Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI

[fusilier]

(4) What blades fit the bill of a medium sized sword with versatile attack options; suitable for both cutting and thrusting; a guard that can protect the hand; and a pommel that acts as a counterweight?

In the 16 century, there were swords that I believe were referred to in contemporary sources as "cut-and-thrust" swords -- I assume to distinguish them from rapiers. They were popular military weapons, as some authorities didn't consider rapiers suitable for soldiers. I think they were also known as broad swords (again, probably to distinguish them from rapiers, or later small swords), but I'm not sure when that term was in use.

At reenactments (circa 1600), I encourage my comrades to simply call their weapons "swords", or "espadas", when talking the public, and simply point out the features. Otherwise there's too much confusion. Although I do see the need for creating categories when studying swords.

[Kurien]

Most European swords from the 11th - 19th Centuries match these criteria. Most swords in other parts of the world, with a few exceptions, didn't have the same kind of pommel as European swords so usually had a balance point further down the blade.

Katanas really were not superior to the top quality European swords, that is a popular myth.

Neither, just different. Blade cross-sections, fullers etc. had different purposes for different types of swords.

G.

(1) What do you mean by having a balance point on the blade?

(2) I must have worded my question wrong. I do believe the design of the katana is not superior to swords from other areas, due to the lack of effectivesness of thrusting/stabbing attacks.

(3) But is it true that a diamond cross section has a stiffer spine, and is better for thrusting against armour than a lenticular cross section, which will bend?

(4) What are the advantages/disadvantages of setting the weight of the blade farther from or closer to the hilt? What I mean is a blade that widens and/or thickens closer to the point, versus a blade that is thickest closer to the handle and tapers towards the point?

In the 16 century, there were swords that I believe were referred to in contemporary sources as "cut-and-thrust" swords -- I assume to distinguish them from rapiers. They were popular military weapons, as some authorities didn't consider rapiers suitable for soldiers. I think they were also known as broad swords (again, probably to distinguish them from rapiers, or later small swords), but I'm not sure when that term was in use.

(5) On the battle field, such a "cut and thrust" sword would be a sidearm, yes? With a polearm as the main weapon? Or would infantry not carry sidearms at all?

[Karoht]

Hello, this is my first time posting in this thread -- heck, this is my first time posting in this entire forum (Roleplaying Games), and I have a few questions to which my weak search fu cannot reveal the answer. (I didn't bother reading the entire thread because that take too long, so I just read the last few posts.)

(1) What is the practicality of using a sword that has room for two hands on the hilt? I assume that is the defining characteristic of a longsword, but what use is it on a lighter weapon such as arming sword size?

As someone who is very much a fan of the bastard sword, AKA hand-and-a-half design, the real strength comes from versetility and practicality. I can (not often do I choose to though) use a bastard sword and shield together, or bastard sword alone. It is also much easier to wield a bastard sword, and remove one hand from the hilt to grapple or perform catches (a very VERY difficult and situational tactic, which I have seen both fail and succeed depending completely on the situation), should close quarters become an issue, without losing a major amount of balance. This has saved my ass more times than I can count.

(4) What blades fit the bill of a medium sized sword with versatile attack options; suitable for both cutting and thrusting; a guard that can protect the hand; and a pommel that acts as a counterweight?

Any sword below 30 inches I would call a medium sized sword (I am going to assume you mean one handed), and just about any guard can and will protect the hand. Even cross hilts from typical broad swords will do this. If you are being hit in the hands often, it is either the fault of one who is specifically aiming for your hand, which is a no-no in just about all good company, there is an issue with your guard and swing and possibly even your grip. If you want total protection for your hand, I'd go with a basket hilt, as they are super comfortable, very well balanced and weighted, and will protect your hand no matter what. But I would be sure to analyse your grip guard and swing first, as most basket hilted weapons tend to be a bit more expensive.
Or invest in better hand protection. GDFB does a great pair of hourglass gauntlets, but they do require some customization once you get them, but anyone can do it.
Incidently, cup hilts and baskets also came about because it was cheaper and quicker to dish out a piece of metal, or build what amounts to a mesh, than it was to forge a solid piece of steel to take the same level of abuse, and it was easier to maintain or repair. And as duels became more cuthroat, aiming for the hands and wrists became an acceptable target option. As for pirates and such, if prisoners were desired, a clean slice around the hand or wrist takes someone out of the fight, and they aren't going to be fighting again for a while with only one working hand being their off hand, unless the person is seriously ambidexterous.

(5) I've read that katanas are renowned for their quality because the swordsmiths spent more effort making it to make up for poor iron in Japan. Therefore I would assume only the wealthy would own such swords because they are expensive, and common troops would be stuck with spears and the like. Would a european, middle eastern, or indian weapon be superior over the katana if the swordsmiths invested similar effort in making their weapons?

Regarding Katanas, you are correct. Japan had very little coal for smelting iron, and the iron ore from japan has an incredible amount of impurities. The folding process was ingenius, in the fact that it works as a cheater tempering process. However, old school Katanas were notoriously brittle. Sharp as hell, great for unarmored targets. But very easy to damage. Sword on Sword action, like all the kung fu/sword fu movies (I refuse to call them samurai movies) out there portray, would destroy the edge on such a weapon, or even cause breakage.
Using modern metallurgy techniques and proper steel, a folded weapon would be remarkable, but again, this technique causes quite a bit of brittleness in the blade. Done with a proper temper, a folded weapon would again be quite remarkable, but it would hold no amazing qualities vastly above and beyond a simple hammer forged sword of similar steel quality.
Don't also forget, that the flex you see in a sword is actually a testament to it's steel quality and temper. Metal does not rely on hardness, but it's 'metal memory' to return to it's correct shape. The tempering process seeks to improve on this quality. The Hank Reinhardt test was to bend any sword over his head by 30 degrees, and if it snapped back to the shame shape and line, the temper was good. If not, the temper was poor. An old school katana most likely would not have survived such a test.

Sword expert Hank Reinhardt answered this question really well. The man had studied some 2000 different swords, handled all of them, prior to his passing. He said "A sword is a sword is a sword. There really is no better sword, there are just some swords better than others at specific things." What that means is, curved weapons are going to be better for slashing and broad cuts, while any straight edge weapon will generally be superior for cut and thrust action. Hank also tested quite a few weapons, both unarmoured and armoured. He used pigs from his property, and would test cut against ones which were already slaughtered. He also put chainmail on dead pigs and tried test cuts with those as well. On an unarmoured target, a curved weapon does better, hands down, because the cutting surface stays on contact better with the target than a straight edge. On an armored target, the straight edge conveyed more kinetic energy, and therefore did more damage to the target under the armor. I don't think he bothered to test plate with swords, he left that for axes and maces and such.
Hope that answers that for you.

(6) Is a lenticular cross-section of a blade inferior to a diamond cross-section?

Again, as another poster pointed out, depends on the blade entirely.

[Karoht]

(1) What do you mean by having a balance point on the blade?

Exactly what it sounds like. The point of balance of the blade. Easy way to find it is try and balance the weapon on one finger held out horizontally. The point where your finger sits, acting as the fulcrum, is the balance point, roughly.

(3) But is it true that a diamond cross section has a stiffer spine, and is better for thrusting against armour than a lenticular cross section, which will bend?

I'd rather a weapon that bends and doesn't break, over a stiffer weapon which, yes, has a higher chance of piercing, but has a very high chance of damaging or breaking in the process. Moreover, if you are talking about piercing anything tougher than chain mail, why are you using a sword in the first place? Using a sword against someone in plate will just damage your sword. It might apply on something like a pick or a spear, or the back pick on an axe, but also on these weapons, the steel would be vastly thicker than that of a sword as well, to prevent/avoid damage.
Lenticular and fullered weapons were designed with this shape in mind, mostly because it slid into and out of the human body much easier. Sure, a diamond shape will pierce a human body fine, much more likely to remain there just from muscle and blood pressure holding it in place, due to suction. While you are digging your weapon out the person you just killed, his body offs you. Enjoy.
Lastly, the Italians used to make triangular bayonet points. Why? No reason other than they were super easy for a not so well trained smith to hammer out. And while they made for great stabbing impliments, they broke often. They were eventually outlawed due to the fact that a stab from such a weapon was virtually impossible to stitch close at the time, wouldn't heal properly on it's own, and the victem would bleed to death if they didn't die from the wound outright. Again though, these were notorious for breaking, though I don't know if that had more to do with steel quality than design. I'd have to look into that.

(4) What are the advantages/disadvantages of setting the weight of the blade farther from or closer to the hilt? What I mean is a blade that widens and/or thickens closer to the point, versus a blade that is thickest closer to the handle and tapers towards the point?

Balance point closer to hilt (pommel heavy) = easier to swing, less strain on the wrist, less kinetic energy delivered to the target per impact. Balance point further out (tip heavy) equals harder hits but somewhat harder to control without straining the wrist. Lower balance point is better for thrusts and precision strikes while the tip heavier weapons are better for raw power. This however, is a very generalized explanation and it varies from sword to sword.

(5) On the battle field, such a "cut and thrust" sword would be a sidearm, yes? With a polearm as the main weapon? Or would infantry not carry sidearms at all?

If a polearm is your main weapon, odds are you would still have a side arm, because polearms do break. Also, if things got really rough in close quarter, a sidearm of some sort would be beneficial, as a polearm really does need lots of room to be effective.

Old addage for melee combat of all kinds. If they are trying to keep you at range, close in. If they are trying to close with you, keep them at range. This especially applies with two handed weapons. Their biggest advantage is reach. If someone closes with you to the point where you can't get a proper swing, you are useless. So a sidearm is the plan b weapon for that exact purpose. I don't suppose all that many pole arm users got to use their sidearms, but there would be no reaosn not to send them with one. It would be the same as sending archers with sidearms really.

[Galloglaich]

Absolutely. Many of the defining traits of the katana, such as the folding technique in forging or the bent blade, were attempts to compensate for the quality of the iron that was used. Any finely-made European sword would best a katana in overall quality, not to mention versatility- the curved blade of a katana is suitable only for slicing, while a longsword can be used to stab and cut with both sides.

The pattern welding / laminated 'folding technique' used to make Katanas was also used to make swords in almost every other part of the world at one time or another. Usually this was due to a lack of good quality homogeneous iron, but it could also be done intentionally to get a wider range of properties in different parts of your sword, which is definitely the case when you are talking about higher quality 16th century or later Japanese weapons. You also see similarly sophisticated techniques in Migration era German Swords, Viking Age Scandinavian swords, many Renaissance era German and Italian Swords, Indian swords, Chinese swords and swords found in the Philippines and Malaysia.

Also, in Europe until around the 11th Century good quality iron wasn't very widely available either.

No offense or anything but to say a katana is inferior or superior is kind of silly. You can most definitely thrust with a katana or a tachi. You can also very definitely 'chop' like an axe though slicing is a preferred technique. We should be cautious that in rejecting some old cliches about Japanese and Europoean swords

Katanas are specialized weapons to some extent but so are rapiers, kurkri knives, smallswords, grossmessers, sabers, and etc. It doesn't make them inferior weapons to more 'generalist' types. A saber is better in many respects for cutting from horseback than a strait sword is, for a variety of reasons. A strait sword may be more versatile in some respects but it isn't necesssarily better in all situations. In fact I think you could say all swords are specialized in some way.

G.

[Galloglaich]

I agree with the rest of this post, good answers to his questions... except this part:

This especially applies with two handed weapons. Their biggest advantage is reach. If someone closes with you to the point where you can't get a proper swing, you are useless. So a sidearm is the plan b weapon for that exact purpose. I don't suppose all that many pole arm users got to use their sidearms, but there would be no reaosn not to send them with one. It would be the same as sending archers with sidearms really.

Thats true but only if you don't know how to use the weapon mate ;) In the Renaissance fencing manuals you are taught how to fight at all ranges with swords, staves, polearms etc. Same in most Eastern martial arts.

G.

[Fhaolan]

(1) What do you mean by having a balance point on the blade?

(4) What are the advantages/disadvantages of setting the weight of the blade farther from or closer to the hilt? What I mean is a blade that widens and/or thickens closer to the point, versus a blade that is thickest closer to the handle and tapers towards the point?

I'll deal with these at the same time. :)

Basically, all objects have a balance point. A point where if you manage to hold it by that point there is equal mass on either side of it. One of the big things about pommels, is that they're big weights that moves that balance point closer to the hand. The farther away the balance point is from the hand, the 'choppier' or axe/mace-like the weapon is. This makes the weapon harder to change direction during or after a swing, but it also makes the weapon impart more impact to the target (because it's harder to change direction, you see?) The closer the balance point is to the hand, the easier it is to direct the weapon, making it feel more lively and move faster. Part of combat is constantly adjusting the motion of the weapon to be able to hit targets that are also constantly adjusting their position in space. It doesn't matter how hard you hit, if you never make contact. Conversely, it doesn't matter how often you hit, if the weapon doesn't hit hard enough to damage the target. Weapon design is all about balancing those and other factors.

As a note, I've handled weapons where the balance point is right at the hand or behind it, and that's *very* weird and uncomfortable in a hard-to-describe way.

(3) But is it true that a diamond cross section has a stiffer spine, and is better for thrusting against armour than a lenticular cross section, which will bend?

If all other variables are the same (temper, coss-sectional area, etc.) then yes but unless the blade is very predominanty diamond-shaped (almost square) the difference isn't going to be that much. For that matter, grooves down the blade also stiffen it. It's the same principles as to why I-beams are better than solid bars of steel, and why they put holes in bricks.

(5) On the battle field, such a "cut and thrust" sword would be a sidearm, yes? With a polearm as the main weapon? Or would infantry not carry sidearms at all?

Pikemen, archers, halbediers, etc. would likely have swords or long knives as sidearms. One of the standard front-line stances for a pikeman during the English Civil War was to be kneeling with the pike braced in the off-hand in a way that's very difficult to describe without a picture, with the sword drawn.

Single-handed swords are almost always considered to be a sidearm, with something else as the primary.

[fusilier]

(5) On the battle field, such a "cut and thrust" sword would be a sidearm, yes? With a polearm as the main weapon? Or would infantry not carry sidearms at all?

At the time period I typically deal with it was expected that all soldiers were equipped with a sword, although I'm sure local conditions varied and emergency levies might be caught without them. My knowledge is mostly limited to the late Renaissance period, and by that time I believe swords could be "mass-produced" relatively quickly and be of decent quality.

Some authorities did feel that rapiers were perfectly acceptable on the battlefield. It also appears that they were issued to common infantry -- because there are warnings against doing so. One source said that if you issued common infantry (at this time musketeers and pikemen) with fine rapiers, they would attempt to clear brush and gather firewood with them, and you would have a lot of broken rapiers. Others suggested arming them with hatchets and falchions instead.

Sidearm:
I was surprised to discover that as late as the Thirty Years War some infantry were still carrying swords as their primary weapon, combined with good-sized round steel shields. They seem to have been deployed in front of pike formations. So while the majority of infantry would have had swords as a sidearm, there were still some that carried them as a primary weapon.

[fusilier]

Basically, all objects have a balance point. A point where if you manage to hold it by that point there is equal mass on either side of it. One of the big things about pommels, is that they're big weights that moves that balance point closer to the hand. The farther away the balance point is from the hand, the 'choppier' or axe/mace-like the weapon is. This makes the weapon harder to change direction during or after a swing, but it also makes the weapon impart more impact to the target (because it's harder to change direction, you see?) The closer the balance point is to the hand, the easier it is to direct the weapon, making it feel more lively and move faster. Part of combat is constantly adjusting the motion of the weapon to be able to hit targets that are also constantly adjusting their position in space. It doesn't matter how hard you hit, if you never make contact. Conversely, it doesn't matter how often you hit, if the weapon doesn't hit hard enough to damage the target. Weapon design is all about balancing those and other factors.

As a note, I've handled weapons where the balance point is right at the hand or behind it, and that's *very* weird and uncomfortable in a hard-to-describe way.

As far as the balance affects the handling of the blade, it hasn't been directly stated, but a slower blade will probably be more difficult to parry *with*. That's been implicit in the conversation so far.

Pikemen, archers, halbediers, etc. would likely have swords or long knives as sidearms. One of the standard front-line stances for a pikeman during the English Civil War was to be kneeling with the pike braced in the off-hand in a way that's very difficult to describe without a picture, with the sword drawn.

Single-handed swords are almost always considered to be a sidearm, with something else as the primary.

Except of course those armed with a shield and sword. Although they tend to be a minority of the infantry -- at least in certain time periods(?).

That pikemen stance is for use against cavalry. Actually the stance involves having your hand on the sword, but it's not actually drawn (it may be partially drawn). I assume that if a horse impacts the pike, it may be broken or easily knocked out of the grip, so the pikeman must be ready to draw his sword. It's kind of awkward, and you really have to wear your sword correctly do it. It's also the reason I stopped wearing a really thick, padded leather doublet at reenactments. I was tired of the bruises on my arms!

[fusilier]

I forgot to mention, that we are dealing with battlefield weaponry. In personal combat a sword and dagger were a pretty common combination during the later renaissance. Of course, if a military battle degenerated into close hand-to-hand, you could expect to see those personal tactics being used. As Galloglaich pointed out there were techniques for getting around long weapons like pikes, although in formation with halberdiers to back them up it would be more difficult.

[Stephen_E]

Also what is the upper limit for pull multiplication using modern materials?

IIRC when Adain? has talked about it there isn't any significant actual pull multiplication, but it reduces the strength required to hold it after the draw.

Note: This is merely my memory of the lessons of the experts, so I could be wrong.

Stephen E

[Fhaolan]

As far as the balance affects the handling of the blade, it hasn't been directly stated, but a slower blade will probably be more difficult to parry *with*. That's been implicit in the conversation so far.

Yep. Although a slower, heavier weapon will technically *block* better, if you can get the weapon into place in time. (Block being quite different from parry, for those following at home. )

Except of course those armed with a shield and sword. Although they tend to be a minority of the infantry -- at least in certain time periods(?).

In the time periods I normally work with, even soliders who are 'primary' sword and shield more often than not start out with spears/javelins/darts/small blunderbuss and switch to sword once they've thrown/fired their small stash of missiles. That's not to say there aren't primary single-sword or sword and shield users, but just that they're relatively rare compared to those who use sword as a sidearm.

That pikemen stance is for use against cavalry. Actually the stance involves having your hand on the sword, but it's not actually drawn (it may be partially drawn). I assume that if a horse impacts the pike, it may be broken or easily knocked out of the grip, so the pikeman must be ready to draw his sword. It's kind of awkward, and you really have to wear your sword correctly do it. It's also the reason I stopped wearing a really thick, padded leather doublet at reenactments. I was tired of the bruises on my arms!

Once I figured out the exact stance and how to strap the sword right, I can comfortably hold that position for an hour or more, and be able to draw the sword. Sheathing it while holding the position... I haven't mastered that yet. And the best I have for that period is a standard buff coat, I wouldn't be able to do it in the really heavy padded doublets others use. Of course, I'm usually being whacked in the head by pike of the idiot standing behind me but what the hey, that's the price of being part of a pike band.

[Karoht]

Of course, I'm usually being whacked in the head by pike of the idiot standing behind me but what the hey, that's the price of being part of a pike band.

This is why I'm a sword and shield guy. WAY less chance of being hit in the back of the head by such, even in formation.

That and I loves the shield bash way WAY too much for my own good, or my opponents.

[arguskos]

My apologies gentlefolks for disrupting thy discussions, but I have a material-related question, if I may.

I have heard of a material called laminated steel (also called electrical steel sometimes), and am curious as to this material's properties in relation to more common steel alloys used in weapons.

My question is this: is laminated steel different enough to cause differences in the abilities of a weapon (say, a sword and a shorter blade, such as a knife or dagger) made from it, as opposed to normal materials?

Again, sorry for the disruption, but I'm very curious about this topic (working on some material-based homebrew for D&D 3.5, and was wondering about laminated steel as a possibility, and I like to have facts on my side).

[fusilier]

Once I figured out the exact stance and how to strap the sword right, I can comfortably hold that position for an hour or more, and be able to draw the sword. Sheathing it while holding the position... I haven't mastered that yet. And the best I have for that period is a standard buff coat, I wouldn't be able to do it in the really heavy padded doublets others use. Of course, I'm usually being whacked in the head by pike of the idiot standing behind me but what the hey, that's the price of being part of a pike band.

lol! I can totally relate. I've heard that pike commanders wanted to make sure that at least the front ranks had helmets -- because the men in the rear ranks had a tendency to drop their pikes on their heads! I wish we could get more people to events, the most we've ever had was eight pikemen and a drummer. The drill goes so much smoother with a drum. :-)

[Fhaolan]

My question is this: is laminated steel different enough to cause differences in the abilities of a weapon (say, a sword and a shorter blade, such as a knife or dagger) made from it, as opposed to normal materials?

I'm somewhat familiar with the modern material that is being called Laminated Steel, and I'd have to say I don't think it would make a very good weapon material.

First off, the term laminated steel can apply to pattern welded and folded steel, but that's not what is being refered to here. This stuff has been around since the 1990's and the current trade name for it is 'Quiet Steel'. It's normally used in making car body panels and a limited number of mechanical parts. Basically it's two thin sheets of steel sandwitched around a polymer core. The idea being that the core is viscoelastic and as such it dampens vibrations. It's easier, and cleaner, to deal with than the normal sound-deading foam used in cars. Otherwise it's mechanical properties are very similar to normal sheet steel. Except for one thing that prevents it from being used in more mechanical parts, and weapons.

The bit that makes it poor for weapon use is that while it dampens vibrations, enough of a shock will cause it to delaminate. Yeah, that's a problem.

[arguskos]

Ah, I see. Thanks, Fhaolan, that's very helpful.

[Galloglaich]

Very generally speaking the steel manufactured today is good for making I-beams, rebar, car doors and washing machines, but not necessarily ideal for making swords or body armor.

I happen to know that the Department of Defense analyzed some Renaissance made tempered steel breastplates during the 1990s, with an interest in making similar steel for armored vehicles. Their conclusion was that the manufacturing process was too expensive.

Steel, how it is smelted, forged, and heat-treated, is a very, very subtle thing that frankly is not as well understood today as you might think. People have a lot of confusion over the idea of modern super-metals like Titanium, which is actually physically something like extra hard aluminum - it would make a rather fragile sword. It is stronger than steel by weight, because steel is relatively heavy, but not by volume. A tempered steel sword could probably hack right through a titanium one.

G.

[Galloglaich]

Sidearm:
I was surprised to discover that as late as the Thirty Years War some infantry were still carrying swords as their primary weapon, combined with good-sized round steel shields. They seem to have been deployed in front of pike formations. So while the majority of infantry would have had swords as a sidearm, there were still some that carried them as a primary weapon.

Those would be skirmishers. The precedent for this in the pike warfare world would be Spanish rodeleros and rotella men who proved to be the key to finally defeating the Swiss in the 16th Century AD.

Skirmishers have been around since Classical times, and tend to come in two types; light missile armed troops and close-combat skirmishers. The former included the famous Greek Peltasts and the Roman Velites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peltast
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velites
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodelero

The early Swiss had a lot of skirmishers too but they were gradually phased out in favor of shot and pike, which proved to be a mistake making them vulnerable to the Spanish Rodeleros.

I would say broadly speaking, swords, and this also includes longswords, were almost always sidearms. The primary weapon of the Roman legionairre was the pilum (javelin), the primary weapon of the knight was the lance. But the thing to remember, unlike today where ammunition is small and plentiful, the sidearm was more critical in ancient times. A knight typically carried (or his squire or attendants carreid) 3 lances into battle. These broke very quickly, after which his sword was his primary weapon. Legionnares threw 3 pilum in their charge, and then relied upon the sword to finish their work. So the sidearm was still a very important weapon.

Many of the Swiss used Bastard swords as sidearms which apparently gave them a major edge over other troops who typically had short swords.

The Lansknechts preferred the katzbalger, a weapon specifically designed for the confusing aftermath of the push of pike, an efficient chopper with a heavy blade balanced by a heavy pommel, and a broad S-shaped guard to protect your hand so you could actually block with it. These are fun weapons, I have a replica of one.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katzbalger

Other troops used the buckler and the arming sword, your typical 'Swash and Buckle' men or 'Swashbucklers'.

Anyway, I could go on and on but have to go to work. :)

G.

[fusilier]

I guess I have a mental block when it comes to accepting throw-away weapons like pila as a primary weapon. Of course, in a literal sense it is the first weapon to be used (i.e. "primary"), but once it's thrown it's not going to be used in that battle again and the legionnaires carried only a couple of them. I'm trying to recall my undergrad Roman history class, but I believe pila were used as a preparatory weapon before closing in with the sword and shield. The Romans are usually considered to be one of the world's few (only?) sword armies. While the point is probably overstated, and the full breadth of their tactics often overlooked, in my mind the sword was the Romans' primary weapon (if by primary, we mean "main" weapon).

The sword-and-buckler men from the Thirty Years War (not sure if "buckler" is the correct term - it's a good sized shield), are shown in the new Osprey book. Yes they often carried pistols, but again, early single-shot pistols in melee would have a similar preparatory function. (Although I seem to recall there being pistol-armed cavalry that used a caracole tactic, they performed a different battlefield function).

[ondonaflash]

I am thinking of a piece of armour that was probably popular around renaissance era. As far as I know it was made of leather, it was designed to strap around the waist and rest on the hips, and had a large piece that came up to protect the stomach. What was this piece of armour called? Does anyone know?

[Matthew]

I guess I have a mental block when it comes to accepting throw-away weapons like pila as a primary weapon. Of course, in a literal sense it is the first weapon to be used (i.e. "primary"), but once it's thrown it's not going to be used in that battle again and the legionnaires carried only a couple of them. I'm trying to recall my undergrad Roman history class, but I believe pila were used as a preparatory weapon before closing in with the sword and shield. The Romans are usually considered to be one of the world's few (only?) sword armies. While the point is probably overstated, and the full breadth of their tactics often overlooked, in my mind the sword was the Romans' primary weapon (if by primary, we mean "main" weapon).

The sword-and-buckler men from the Thirty Years War (not sure if "buckler" is the correct term - it's a good sized shield), are shown in the new Osprey book. Yes they often carried pistols, but again, early single-shot pistols in melee would have a similar preparatory function. (Although I seem to recall there being pistol-armed cavalry that used a caracole tactic, they performed a different battlefield function).

With the corollary that we do not really know how the Romans fought, I think I can explain why the pila is generally viewed as the primary weapon of the Roman soldier...

The first thing to bear in mind is that the object on the battlefield is not to kill the enemy in a stand up fight, but convince him to run away. With that in mind, imagine you have 12,000 Roman soldiers on the field. They march up to around 90 feet of the enemy line and then groups of them begin rushing forward in unison and hurling their pila into the enemy line. They can keep doing this until they have hurled 24,000 pila. What the commander is watching for are signs that the enemy formation is breaking up. At that point he orders the charge and the whole Roman line surges onto the enemy, who will hopefully not fight at all, but turn and run away.

This is exactly the same idea that early medieval armies use, except instead of javelin armed footmen, they use combinations of javelin armed horsemen and bow armed foot. Their object is to break up the enemy line sufficiently that it will break when charged by cavalry. The horsemen themselves have either a javelin or lance as their primary weapon, but when the real killing begins it will be swords, just like the Romans before them.

[Fhaolan]

I am thinking of a piece of armour that was probably popular around renaissance era. As far as I know it was made of leather, it was designed to strap around the waist and rest on the hips, and had a large piece that came up to protect the stomach. What was this piece of armour called? Does anyone know?

If it was made of metal, it would be called a Plackart. I'm not familiar with one made just of leather.

[fusilier]

With the corollary that we do not really know how the Romans fought, I think I can explain why the pila is generally viewed as the primary weapon of the Roman soldier...

The first thing to bear in mind is that the object on the battlefield is not to kill the enemy in a stand up fight, but convince him to run away. With that in mind, imagine you have 12,000 Roman soldiers on the field. They march up to around 90 feet of the enemy line and then groups of them begin rushing forward in unison and hurling their pila into the enemy line. They can keep doing this until they have hurled 24,000 pila. What the commander is watching for are signs that the enemy formation is breaking up. At that point he orders the charge and the whole Roman line surges onto the enemy, who will hopefully not fight at all, but turn and run away.

This is exactly the same idea that early medieval armies use, except instead of javelin armed footmen, they use combinations of javelin armed horsemen and bow armed foot. Their object is to break up the enemy line sufficiently that it will break when charged by cavalry. The horsemen themselves have either a javelin or lance as their primary weapon, but when the real killing begins it will be swords, just like the Romans before them.

Yes, that's really the point of any charge, and it is often misunderstood.

I think one of the problems is trying to extract the individual soldier out of the system they are a part of. Even troops who were armed with little more than a sword in later conflicts (certain kinds of Napoleonic cavalry for instance), were typically used in conjunction with other forces armed in different fashion. But what does that mean for the individual? If a charge with swords was intended to frighten the enemy into running away -- isn't the sword still the primary weapon from a tactical viewpoint? Even if it is "hoped" it won't have to be used? A lot of emphasis is put on the "bayonet" during the post-Napoleonic period precisely for charges, where, as stated before, the point isn't necessarily to fight your enemy, it's to get him to run away. Returning to the individual's perspective, if battles are expected to become sword fights after the soldiers' very limited number of javelins are discharged, then what's the individual going to consider his most important weapon? I'm not saying there is an obvious or easy answer to this, but just that it doesn't seem so simple to me.

Let me give you another example, but I'll preface it by saying it is rather hyperbolic:

Claiming that the primary weapon of the Roman soldier was the pilum, is almost like claiming that the primary weapon of a WW1 Infantryman was a massive artillery barrage! (I did warn you). If all went as planned they should be able to occupy the enemy positions without ever firing their rifles!

So, yeah, the soldiers and how they function are part of bigger system that is often overlooked. I'm not totally convinced that you can determine what their primary weapons are based upon an overview of tactical doctrine. In some cases I think it's pretty clear: a pikeman's pike is his primary weapon, a lancer's lance is his primary weapon. But Roman soldiers who are armed with both a ranged weapon, and a close combat weapon, and can reasonably be expected to use both during the course of single battle . . .?? Interpreting how they are used and which is the "primary" weapon I suppose could be contentious. My recollection of Roman military prowess, was that it was based around the sword (not limited to it). The sword is a very effective weapon, but it requires a much larger amount of training (and therefore resources) to be used effectively, especially in formation. Meaning troops armed with spears and pikes will be more typical.

[Matthew]

That is essentially what I would call a spatha.

Spoiler

Show

The distinction of a weapon of this type is: short single-handed grip, very little if any cross-guard, strait more or less parallel blade, double-edged, an organic or non-ferrous pommel which doesn't act as a counterweight.

Swords like this were used widely in Europe from the 1st Century BC through roughly the 7th Century, when they began to be replaced by the 'viking' type swords with a deeply fullered cutting blade, an iron pommel acting as a counterweight and a small cross for hand protection. These in turn were gradually replaced in the 10th -11th Century by proper arming swords which had more of a cross and were often pointier.

The Romans adapted the Spatha type swords in the 1st Century AD and
Swords similar to the Spatha were used in the Middle East, Persia, India (see the Khanda, particularly the earlier types), North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, and China (see Jian, though Jian could be single handed, hand and a half, or two-handed) from the early Iron Age well into modern times.

It's worth noting on a practical level, the lack of hand protection on a sword like this very generally means they were typically used in conjunction with a shield or a buckler.

Exactly so, though it may be worth mentioning that the most recent archaeological evidence points to the gladius hispaniensis of the second century BC being similar in length to the spatha, possibly even being the forerunner of both the spatha and the more familiar short bladed gladius types.

I think they are old terms, though they didn't always mean the same thing in each era. Musashi refers to the 'long sword' and the 'short sword' referring to the Katana or Tachi and the Wakisashe or something similar.

Could well be; I was thinking more pre Edo period, but it may be related to the standardisation of kanji and the increase in frequency of short swords in the Sengokujidai period. Worth investigating, it was just a passing thought.

With terminology, it is tricky. Modern industrial concepts of categorization don't fit neatly with hand-made, pre-industrial artefacts. But if you are talking about a time period more than a generation or two you need to make some categories to understand weapons in different eras. That is why I believe it makes more sense from a modern standpoint to categorize weapons by function and design, whether you use ancient or modern terms is somewhat irrelevant. As pointed out upthread, the most typical designation for any kind of sword in historical documents was just 'sword', or spatha, mec, spada, schwert, and etc., which all mean the same thing.

That said they did distinguish between long and short swords in late Medieval and Renaissance era documents. The from circa 1400 on out the term 'long sword' ('langen schwert' etc.) referred to what most RPG's would call a Bastard sword, a hand-and-a-half strait sword around 4 feet long. Other specific terms were used: montante, spadona, epee a guerre etc. but that term is very common in the fencing Manuals and records of the time.

Also, it has gone back and forth but I think the term Zweihander is back in current use for the really big 16th century two-handed swords.

Short swords did also exist but often tended to have their own name, like the gladius, or the very similar Russian / Central Asian Kindjal. Some others include the akinakes, the Swiss baselard, the German Katzbalger, and the Cinquedea, just to name a few.

Quite so, though I believe that gladius as a designation for a short bladed sword is post medieval. I am not 100% sure, but I think gladius remains in use in Medieval Latin as a general purpose word for "sword". Of course "long sword" turns up as a cognomen long before the appearance of the weapon generally so classified now. I would love to research (or hear about research) into specific instances and their origins.

Re: longbows. You basically in period had two different broad categories of bows, a 'regular' bow similar to the type you might use for archery practice today (non compound) which would be called a bow but could reasonably be called a 'short bow' for modern purposes. These were for hunting essentially. Then you had military bows. Your long bow and war bow are military bows. Draw weight and length go up substantially, the former harder than most untrained people can handle (upwards of 120 - 150 lbs). As someone mentioned upthread you had a different shape. I also understand a lot of times the part of the bow stave which compresses was cut out and replaced with a different type of wood. These type of bows seem to have been known in Scandinavia as far back as the Bronze Age, show in Wales in early Medieval times and were adapted by the British in the Middle Ages shortly after the conquest of Wales.

On the steppe you have recurves of different strength, all dual-purpose weapons intended both for hunting and for warfare. The 'Composite bow' which incorporates different materials such as bone, sinew and horn is the most dangerous. The Scythians, Parthians, the Magyars, the Huns, the Mongols, and the Turks all gained a good part of their reputation from these lethal and efficient weapons, very powerful and also small enough to shoot while riding a horse.

Interestingly the European answer to these weapons was also made of composite materials, at least initially. The increasingly powerful Medieval Arbalest (a very heavy crossbow) which began to alarm people around the 11th century (though referred to in legal documents centuries before that) was made of composite materials. Eventually arbalests got steel prods which were less susceptible to weather.

I can never quite decide whether the crossbow ever really alarmed people. Anna Komnena certainly seems to have been, and the Royal Armouries seem to have been particularly interested in stockpiling and controlling the means of construction, but ever since it was shown that the Papal ban on crossbows extended to all forms of archery I have vacillated in my perception of them. Given that most of medieval warfare was raid and siege I can definitely see their advantage over a bow.

The Indians were also formidable archers and they even made steel bows, somewhat similar to modern types (except without the pullies) Here is an image of one:

Spoiler

Show

Very interesting!

Both terms are pretty generic and both weapons were made in quite a range of quality and technical specification over the course of many Centuries. The Jian even existed in Bronze form. Some Jian were very sophisticated, featuring advanced metallurgy and sophisticated properties of balance, most of these were hand and a half weapons. Jian were associated with the Aristocracy and the high bureaucracy and became a civilian weapon in a niche somewhat similar to a Rapier during the late Renaissance (Ming Dynasty) They were restricted from use by common people. The Dao (saber) in various forms was the preferred weapon for issue to the military.

I was in Taiwan a few months ago and was amazed by the similarity between the bronze age/early iron age "short swords" on display in the National Museum and those of a similar period in Europe.

Neither, just different. Blade cross-sections, fullers etc. had different purposes for different types of swords.

Indeed; this was surprising to me, but there does not seem to have been much practical difference between those blade forms. There was a good demonstration that Mike Loades did on Weapons that Made Britain a few years ago.

Yes, that's really the point of any charge, and it is often misunderstood.

I think one of the problems is trying to extract the individual soldier out of the system they are a part of. Even troops who were armed with little more than a sword in later conflicts (certain kinds of Napoleonic cavalry for instance), were typically used in conjunction with other forces armed in different fashion. But what does that mean for the individual? If a charge with swords was intended to frighten the enemy into running away -- isn't the sword still the primary weapon from a tactical viewpoint? Even if it is "hoped" it won't have to be used? A lot of emphasis is put on the "bayonet" during the post-Napoleonic period precisely for charges, where, as stated before, the point isn't necessarily to fight your enemy, it's to get him to run away. Returning to the individual's perspective, if battles are expected to become sword fights after the soldiers' very limited number of javelins are discharged, then what's the individual going to consider his most important weapon? I'm not saying there is an obvious or easy answer to this, but just that it doesn't seem so simple to me.

Let me give you another example, but I'll preface it by saying it is rather hyperbolic:

Claiming that the primary weapon of the Roman soldier was the pilum, is almost like claiming that the primary weapon of a WW1 Infantryman was a massive artillery barrage! (I did warn you). If all went as planned they should be able to occupy the enemy positions without ever firing their rifles!

So, yeah, the soldiers and how they function are part of bigger system that is often overlooked. I'm not totally convinced that you can determine what their primary weapons are based upon an overview of tactical doctrine. In some cases I think it's pretty clear: a pikeman's pike is his primary weapon, a lancer's lance is his primary weapon. But Roman soldiers who are armed with both a ranged weapon, and a close combat weapon, and can reasonably be expected to use both during the course of single battle . . .?? Interpreting how they are used and which is the "primary" weapon I suppose could be contentious. My recollection of Roman military prowess, was that it was based around the sword (not limited to it). The sword is a very effective weapon, but it requires a much larger amount of training (and therefore resources) to be used effectively, especially in formation. Meaning troops armed with spears and pikes will be more typical.

I think when it comes down to it, you have to draw a distinction between "primary" (first) and "main" (most used). Much like the (very) Ancient Greeks before them, the first weapon to be used is the javelin, and the second weapon the sword. Preferably you will never have to use your sword, but maybe you will end up doing the majority of your fighting with it. I reckon the same logic would hold true with a Pike Phalanx or a squadron of Heavy Horse.

[fusilier]

I think when it comes down to it, you have to draw a distinction between "primary" (first) and "main" (most used). Much like the (very) Ancient Greeks before them, the first weapon to be used is the javelin, and the second weapon the sword. Preferably you will never have to use your sword, but maybe you will end up doing the majority of your fighting with it. I reckon the same logic would hold true with a Pike Phalanx or a squadron of Heavy Horse.

You're probably right about distinguishing between primary and main. From a tactical perspective: a pikeman's sword is clearly "Plan B." In the case of Roman Legionnaire, I would say that both the pila and the sword were part of "Plan A." If that makes any sense?

[Matthew]

You're probably right about distinguishing between primary and main. From a tactical perspective: a pikeman's sword is clearly "Plan B." In the case of Roman Legionnaire, I would say that both the pila and the sword were part of "Plan A." If that makes any sense?

Certainly; I think a distinction like that is worth making. Possibly another way of looking at is to say that the gladius was the Roman footman's primary melee weapon.

[Galloglaich]

Agree with that except that I think the Roman Legions charged as small company sized units usually, maniples or centuries depending on the specific era, charge in throw pila and then stab stab stab with the Gladius... if that didn't break the enemy line they march backward into their own formation... then another maniple charges. Of course sometimes several would charge at the same time.

This is kind of hard to visualize because for whatever reason it is never portrayed in films.

Most Iron Age and early Medieval armies basically threw javelins and spears at each other and probed one another with skirmishers and cavalry until one side crumbled under the onslaught, then the swords came out and the slaughter / rout began.

The idea of a lance or a javelin being a primary weapon and a sword being a sidearm IS a little counter-intuitive because we live in a time where missile weapons (automatic rifles) are so dominant and effective that sidearms (pistols, bayonetts, shovels etc.) are sort of a dim afterthought. There is a big difference from an Ak-47 that can spray 30 rounds of high velocity ammo instantly at targets up to 300-400 meters, vs. 3 javelins, or 3 lances. So sidearms were MUCH more important in pre-industrial times.

Swords were for close combat*, then as now, the main part of the fight in terms of time took place at longer range. A halberd or a spear is more effective on the battlefield, until the line breaks up... then it's very valuable to have a sword. However the part of the fight that was close in was often the decisive part of the fight, especially in European warfare which placed such a heavy emphasis on Shock tactics. So I think the sword was very important.


I want to also clarify that for skirmishers like the Rodoleros or the sword and buckler men in an English Civil War context, swords were probably their primary weapon. They were something of the exception to the rule.


*The other main exception to that would be the really large 'true two-hand' specialized greatswords like Zweihanders, Montantes, "Claymores" etc. which were primary battlefield weapons.

G.

[Karoht]

Thats true but only if you don't know how to use the weapon mate ;) In the Renaissance fencing manuals you are taught how to fight at all ranges with swords, staves, polearms etc. Same in most Eastern martial arts.

And in almost any martial arts system, they teach the notion of pining large weapons such as two handed swords and polearms to the target body, rendering the weapon useless, before the target gets a swing off. It is a tactic I make use of all the time. Thanks for assuming I don't know how these weapons are used and how to counter them. Thanks also for assuming that I was speaking my opinion and not the wisdom of another, namely that of many martial arts instructors (martial arts since I was 4, live steel full contact medieval combat for the last 8 years), and Hank Reinhardt, one of the foremost experts on medieval combat, weapons, and equipment.

Yes, there are techniques for fighting with a weapon at all ranges, but when dealing with (for example) a pole arm it is undeniable that at short range your options become signifigantly limited, as compaired to longer range. Some fighters prefer the side arm (designed for that range BTW) when such a situation occurs, VS working with a limited tool.

[Galloglaich]

Yes, there are techniques for fighting with a weapon at all ranges, but when dealing with (for example) a pole arm it is undeniable that at short range your options become signifigantly limited, as compaired to longer range. Some fighters prefer the side arm (designed for that range BTW) when such a situation occurs, VS working with a limited tool.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be insulting, just not always enough time to get the right nuance into a forum post. But generally speaking 'live steel' ren faire combat is a lot different from MA systems from the Fechtbuchs or other Eastern Martial Arts as I'm sure you know, due to the rules and safety concerns etc.

I sort of agree with your basic premise, it's definitely better to get "insde" a weapon like a polearm if you have a shorter weapon. I just think you have to keep in mind it's not always that simple.

At closer range with a longsword you use half-sword techniques, ringen am-schwert techniques (something like judo, using your sword to help you gain leverage on your opponent.) and other more complex

Some examples from the Renaissance Lichtenauer tradition, you are probably familiar with this Karoht but I'm posting for others in the thread:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6Pnw-9A8qQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIFIn6tAI3A

With polearms there are similar techniques, you go from a spear -like grip / stance (gripping at the end) to a half-staff (gripping in the middle) stance which can be quite effective at short range, again you can use the staff to trip bind or disarm, you attack with both ends, etc.

But the caveat is, and this is what I really meant, a common soldier might not know any of those techniques. A trained veteran probably would.

G.