Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X

[Matthew]

How effective were swords at stabbing through mail? If they were not effective at doing this, why where they not supplanted by maces and hammers when mail became common place? Why did longswords remain popular as secondary weapons instead of being replaced by hammers and maces?

Well, the question is kind of its own answer, really. Generally speaking, swords, axes, maces, hammers and picks were all available, but there was no clear winner in terms of which was the most effective secondary killing weapon because each presents its own advantages and disadvantages. Exactly what those might be is a matter of some debate, but obviously impact weapons are somewhat slower to recover, and have less thrusting ability than swords.

As far as the two-handed swords go, what advantages did they have over poleaxemen or hammer-and-shield men when fighting in loose formations?

Pretty much the same as above, though exactly how weapons were used remains open to interpretation, discussion and experimentation. My view is that a sword is basically more versatile than the other options, which is why they ended up with combination heads.

Also, how effective was the murder-stroke at damaging men in "transitional" plate armor? Would a sword with sharpened quillons be at all feasible?

Not very, it seems to me. No doubt somebody else has a better understanding of its use than I, but one advantage of using a sword this way is that you can unexpectedly hook and pull down an opponent, finishing him off with a dagger or something.

[Conners]

With fighting techniques and counters... are there unlimited possible counters, or do you get to a point where the fourth counter puts someone in a corner?

[Hawkfrost000]

With fighting techniques and counters... are there unlimited possible counters, or do you get to a point where the fourth counter puts someone in a corner?

I'm not really sure what you are asking. Do you mean blocks and counter attacks?

[Conners]

Like, with this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a839l...feature=relmfu

They tend to mention four "plays" with exchanges. What I'm wondering is, are there a limited number of plays possible for a given situation, or is it possible to have a 40th play?

[Spiryt]

Hey I'm sorry I missed the part where you said you were not defending swords as bludgeons... I may have gone off on a tangent, I'm not certain what your point is exactly. I will acknowledge that generally speaking, Battle of Nations / Bohun is not the best most realistic resource for Medieval warfare, except in the one respect I mentioned. But it does illustrate that one point pretty effectively.

G

It's 'bohurt' Bohun is antagonist of "With Fire and Steel".

Anyway, there's plenty of of injuries, even pretty serious ones in events like that, but generally well fitting armor seems very effective at stopping even wild roid hog type of smacking.

So all kind of thrusts and dagger work on hurt/outwrestled opponents was probably very important with well armored opponents.

Like, with this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a839l...feature=relmfu

They tend to mention four "plays" with exchanges. What I'm wondering is, are there a limited number of plays possible for a given situation, or is it possible to have a 40th play?

Those "plays" are interpretations of sequences found in manuals.

It's obviously possible to have even 459th play, but without armor, and with obviously chaotic nature of actual combat, someone would pretty much certainly got killed/injured badly or the fight would get broken up, before it would last that long.

[Fortinbras]

Okay, let me rephrase my question. My understanding is that at any time between about 1200 and 1500 or so, if two fully-armored knights had a fight and one of them was armed with a sword and the other with a impact weapon, the knight with the sword might be able to utilize the superior versatility of his weapon to land more hits, but short of a thrust through the eye or a whack to the groin, he would be unable to actually inflict a serious injury. This would be particularly true after 1300 or so, but even mail, which by 1200 could be used to armor an entire body, was able to nullify any major damage from a sword stroke.

The fighter with an impact weapon would have a slower, clumsier weapon, but he would have the ability to cause very serious damage to his opponent if he scored a hit. This is, I believe, a fairly basic necessity for any weapons system to be effective.

A man using a sword in two hands could do some damage with murder-strokes or half-swording, essentially using the sword as a poleaxe, but an actual poleaxe which is longer and has a heavier head is better at this. Besides being cheaper to make, a poleaxe has greater reach and allows its wielder to transfer swiftly between strokes with the butt and head, giving it several notable advantages. The main thing a sword can do that a poleaxe cannot do, slicing with the edge, is not especially effective against an armored foe.

When employing a single sword against a soldier with a shield and impact weapon, one runs into a whole host of troubles. One of the most effective techniques normally used in this situation, a swift cut or thrust to the lower leg, is not especially effective against an armored foe.

Now, I must be missing something otherwise, swords would have disappeared as a military weapon after about 1200. Swords hold an important place in martial culture, but Western militaries are a pragmatic lot and would have done in the 13th century what they did in the 19th when swords lost all relevance on the battlefield and retired them.

Instead, swords were an extremely popular military side-arm for the entirety of the Middle Ages and Renaissance. Longer, two-handers like the the claymore were used as primary weapons.
So, what did I miss?

[GraaEminense]

In the Army Museum in Athens I found what I believe may be a contender for the "most fantasy weapon idea" championship: The stirrup cannon:

Spoiler

Show

Since no one at the museum had bothered to put up signs at most of the exhibits, I wonder if anyone here could help me make sense of these strange things.

-Does anyone know if these things were used to any extent, or are they as novel as I think they are?

-What's the idea behind them? Breaking up infantry formations seems most likely but would require widespread use. Pointing them rearwards to make the horse go faster?

-To me, it looks like these are percussion weapons fired by a string releasing a spring. Am I right? That would make them no older than the 1830s at most, which seems... odd, for something like this.

[Spiryt]

Now, I must be missing something otherwise, swords would have disappeared as a military weapon after about 1200. Swords hold an important place in martial culture, but Western militaries are a pragmatic lot and would have done in the 13th century what they did in the 19th when swords lost all relevance on the battlefield and retired them.

Instead, swords were an extremely popular military side-arm for the entirety of the Middle Ages and Renaissance. Longer, two-handers like the the claymore were still used as primary weapons up until the Battle of Killiecrankie in 1689.
So, what did I miss?

From that point of view, one rather simple thing - depending on battle/situation minority or vast minority combatants would be armored head to toe with mail, plate or whatever else. Plenty of them would be vulnerable, especially in skirmish/rout or similar chaotic situations. Throughout the pretty much whole Medieval, infantrymen very rarely had any serious lower leg armor for example.

And claymore example's even easier - pretty much noone at Killiecrankie would have any serious armor.

Got to remember than armor generally started to disappear trough the 17th century, full armor in particular.

[Yora]

I imagine getting shot in the arm and leg in a gun battle is much less likely that getting them slashed in a sword fight. That makes a cuirass a valid choice of armor.

[Dead_Jester]

I imagine getting shot in the arm and leg in a gun battle is much less likely that getting them slashed in a sword fight. That makes a cuirass a valid choice of armor.

There is also the fact that using (and reloading) an early firearm with full armor is harder than with only a breastplate, and damn near impossible with full protective gauntlets and a closed helmet.

[Storm Bringer]

Plus, it is very hard to make an armour that is both light enough to wear while still protecting the body agianst bullets. the effort and skill needed ment that it was very expensive, even compared to "normal" plate armour, so many people simply could not afford armour that good for all the body.

so they do what people have done since the dawn of time, and armoured those parts that you can least afford a wound to: the chest and the head.

[Spiryt]

There is also the fact that using (and reloading) an early firearm with full armor is harder than with only a breastplate, and damn near impossible with full protective gauntlets and a closed helmet.

Infantrymen generally were wearing open helmets, similarly archers probably didn't use much gauntlets from this reason.


Majority of gunmen didn't have very complete, quality armor because they simply didn't have means.

Still, some gunmen quite certainly had pretty solid armor.

Spoiler

Show

I really don't think that armor would interfere much with operating a gun - gauntlets most probably, but not armor in itself. Reloading a gun would require much less rapid and violent movements than fighting with any two handed weapon - and that quite obviously was more than possible in armor.

I imagine getting shot in the arm and leg in a gun battle is much less likely that getting them slashed in a sword fight. That makes a cuirass a valid choice of armor.

I don't think so - bullets had pretty flat trajectory and good range, so with adequate angle they were just as likely to hit and leg as the torso...

While in melee, especially in formation, hitting the legs can be challenging without exposing too much - that's why even very well armored infantry in medieval left lower legs unprotected, while cavalry was armoring them if possible.

Aside from the fact that infantry would have to walk and fight on those own legs of their, unlike raiders.

[Fortinbras]

Okay, I wasn't really asking about swords in the 17th century on. My point was that soldiers in the 12th, 13th, 14th, and 15th centuries who could expect to find themselves clashing with fully armored opponents brought swords, both as primary weapons and side arms, into battle. This seems like an extremely poor choice of weapon compared to its rivals for the reasons I mentioned in my earlier post. People did this a lot anyway so it cannot be as poor a choice as I think it is. What am I missing?

[Spiryt]

Okay, I wasn't really asking about swords in the 17th century on. My point was that soldiers in the 12th, 13th, 14th, and 15th centuries who could expect to find themselves clashing with fully armored opponents brought swords, both as primary weapons and side arms, into battle. This seems like an extremely poor choice of weapon compared to its rivals for the reasons I mentioned in my earlier post. People did this a lot anyway so it cannot be as poor a choice as I think it is. What am I missing?

Reasons were mentioned quite a lot already:

- Majority of opponents were not fully armored at all
- sword is a versatile and handy weapon for many different situations other than pressed battle
-defeating armor was anyway very hard, no matter if one had sword, spear or mace. Precise attack to the place where blood can be drawn would be probably always preferred, and swords, particularly with decent thrusting capabilities are precise weapons.

All in all, we don't know how much swords were used in battlefields, and how much as 'sidearms' during majority of war - so marching, raids, acquiring provision, scouting, marauding around and so on...

[Galloglaich]

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/attach...id=56249&stc=1

any idea the provenance of this image? I'd really love to use it in my book, that looks like a Hussite style war wagon though it could be an Italian Carroccio

G

[Fortinbras]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdPt2ZVk4Yg

Does anybody know if what Mike Loades is doing at the beginning of the video, essentially switching between sword-and-shield and two-handed sword strokes was an actual combat style? It seems like it could be a wonderfully versatile way of fighting, provided the transitions are as smooth as Loades makes them look?

[Conners]

Going to add a question as to how effective Mike's strike would've been. A two-handed strike to the spine seems pretty good, to me (regardless of the mail). Aside from targeting unarmoured areas, which places do you target? Spine, neck, groin, shins?

[Matthew]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdPt2ZVk4Yg

Does anybody know if what Mike Loades is doing at the beginning of the video, essentially switching between sword-and-shield and two-handed sword strokes was an actual combat style? It seems like it could be a wonderfully versatile way of fighting, provided the transitions are as smooth as Loades makes them look?

There is manuscript evidence for knights gripping their swords in two hands, and letting the shield "hang", so something like that was going on at least in the thirteenth century for sure. The Codex Manesse has some great images.

[Fortinbras]

Would you describe Mike's sword as being an "arming sword" or a longsword or does it fall somewhere in between?

[Matthew]

In modern parlance that would be an arming sword, I believe; in AD&D it would be a "long sword".

[The Boz]

There's a difference between the DnD longsword and real world arming sword?

[Matthew]

Sure, the D&D long sword stands in for pretty much any single handed double edged sword with a blade in excess of 24". Usually, as an edition goes on it starts subdividing the initial abstraction. Way back in the days of OD&D there was just sword and two-handed sword, then there was short sword, long sword, bastard sword and two-handed sword, then there was added broad sword, scimitar, and various others.

Mind, I think Fortinbras was distinguishing between what are now commonly referred to as "arming swords" and "long swords", and not referencing D&D.

[eulmanis12]

Fair enough, but anti-tank guns are very clearly for destroying tanks.

The two uses for a two-hander that I have seen proposed are a) Cutting through a polearm formation and/or b) Cutting the legs off horses. Both of these are very, as someone on here mentioned, quite dubious. So, what were these swords designed for.

As for being inferior to polearms, a number of people, most notably George Silver, say that in a man to man fight, a man with a quarterstaff or axe or halberd would have an advantage over a swordsmen.

not necesarily. assuming the same degree of armor on both sides a man with a sword would not be at much of a disadvantage to a man with one of the polearms you mentioned. An axe hits with more force, but as a consiquence is more difficult to recover with. A halberd has more reach, but should the swordsman get in close it becomes very difficult for the halberdier to continue fighting effectively.

A man with a sword and shield would have more tactical options. Remember, the shield is a weapon no less deadly than the sword. With a shield you can block your opponent's attacks, push him back, and deliver many different blows. The sword is just part of a two part weapon system.

this goes for both onehanded and twohanded swords, both of which could be used with a shield. Though it is more prevalent with one handed swords.

I'm personally not a fan of two handed swords, however this is not because I think they are useless, its because of a difference in fighting style. I prefer one handed weapons because I like the additional options they offer.

[Ashtagon]

Exactly how durable were shields? I've seen reports of boiled leather shields surviving for 3000 years, and I've seen reports of shields being rendered useless after a single combat. Where does the truth lie?

[Spiryt]

Exactly how durable were shields? I've seen reports of boiled leather shields surviving for 3000 years, and I've seen reports of shields being rendered useless after a single combat. Where does the truth lie?

Surviving decay in the ground/riverbed obviously doesn't have much to do with surviving repeating impacts from javelins and stuff.

And shields were so varied throughout the time and places that it's impossible to answer it generally.

There's a lot of indication that in 'Dark Ages' Europe plenty of shields were built to be somehow disposable - made of thin planks just butted together, without any particular reinforcing - with just a boss being valuable part of it all.

On the other hand, we have finds of more durable ones.

Roman scuta were pretty certainly designed to take quite a mauling, for example.

Here's pretty good article about it:

http://www.hurstwic.org/history/arti...ng_shields.htm

[rrgg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsZnTCQptWc
This is the video I usually bring up.

The shield at around 4:30 is pretty similar to how the vast majority of European shields would have been made. Notice that it works extremely well at stopping penetration, but too many heavy bows might eventually cause the wood beneath to fail and turn the shield sort of limp.

[fusilier]

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/attach...id=56249&stc=1

any idea the provenance of this image? I'd really love to use it in my book, that looks like a Hussite style war wagon though it could be an Italian Carroccio

G

Hmmm . . . it doesn't quite look like an Carroccio, but I can see why you asked that.

The Spanish used war carts, reportedly equipped with scythes, spears and organ guns at the Battle of Ravenna (there's no report on how they did, but they don't seem to have been fielded again). While the Hussites made war wagons famous, there's evidence that they were used by others, and certainly Leonardo da Vinci designed some. The style of the armor and weaponry looks too late to be a Carroccio -- if I recall correctly they fell out of favor in the late 14th century/early 15th century. It does look Italian, but Italians usually used Oxen for draft. Although that changed during the Italian Wars. (It could still be Italian as horses would be faster on the battlefield).

[Conners]

On the earlier stuff about the swordsmen, I'm a bit confused on one point. I've heard that spear wielders have a big advantage over swordsmen in duels. If that is true, why are swordsmen better for loose-formation combat?

[Matthew]

The Montante / Zwiehander / Spada a Due Mani / Claymore class of weapons (which includes a pretty wide range of weapon sizes) were used in all the above mentioned cases, against 'loose' formations (such as in hill country like in the Scottish highlands), against horses (some of the big Japanese two-handed swords were specifically called 'horse-killing swords'), against pike-squares, and also in other cases. But the best information we have for period sources is that they were primarily used, at least in Continental Europe, for cases when 'few must fight against many'. The surviving montante manuals we have, from Spain, recommend the weapon for street skirmishes if you expect to be outnumbered. On the battlefield, orders of battle indicate that the two-handed swordsmen were used to defend banners (very important), protect cannon, as bodyguards for VIP's, to protect groups of hand-gunners and skirmishers, to attack pike squares, to attack / target VIP's, and to act as skirmishers themselves. Essentially they provided extra protection for when a formation broke up, and /or they could exploit the situation when an (enemy) formation was breaking up.

Nice to see this spelled out; I have been developing a War & Battle supplement for OSRIC and have often been wondering whether I am really on the right track with two-handed swords and weapon frontage.

On the earlier stuff about the swordsmen, I'm a bit confused on one point. I've heard that spear wielders have a big advantage over swordsmen in duels. If that is true, why are swordsmen better for loose-formation combat?

Wrong way around. In a duel, the swordsman will usually have the advantage, because the spear wielder will usually be compelled to be constantly on the back foot trying to keep his opponent from getting past the spear point.

[Knaight]

Wrong way around. In a duel, the swordsman will usually have the advantage, because the spear wielder will usually be compelled to be constantly on the back foot trying to keep his opponent from getting past the spear point.

Silver disagrees, at least as regards using a spear in both hands. Based on my own experience, I'm inclined to disagree as well; spears are fast weapons and the highly variable reach can keep swordsmen somewhat off balance. If you're trying to use a 16 foot pike in single combat you are going to have problems, yes, but with a shorter spear you're good.