Re: (TFT) Reality vs. Game Mechanics

[raito@raito.com]

I wouldn't say better. Weapons get designed for the style of fighting 
they're expected to be used in. 

For example, an ax has most of the weight out at one end. This makes it 
easier to chop with. Not as much talked about is that that also makes 
it easier to do a static block with (because it moves the center of 
percussion). That really just means that it's harder to move the blade 
out of the way when you whack at it with your weapon. 

Chopping swords, like the falchion, also have the weight out near the 
point to add oomph to a cutting blow. 

As the center of mass gets closer to the hand, that oomph is lessened, 
but the ability to move the point gets easier. For example, the modern 
foil has a center of mass practically inside the hand that holds it, 
which makes its tip highly maneuverable. 

But in most cases the center of balance of rapiers and non-rapiers 
seems to be about a hand's width in front of the guard (that data comes 
from recalling a tabel fo data from a friend in Texas who's a lot more 
into rapiers than I am), which is also about where the balance falls 
with the period weapons I have handled, backed up by those few studies 
on that sort of measurement. I think center of mass is also one of the 
suggested measurements that the Oakeshott likes. 

I think that with the longer blade, the heavier hilt counterbalances 
the extra length. Compared to other single-handed swords, the rapiers 
do tend to be narrower and longer. 

It's hard to say better. We know that period fencing manuals do have 
cuts in them. We also know that some of the masters didn't like to do 
them, preferring the thrust as the faster attack. Certainly, having the 
balance near the hand makes the tip more maneuverable, but if it gets 
too close it's too easy for the other guy to move your point around. 

I'll also note that there are examples from history where men are 
encouraged to leave their rapiers at home in time of war, and to bring 
along more suitable weapons (for Silver, that was the backsword). The 
rapier was definitely a civil weapon, and for unarmoured combat, a 
weapon with a more maneuverable tip works better because the human body 
cuts very easily. Even when armour was in fashion in the early 15th 
century, the sword for two hands that Fiore teaches had begun to taper 
considerably more than previously. The reasons for this are twofold: 
first, the sword really doesn't cut plate. Fiore himself bemoans the 
fact that the rich guys he was teaching didn't learn to parry because 
their armour could take the punishment. So in armoured combat, you're 
using the sword more as a pointed crowbar than a cutting weapons, using 
the point to do injury between the armour plates and such. The second 
is that in unarmoured combat, a more maneuverable blade is useful 
because you don't need to hit a human very hard with a sword to cut 
him. In this, Fiore describes different systems of techniques for 
fighting in armour or out of armour. But according to him, they're all 
based in wrestling anyway. 

Neil Gilmore
raito@raito.com

Quoting Joey Beutel <mejobo@comcast.net>:
> Ah, the hilt.... just the blade, I'd imagine them to be rather similar
> by length (every sword is different in exact measurements, of course). 
> But I suppose the hilt would cause a big difference... and wouldn't
> that affect the center of balance, and the sword's handling? Is a
> rapier better in this way?
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"