend to think of axes as always being socketed; that is made with a hole in the head through which the shaft passes. The bronze ages however saw a wide number of different strategies for securing the blade to the haft. Socketing was done, but casting a socket is a difficult undertaking. One way around this is to cut a haft that includes a fork. Cut one end long, the other short, and you can secure the blade to the short length securely to get a serviceable sort of axe.

The Egyptians made very heavy use of axes in war, and seem to have mounted them differently again. Many Egyptian axes are made with long wings or bars on the back of the head, meant to be fit into long grooves cut into the haft, and then presumably secured with rawhide or sinew.

Axes were also used in Mycenaean Greece as weapons of war, although perhaps less so than in Egypt. Mycenaean Greek warriors also employed weapons essentially indistinguishable from a medieval warhammer, presumably in a similar role.

Axes were very important through northern Europe and the British Isles as well. There's evidence that axe-heads were cult objects of some sacred power; one of the uprights at Stonehenge is carved with a large number of axe blades.

Once iron took over, I suspect that the other attachment methods rapidly died out in favor of sockets. Iron, unlike bronze, can be welded back to itself by heating it up and beating it with a hammer, which makes it possible to forge a socket into the head simply by lengthening the back, then bending it over itself.



It's also important to note that war axes are fairly different from tool axes. Axes for cutting flesh are usually much more delicate in build than a wood axe, trading durability for lightness and maneuverability. Also because trees are harder to cut than people. I suspect that if you took a felling axe into a fight, you'd get speared post haste, because the damn things are really heavy. And a few hard day's work cutting or shaping wood is likely to wreck many war axes.

[Gavinfoxx]

Not felling trees, but being at least as useful as a cutting (not stabbing) dagger for cutting saplings and stuff in a survival situation. IE, 'vaguely better than a sword' for this? Does THAT exist? Not taking a felling axe into a fight, doing minor utility work with a mainly fighting axe. I mean, if you can use a cutting dagger with a flat back for doing utility work, surely there is an axe that will work better than it?? Less axe more hatchet?

All I want is something that:

1.) Axe side is good for fighting
2.) Pick side is good for fighting
3.) Axe side is better than a sword for some sort of utility work
4.) Pick side is better than a sword for some sort of utility work

Make sense?

[Mike_G]

Not felling trees, but being at least as useful as a cutting (not stabbing) dagger for cutting saplings and stuff in a survival situation. IE, 'vaguely better than a sword' for this? Does THAT exist? Not taking a felling axe into a fight, doing minor utility work with a mainly fighting axe. I mean, if you can use a cutting dagger with a flat back for doing utility work, surely there is an axe that will work better than it?? Less axe more hatchet?

All I want is something that:

1.) Axe side is good for fighting
2.) Pick side is good for fighting
3.) Axe side is better than a sword for some sort of utility work
4.) Pick side is better than a sword for some sort of utility work

Make sense?

A tomahawk type weapon with a back spike would do fine for this. You won't be splitting a cord of wood, but you can use it at a survival tool and still fight with it.

You will probably be at a disadvantage in a fight versus any sword, purpose made just for fighting.

[Gavinfoxx]

A tomahawk type weapon with a back spike would do fine for this. You won't be splitting a cord of wood, but you can use it at a survival tool and still fight with it.

You will probably be at a disadvantage in a fight versus any sword, purpose made just for fighting.

Yes, that's the point. I was asking about various types of Tomahawks, and related weapons. Could you help me name some weapons in that family of weapons?

Hi there, I am trying to figure out names for several 'tiers' of a weapon for a (starting in bronze age, extending for rapidly increasing tech levels) fantasy strategy role playing game.
...
What is the lowest tech to highest tech versions of this weapon archetype? Or at least 'earliest to latest invented'? Tomahawk? Scythian Axe? Boarding Axe? Sagaris? War Dolabra?

[rrgg]

@endurance in medieval battles

Another thing to keep in mind is that the soldiers aren't necessarily fighting in an extremely dramatic, hollywood-style at all times either. One sort of pet theory of mine has been that many battles may have experienced lengthy periods of low energy, extemely cautious pike or spear "fencing" which, despite producing an impressive din, wasn't nearly as tiring or bloody.

[JustSomeGuy]

Being stronger is always better; the problems are when (due to diminishing returns) you have to spend more and more hours training for less improvements. For example, a regular guy could probably get to a 300lb bench, 400lb squat and 500lb deadlift in 2-3 years of lifting 3 hours a week, but for a guy to get to a 400lb bench, 500lb squat and 600lb deadlift you are looking at 4-5 hours lifting per week, and the progresion slows even more despite training longer and longer as you try to improve.

Another problem we have is the confusion people have when discussing strength - the term is terribly missused and means all kinds of things depending on who's talking and what they are talking about. The easiest way to define strength is the ability to exert against an external resistance, ie. lift heavy stuff. Not lift it fast, or over and over again and again, or lift your bodyweight, or throw/puch/sweet roundhouse moves, just move the heaviest thing you absolutely can, and that is what powerlifters do; this is maixmal strength when we are getting really specific, but in general conversation is the 'default' meaning of strength.

Of course, lifting at your limit, if you can produce x amount of muscular force and are lifting x-1 mass, it will be a very slow lift. This will strenghten muscles, bones, tendons, ligaments and help with generally being harder to hurt/injure, but will not make you fast, flexible, increase your endurance (although it will somewhat as it will make everything you do outside of lifting easier as it requires less% of your maximal strength to do), or increase your cardiorespiratory fitness much. It does heavily influence all the otehr types of strength (and many other aspects of fitness to boot), and as such is an important one to improve.

Another type of misnamed strength would be power - the ability to exert force quickly - like throwing, punching, jumping etc. where you have to be as strong as possible, but only have a split-second to create all this force before the external resistance is no longer there to be exerted against (can you jump slowly? No, you have to create as much force as possible before your feet leave the floor). This explosive strength is very useful in a combat situation, as you can litterally move quicker about your opponent and hit them harder, faster. It will lead to some improvements in your anatomy, but not as much as the strength training would, because you are subjecting it to less resistance (because you can't move soemthing fast if it's really heavy), so your body will not adapt to resist such extreme forces, because it is not required to (although the forces created in power movements can get really large, they are not at that level for very long during the lift, nor for very much of the range of movement so the full kinetic chain involved will not get the training effect as such). This goes really well with maixmal strength training as the two compliment each other, ie. by training one you will improve the other somewhat, and they have a kind of synergic effect upon each other.

A third type of misnamed strength is strength-endurance, or the ability to continually exert a submaximal force against a constant resistance. This is often encountered in actions like arm wrestling, tug-of-war, some aspects of wrestling and grappling (such as chokeholds and applying/resisting locks etc.), and also submaximal power strength (such as being able to punch effectively for twelve three minute rounds; the person who can punch well later will be at a significa advantage against the guy who tires midway throug the bout). This is a specific type of adaptation to lifting multiple repetitions, and is as much about neuromuscular efficiency and anaerobic metabolism (training the muscle fibres to fire in coordinated groups so some rest while others work and vce versa, and the ability of your body to continually supply the working tissues with all their energy needs and remove the metabolic waste from the area), and is part of what is meant when you refer to the ability to continue fighting effectively for sustained periods.

Bodyweight strength, or strength vs. size is another distinction, and although it isn't actually a type of strength per se (it is still the ability to exert force against resistance, it is just in this case the resistance is fixed as your bodyweight), it is a measure of how much stronger you are compared to your weight, affecting how powerful you are lifting yourself and how long you can do it for, or else how strong you are relative to your size. Because force production relies primarily upon muscle size, and muscle contractile force is perfomed by the muscle fibres, the cross-section (or two-dimensional area) of a muscle is a fair indicator of it's force production potential - however, the muscle itself will grow in three dimensions, so you will get stronger squared vs. getting heavier cubed, which is why, relatively, smaller lifters are stronger than larger ones, despite subjectively the reverse being true. It also gives a clue as to why (apart from training methology, resources, diet, goals, time constraints and specialisation) soldiers and the like are not all hulking behemoths - they tend to have a set weight to carry/move, but mostly for extended durations, so they adapt to lifting that load. Also, they are kind of self-selcted against the giants because of these parameters (overall, a 350lb strongman would make a poor soldier because of the above problems, although they can make for an exellent fighter, the demands are two completely different kettle of fish).

I have typed this all from the top of my head, so it no doubt is not as accurate as would be ideal, but it gives you all some idea of the topic. There are many other factors involved, an example being flexibilty and why powerlifters, bodybuilders and the like get stuck with being the default 'muscle bound creaky-old wrecks' end of the spectrum:

They train specifically for their sports, and only aim to be as flexible as required to succeed, generally. Anything past that would be a waste of their time and could even impair their performance (for example, a powerlifter will often be as flexible in the hamstrings as they need to be s othey can squat to parallel - if they further trained their hamstring flexibilty, they would not get as much of a 'bounce' - or stretch reflex - from their hamstrings at the bottom position of the parallel squat, which would reduce their poundage. You could argue that they should be squatting below parallel, but it is uneccesary further range of motion during a competitive lift that they needn't perform, and one of the distinctions of lifting for health & fitness vs. lifting for sport). Additionally, they often get compared to gymnasts and the like, who dedicate many more training hours to flexiblity, as it translates to better athelitic performance for them. A strong man could quite easily become very flexible if they chose to dedicate the time and adaptative ability towards it (indeed many do, an example that springs to mind would be Mirco Cro-cop's high kicks, or Jean Claude Van Damme), so strength doesn't equate to inflexibility as much as most laymen imagine it would - although there is some restriction around a joint where the added tissue mass impedes upon itself, it doesn't make much defference because a) muscles and tendons are squishy, b) most of the mass increase is at the muscle belly, not the joints, and c) who really needs to be at the extremes of human flexibility, when they would be better off spending their time improving another aspect of fitness or sport/combat secific training - similar to the extremes of maximal strength, it gets to a point where the benefits do not justify the time~effort costs.

Again, as it is all written as i pull it out of my backside, the language and terminology is probably not as precise as the topic requires, so if any parts do not read cleary i am happy to clarify anything, which being it's own neat little summary will probably be easier to both write and read!

[Galloglaich]

Regarding katzbaglers, Francesco Patrizi (1595) didn't have much nice to say about them.

Wow... reading that thread gave me such a headache. A good example of everything which is potentially great about HEMA forums, and everything that ... isn't. In the same convenient package.

G

[Janus]

Wow... reading that thread gave me such a headache. A good example of everything which is potentially great about HEMA forums, and everything that ... isn't. In the same convenient package.

G

I haven't even read the thread and already I have an idea of what I'll see.

Speaking of HEMA forums, another is http://www.thearma.org/forum/

[Gavinfoxx]

You should see gun forums! I found a hilarious thread that is the sort of parody of the intersection of the terrible threads you find on the internet...

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/129...um_Debate.html