Assuming you had the strength to utilize such a weapon, what would be the best STONE to make a heavy...

Also highly brittle, hence its use in lithic reduction being relegated to small points and blades. It's volcanic glass. If I can bust flakes off of it with archaic tools like hammer stones and pressure flake it with antler, I couldn't strike something with a continuous piece of it.

Jade is the correct answer here. Nothing that can be knapped will work. Not even heat treated flint.

Would stone work well as a club for a really strong person?

Obsidian is a good choice if you're putting small sharp shards of it on the edges of a wooden blade.

It's far too brittle to make an entire blade out of it. It's glass.

>I meant more like cliff and mountain rock, you know? If that could be carved.

That covers an immense range of materials, including marble, with widely varying properties. But they're all too fucking brittle. It isn't for nothing that we only use metal, a few specific metals even, for large blades.

What about a maul or hammer, then? Any stone that would work? Better than metal, even?

A pure stone club suffers from the brittle nature of the stone, just like a sword, just slightly less so.

A stone head on a wooden shaft can make for a very good weapon, and has been one of mankind's favourites over many, many millennia.

>I think jade is supposed to have a decent amount of toughness
A lot more than shit like quartz.

Is the problem that pure stone would just break at the head? Would a stone head on a wood shaft have any cons?

Hey nigger. Give me a reply.

It'd break somewhere along the shaft most likely. A stone head on the other hand would most likely survive most things you'd do to it, as long as you picked a somewhat suitable rock.

The problem of brittleness gets mroe pronounced in thinner geometries. So a sharp blade suffers a lot, a long shaft is a bit troubled by it, and a round-ish head doesn't care much at all. It might not perform quite as well as bronze, iron or steel, but it'll work, whereas a large, stone sword blade would basically demand magic to do so.

Okay, so would a solid, round stone head hit with more force than a solid, round metal head? Is there stone that could handle an impact better than metal, is what I'm asking?

i think the stone itself is the problem build material here, user

Shit nigger negro fucking black. I was hoping there would be something stronger than metal to use for a weapon that would clearly distinguish an abnormal warrior...

Whatever, thanks!

>Is there stone that could handle an impact better than metal

I'm fairly confident you'll never find such a thing (assuming a sensible chosen metal of course, trying to take Jerusalem armed with a gallium mace may prove unwise). What you can find is a stone that does the job reasonably well.

As for how much force it hits with, that's an extremely complex question involving the geometry and weight distribution of the weapon, how exactly it moves, follow-through in the impact, and what tissue and armour exactly it hits.

Trying to generalise somewhat at least though, most stones have a density far below that or the metals you'd use (roughly a third or so). So we're either looking at a larger head delivering a more dispersed blow, or a lighter one with less inertia. Either means less damage will most likely be done, though how much of a difference you'd notice in practice is uncertain. It isn't like the stone mace would have any trouble smashing a human skull.

>Okay, so would a solid, round stone head hit with more force than a solid, round metal head?

No. Assuming both are of the same density, and the same size so that the radius of the impacting surface is the same, then it doesnt matter if its stone, metal, ivory, an incredibly dense wood, or anything else. Physics is the same regardless.

>Is there stone that could handle an impact better than metal, is what I'm asking?

No. Stone is brittle, metals are malleable. that means if you exert a peak force on stone, and it exceeds its limitations, the crystalline structure of the material breaks along the planes of the structure - it cracks - either a s chip breaking off, or in some cases, a breakage right through the material. Metals have far higher peak force resistance - they're stronger, but they're also more likely to have the crystalline structure deform, molecules slip against others, instead of breaking off - or in other words, it dents or bends, before it has a brittle failure mode.

Lets put it this way. Glass is harder than steel. Would you rather drop a tumbler made of glass on a stone floor, or a tumbler turned out of steel?

Same with stone.

Huh. On forums like this I always run across posts saying stone armor is impractical because of how heavy it is- I assumed stone armaments would be excellent if give to an extremely strong warrior.

This thread has enlightened me.

> I was hoping there would be something stronger than metal to use

If there was, we would use it.

Humans are not stupid. We use metals because they are the most effective material available.

Historically speaking, we only use non-metal materials when metal is unavailable - ie, polynesian or native american cultures which hadnt developed the technology.

the one exception to that is composites, which are pretty limited in use up till the 20th C when we started really discovering their potential.

Could you explain these composites a bit more? Thanks for the insight!

Stone armour needs to be very thick to provide reasonable protection, which is why the final suit would be massively heavy. Otherwise the brittle nature of the stone would mean the armour cracks and shatters under impact, letting the attack through with minimal resistance.

Metals will have a higher density, but they're so much stronger that the strength to weight ratio is much, much better.

Pic: Chinese stone funeral "armour".

>something stronger than metal to use for a weapon that would clearly distinguish an abnormal warrior

Have you considered having the warrior's aesthetic design differ radically from those currently established, or emblazoned with medallions/talismans/fetishes made from bone, wood, stone and such?

Why is it necessary that stone has to be Stronger than metal?

A tree trunk can be stronger than metal in the right context.

>fucking tree-ents with great oak trunks swinging them like two-handed great clubs

>would be excellent if give to an extremely strong warrior.

Faster always wins. A faster weapon strikes first, a faster defence stops the attacker striking you first.

Strength and speed of motion arent completely linked, Smaller guys arent always faster, etc, so its not a simple inverse proportionality. BUt generally speaking, a strong person using a weapon will find it easier to move around quickly than a weak person with the same weapon.

So, handing a strong person an incredibly heavy, stone weapon, is actually hindering him. its making him have to fight the weapon, not the opponent. Its a handicap.

Why would you choose to give someone who has the advantage of strength, a weapon which disadvantages them?

Its daft.

Well, I mean a human sized warrior that is very strong. Stronger than his peers to the point that it feels like a different weapon is appropriate, you know? If he's strong enough to swing a stone sword around, it makes a statement. Something like that is what I'm thinking of. Could a sword that shatters on impact cause a lot of damage? If that's the case he could just have a lot of swords to repeat that with.

>Faster always wins

Endurance always wins, period.

You can be the fastest motherfucker in the world, or the most heavily armoured bastion to walk the planet, but everyone eats, sleeps and passes out at some point.

Try dodging when you're sluggish with battle fatigue. You think medieval battles took an hour or less? The worst slaughters took Days.

You think the strongest steel plate and katannas will protect you when you've passed out? that shit would need to be hermetically sealed.

Stone is just a shit material to make swords from.
One of the best features about swords is they flex. Look at slow motion footage of a sword hitting a rigid target, they can bend easily up to 30 degrees.
You can not find a stone that flexible, they just don't exist.
If you're really determined and you NEED a stone sword your best bet is compounds. maybe a flexible steel core holding flint or obsidian flakes for the edge. These swords did actually exist for a while in europe at the very end of the stone age and start of the bronze age, but they tended to be short. I can't find a picture right now but it was essentially a wooden core that held thin flint flakes in the shape of an early bronze age leaf bladed celtic/germanic sword.

In material science, we generally talk about metals, ceramics (stones are ceramics) and polymers (plastic, most organic materials). Whenever you combine materials form different groups together, that's a composite.

Composites have actually seen limited use since a very, very long time ago, as clay has been reinforced with straw, twigs, and so on. The modern version is rebar-reinforced concrete, or fibre-glass reinforced plastic.

By varying what materials you put into a composite, and how exactly you join them together, and its internal structure, you can change the final properties. As a result, for some applications you can create highly tailored composites that do exactly what you need them to do.

At the same time, those composites will often be very bad at other tasks, and it's far form every application that we have a custom-tailored composite for.

As such, for some applications various composites are a given (be it reinforced concrete buildings or extremely lightweight aircraft parts), whereas for other things we use "plain" stuff, steel for example still being the ruling champion of bladed tools.

Just give him a club, that causes crushing/blunt damage. Blunt force trauma kills just as well as a sharp point, let alone the agony of having rigid armour bent Inwards.

>Could you explain these composites a bit more? Thanks for the insight!

well, a historical composite is the Linothorax, armour worn by the classical greeks. It was made up from several (maybe a dozen) layers of linen cloth, bonded together with hide glue.

that's a composite - the literal meaning is "made up of several parts or elements."

So that's an armour that's made up of several elements. Technologically speaking, there's a whole world of difference, but in terms of basic principles, there's not much difference between that linothorax, and a modern Formula 1 car -because that is also built from composites. The difference is, the F1 car's not linen, woven out of flax fibres, its carbon-fibre and kevlar. and the glue isnt hide glue boiled down from rabbit skin or horse-hoof, its an ultra-high-tech termosetting resin.

But the principle is the same.

Composites are very strong, but more complex to assemble. Another example was the use of composite bow-staves on crossbows, made of horn, many sections or strips of horn, all glued together, and often supported by linen facings. They were used before steel crossbow prods were possible.

that's what composites are. but generally, they are far less effective than metals, till you reach the 20th C and aramid fibres and similar materials can be used, and are stronger than steel in terms of strength to weight.

Shields like this pavise are also composites - a wooden base, linen reinforcing layers, and then a gesso or leather facing, each has different structural strengths, that work together to make it arrow-proof.

What about a sword made from carbon fibre, or any other modern synthetic polymer?

>Could a sword that shatters on impact cause a lot of damage?

Only to the sword itself. The only weapons you want to see shatter are bombs and grenades.

Endurance only matters if you live long enough for it to become an issue.

Peak strength/speed only matters if you can win before endurance becomes an issue.

I have a feeling the guy who overspecialises walks a very dangerous path.

The problem arises when people try to boil the art of fighting and warfare down to a single, rpg like stat.

>great endurance, strength and speed
but no numbers to back it up, killed in an archer volley.
>great numbers, inc above
but no funding for decent equipment, barbarian hordes vs regimented soldiery.
>great funding, inc above
but no supply train in effect, to collect the wounded and restore them before the next fight.
>great supply and logistics, inc above.
but no long-term political backing to fight battles on multiple fronts.
>and so on
>and so on

On an ever increasing scale.

Wars aren't fought by a single man, likewise, battles aren't fought by single armies, and empires aren't felled by single nations.

unless you're Rome, Rome trumps all of That

Probably far too soft to hold an edge, the reduced weight may not be an advantage, and such composites tend to be very direction-sensitive, ie they're damn strong in one direction, but quite weak if stressed in a different direction. In the chaos of combat, that may be a very bad thing.

Also worth keeping in mind is that while many of these composites have excellent strength to weight ratios, this comes largely from their extremely low density, and their strength per volume may be quite poor.

Also, with many sword designs reducing the weight may not make a better weapon. A bit of weight will help it do damage, block incoming attacks, and take command when blades are locked together.

And weapons like maces and hammers obviously need a good amount of mass in their heads, a fibreglass switch might hurt, but you're not going to knock anyone out with one as they try to murder you, merely motivate them.

Now with the right mix of composites we could perhaps make a sword blade that isn't completely awful, but at that point we have spent a ludicrous amount of money and effort on something that may perhaps equal a bronze age weapon.

Titanium likewise suffers from being soft, and having a poor strength per volume. Some of the fancier titanium alloys can kinda match up to a cheap, basic steel, but once again you're paying a frightening premium for the novelty.

Wacky idea, a sword made out of a shard of a giant sea shell

>What about a sword made from carbon fibre, or any other modern synthetic polymer?

Strong, light.

edge-holding is shit, however, and its not as resilient to impact damage as steel so it would start delaminating and fail faster.

A composite haft in place of wood, for a spear would be OK. But blades are made of steel for a reason. Its the best material there is.

>What is the Shark-Tooth club for 10 points

Rips like a chainsaw, teeth do come loose / break, but are quick to replace...just go kill a shark

Well, until you get to magic / space metals, but by that point you can just explain it all away.

>Rock sword stronger/betterer than steel sword
Magic rock.

>Carbon fibre sword better than regular sword
Space sword

A mace out of a giant spiral conch shell with spikes and shit would be (slightly) better.

Swords out of a calcium deposit like shell are going to be about as durable as a chocolate teapot.

You're saying titanium cannot make a superior sword to steel? Shit fucking nigger black man.

>empires aren't felled by single nations
Sounds like quitter talk to me.

Remember the Khwarezmian Empire?

No?

Exactly.

This. A really, really big club.

Mongols are primitive fags blessed with a slightly above-average intelligence.

They accomplished nothing lasting- prove me wrong.

Stone, basically.

As a tooth breaks or falls our you're left with apart of the "edge" which no longer cuts properly, reducing the damage caused both by the remainder of that cuts, and any following cuts until you can repair your weapon. Should the teeth stay whole and in place, you'll do more damage.

Either way, you're playing into the same argument. A big, fuckoff heavy weapon is going to be more exhausting than a lightweight one.

Alright, let's say an immobile faggot is hit with both an edged, metal weapon and a thick, stupid heavy weapon in the same spot at the same speed.

What's the damage?

>You're saying titanium cannot make a superior sword to steel?

Titanium has shit edge holding, is softer, its generally less elastic- if bent, it does not spring back as well.

the only thing Ti has going for it is it doesnt rust.

That's it.

its excellent in a jet aircraft engine. But a sword blade is not a jet engine.

If it's an immobile enemy, you will probably be able to kill him with either weapon. That's kind of a pointless comparison to make.

How are the children. I bet you're so proud.

They created the largest empire the world have ever known, and potentially ever will know.

And they did that with horses, bows and arrows, while being almost Totally illiterate.

You're moving goal-posts.

Up until the 1900's, you could have safely argued that it didn't matter what you equipped an army with, what mattered was how well they were trained and how disciplined they were. Moral breaks in your lightning fast soldiers and they are Gone.

Likewise, if those super speedy soldiers are, oh I don't know, fighting a shield wall of Any variety, it's going to fail.

>But horse archers would

But we weren't talking about horse archers were we? We were only talking about "heavy weapons vs light weapons."

As he said. There's always going to be something that's overlooked, or some key factor that trumps your strength.

Hell, I could reference this shit if I have to. How far are you willing to go?

the immobile victim is dead.

Dead is dead, either way. there's no such thing as deader.

Which is why big, heavy,very powerful choppy weapons, were used for executions - because the victim is not fighting back. Then, a big sword or axe that ensures the job's done in one hit is good.

but a normal sword or fighting axe will also kill the person in those situations.

the problem is, the normal fighting sword might not kill them *instantly*. They're dead, just it'll take a bit of time for the body to give up. And its generally frowned upon to have the poor immobile prisoner gurgling on the block, with limbs twitching because the sword half-severed the spine, but the head's still attached by the rest of the neck and the throat and blood vessels are still working.

>You're moving goal-posts.

Not really. The discussion started off with being about how comparing light and heavy weapons. It's not so much moving the goalposts as moving back to where the Goalposts were the whole time.

>the largest empire the world have ever known
Second largest thankyouverymuch, it's only the largest contiguous one

And they weren't that illiterate, one of their main guys was a man of letters.
Sure, the generals made fun of him when he said "tax the chinese, don't kill them", but the Khan listened, and it was with the help of chinese tributes and engineering that they were able to conquer as much as they did (they still rekt about half of china on their own, so it wasn't like they solely relied on it)

Jade is probably the best for a stone weapon. I've seen jade mace and axe-heads that were like 2000 years old. I dont know about the maces but the axe head was ceremonial tho. You're still at a disadvantige compared to a metal weapon in almost every way except corrosion.

Also, empire sizes are bullshit. You can claim land while not holding it at all. The dutch 'owned' most of indonesia but by 1900 some islands still haden't seen a white man for the first time.

Density of the weapon would be a factor depending on the material, and it would deal bludgeoning damage with a possibility of a sharp attribute.

that's mace and axe heads though. You can say exactly the same about flint axes.

Yeah... Probably. I just figuered that if some of those old things are still around in good shape they might be more durable then flint, but the ceremonial use is probably responsible for that more then anything else.

I took archaeology at uni. You can pull a flint axe out of the ground after three thousand years and it'll still cut you. Half an hour's work and it'll be good as new.

A steel axe is still better.

>except corrosion.
Only really an issue for iron/steel.
Copper/bronze is highly corrosion resistant, to the point of blades being found still sharp.

How good would a diamond mace be?

Shit. It would just explode.

Look at historical stone weapons. They were abandoned fairly early in most of the world except in the Americas, where they had easy access to good stone for weapons and no drive to develop metallurgy. Indigenous American stone weapons like the macuahuitl are the ultimate evolution of stone weaponry, and you're not going to find anything significantly better.

Monocrystalline silicon.

Otherwise probably obsidian.

It would be totally shit. First because way too light, second because it wouldn't hold its edge for shit, third because it cant handle vibrations and fourth because depending on the direction you hit from it can have the strength of the polymer matrix rather than the fibre.

I'd say make his weapon look brutish/unrefined. Just plain larger, if you get it

It wouldn't explode, don't be a retard.

Diamond would be bad because it's lightweight and just strong. It'd make a terrible sword because the edge would crack like all ceramics.

Stone is both easier to break and lighter than steel.

It's the opposite of heavy but strong.

Material matters a ton, ceramics would bounce and transfer more force into the wrist of the weapon user. A lead slag would transfer more energy into the target even if it gets dented.

>The hardest stone, diamond, would make a terrible blade.
>hardest stone
>diamond
You mean the hardest metal.

Hmm if i wanted to use 'Ceramic' as material in a SciFi Fantasy setting what materials would it most likely consist of?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceramic_knife

Diamond is a crystal you mongaloid. A metal requires fucking metal.

They're not stones either.

This is the dumbest group of posters on Veeky Forums

I guess everything from glass and concrete to things as of yet barely dreamed of. IIRC a nanocrystalline structure tends to make ceramics less brittle, so that could be a useful bit of technobabble to push them into applications we usually don't think of as ceramics-friendly.

Overall though you'd probably be best off just calling the materials somethign that sounds cool, without worrying too much about what exactly is in there. The proper scientific names often won't roll off the tongue very well anyway, Poly-paraphenylene terephthalamide for example is very seldom called that, you usually just use the commercial trademarked name, kevlar, and most people who use it in their daily lives won't really have much of a clue about polymer chemistry either.

Diamond being metal it's a rather old meme.

As for stone, most stones are crystalline, it's merely that instead of a single, large crystal they are made up of a large number of small to microscopic ones (metals are the same). Obsidian would be one exception, as it's a glass.

>Not knowing that diamond is the hardest metal known the man.
I can't wait until Summer is over.

What happens if you hit dragonforce with a diamond mace?

It 300 miles per hour walls.

>unbreakable
Stone isn't unbreakable, Einstein.

>It's been summer for a decade
I'll admit being a newfag here, but blaming not knowing an old meme on it being summer is worse.