Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jungeon you argue by assertion and wrongheadedly too. When shown examples of truth rather than refute them you simply deny them vehemently and blunder on. Your post is so full of untruths one hardly knows where to start.
Tell ya what, do a little more reading; no, much more.
You argue, but you ignore the facts that iklawa goes through chain mail,, would not matter how many rivets it did have. What you don't understand is that the rivets make 0 difference in an iklaw. Why? because the iklaw goes through the link in the chain mail, which even riveted chain mail has, and breaks it open. You want to believe that riveted chain mail is impenetrable. Thats a fantasy. The long bow destroyed the knight and made chain mail absoulutlty useless. This is why the knight became obsolete. If you want to ignore the obvious historical fact that chain mail went out of use because it was defenseless to bows, and knives that we stabbing not slashing weapons, go ahead. But it doesn't make you right.
I point the same of your post. I understand the armour was unriveted, but it would make no difference. Riveted armour could not even defend from a bow and arrow thats why it went out of use. If I am wrong, then explain why no one wears riveted armour? explain why the knight became obsolete with the long bow?
You argue, but you ignore the facts that iklawa goes through chain mail,, would not matter how many rivets it did have. What you don't understand is that the rivets make 0 difference in an iklaw. Why? because the iklaw goes through the link in the chain mail, which even riveted chain mail has, and breaks it open. You want to believe that riveted chain mail is impenetrable. Thats a fantasy. The long bow destroyed the knight and made chain mail absoulutlty useless. This is why the knight became obsolete. If you want to ignore the obvious historical fact that chain mail went out of use because it was defenseless to bows, and knives that we stabbing not slashing weapons, go ahead. But it doesn't make you right.
I point the same of your post. I understand the armour was unriveted, but it would make no difference. Riveted armour could not even defend from a bow and arrow thats why it went out of use. If I am wrong, then explain why no one wears riveted armour? explain why the knight became obsolete with the long bow?
The knight became obsolete because of firearms, not because of bows and arrows. Plate armor came into common use because of the longbow. The way you have this framed, it's like saying "how can you ignore the historical fact that Santa Claus killed JFK?"
The big question of riveted vs. unriveted really comes down to HOW the stabbing weapon would penetrate chain mail. In unriveted mail, the point makes the initial penetration within the link, at which point the blade acts as a wedge that spreads the link apart, thus penetrating the mail shirt and the person wearing that. It was a common problem in spear fighting, which is a thrusting and jabbing weapon. One way to prevent that from happening was to rivet each link of the mail shirt closed. Since the link is actually riveted closed rather than simply pinched together, the risk of the link itself actually spreading open was greatly reduced. The main purpose for mail was to create a defense against slashing and most hand-held stabbing weapons. A high-speed arrow has one big anti-mail benefit against chain mail:
Arrowheads are small and weak.
It doesn't take nearly as much energy to push a small, bendable object through a small hole in one ring than it does to push a larger object through the same small hole. Further, the more the ring has to spread, the more the other rings in the mail shirt support the first ring and prevent further damage.
Finally, a medieval warrior fenced all the time. That was his job. This doesn't mean donning a white suit and whacking foils together, it meant training in combat with the total variety of hand-held pointed and edged weapons, from axes to daggers to broadswords halberds to spears. These guys weren't out there just swinging bits of sharp metal at each other, there was a method and technique employed. The Iklwa wouldn't have been any sort of game-changer for somebody like Wallace; he was trained to fight against spears (which were, after all, the most common early medieval weapon) and all other manner of weapons of the time. To imply that Wallace wouldn't be able to defend himself from an Iklwa attack is to imply that he basically fought like the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
Say your going to stab me in the torso with a bayonnet. The zulu martial art allowed for you to deflect a spear, bayonnet, with a foot. Realize the guns where long rifles usually and took a fair amount of time to reload. It was after a shot was fired the bayonnet would be used on a zulu if he was right infront of you. The brit goes to stab him and he can kick away the gun, if he is right infront of it or he can deflect it with a kick down or jump up and kick it as well.
Your little theories would be of little solace to the many Zulus who actually were bayoneted by the Brits, many of whom were run through the head and throat. Regardless of the fantasies you weave the Zulus were often shy of closing with British infantry and suffered when they did.
Say your going to stab me in the torso with a bayonnet. The zulu martial art allowed for you to deflect a spear, bayonnet, with a foot. Realize the guns where long rifles usually and took a fair amount of time to reload. It was after a shot was fired the bayonnet would be used on a zulu if he was right infront of you. The brit goes to stab him and he can kick away the gun, if he is right infront of it or he can deflect it with a kick down or jump up and kick it as well.
I sent a direct message to someone on this board saying that i'm finished with this board now.
But i felt i needed to post 1 more message.
Where the hell did the Zulus learn martial art???
The Zulus were bare footed, I'm guessing a full kick to the rifle would have caused server pain if not broken bones.
If i was you, i'd choose another topic to talk about, because you aint got a clue about the Anglo/Zulu war.
I sent a direct message to someone on this board saying that i'm finished with this board now.
But i felt i needed to post 1 more message.
Where the hell did the Zulus learn martial art???
The Zulus were bare footed, I'm guessing a full kick to the rifle would have caused server pain if not broken bones.
If i was you, i'd choose another topic to talk about, because you aint got a clue about the Anglo/Zulu war.
I think you are confused the zulu had their own form of martial arts, that was based on hand to hand combat with weapons. The zulus trained running through sharp thorn bushes and coul block out pain. If you think a little bayonet would hurt a zulu your mad, anyone who has been in a knife knows its damn near impossible not to cut unles s you very skilled which they were
Your little theories would be of little solace to the many Zulus who actually were bayoneted by the Brits, many of whom were run through the head and throat. Regardless of the fantasies you weave the Zulus were often shy of closing with British infantry and suffered when they did.
You keep dreaming that the bayonett is an easy weapon to deflect
The knight became obsolete because of firearms, not because of bows and arrows. Plate armor came into common use because of the longbow. The way you have this framed, it's like saying "how can you ignore the historical fact that Santa Claus killed JFK?"
The big question of riveted vs. unriveted really comes down to HOW the stabbing weapon would penetrate chain mail. In unriveted mail, the point makes the initial penetration within the link, at which point the blade acts as a wedge that spreads the link apart, thus penetrating the mail shirt and the person wearing that. It was a common problem in spear fighting, which is a thrusting and jabbing weapon. One way to prevent that from happening was to rivet each link of the mail shirt closed. Since the link is actually riveted closed rather than simply pinched together, the risk of the link itself actually spreading open was greatly reduced. The main purpose for mail was to create a defense against slashing and most hand-held stabbing weapons. A high-speed arrow has one big anti-mail benefit against chain mail:
Arrowheads are small and weak.
It doesn't take nearly as much energy to push a small, bendable object through a small hole in one ring than it does to push a larger object through the same small hole. Further, the more the ring has to spread, the more the other rings in the mail shirt support the first ring and prevent further damage.
Finally, a medieval warrior fenced all the time. That was his job. This doesn't mean donning a white suit and whacking foils together, it meant training in combat with the total variety of hand-held pointed and edged weapons, from axes to daggers to broadswords halberds to spears. These guys weren't out there just swinging bits of sharp metal at each other, there was a method and technique employed. The Iklwa wouldn't have been any sort of game-changer for somebody like Wallace; he was trained to fight against spears (which were, after all, the most common early medieval weapon) and all other manner of weapons of the time. To imply that Wallace wouldn't be able to defend himself from an Iklwa attack is to imply that he basically fought like the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
(Mod Cut) Only plate armour which only existed 100 years after the death of william walace even had a chance of stopping an arrow. Wallace did not wear plate he wore chain mail which only stops slashing weapons. HAD wallace even worn this armour he would have got tired from walking in the mud because of there mere weight of the armour. Zulu would run circles around him knock him over and stab him in his neck.
"
In a modern test, a direct hit from a steel bodkin point penetrated Damascus chain armour.[19] (Bodkin points have been described as "armour-piercing", but the latest research is that they were not made of hardened steel and were not designed for this purpose.)[20]
Even very heavy draw longbows have trouble penetrating well made, tough steel plate armour, which was used increasingly after 1350. Armour of the Medieval eras was not proof against arrows until the specialized armour of the Italian city state mercenary companies.[21] Archery was ineffective against plate armour in the Battle of Neville's Cross (1346), the siege of Bergerac (1345), and the Battle of Poitiers (1356); such armour became available to European knights of fairly modest means by the late 1300s, though never to all soldiers in any army. Strickland and Hardy suggest that "even at a range of 240 yards heavy war arrows shot from bows of poundages in the mid- to upper range possessed by the Mary Rose bows would have been capable of killing or severely wounding men equipped with armour of wrought iron. Higher-quality armour of steel would have given considerably greater protection, which accords well with the experience of Oxford's men against the elite French vanguard at Poitiers in 1356, and des Ursin's statement that the French knights of the first ranks at Agincourt, which included some of the most important (and thus best-equipped) nobles, remained comparatively unhurt by the English arrows."[22]
However, not all plate armour was well made or well looked after, and there were also weak points in the joints where arrows could still penetrate. Full plate armour of the highest quality was also extremely expensive, only used by the most elite (and rich) soldiers, such as knights; the vast majority of soldiers were not armoured in plate from head-to-toe. Even for knights, in practice their horses tended to be less well protected than they were themselves. As late as 1415, the hail of arrows created by massed ranks of thousands of longbowmen helped to win the battle against plate armoured French knights at Agincourt. The French mounted charge against the English defensive position was ineffectual. The vast majority of the French knights actually advanced on foot, but exhausted by walking across wet muddy terrain in heavy armour, they were overwhelmed when the thousands of English longbowmen (using their swords and mauls (massive hammers) joined the hand-to-hand fighting in support of the English men-at-arms."
Chain mail stands no chance against the iklaw because when it comes down to it, chain mail tries to spread the breadth of a slashing weapon over the chains or break just one or two loops. This does not apply to the iklaw but certainly it would to an axe, but not an iklaw because of the way it works. It will go through one link, thats its, only one, and that all it takes to go throigh ww heart. It doesn't have to break 3 or 5 or 10, it only has to break 1 which i t can do no problem.
also in the show, it did not slip between the armour, it went right through it and impaled the body with some of the broken pieces of metal which was precisely what the guy said. It would not matter if the armour was rivted or not, it broke the metal the force on the iklaw breaks the metal, it doesn't simply slide though it cuts right through it like butter.
The iklawa was not your typical stabbing weapon and was not really a slashing weapon this is why the katana could not go throgh chain mail and the iklaw could. The chain mail was designed to stop swords and lots of weapons that slash not stabbing. There is a reason chain mail got replaced by plate armour. Chain mail doesn't stop stabiing weapons or arrows but does stop swords, even good ones like katanas. The average knight never meet a skilled man with a knife and no weapon like the iklaw existed at that time so there armour was strictly anti-sword
Last edited by Thyra; 08-20-2009 at 06:34 AM..
Reason: No reason for being nasty!
No such weapon was used in common combat because people would think one swing of the calymore and your dead, its counter intuitive but it works. If I knew nothing about either weapons and had a choice I'd take the claymore and so would 99% of medevial people, no one would bother trainign with a knife to the extant that the zulu trained with the iklaw which is more like a small sword. the claymoreit looks more dangerous and deadly. But even if you were skilled with a claymore, one skilled with a knife has far more advantages, he can run faster, has no armour, can fake you out, can use two knives instead of one, heck he can use 20 knives, even throw knives at your face. In comparison to a knife or a one handed small sword, the claymore is an incredilby dull weapon, predictable and easy to jump out the way of for someone not wearing 60 pounds of riveted armour and a helmet they can barely turn their head in. Had Wallace got off his horse, being 6'7 he may have just got tired from chasing down zulu and got stuck in mud to the point he couldn't even life his heavy sword. Of course that is a bit far fethched but it has happened. The claymore in my opnion works good if your opponent is slow who william wallce fought, but it is not like the katana, if you are swinging the claymore to chop someone in half and they roll into a ball you cannot just change direction fo your swing. You are vulnerable because of the momemntum you need to cut someones head off is bringing your arms forward against your will.
Did anyone but me think it was bull**** that william wallace that matchup in the deadliest warrior. don't get me wrong the claymore is an awesome weapon and william wallace was one of the greatest warriors in history, but would Shaka Zulu really try to spit in the face of a guy with a knife and a shield with the spike on the end. Thats laughable. I don't even question that Willam Wallace could reasonably win, if I was going into battle I'd shoose the claymore over the ikawa. Whjat I dispute is that if Shaka Zulu would use poisonous spit when he saw william wallace running at him with a knife and shield vs some other weapon. Take away that and you see that Zulu would have easily won this fight. Because zulu was faster
Those shows are incredibly stupid. Then they get the whole "fake" trash talking thing going.... I would only watch more episodes if I needed to induce vomiting for some medical reason.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would only watch more episodes if I needed to induce vomiting for some medical reason. 
