Posts: 15 Location: Ulm, Germany
Mon 25 Feb, 2008 1:21 pm
Hey Chad:
Did those weapons really work? I know some of them look realy mean, but when talking about tools is much better a drill to make holes, a hammer to strike and a carton knife to cut than a single electric motor that dives a drill, a cutting blade and a compressed air hammer, because a design for a single use is far more reliable.
Posts: 15 Location: Ulm, Germany
Mon 25 Feb, 2008 1:29 pm
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: |
| According to Garcilaso de la Vega, the Amerindians in Florida had all types of weapons known to Spanish save the crossbow and gun. This includes pikes (picas), spears (lancas), partisans (partefanas), and two-handed swords (montante). However, they preferred bows and arrows. |
When they say two-handed swords (montante) they actually mean the big stick I was talking about. Amerindians actualy did not know how to work on metals, so they were not able to make a big mean and rough swiss/german sword like those of the Landsknechten, which is more like a montante.
Posts: 15 Location: Ulm, Germany
Mon 25 Feb, 2008 1:38 pm
| Anders Backlund wrote: |
| Actually, obsidian is a type of volcanic glass. Hence it's very hard, but not at all strong. It is true obsidian blades are sharper then steel but they were also extremely fragile. In fact, I belive the Aztec warrior would have carried extra blades to replace those that would be broken in battle. |
Because of that it was not easy for them to hurt a Spaniard on armor, even more because the conquistadores had big mean muskets. But I think is rather improbable to take a break on a battle to change some obsidian blades from your weapon, because there is always a man ready to crack your head with his own weapon.
Posts: 1,248 Location: New Mexico
Mon 25 Feb, 2008 1:47 pm
| Quote: |
| When they say two-handed swords (montante) they actually mean the big stick I was talking about. Amerindians actualy did not know how to work on metals, so they were not able to make a big mean and rough swiss/german sword like those of the Landsknechten, which is more like a montante. |
Yes, I know that. The point is that apparently had a great variety of weapons, though the bow and arrow dominated. Because of their lack of armor, it's easy to see why they chose the bow. A pike or partisan won't save you from an arrow, regardless of whether it has a steel head.
Posts: 629 Location: Sweden
Mon 25 Feb, 2008 1:55 pm
| Otto Karl wrote: |
Hey Chad:
Did those weapons really work? I know some of them look realy mean, but when talking about tools is much better a drill to make holes, a hammer to strike and a carton knife to cut than a single electric motor that dives a drill, a cutting blade and a compressed air hammer, because a design for a single use is far more reliable. |
From what I've heard, combination weapons were relatively rare oddities that were often never put to much use. But that's no reason to think they wouldn't work. It's really the same principle as the bayonette, only somewhat downsized.
| Otto Karl wrote: |
Because of that it was not easy for them to hurt a Spaniard on armor, even more because the conquistadores had big mean muskets. But I think is rather improbable to take a break on a battle to change some obsidian blades from your weapon, because there is always a man ready to crack your head with his own weapon. |
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I naturally meant that they would replace the damaged blades after the battle.
Posts: 159 Location: Metrowest Boston
Mon 25 Feb, 2008 2:18 pm
The ancient Hawai'ians used ironwood as both a club and to make a blade (I know it sounds strange... until you actually encounter ironwood!).
I hoped I would find an image online via the Bishop Museum, but I cannot locate one.
But that's always an avenue.
You
cannot post new topics in this forum
You
cannot reply to topics in this forum
You
cannot edit your posts in this forum
You
cannot delete your posts in this forum
You
cannot vote in polls in this forum
You
cannot attach files in this forum
You
can download files in this forum