I'd like to read them. Can you link a load?
Medieval Weapons
- Thread starter sHo0sH
- Start date
I'd like to read them. Can you link a load?
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,758
- Location
- Auckland
In this thread, everyone is Castiel. Just think about that for a minute 
For some reason that question has got my interest. My guess is that gorillas can't swim because they're too heavy for the bouyancy they'd have...
...and it seems my guess is wrong. Gorillas don't swim in the wild, don't instinctively swim, strongly avoid water unless they are sure it's shallow and they're physiologically unsuited to swimming, but the prevailing opinion is that a gorilla is physically capable of swimming and could learn to do so.
Neither you nor anyone else knows the lengths of all the items referred to as staffs in court records. Records made by a clerk who would probably not be familiar with weapons. In a context where the details of the weapon didn't matter, since murder was murder regardless of the weapon used.
A staff twelve or fourteen feet long would be the same length regardless of whether or not a pike was next to it. A person in England in those days would be able to understand a length of 12 or 14 feet without needing a comparison to a pike (which would be less familiar to most of them, not more). I think the meaning of the quote is less clear than you think it is.
"civil disturbance" does not mean "only spontaneous fighting between two people". There were riots. There were pre-arranged murders. There were duels.
He did not describe all staffs in all time. He described a specific type of staff at a specific time, according to his own opinion of the correct length. And it was his opinion of the correct length and not simply a description, since in practice the length varied a great deal. The two descriptions of staff length you quoted only match up for a a person at least 10 feet tall.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,599
I shall have a quick look around if/when I get the time, see if there's much to be linked, but a lot of records will still be on microfiche or even paper in local burial registers, county and National archives. You might find some useful summations though, from the books and articles of those who have already done a lot of research and reading, especially helpful as many earlier records were still written in Latin.
Other sources will usually require you to either visit in person or register an account, both of which often costs money, although some are free.
Apparently Nottinghamshire county published a lot of medieval records at one stage, as various people cite this...
"In the 103 cases of murder and manslaughter presented to the coroners of Nottinghamshire between 1485 and 1558 the staff figured in 53, usually as the sole fatal weapon. The sword, in contrast, accounted for only 9 victims and 1 accidental death".
I don't have account access to Nottingham archive, but the Calendar of Nottinghamshire Coroners Inquests covering 1485-1558 and should be relatively easy to pin down, if you don't mind buying a copy.
Suffolk and Middlesex county archives are pretty easy to register with and (IIRC) free, too.
Things like this are what you're looking for:
Coroners' Rolls 1265-1413 AD:
https://archive.org/stream/selectcasesfromc00seldrich/selectcasesfromc00seldrich_djvu.txt
Coroners Rolls London 1300-1378 AD:
https://archive.org/stream/calendarofcorone00shariala/calendarofcorone00shariala_djvu.txt
You're right, they must all have been 6" chopsticks.....!!
So which of these records have you actually read, then, anyway, or is this just another assumption?
Clerks completely unfamiliar with weapons, despite likely carrying such things themselves and even recording the very monetary values of them? Makes no sense...
Even stranger that we have clerks' mentions of the shortstaff, longstaff, balstaff, or balghstaff, otherwise known as balkstaff, distaff, piked staff, a dorbar or dorstaff, wombedstaff a variety of the bedstaff, a crutchstaff or potentstaff, tipstaff, and the plain old quarterstaff... loads of different terms, all for the one 2' weapon? Why so many specific words all meaning the same thing at the same time, especially when being so specific about all other details.... ? Why not also terms like club or cudgel, if there's no difference to be drawn? Again, makes no sense.
As for the exact details of the weapon, a lot can be gleaned, specifically things like intent to murder. Carrying a common crutch or quarterstaff suggests the defendant was far less likely to be intending harm than walking round toting a military billhook or sword and buckler, for example.
It is often suggested the longstaff was akin to a pike anyway, perhaps based upon it or simply a common comparison. The fact that someone would need to specify between shortstaff and longstaff anyway highlights a difference worth their mentioning.
But more fundamentally, this is a book about England. Why would a person of England need to have their own land described to them? The target audience is obviously someone NOT familiar with England, but likely still familiar with a pike... such as the Swiss and Germans whose military and mercenary fighters were quite famed for their pikemen at one stage, for example.
So again, the point being made is of these staves being that much longer by comparison, when a pike was already considered a pretty long weapon.
The vast majority of coroner rolls *do* detail quite spontaneous fighting, though, most commonly between neighbouring landowners, between farmers and tresspassers, and general arguments in the street.
Duels? LOL!!!
Most of those are matters of nobility, not even needing a record of inquiry or a coroner, as they were arranged in advance and documented by witnesses at the time, often being fought publicly with many more witnesses. No-one needs to know what happened, as it's already written down pretty clearly.
Again, with your chopsticks....
He described the best length based on the science of the fight between it and other weapons, with the reasons behind it also given. He then described other types of staff and the differences between them.
Then the same must be true for arrow length, despite there being just as much explanation and reasoning behind their specific lengths, no?
No.
It's quite simple - Unless you are insanely tall or short, there is an ideal length for your weapon and anything outside of that measure prevents you from using that weapon effectively against those others you would usually encounter. Silver then goes on to state that this ideal length is commonly within a certain range.
This is not his opinion, it's a description of what people are already doing.
Say WHAAAAAAT???!!!
Either you didn't actually read the description, then, or you failed basic maths - Which is it?
Seriously, how on earth did you figure that one out?
Full of baloney?In this thread, everyone is Castiel. Just think about that for a minute
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
Wiki warriors with self proclaimed 'expertise and training'. Though it does seem at east some of the posters are just humouring the others.
I personally have respect for people who can play with foam swords as an adult and not give a **** what others think of them.
I prefer foam bananas. Mmmm.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,599
You know better?
I mean better than imagining how arrows that punch through plate steel cannot similarly puncture thin bear hides, that is...
Step on up, then, show us what you got... be my guest.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
I would say the recreational hunters i linked and quoted who have experience in taking down big game with arrows know much more than a guy acting like his +7 Iron sword will slay anything the internet has to offer 
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,599
And again, draw weight differences between the two types of bow (especially medieval versions) do not at all correlate with what each projectile inflicts at the target end, as already explained and cited, with the 68lb bow easily matching the 740lb cranequin output.I would say the recreational hunters i linked and quoted who have experience in taking down big game with arrows know much more than a guy acting like his +7 Iron sword will slay anything the internet has to offer
Sounds like you failed your Int and Wis dice checks there, Paladin...
He took a sword to a stick fight.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
I lol'd
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,758
- Location
- Auckland
That's why you get paid the big bucks Edrof
I'm not going to bother rehashing the rest, but this is sort of new and very simple to address.
From reading the descriptions you quoted and being able to do basic maths.
One of the descriptions stated the writer's opinion regarding the length of a quarterstaff, which was based on the wielder's height and described well enough to be used. It also states that this measurement would usually result in a staff between 8 and 9 feet long, depending on the height and arm length of the wielder.
The other one stated another writer's opinion regarding the length of a quarterstaff, which was between 12 and 14 feet long.
This is a difference of between 3 and 6 feet. It's somewhat bizarre that you claim I failed basic maths or didn't read the descriptions when you apparently can't subtract 9 from 12 or 8 from 14 or notice a difference between them.
Two assumptions are reasonable for a rough estimate:
i) The proportion of arm length to height is fairly close to being constant in humans.
ii) Since the first description was based on the wielder's height and said the length of the staff would commonly fall within a range between 8 and 9 feet, the 8' result would be for a man a bit over 5' tall and the 9' result for a man about 6' tall (not a foot taller, since a taller man would also have longer arms), i.e. the range in which the height of a man would usually be. The average height of men in late 16th century England was only slightly lower than it is now. 5'8" or thereabouts.
So in order to get a length of 12 to 14 feet from the method in the first description, the person would have to be a very great deal taller than average. 12' would require the wielder to have a height plus arm length 3 feet longer than a man ~6 feet tall and the 14' length would require the wielder to have a height plus arm length 5 feet longer than a man ~6 feet tall. So at least 8 feet tall at the lower end and at least 10 feet tall at the higher end.
In short, I figured it out by reading the descriptions you quoted and doing some basic maths.
From reading the descriptions you quoted and being able to do basic maths.
One of the descriptions stated the writer's opinion regarding the length of a quarterstaff, which was based on the wielder's height and described well enough to be used. It also states that this measurement would usually result in a staff between 8 and 9 feet long, depending on the height and arm length of the wielder.
The other one stated another writer's opinion regarding the length of a quarterstaff, which was between 12 and 14 feet long.
This is a difference of between 3 and 6 feet. It's somewhat bizarre that you claim I failed basic maths or didn't read the descriptions when you apparently can't subtract 9 from 12 or 8 from 14 or notice a difference between them.
Two assumptions are reasonable for a rough estimate:
i) The proportion of arm length to height is fairly close to being constant in humans.
ii) Since the first description was based on the wielder's height and said the length of the staff would commonly fall within a range between 8 and 9 feet, the 8' result would be for a man a bit over 5' tall and the 9' result for a man about 6' tall (not a foot taller, since a taller man would also have longer arms), i.e. the range in which the height of a man would usually be. The average height of men in late 16th century England was only slightly lower than it is now. 5'8" or thereabouts.
So in order to get a length of 12 to 14 feet from the method in the first description, the person would have to be a very great deal taller than average. 12' would require the wielder to have a height plus arm length 3 feet longer than a man ~6 feet tall and the 14' length would require the wielder to have a height plus arm length 5 feet longer than a man ~6 feet tall. So at least 8 feet tall at the lower end and at least 10 feet tall at the higher end.
In short, I figured it out by reading the descriptions you quoted and doing some basic maths.
Last edited:
You know better?
I mean better than imagining how arrows that punch through plate steel cannot similarly puncture thin bear hides, that is...
Step on up, then, show us what you got... be my guest.
People wore plate armour because it worked. Nobody would have bothered otherwise - it was very expensive and somewhat encumbering (though nowhere near as much as it's often portrayed as being in modern times).
A very direct hit at close range...maybe, although I think even if the plate was penetrated it would probably slow and deform the arrow enough for the injury to be minor (with the arrow probably not penetrating the arming garment). Otherwise, no. The arrow would usually be deflected because plate armour was very carefully designed to have as few flat surfaces as possible (and the later, most advanced plate armour had none at all).
Arrows from a war-grade longbow were formidable, but there are limits.
Of course, if you're shooting an arrow at close range into a thin flat plate of relatively soft steel you might well get dramatic penetration. But that's not plate armour. Good for fabricating "evidence" of how bows were supermega weapons of unstoppable force, though.
That's why you get paid the big bucks Edrof
You know it, bebeh.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,599
You assume these are opinions, rather than actual observations, where it's quite reasonable to assume that they are both writing objectively to describe as accurately as possible the world around them, since that is their intended purpose.
In the case of Silver, it is an instruction on the ideal length, same way as a properly tailored suit with have ideal measurements, based on the user. Silver also make mention of longer variants that he makes clear are in use but are also not of the ideal length.
In the case of Harrison, it is an observation of people intentionally choosing a weapon outside the ideal measurements, which is the main reason he draws attention to it and its frequency in the first place. Since it has already been pointed out that these are longer than the ideal (and by Silver's description, closer to a longstaff than a quarterstaff), one might assume you would factor this into you maths...
So in short, you didn't read the description.
It worked in some circumstances. But plate armour kept changing, too. Why would it do that, if it worked so well, do you think?
Why are there various designs of plate bodkin arrows throughout the centuries, if they didn't work?
Why are people fighting with useless weapons, having their population train every Sunday from the age of 7, in the use of a pointless weapon, if they didn't work?
Why are the English famed for their useless weapons?
Makes no sense...
For the nobility commanding, yeah plate was the order of the day... but the vast majority of their soldiers would have a cuirass over a gambeson, with maybe some maille between, and a sallet or similar helmet upon their noggin. The front line infantry did not fight in full plate, or anything close. Those are the main lot you need to kill, but if you happen to peg one of the nobs, it's OK... it's preferable to capture your enemy Nobs, though, as they're worth money in ransom.
Couple hundred yards, apparently... Remember that arrows tend to go up before hammering down, especially in long range volley fire.
But talk to Steve Ralphs for more detailed explanations and videos on the capabilities of longbow arrows and their penetrations. He's already done the work behind the research and is a far greater expert on the matter.
Numerous vids online showing a penetration of 9" or more, through plate and gambeson beneath.
Actually there have been several vids, including a hilarious one by Lee Ermey I believe, showing arrows bouncing off sheet steel, but then penetrating that steel once it's reformed into a breastplate. The curves in this instance prevent the armour flexing inward, which is good for impact protection against polearms and the like but is also precisely what allows the arrow to punch through. Same reason people started putting spikes on their billhooks and maces.
Nope. The flat plate flexes and absorbs the arrow's impact, often repulsing it entirely.
Curved plate gets punched through.
Plenty of vids online.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,341
plate armour and the weapons to punch it evolved, in an arms race, until ofc the gun came along and tipped that race heavily in favour of the weapon.
thing is, whilst sure plate armour might not be proof against a good hit from a good bow, i'm pretty sure i'd rather face getting shot at in plate armour over the gambesons/mail of the time, given it'll still reflect a blow mail wouldnt.
it's like saying there's no point in wearing modern body armour because there's plenty of common battlefield weapons will go straight through it, but eliminating 50% of potential lethal shots is better than elminiating 0%
thing is, whilst sure plate armour might not be proof against a good hit from a good bow, i'm pretty sure i'd rather face getting shot at in plate armour over the gambesons/mail of the time, given it'll still reflect a blow mail wouldnt.
it's like saying there's no point in wearing modern body armour because there's plenty of common battlefield weapons will go straight through it, but eliminating 50% of potential lethal shots is better than elminiating 0%