Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Zeetha's sword- Patah...

Expand Messages
  • Steve Corbett
    Hm, I need to get in here more often.... Okay- I do not have issue #11, so I need to see it again to be sure whats going on. However, Zeetha s weapon that is
    Message 1 of 21 , Sep 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Hm, I need to get in here more often....

      Okay-
      I do not have issue #11, so I need to see it again to be sure whats
      going on.

      However, Zeetha's weapon that is visible poking up over her shoulder
      in issue #12 is a patah- (Not sure I have it spelled right,) an
      Indian gauntlet sword.

      Its pretty much a long, sword type blade with a full guard over the
      back of the hand and wrist.

      They were originally made for hunting- a Noble's weapon.

      However, I can tell you from my experience as a former SCA hardsuit
      fighter that someone with a katar OR a patah is really hard to
      fight, and really fast and tricky to block or parry.

      Both weapons are deceptive in both reach and how they come at you;
      and unless you are REAL familiar with them already, theres a rather
      good chance that even if you have years of experience and are really
      good with traditional swords that they will surprise you- and kill
      you in about 2 seconds....

      -Badger-
      Ex-SCA fighter, ex-custom knifemaker and student in
      primitive/medieval weapons with around 30 years research.






      --- In girlgenius@yahoogroups.com, "pmaclanderson"
      <pmaclanderson@y...> wrote:
      > Going back and looking at GG ##11, p.12, suggests that Zeetha's
      > weapons *do* have guards almost equivalent to Western
      crosspieces -
      > at least her righthand weapon does. The left-hand double-bladed
      > weapon Phil goes back and forth on, as I see it; but it may not
      need
      > a cross-guard. If you don't catch your enemy's weapon between the
      > blades, you're parrying wrong.
      >
      > Most of the katars I found on the net don't have crosspieces, or
      the
      > hemispherical hand guards Zeetha uses. I assume Phil wanted
      Princess
      > Zeetha to have better weapons.
      >
      > --- In girlgenius@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Kronengold <mneme@i...>
      > wrote:
      >
      > >
      > > [er, and while having a blade with no guard is quite dangerous,
      you
      > > certainly -can- parry with it, though you'll want to favor
      > the "beat"
      > > style of parry (ie, parry as cut), not a high-contact parry.]
      > >
      > > Josh, who has also done a bit of fencing in his days (and studied
      > > Italian rapier, foil, and a bit of Italian Sabre for about 3
      years).
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
    • d_crom
      ... shoulder ... really ... I defer to your experience - my SCA fighting experience was both less extensive and further back than yours, by the sound of it. By
      Message 2 of 21 , Sep 1, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In girlgenius@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Corbett" <ironbadger@y...>
        wrote:
        > Hm, I need to get in here more often....
        >
        > Okay-
        > I do not have issue #11, so I need to see it again to be sure whats
        > going on.
        >
        > However, Zeetha's weapon that is visible poking up over her
        shoulder
        > in issue #12 is a patah- (Not sure I have it spelled right,) an
        > Indian gauntlet sword.
        >
        > Its pretty much a long, sword type blade with a full guard over the
        > back of the hand and wrist.
        >
        > They were originally made for hunting- a Noble's weapon.
        >
        > However, I can tell you from my experience as a former SCA hardsuit
        > fighter that someone with a katar OR a patah is really hard to
        > fight, and really fast and tricky to block or parry.
        >
        > Both weapons are deceptive in both reach and how they come at you;
        > and unless you are REAL familiar with them already, theres a rather
        > good chance that even if you have years of experience and are
        really
        > good with traditional swords that they will surprise you- and kill
        > you in about 2 seconds....
        >
        > -Badger-
        > Ex-SCA fighter, ex-custom knifemaker and student in
        > primitive/medieval weapons with around 30 years research.

        I defer to your experience - my SCA fighting experience was both less
        extensive and further back than yours, by the sound of it. By the
        look of things, I would have assumed otherwise, but actual experience
        trumps theory every time.

        I'm curious, though. I can see what you're saying regarding attack -
        but how are they on defense? And how much training do they take to
        be effective?

        Not that it matters for Zeetha - she *is* a noble with years of
        experience. But it should be interesting to see if Zeetha will be
        teaching Agatha her own style or something more conventional.
      • Mary Lowe-Hentges
        The left-hand double-bladed weapon Phil goes back and forth on, as I see it; What makes you say she has only one left-handed weapon? Sure, ther may be a
        Message 3 of 21 , Sep 4, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          "The left-hand double-bladed weapon Phil goes back and forth on, as I see it;"

          What makes you say she has only one left-handed weapon? Sure, ther may be a favourite, but what about multi-cross-training?


          Annechen Loewenstein
          non scripta non est

          ---------------------------------
          Do you Yahoo!?
          Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Mary Lowe-Hentges
          I defer to your experience - my SCA fighting experience was both less extensive and further back than yours, by the sound of it. By the look of things, I
          Message 4 of 21 , Sep 4, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            "I defer to your experience - my SCA fighting experience was both less extensive and further back than yours, by the sound of it. By the look of things, I would have assumed otherwise, but actual experience trumps theory every time."

            Or a quote heard in this part of Meridies (usually from Uncle Padruig) "Age and treachery will overcome youth and skill"




            Annechen Loewenstein
            non scripta non est

            ---------------------------------
            Do you Yahoo!?
            Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • pmaclanderson
            Two reasons: When her hands are empty, I see two hilts; when her hands are full, she s showing no hilts - so the weapons in her hands are the ones which were
            Message 5 of 21 , Sep 10, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Two reasons:

              When her hands are empty, I see two hilts; when her hands are full,
              she's showing no hilts - so the weapons in her hands are the ones
              which were visible on her back.

              I'm discussing adjacent panels on the same page, so she's not going
              back to her wagon and changing weapons.

              There may be a good explanation other than continuity glitch
              (retractable crossguard, maybe; but why build such a thing?); but it
              can't be a trivial one.




              --- In girlgenius@yahoogroups.com, Mary Lowe-Hentges
              <annechen67@y...> wrote:
              > "The left-hand double-bladed weapon Phil goes back and forth on, as
              I see it;"
              >
              > What makes you say she has only one left-handed weapon? Sure, ther
              may be a favourite, but what about multi-cross-training?
              >
              >
              > Annechen Loewenstein
              > non scripta non est
              >
              > ---------------------------------
              > Do you Yahoo!?
              > Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • lordamber1985
              ... Most shields were designed for one of two uses, anti-missile (arrow, javelin, etc.) or anti-sword. The design considerations are different for each, and
              Message 6 of 21 , Sep 17, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In girlgenius@yahoogroups.com, "gizmo_tinkerer"
                <Cyb0Au0Dragon215@A...> wrote:

                > I am told using
                > metal swords against wooden shields often chews up a wooden shield
                > per battle. Metal rims are supposed to slow, but not stop, the
                > deterioration in battle. Since it is easier to teach shield work,
                > and cheaper to make wooden shields, the Romans were very successful
                > in using the tower shield, short swords and javelins.

                Most shields were designed for one of two uses, anti-missile (arrow,
                javelin, etc.) or anti-sword. The design considerations are
                different for each, and usually did not overlap.

                An anti-arrow design is large, lightweight, and often dropped when
                time comes for melee, it just gets in the way at that stage. Many
                shields of this type were nothing more than a light wood or wicker
                frame covered in hide. No metal at all, and dangerous to the user in
                melee, but surprisingly good at stopping arrows, particularly at
                range.

                The anti-sword design was smaller and denser, it needed to be easier
                to maneuver to deal with the speed of melee combat, strong enough to
                take a hit, and light enough to carry through an entire fight. It
                also needed to *not* block the users line of sight. It was common to
                use a light, soft wood to make the body of the shield, and then add a
                metal rim to reinforce it. This kept the weight down, as opposed to
                denser woods or metal construction. The shield was usually destroyed
                during prolonged combat, but was cheap and easy to replace. It also
                had the side benefit that an enemy's weapon could 'hang' on the
                shield, slowing him down on the recovery.

                The roman tower shield was an oddball cross between the two. It was
                large enough to serve as an effective missile barrier, but was sturdy
                enough to use in melee. It was also suicidal to do, unless you had a
                great deal of skill and discipline, and a lot of friends around.
                Roman tactics centered around formation combat, which was far more
                revolutionary than their equipment. Their shields worked because
                they were suited to the kind of combat they waged. The romans
                legions were at their worst in the the kind of general melee that
                medieval anti-sword shields were designed to be used in.

                > This also
                > allowed the Romans to stretch their supply of metal.
                >
                > -Gizmo

                Particularly since the metal rim was often of low quality metals.
                Stuff you wouldn't make weapons out of.

                Yah, I know, I skipped about a thousand details and variations in
                there. I'm not trying to write a book, just make a comment. :)

                -- Sean
                Who likes to occasionally pretend to be a know-it-all, but is mostly
                a know-enough-not-to-flunk.

                He's hoping to upgrade to know-enough-to-be-dangerous one of these
                days...
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.