Quote:

 

Let's just hypothetically say that Qadira wanted to get into the fort's storage of weapons and munitions. Where exactly would that be located, and would it be heavily guarded?

*Shifty eyes.*

Quote:

 

It would be - for our purposes, anyway - in the same building as the dungeon, but removed enough from the holding cells that it wouldn't be a place prisoners would know of. While not necessarily heavily guarded, there are two marines present at all times. Only four sets of keys exist for the iron door, and these are in the possession of the Captain of Marines, the garrison Colour-Sergeant, the fort purser, and the senior marine on guard at the armoury.

Quote:

 

This is a bit of a random question, and I don't mind if you delete it, but if you have any ideas on it, I'd love to hear them via PM then.

I was thinking... Would the barrel of a pistol (or other firearm) get hot after firing it? Or would its temperature only change significantly after the pistol has been fired (and reloaded) a couple of times?
I was just wondering because pistols often had that little metal bit of 'decoration' on the butt with which you could conveniently hit someone on the head. You always hear that that was to use the pistol after you'd fired it, but obviously if the barrel got hot, you couldn't hold it there. And you wouldn't have to, since you could keep holding the pistol as you were when firing it and still use it to hit people with - and really, if you have to grab the pistol by the barrel to hit with it, that just costs time and is inconvenient - but you know how people in movies who hit people on the head with pistols always grab the pistol by the barrel. So I was wondering if that was even possible, in POTC-ish context. Anyway, whether the barrel would get hot-ish or not would affect how people handle the pistol after firing it, so I thought it'd be useful to know.

Quote:

 

No reason to delete, it's a good question.

In most shipboard engagements, one shot - or two at most, if the pistol-bearer was quick at reloading - was usually all a person had time for. The barrel, being made of iron, would get hot after repeated firing. But unlike modern firearms, flintlock pistols have a heavy wooden stock that runs the full length of the barrel, which gives the pistol-bearer something to grip if the pistol needed to be used as a club. Firing only one or two shots, from any sort of firearm, wouldn't be enough to make the barrel too hot to be handled.

Flintlock pistol

Or you could keep an unloaded pistol on your belt and use that for a club, to completely eliminate the risk of burning your fingers or hand.

For further reading.

Quote:

 

This one's for Alia, as it's a question about bladed weapons.

Officers prefer "small swords", I know. But why? And, are they any different from a civilian gentleman's dress sword, in so far as the latter only have the single sharp edge?

Quote:

 

It really depends upon the time period. I've actually taken liberties with this, as I'm sure you know since you've read a lot on the subject, but I'm going to explain what liberties I've taken so everyone will know. In the film, Norrington's sword is clearly a small sword--which is appropriate for an officer in the Army, not so much for the Navy. Small swords were the replacement during the late 17th century I believe, depends where for the exact date, but they were a replacement for the rapier by and large. They're lighter-smaller, perhaps a bit shorter as well, both used as thrusting weapons, and for dueling. And that brings us to the dilemma, thrusting weapons...don't work so well on ships, especially battles where you'd be in close quarters. Shorter slashing weapons, like a cutlass would work better. In reality, Norrington would most likely not be using a small sword, but some sort of cutlass or shorter sabre.

As for a gentleman's dress sword...most of the time if I recall, by the 18th century they are small swords, but if they were dress-ceremonial types, they probably might not be made to the proper weight, they might be a bit heavy, have smaller tangs, and the balance could be off as well (since combat wouldn't be the purpose), also depending upon the station of the person they could be more fancy than their military counterparts--though some officers' swords were very, very ornamental as well. I mean, at least with the Army, if you get to the point where an officer needs to use his sword, then things are in a pretty bad way. Um, I don't actually recall anything about difference between the blades...the point is the proper part to attack with for small swords, but I think that a gentleman's dress sword would encompass a bit more than just one kind of sword, so...I'm at a bit of a loss to try and draw any further distinction.

Quote:

 

I actually found a tiny bit of information on this...apparently officers (at least infantry ones, no information on cavalry or navy) would have two swords, one for everyday and another for military purposes. They would be exactly the same except that the military sword might have an "iconography - perhaps trophies of arms embossed on the hilt".

The small-sword was apparently made regulation in 1796 actually, though I think it was popular before that. Like Alia said, it wasn't very useful for hack and slash work and some officers said it wasn't useful for anything whatsoever. Just a very few years later people figured that out and replaced them with sabres (at least flank company officers did.) Highland officers carried basket-hilted broadswords the whole way through.

Quote:

 

Quote:

 

Highland officers carried basket-hilted broadswords the whole way through.

But Highland officers were just cool anyway. :lol:

Here's some addition information I pilfered from a source, and I'll complile more of my sword information together so that we have a single reference on swords.

Also we should keep in mind that my specialty area, while swords, is actually 16-17th century German longsword. So I know more about those...not that that is bound to come up on here anywhere...but the same technique acutally works very well for LotR RPGs...


Swords for Beginners, and the Basics
(aka If not going to make your swords completely historically accurate, how to fudge it well enough that it will past the majority of people's inspections)

© Alia-Hildwyn 2007, with quote attributed to books they are borrowed from (when such is the case). Do not repost without permission.


This is an introduction to swords, designed for those with little to no experience in swords, and the techniques used for them. There are numerous resources dedicated to learning about swords and sword fighting, though, in reality the best way to learn to sword fight is by doing. Seeing as how we live in a time and age where our options are limited on that front, the closest and cheapest we often come to seeing sword fights are through the movies and stage.

Now, I love a good movie sword fight as much as the next person, but something to keep in mind about sword fighting in the movies and the stage is, that by necessity those have to be big--movements must be much larger so that the audience can pick up on them, they are not the most practical, because when fighting an opponent in truth, your goal is to kill him (or her) as quickly as you possibly can, and you want smaller movements to not tire you out, and also because they give less away than bigger movements do.

As once again, I love movie swordfights--they are very entertaining, and in cases like Star Wars (at least Episode III, I loved the lightsabre fights in that), and Pirates of the Caribbean, they were all elegant, clever, and funny in their own ways. Stage fighting adds in an element all of its own, and whether you aim to reproduce a staged fight, or something closer to a historical basis--that will change how you write a sword fight.

Now, I was a sport fencer (foil) for a couple of years, I unfortunately had to give it up to a lack of time, so I do have some understanding of how that works, and I am also involved with a Renaissance/Medieval sword group at my university as well, so we do a lot of work translating and interpreting manuals to figure out techniques. I won't claim to know exactly how everything was back then, because clearly I was not born then, but there is a lot that can be figured out and reasonably accepted. So, when I write this, I do have some familiarity on the subject.

As an additional note, the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism), as fun as they are and all, as well as LARPing, is really not the best base for a historical discussion of sword techniques. I really have nothing against the idea of what they do, like I said it's fun, but...you can use information they have, but keep in mind it is not exactly historical.


Types of Swords You Will Most Commonly See in Pirate and PotC RPGs

Rapiers

"In the 16th century, the rapier became the weapon of a gentleman; a symbol that he was a man of substance and status, and that he knew how to use his sword. The term is derived from the 15th century Spanish term espada ropera (sword of the robes [not really 'of' the robes--Alia] meaning the weapon of a gentleman. By 1500 the rapier was used throughout Europe, and it would remain the premier gentleman's sword until the late 17th century. While it was certainly used on the battlefield, it is more readily associated with court, dueling, and fashion, hence the tendency toward delicate, intricate designs."
-Regan, Paul, ed, et all. Weapon: A Visual History of Arms and Armor. DK Publishing: New York, 2006.

Rapiers are often chosen in RPGs as a favored sword, because you often see them used in movies, and historically it is okay to use them up until the late 1600s. They are heavier weapons though, that the smallswords which replaced them, and for that reason, it is possible that they could still be used past when the smallsword really caught on. However, the largest problem with using a rapier for a pirate/Age of Sail RPG, is the length. While rapiers very in length, they are, by and large, simply too large to be practical on a ship. You don't duel the enemy, and ships force you to fight in very close quarters, at which point your sword is just too long to use--your enemy would be too close.

Swords were not, and still are not cheap items--during the colonial era, the best swordsmiths (as far as Europeans were concerned) were in Europe--and the best swordsmiths stayed there since that is where the most money was, and people of status were to buy the swords.

For the colonies, there were individuals who made swords, but they were often crude, and not as well made as the European counterparts, and for a while to help balance that out, it became common for them to take a European sword, reuse the blade, and simply manufactures a new handle and fix up the hilt a bit.


Smallswords

"A development of the rapier, the smallsword came into general use in Western Europe toward the end of the 17th century. It was a civilian weapon:an essential item of dress for any gentleman that also acted as a dueling sword. Intended solely for thrusting, the smallsword typically had a stiff triangular blade, without sharpened edges, which in the hands of a skil[l]ful swordsman was a deadly fencing weapon. Although simple in overall design--the handguard consisted of a small cup, and finger and knuckle guards--many smallswords were magnificently decorated, reflecting the status of their owners."
-Source: Regan, Paul, ed, et all. Weapon: A Visual History of Arms and Armor. DK Publishing: New York, 2006.

Smallswords are very rarely used in pirate RPGs, because most pirate RPGs are set during the Golden Age, and while smallswords are certainly around then, one must keep in mind that they are the mark of a gentleman, and pirates are really not gentleman. And also--they really are not durable enough to stand up to what they would be subjected to on a constant basis--they really are too light to be up to the task of long extended combat, or strenuous usage, while triangular blades are stronger because of shape, they are very light compared to what they would fight against.. The are still, arguably too long for usage on a vessel, though the fact that they are thrusting weapons is also a hindrance, though they are probably far less deadly to rigging than a rapier would be.

Smallswords were the weapons of gentleman, and by extension a sword for officers in the Army, who were gentleman as well (excepting cavalry who would have other swords more effective to their task). Officers are really supposed to be above the fighting, so their swords would have less need to be as strong as other swords, and they are more ceremonial. Additional note--musicians carried swords on the battlefield, since drums and fifes, even when played very badly, are not very effective weapons.

If you are a gentleman character on AG, given that our range is around 1730-50 CE, this would be the most likely weapon to have.


Hanger

The hanger looks very similar in design to a cutlass, the blade is curved, and it is often shorter. In the British Army, all Grenadiers were issued a hanger, and the hanger was even popular with sailors, since it was shorter, it was fairly effective on a vessel. Unlike the rapier, or smallsword, however, a hanger is a slashing weapon--and that was part of what could make it effective at sea.

If you play a pirate or other sailor on AG (not of the Navy variety), then a hanger, or cutlass would be the most appropriate weapon.


Royal Navy Swords

"Officers and midshipmen had their own swords. The officers sword was to a standard design with a 30 inch blade, while midshipmen had a much shorter weapon known as a dirk, with an 18 inch blade. The gunner also held a large stock of cutlasses for issue to barding parties, together with a miscellany of other weapons, including pikes, axes, and tomahawks."
-Miller, David. The World of Jack Aubrey. Running Press: PA, 2003.

The swords that officers, lieutenant and up would carry would be considered either cutlasses, or in a pinch, sabres (or as is standard in American spelling: saber). Depending upon your wealth, these could be fairly plain, or ornate. More ornate ones could traditionally have a lion's head as the pommel (the Lion symbolised England), and the lions head was utilised in the colonies for militia officers wealthy enough to have swords with such detailing made, up until about the time of the American Revolution and afterword, where the thirteen colonies began using an eagle's head instead of the lion's head.

If there was a particular battle, where a commanding officer greatly distinguished himself, towards the end of the 18th century, there would often be swords specially paid for and made in honour of the actions. Keeping in mind though the bureaucracy that was inherent, whether or not some of the swords were actually made and paid for, is not always certain.


RN/Marines Handguns

"All warships carried handguns, predominantly muskets and pistols made at the Board of Ordances's aresenal at the Tower of London or by contractors. The "Short Sea Service Musket" was 46 inches long, weighed 9 lbs 4oz, and fired a 0.75 inch diameter ball. Being unrifled [that means the barrel of the weapon in ungroved meaning the bullet does not rotate thus reducing range--Alia] accuracy was not great and effective range was of the order of 100 yards, although a trained marksman might achieve slightly more.

All Royal Marine [in AG's time they are not yet Royal Marines, that occurred in 1802--Alia] corporals and privates carried a musket and there was also a number for issue to sailors for shore operations or on boarding parties. Pistols were also always held and issued in pairs. A stock of hand grenades was also carried. All these weapons were under the charge of the gunner."
-Miller, David. The World of Jack Aubrey. Running Press: PA, 2003.

What is important to note, is that swords, as a real fighting weapon were starting to see their end. While their life as sea was longer than on land (due to the close quarters fighting, or more accurately brawling that took place), they were starting to hold a more and more ceremonial role. They were being relegated, from a weapon of war, to more of a sport usage. Today, the most common use for swords, beyond collecting them, is fencing--which is a sport, not that it does not have its basis in real techniques practiced in battle.


Parts of a Sword

Now that you have read about swords--both historical and how they are used in RPGs, let us move on the the parts of a sword. Knowing the proper terms for parts of a sword can go a long way to making your posts and writing more authentic, and like most specialised terminology, can allow you to get your point across in fewer words, with the bonus here of making you sound like you know what you're talking about.

Now, there are some terms on here that are more appropriate to a longsword, others that are more commonly used with foils (those would be the normal weapons used for fencing--foil fencing--which is what most of the public pictures as fencing, though there is also epee and sabre fencing as well.). I shall try to point out which is which when I can remember.

Sword diagram (click to enlarge):
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v232/hil...rtsofasword.jpg

I forgot to label the blade. But everyone should know what that is--it's the bit from the quillons to the foible--it's the part of the sword that you hack at someone, or run them through with. It's the fun part. It holds an edge (which is the sharped part).

Foible -- It's the tip of the blade. In most swords, in fact all, this is sharp and pointy. This term is more often used with foils, and it is considered appropriate enough to call it the 'point,' or 'tip' of the sword. It is the weakest part of a blade (provided it is made correctly). If you have a thrusting weapon, this is the part you attack with.

Fuller -- This is the groove running along the blade. Contrary to popular belief it is *not* so that the blood will run down the blade. No self-respecting swordsman or swordswoman will allow that myth to stand. It's real purpose is to actually lighten the sword--less metal = lighter sword.

Forte -- This means 'stong' like if anyone is a musician--if your music is marked with an f or 'forte' it means play loud. ffff is fortissississimo means *really* loud--this is the natural volume of saxophones and drums. The forte is the strongest part of the blade, and the part you want to parry blows with (look below for definitions of italicised words).

Ricasso -- This is the unsharpened portion of the blade located above the quillons, it is usually interchangeable with the forte.

Quillons (Cross guard) -- Either term works, no matter what your fencing instructor says. It serves to protect your hand (and by extension) fingers from getting hurt. I should say, 'is supposed to,' but then again, I was a pioneer in the skill of hurting oneself in creative ways with a sword. That is to say, I figured out how to block a thrust with my hand...not the sword. Though the sword was in my hands.

Grip (Handle) -- This is the part in between the quillons and the pommel. In some swords (mostly medieval) it is leather, though a variety of other materials can be used here--silver was a very popular metal to use in the colonial period, provided that you could afford it. It covers up the tang. Your hand(s) go here (singular 'hand' if you are fighting with a weapon like a sabre, cutlass, rapier, smallsword, broadsword, short sword, etc, two hands if it is a longsword or claymore, either one or two hands if it is a hand and a half sword).

Pommel -- The counterweight at the end of the sword--because you need something to deal with the weight of the blade, because if you look, that's an awful lot of it. Unless you're fighting with a gladius. They had pommels too, but not as much blade. Trivia! To "pommel" someone originally meant to hit them with the pommel of the sword. It hurts, and you often see people doing this to others in movies right over the head to knock them out.

Hilt -- This can refer to either the area with the grip and pommel but also in some cases means the quillons too. It's the part of the sword that you do not give to your enemy unless you are surrendering.

Tang --

"The tang is nearly the full width of the blade." -Will Turner, PotC:CotBP

This part of the sword is not seen. It goes from the end of the blade to into the pommel. Tangs vary in width, as the quote above suggests. The rule is, the thicker the tang, the sturdier the sword, but...the heavier it will be as well, though probably not too much heavier. So when Will is explaining that detail about the sword to Governor Swann, he is giving one of the sword's selling points.

If you want to see the tang of a sword, and have a fencing foil handy, you can unscrew the pommel, accomplished by rotating it and pulling it off, remove the grip and also the quillons and voila! There's the tang now there in it's full glory. Just remember to put it back together. And try not to do it when the fencing instructor is looking.


Common Swordfighting Terms

Parry -- This is to block a blow from another weapon (sword, staff, knive, chair) with your sword, it can be used as either a verb or a noun, so thus you may have parried a sword, or you may have a very good parry.

Thrust -- When you take the pointy end of your sword, the foible, and push it in the direction of your opponent, with the goal of trying to embed it in his body. Some types of swords you do not thrust with, and certain styles of combat (mostly ones like, for instance, in Joachim Meyers manual on the longsword--you are told not to thrust. And then, three pages later, you are told to thrust).

Bind -- You usually end up "in a bind," and this is when you and your opponent's swords have made contact, down towards the forte of your blades. There are several ways to get out of a bind, and one is listed below.

Wind -- or Winding, if you and your opponent are in a bind this is one recommended course of action. Without removing your sword from his (or hers) keep them touching, you simply readjust your positioning (without removing the sword from their blade, and being careful to keep your blade in between your body and their sword) so that your blade is pointing still at your opponent. If done correctly, you have kept yourself safe, while now moving in a postition to threaten your enemy.

Lunge -- This is what you see a lot of fencers doing, it involved extending your reach with the sword by using your entire body.

How to Properly execute a Lunge:

Extend the blade first, as in a thrust and step out (it looks a bit like a kick) with your right leg (this is done assuming you are right handed, if you are not the process is simply reversed, swap left for right, and right for left) bending the knee as you do so. The end result should have your right leg bent at the knee, your left leg straight, your right arm with the sword fully extended out, your back arm extended as well (when recovering from a lunge for some reason the motion of bringing it back in closer to your torso helps you recover your position) and your torso remaining vertical. It is important, *very* important when lunging to move the sword before you move the rest of your body. I cannot stress enough how important that is.

Feint -- Not faint. A feint is some sort of attack made not for the purpose of actually succeeded, but to strategically draw your opponent's sword to where you want it to be, so that your next attack may succeed. In modern sport fencing this term is often combined with others such as feint-deceive, which I will not explain at this point, since when really writing a RP, simply using the term feint should suffice.

Riposte -- This is an attack that is called such only when it follows a specific order--or in other words, after you have parried your opponent's attack, you then riposte. A fight with this may look something like this:

Barbossa slashed out at Jack, who stepped backwards, parrying the blow as he did. Taking advantage of the of Barbossa's second of hesitation, he stepped quickly to the side, riposting.

There are, naturally a variety of other terms for actions done both in fencing and swordfighting, but as I said this is really only a basic article designed to give an overview to a beginner.

Quote:

 

Just a little bit of clearing up... I know here the forum is called Port Royal, and that's how we say it most of the time. But for some reason I like it better when it's said Port Royale, with the e in the end, it just sounds better. Is one way to pronounce it/write it more right than another, or are they both just as right?

Quote:

 

Historically it is without the 'e' though I think many people will add the 'e' to help distinguish Port Royal, Jamaica, from Port Royal, SC. However when dealing with historical documents, you have an issue where, in most languages, spellings weren't really set it stone. People did what they could spell by sound, which being honest, is a crappy method for English, but spelling started becoming more and more standardised after the invention of the printing press--though it took some time for it to become truly standardised. You also have to contend with spelling errors in the past, as much as it is today, which makes it wonderful if you are working with 17th century documents in latin, where they consistently fail to utilise the classical spellings, or even the medieval ones.

So for the spelling of Port Royal(e), without an 'e' is the standard, though either one is considered acceptable.

Quote:

 

But for some reason I like it better when it's said Port Royale, with the e in the end, it just sounds better.

Most of that is really a product of the dialect of English being spoken. For the most part, with or without the 'e' in the most "standard" American English dialect, it is said roy-uhl (the considered standard dialect of American English being more of a midwestern accent).

The higher vowel sound--the one you used the "e" to distinguish, is not so much commonly used towards the ends of words in American English, so I suspect that that pronunciation was acquired from the UK, where a distinction between those spellings is really made.

(Yes, I know there are Americans on here who make the distinction as well, but that is not something native to the US, trust me on it, either you acquired it from parents or friends who got it from somewhere else, but it probably traces back to the UK...unless you're possibly one of the Boston Brahmins.)

Quote:

 

Quote:

 

But unlike modern firearms, flintlock pistols have a heavy wooden stock that runs the full length of the barrel, which gives the pistol-bearer something to grip if the pistol needed to be used as a club.

Good point.

Quote:

 

Firing only one or two shots, from any sort of firearm, wouldn't be enough to make the barrel too hot to be handled.

OK. Thanks.

Question!

I was about to start a thread where Jack's going to attack a ship which just so happens to have Elizabeth aboard, when I realised that I really don't know how it was with ships and passengers and such. I mean... The Gov and Lizzy were moved to PR by the Navy. Fair enough; Swann was government, after all, so it makes sense. But how would these things go for civilians? Would it be merchant ships that might take on passengers, if they asked politely and paid well? And would they contact the captain for all this, or someone else?

Quote:

 

I believe it was the practise to purchase transportation aboard merchant ships bound for a particular port, yes. The ship's captain would be the one to contact to make all the arrangements as well, since he would be the one receiving payment for the passenger(s) coming aboard.

It would have been easier to get a passenger aboard a ship whose captain was a trusted friend or business associate as well, the better to prevent anything untoward happening to the passenger - particularly if she was female.