D&D Ranger recent youtube video

[neoaliphant]

So IMHO I would say there is room for shared ground between fantasy lore and practical bushcraft.

I quite agree
If a fantasy film/book has realism, its so much better

There were some good bits of realism in teh recent witcher, and LOTR films had loads

A film immediately gets bonus points in my books when the characters travelling actually have and are shown to carry camping gear....

The fact that tolkien gave a kit list of what was in sams backpack was awesome, and a lot was featured in the films...

 

[neoaliphant]

Back in my LARP days when I regularly used a longbow I used to carry my bow with three or four arrows in my left hand.

The rest of my quiver was low slung on my back so the fletchings did not rise above my head while breaking through brush.

I generally carried a longsword at my left hip.

The bow can be used with the arrows still in hand and reloaded from that clutch as well.

I rarely had time for more than four shots before a skirmish broke out in practice.

In re-enactment, things were more formalised, less "real" in effect.

The irony is that re-enactors fight with more dangerous weapons so have to be constrained by safety requirements. The foam weapons of LARPers can be used much more realistically.

From what I rememeber of the few larps I did, the arrow heads were huge and quiver had the arrows upside down as a result and they tended to bounce out.
I did find that quiver on back was so much faster, but with a shorter bow I had shorter arrows which was faster to shoot, never had a problem with arrows bouncing out of quiver getting in my way unlike side quiver, especially the huge cyclinder ones.

Main issue I had with larp is a lot of people would wave them around from side to side all wiffly woffly, the renactment fighting did have a bit more realism in that regard, I appreciate it has got a lot better.

We redid renactment larp as well, we had a lot of skirmishes of small parties in woodland, archers were great there being able to snipe between trees, and a shorter bow was very usefull, and if an archer was run down by someone, a melee weapon was definitely neccesary....

 

[Wayland]

From what I rememeber of the few larps I did, the arrow heads were huge and quiver had the arrows upside down as a result and they tended to bounce out.
I did find that quiver on back was so much faster, but with a shorter bow I had shorter arrows which was faster to shoot, never had a problem with arrows bouncing out of quiver getting in my way unlike side quiver, especially the huge cyclinder ones.

Main issue I had with larp is a lot of people would wave them around from side to side all wiffly woffly, the renactment fighting did have a bit more realism in that regard, I appreciate it has got a lot better.

We redid renactment larp as well, we had a lot of skirmishes of small parties in woodland, archers were great there being able to snipe between trees, and a shorter bow was very usefull, and if an archer was run down by someone, a melee weapon was definitely neccesary....

Interestingly some of the Viking Age bows had iron spikes on their tips. Not ideal as a fighting weapon but would have been very handy in the first heat of a skirmish.

LARP wise I always had to keep the bow out of the way because it wasn't padded of course.

I had forgotten the arrows were carried upside down, you are quite right. Thirty years ago now for me.

Still had to be low slung to keep them out of the brush.

 

[neoaliphant]

Interestingly some of the Viking Age bows had iron spikes on their tips. Not ideal as a fighting weapon but would have been very handy in the first heat of a skirmish.

LARP wise I always had to keep the bow out of the way because it wasn't padded of course.

I had forgotten the arrows were carried upside down, you are quite right. Thirty years ago now for me.

Still had to be low slung to keep them out of the brush.

Thats interesting, didnt know about the spikes.

in renactment bows were to precious to be used for fighting with, but I do remember a lot of peoples bows were very tall, almost 6 ft, mine was less than 5 ft and shorter draw length, more to chest, found it much easier to shoot in enclosed spaces, and the trees werent a problem, but were for longer bows

I think short bows (european) are very under estimated as everyone tends to go down the agincourt/warbow route.

They are aweosme mind, look at joe gibbs.
But for hunting, 50lb bow would be fine, and I imagine that viking bows were that much more draw weight.

shorter arrows, lighter per arrow, easier to make, less chance of being broken during a battle.
just by statistics, 24" arrow will be more likely to survive a battlefield than 30"

Thanks for your input...

 

[TLM]

I have not seen what an untouched misty isles forest would look like. In Poland Bialowieza one can see an untouched continental forest, it is very open at the bottom actually. No need to whack anything when walking there.

Splitting is the one job where big knives are not very good and thin bladed tomahawks not much better, that is the main reason for more substantial blade in an axe. By using batoning one can get by but .... Experience has shown that a head of about 500-600 g and a handle of about half a meter are sufficient for most trekking needs. Actually in summer you mostly can get by with a knife.

 

[neoaliphant]

I have not seen what an untouched misty isles forest would look like. In Poland Bialowieza one can see an untouched continental forest, it is very open at the bottom actually. No need to whack anything when walking there.

Splitting is the one job where big knives are not very good and thin bladed tomahawks not much better, that is the main reason for more substantial blade in an axe. By using batoning one can get by but .... Experience has shown that a head of about 500-600 g and a handle of about half a meter are sufficient for most trekking needs. Actually in summer you mostly can get by with a knife.

Thats exactly what I was thinking, both for the woods and the axe
small axe head on a long handle, if you have a knife, and your life depends on it, why baton with it when you could use an axe

 

[C_Claycomb]

...if you have a knife, and your life depends on it, why baton with it when you could use an axe

...because if you are in a life/death situation you may well not have all the tools you might wish for, so knowing how to get the most from any tool you might have, without wrecking it, is a handy skill to have cultivated in gentler times. So we learn to fell saplings with knives and use a baton to expand the capability of our knives. We learn to choke up on our axes for fine work, and how to sharpen them to do more than just split logs and even though safety and efficiency are important, and saws are much better for sectioning logs, we learn to do that too with chopping tools.

 

[Wayland]

I think far too much importance is placed upon the need for an axe or a crowbar/woodie knife for splitting wood.

I. I often don't need to split wood anyway, I usually just burn it as is. Fire is a great tool for processing wood.

2. Human beings existed for a very long time without metal tools of any kind.

3. We split a 4' diameter seasoned oak log into beams for constructing a longhouse with nothing but wooden wedges and wooden mallets.

 

[neoaliphant]

...because if you are in a life/death situation you may well not have all the tools you might wish for, so knowing how to get the most from any tool you might have, without wrecking it, is a handy skill to have cultivated in gentler times. So we learn to fell saplings with knives and use a baton to expand the capability of our knives. We learn to choke up on our axes for fine work, and how to sharpen them to do more than just split logs and even though safety and efficiency are important, and saws are much better for sectioning logs, we learn to do that too with chopping tools.

Im all for being able to improvise and use things/tools in different ways
i use my leatehrman for all sorts of things every day.


but as they say right tool for the job.

so just in a theoretical ranger concept, assuming bow as primary weapon ( much like musket for Roberts rangers ) would a tomahawk and knife combo be better than just a knife, so you would be saving your knife edge for different tasks, but by all means you could use just knife for wood purposes, just wondering.

From the original video Shad was saying that a Falchion/messer ( very long machete equivalent) would be the sensivle weapon to carry, but I wonder when so many early colonists used tomahawk and knife.

I saw something this week that the tomahawk was used in vietnam and so many US troops had used tomahawwks when they were young and on farms so it was familiar to them, and they were used to open ammo crates and for jungle use.

In jungle places liek panama you have machetes being pretty much every day carry for even teenagers and kids as its so usefull.

I do get triggeerd by people making blanket statements like "they would/wouldnt have used..." just because they dont in their small area.

I used to get annoyed with reenactors saying saxons wouldnt have travelled , and wouldnt have used backpacks, because the person in question cant conceieve of wanting to camp himself. Or that saxons didnt have belt pouches as they didnt carry things like keys and wallets.



Just wondering the reason if machete is so usefull, why isnt it used more in Northern arboreal?

 

[neoaliphant]

I think far too much importance is placed upon the need for an axe or a crowbar/woodie knife for splitting wood.

I. I often don't need to split wood anyway, I usually just burn it as is. Fire is a great tool for processing wood.

2. Human beings existed for a very long time without metal tools of any kind.

3. We split a 4' diameter seasoned oak log into beams for constructing a longhouse with nothing but wooden wedges and wooden mallets.

I saw some TA bushcraft videos on house making doing that
appreciate its only adjacet to bushcraft, but It makes sense that for a ranger, modewr, 18th century or fantasy, it makes sense for backup weapons to also be tools....

 

[Corso]

2. Human beings existed for a very long time without metal tools of any kind.

Existed yes, thrived not so sure - they died in their 20's for a very very long time

 

[Wayland]

Existed yes, thrived not so sure - they died in their 20's for a very very long time

I think a lot of other factors play into that other than the availability of metal tools.

 

[TLM]

While I quite agree with C_C that learning to use your tools unconventionally makes sense even more sense makes to learn to do those things without any tools. Then one has the possibility to chose from the "highest" available method.

As long as there is no snow a lot of things are possible, after the white cover your options do narrow a lot. Yes I was taught to baton with a knife so early that I don't even remember it but I was also taught to whittle chips as a better method to start a fire fast if no useful birch bark was around (or to combine everything available).

 

[Smudge]

There's an interesting thread on this on the middle earth ranger forum.

I try not to over think entertainment.

 

[neoaliphant]

Just to go back to original point
What are peoples thought son using a machete as as backup weapon for a ranger type.
Would a Tomahawk be better

Northern arboreal/europe environment
with a Bow as a primary weapon.
And wanting to travel light.

So really boils down to would a long thin bladed but flat wide machete style sword ( falchionmesser) be usefull for woodcraft.

My own machete is short and quite thick as its the small british army one
and while machetes have been used as weapons even used in armies easpecially africa and the tropics

Whya rent they used more in northern arboreal?

 

[TLM]

Nether is very good but both allow you to survive. My personal preference is a small axe more or less. The Sami in the far north get by with a machete while people in the more forested areas seem to prefer an axe. I don't think I have met anything like a tomahawk around here.

 

[neoaliphant]

Nether is very good but both allow you to survive. My personal preference is a small axe more or less. The Sami in the far north get by with a machete while people in the more forested areas seem to prefer an axe. I don't think I have met anything like a tomahawk around here.

Thanks for that
Just had a leuku, in northern plains with just small pole making and delimbing, a machete type knife makes sense

the tomahawk is really just a multi purpose axe that is smaller for portablity but with long handle that slips handle in from the to so it can be dismantled with spike or hammer at back. some viking axes seem to be similar, at least ones I remember from reenactment, thinner profile like a daneaxe, again for weight reduction. the beard is out a bit further from the handle for combat purposes for pulling arms/legs etc. the american style has flat beard but there are a varierty. used in WW2 and still in service .

I tend to think that the very long machete while good for clearing, the fact that you cant choke up is a drawback. I often use a small axe for whittling, less so for splitting.

Interesting.

 

[C_Claycomb]

There's an interesting thread on this on the middle earth ranger forum.

I try not to over think entertainment.

There is a "Middle Earth Ranger forums"?!? Whatever will folk think of next?

 

[Smudge]

There is a "Middle Earth Ranger forums"?!? Whatever will folk think of next?

Good friendly group, most of their stuff is on FB but I don't use it anymore MER is about the only thing I miss tbh.

They do discuss bushcraft/woodlore as well in part.

(No I don't run around the woods with elf ears on but I find it interesting)

 

[neoaliphant]

Good friendly group, most of their stuff is on FB but I don't use it anymore MER is about the only thing I miss tbh.

They do discuss bushcraft/woodlore as well in part.

(No I don't run around the woods with elf ears on but I find it interesting)

Some of the PDF articles are very detailed, some of the gear carrying ideas, no so sure about, but things like cloak styles etc is interesting,