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

[Talakeal]

Thanks for the info! I feel a lot better about my choice of weapon now, and have a lot more pictures to serve as reference points.

Ninjato: The idea of these being used by shinobi is derived from old Japanese plays. These swords were often given as offerings at temples, so they gave them to the ninja in the play to make them seem more ominous, more like ghosts who wield temple swords.
.

This sounds very interesting. Do you (or anyone else) have any more information about it, or about "temple offering swords" in general?

[Mr. Mask]

Afraid I don't know a good source offhand.

As for temple offering swords, it was a popular practice across many cultures to give weapons to your gods by placing them in your temples. Some like the Japanese also had fun making extreme weapons for this purpose, like a sword that was something like nine feet long.

[Brother Oni]

This sounds very interesting. Do you (or anyone else) have any more information about it, or about "temple offering swords" in general?

Japanese temple offering swords were often odachi since the Edo Government banned the possession of swords over a certain length in the early 17th Century. I don't know where Mr Mask got the information that ninjato were common votive offerings - the closest I can find is that one of the Buddist patron gods of the ninja (Fudo Myo-oh, better known as Acala) used a straight edged blade.

Since odachi were harder to make and had a more exotic appearance, they were deemed to be more suitable as a gift to the gods.

The Kyoto National Museum has a number of these votive offerings in their collection.

Mr Mask alluded to extremely long, impractical odachi, the longest I've found is a little over 12': Norimitsu odachi. Some long odachi were reputed to have been used in battle, but they would have been comparatively short at ~2m: link.

Typically these very long swords were made in sections and forged together - what makes the Norimitsu so special is that it was apparently forged as a single piece, which is just mind blowing.

Edit: Tripod doesn't allow hotlinking apparently, so I've changed the picture to a link above for the Norimitsu odachi.

[snowblizz]

I was thinking a bit about the differences in samurai and knight armour due to the getting through it discussion.

To me a knight's armour seems more "proof" against sword action, eg looking at those wrestling samurai there seems to be real weaknesses in it. Also arms and legs seem relatively light compared to the western counter parts. For example shoulders and armpits look really vulnerable.

A lot of it looks to be lamellar types too, where western armour have much larger pieces of plate. At their height both where to a large degree bullet proof, (which for the samurai armour does surprise me somewhat), but then the firearms they dealt with were generally lighter too.

Anyone got a good comparison of the armours. I remember he SpikeTV Deadliest Warrior thing and always wanted to see knight vs samurai (stupid as that show was where the programmers ooohs and aaahs were hardcoded).

While I don't particularly like the whole who would win, I'm thinking the knight has the better armour and weapons made to defeat that better armour so would have an advantage?

[Mr. Mask]

Oni: I can find out the specific if you like. Don't have them offhand.


Knight vs. Samurai: Well, covering yourself from head to toe isn't without cost. It's hot and heavy armour. Not all of Europe's armour was so complete, of course. Some of the Japanese armours were quite complete, similar to plate panoplies.

As for the quality of the design, the lamellar of the samurai was by no means poor. Overall, an articulated plate harness will perform better, but not by as much as you might expect. That being said, I do prefer articulated harness.

Samurai armour that was noted as bullet proof tended to have western style breastplates. But guns of the time were not lighter, they were much heavier. The guns had penetration power comparable to modern rifles at close ranges. Even the lighter muskets which came into mass production were very fierce in their fire-power.

Horrible memories of Deadliest Warrior are flooding back... but either way, in a contest... I personally like the medieval European equipment available for a duel better, overall, assuming it is the 16th century or earlier. Poleaxe and articulated harness is my favourite. As you implied, the difference would still not be decisive. You might be able to come to conclusions favouring one side or the other.

[Incanur]

I think it's fair to consider European full plate armor made from hardened steel the best defense against non-gunpowder weapons ever worn on the battlefield. (I guess this might change if powered armor pans out, but that hasn't happened yet.)

On the other hand, I'm not convinced that European armor before the late 14th century performed better overall than Japanese armor. Mail offered more complete coverage but may have been easier to penetrate than Japanese lamellar (I don't know of any tests of Japanese armor).

And as far as infantry armor goes, 16th-century Japanese and European soldiers strike me as similarly protected. Decent-quality European gauntlets in particular and arm defenses in general might have been better. Wrought-iron breastplates in some cases might have been worse than lamellar. Cheap European infantry armor could be nearly as pathetic as high-grade cavalry suits were impressive.

As far as weapons go, both metallurgical tests and primary sources indicate that high-quality Japanese swords were at least as good as the best European swords in terms of hardness and sharpness, though that doesn't matter too much in an armored duel. The main advantage I see in European weapons would be heavy lance plus lance rest and polearms like the pollaxe, but the Japanese had various heavy polearms too even if they saw comparatively less use.

At point to remember is that only the rich and/or lucky in 15th- and 16th-century Europe had access to the highest-quality weapons and armor. Weapons and armor for common European soldiers could be of quite poor quality.

[Brother Oni]

To me a knight's armour seems more "proof" against sword action, eg looking at those wrestling samurai there seems to be real weaknesses in it. Also arms and legs seem relatively light compared to the western counter parts. For example shoulders and armpits look really vulnerable.

While full plate harness is better protection (honestly I'm with Incanur as I can't think of anything that's actually better), it doesn't mean that samurai armour is full of weaknesses.

While the video looks like there's significant gaps, going back a few pages to my post on Japanese armour, that's the newer gusoku armour which is lighter and less protective than o-yoroi or do-maru armours. That said, just as knights wore gambesons and arming caps under their plate, there's a whole host of auxiliary armour that the samurai wore, so these gaps would be protected by either quilted armour or mail/plates with quilted material over the top, so it's not lacking.

Specifically, the armpits and shoulders would be protected by a manchira, either kikko (metal plates sewn onto a cloth backing, making it the equivalent of brigadine) or kusari (mail). For aesthetics, comfort and for additional protection, they would be covered by a cloth layer which gives the impression of a vulnerability (so you're technically right, but less protected comparatively does not equal unprotected).

Oni: I can find out the specific if you like. Don't have them offhand.

If you could please. I've seen more shrines than I can remember while in Kyoto, not to mention numerous web pages and I've never seen or heard of a ninjato (or other straight single-edged blade) as a votive offering.
My wife hasn't heard of anything similar either and she lived in Japan for a number of years.

I think it's fair to consider European full plate armor made from hardened steel the best defense against non-gunpowder weapons ever worn on the battlefield. (I guess this might change if powered armor pans out, but that hasn't happened yet.)

It depends on whether they fix the power supply issue that the current generation exoskeleton suits have or they develop some form of personal forcefield first.

[Incanur]

Given how well-protected both a European and Japanese warrior aristocrat would be circa 1500, any duel on foot would have solid odds of becoming a grappling match even if the European had a pollaxe. I mean, the pollaxe probably would be better than a yari or kanabō for a duel on foot, but not dramatically so. Skill, physical stats, and luck strike me as more important than the minor differences in equipment.

On horseback, on the other hand, I suspect the Japanese warrior would have poor odds in a direct confrontation if the European had a lance rest and steel barding. (This doesn't mean Japanese cavalry were inferior overall, only less specialized than European men-at-arms.)

The whole subject of technical determinism in military history continues to intrigue and vex me. On the whole I see lots of equivalence between equipment. The superiority of European armor post-1400 is one of the few technical advantages I'm convinced of, as is the superiority of composite bows - and especially the Manchu bow - over European yew longbows. And neither of these advantages are terribly great or decisive.

[Mr. Mask]

I think you'd want something heavier than the yari. It's a bit blade-intensive. Many poleaxes had anti-armour spikes and many had deadly hammers. I'm not sure how effective a yari would be against very heavy armour.

[Incanur]

Historical yari varied. Some had points very similar to pollaxe spikes; some had perpendicular hooks/spikes (kamayari, for example). I don't know what style Japanese warriors favored for armored duels on foot. In theory, a short kamayari with a buttspike could perform all pollaxe techniques except for heavy blows. But I don't know that Japanese warriors ever used anything of the sort. Regardless, I was assuming a 8-10ft spear with a thin, stiff point. It's not the idea weapon for an armored duel, but still quite potent. And it's very capable of parrying and binding a pollaxe.

[Mr. Mask]

Most I've seen didn't look as acute as a good anti-armour spike. Some of the poleaxe spikes are also blade-intensive, so this does get to the confusing point of the generalizations.

I'm not sure how well the yari will perform, of course. I can't recall any good tests of spears against plate.

[Incanur]

Toward the later half of the 16th century, various European authors didn't think even the couched heavy lance had much chance to penetrate a breastplate. Fourquevaux thought men-at-arms aiming their lances at their opposing counterparts would be a waste of time and instead recommended targeting their horses in unarmored spots; de la Noue wrote that it would be a miracle for a man-at-arms to kill another with the lance at any given encounter. (Some earlier sources suggest lances could pierce breastplates.)

More to the point, the pollaxe manuals I'm familiar don't show spikes piercing breastplates but rather targeting the gaps. (There is one passage in Fiore that implies the penetration of torso defenses with a thrust.) So they had to be able to penetrate mail gussets and perhaps thinner plates. I think some yari could manage this, though the ones with wider, sword-like blades probably wouldn't. Trying to punch through the thicker plates with a thrust would likely result in failure regardless of the point's design.

[Brother Oni]

On horseback, on the other hand, I suspect the Japanese warrior would have poor odds in a direct confrontation if the European had a lance rest and steel barding.

Head on, I would agree but given one of the samurai's primary skills being a mounted archer, I'd think they'd stay at a distance and aim for the horse.

That said, it would probably take them a while to cotton on to the tactic given past performance during the first Mongol invasion of Japan.

On the subject of pollaxe like yari, I found this graphic which shows some general designs which could pass for a poleaxe:

Spoiler

Show

Edit: sorry another anti-hotlinking site. Here's the link.

[Incanur]

Head on, I would agree but given one of the samurai's primary skills being a mounted archer, I'd think they'd stay at a distance and aim for the horse.

It's my understanding that the spear had risen considerably in prominence by the 16th century, with mounted archery's relative importance declining. A bushi from this period might well try to engage spear to heavy lance, though I'm sure he could shoot with skill as well if desired. Regardless, a man-at-arms on a barded horse wouldn't have much to fear from archery. The samurai might successful keep distance and hope the European's mount tires first under the weight of its armor, but that would be a curious way to duel and likely shameful even if it worked. On the battlefield, however, declining to meet men-at-arms head on would simply be wise tactics. The long yari - akin to the Swiss pike - that became popular after 1530 or so would be a good counter to men-at-arms on barded horses, who were exceedingly expensive to train and equipment and rarely appeared in great numbers. (But Fourquevaux did consider extensive horse armor a decisive advantage for men-at-arms, and the best heavy cavalry companies in the 16th century did tend to employ at least some level of barding.)

And even against a heavy lance and barding, a bushi with a yari might well triumph through skill. One-on-one mounted combat allows for various maneuvers. Deflecting the European's lance and grappling would be one option.

That said, it would probably take them a while to cotton on to the tactic given past performance during the first Mongol invasion of Japan.

Japanese performance wasn't so bad depending on which accounts you believe. And in any case Japanese martial culture had transformed significantly by the 16th century.

On the subject of pollaxe like yari, I found this graphic which shows some general designs which could pass for a poleaxe:

The katakama-yari as illustrated there does look potentially well-suited for an armored duel.

[Galloglaich]

The thing that always struck me about particularly the earlier Japanese armor is how vulnerable the laces look like they would be to repeated sword cuts. Especially where large sode are connected to other pieces or where they are tied around the legs and so on. I think if I were in armor and facing someone else in that kind of armor I'd try to cut it apart.

I also think given a lot of coverage the lighter gothic harnesses seem to be a lot more maneuverable than the equivalent coverage in Japanese armor, I would suspect also lighter too.

G

[warty goblin]

The thing that always struck me about particularly the earlier Japanese armor is how vulnerable the laces look like they would be to repeated sword cuts. Especially where large sode are connected to other pieces or where they are tied around the legs and so on. I think if I were in armor and facing someone else in that kind of armor I'd try to cut it apart.

I was vaguely wondering about that. The book I'm reading has some summaries of tests of bronze age scale armor, which is made with a backing instead of the pieces being attached only to each other, but the structure is somewhat similar. End result was that the armor proved quite effective at stopping period weaponry, but tended to kinda fall apart, as the laces broke on the impact. Not an exact enough parallel to conclude anything, obviously, but still an interesting consideration.

[Brother Oni]

Japanese performance wasn't so bad depending on which accounts you believe. And in any case Japanese martial culture had transformed significantly by the 16th century.

I fully agree that they learnt quickly, but I was making a joke with regard to the early accounts I've heard of individual samurai riding out between the armies to boast of their prowess (typical battlefield etiquette for them back then) then getting filled with arrows by the Mongols who probably just shrugged at the strange warrior shouting at them before loosing.

I don't think the samurai armies would have done anything as silly as that if up against European knights, but given what Uesugi and Takeda got up to at Kawanakajima, I wouldn't put it past them.

The thing that always struck me about particularly the earlier Japanese armor is how vulnerable the laces look like they would be to repeated sword cuts. Especially where large sode are connected to other pieces or where they are tied around the legs and so on. I think if I were in armor and facing someone else in that kind of armor I'd try to cut it apart.

I also think given a lot of coverage the lighter gothic harnesses seem to be a lot more maneuverable than the equivalent coverage in Japanese armor, I would suspect also lighter too.

You're right that the laces were a vulnerability, which was something that spurred the development of gusoku armour.

While coverage is indeed less, surprisingly the armour weight is about equivalent - doing some digging, light gothic plate ranges from about 50-65lbs all the way up to 93lbs for the jousting and tourney tanks; gusoku weighed around 50-55lb with some nanban dou (western style single piece cuirass) versions being a little heavier, but I've seen variants as light as 40lbs.
The average height of the two 16th century populations were not too far apart either (~5'7" compared to ~5'4"), but the warrior classes of both would have been better fed and taller.

With regard to manoeuvrability, do you know of any links to demonstrations of the western armoured fighting techniques? My google-fu is failing me alas.

[Mr. Mask]

Oni: I did a bit of investigating. I couldn't confirm if the popularization of the ninja with a straight blade was from a play. I did confirm that Chokuto-katana were popular temple offerings, sometimes wielded by the Sohei to show their support for temples. Some were even gifts to emperors or the like.

A straight blade meant one of two things. One: It was a lousy sword, a bar of metal sharpened. Or two: It was a smith showing off that he could make and temper a fine blade while keeping it straight. Or three: It was a very early katana, before they developed the techniques that resulted in the natural curve.

I made it sound like ninja wouldn't wield a straight blade, probably. What I meant was, there wasn't any reason for them to wield it specifically as opposed to other blades. There were some straight blades around, they wouldn't mind using those.


Straight versus curved blades: I looked into this as well. Hearing it from a very respectable swordsman, they really feel it's up to taste (unless one blade is simply made better). Like what kind of tennis shoes you prefer, they put it.


Posturing: If the Japanese did posture to a European army, that was composed of knights, I don't count on them shooting them down like the Mongols did. Depending, they might accept the challenge. I can't presume the same for general soldiers who see the challenge.

[Brother Oni]

Thanks for the information - from the sounds of it, it was just me not visiting the right temples or shrines (probably would have to go somewhere that was more traditionally sohei dominated).

Posturing: If the Japanese did posture to a European army, that was composed of knights, I don't count on them shooting them down like the Mongols did. Depending, they might accept the challenge. I can't presume the same for general soldiers who see the challenge.

It was less issuing a challenge to single combat and more pre-battle warm up to get themselves fired up. Its primary goal was to intimidate the enemy by letting them know who they're facing and what they're capable of, which obviously didn't work on the Mongols as they didn't speak the language.

[Mr. Mask]

I figured that was what you mean. Just, Europe has had some traditions like that, so I figure they'd either laugh the Samurai's posturing off, or counter it in the same fashion.

[Incanur]

I fully agree that they learnt quickly, but I was making a joke with regard to the early accounts I've heard of individual samurai riding out between the armies to boast of their prowess (typical battlefield etiquette for them back then) then getting filled with arrows by the Mongols who probably just shrugged at the strange warrior shouting at them before loosing.

I don't think the samurai armies would have done anything as silly as that if up against European knights, but given what Uesugi and Takeda got up to at Kawanakajima, I wouldn't put it past them.

Well, European aristocrats had their own traditions of posturing and dueling, so the two sides could be well-matched in this regard. Even contests between some Native American groups and Spanish invaders during the 16th century involved dueling and showing off. Depending on the European and Japanese forces in question, battlefield duels might be likely. (Some British officers kept the tradition of dueling with blades into the 20th century.) For many historical warrior aristocrats - and some lower-born warriors as well - the point wasn't so much winning the battle as doing great deeds and increasing your family's honor. When coupled with willful stupidity, this ethos led to military disasters like French performance at Agincourt. When combined with strategic and/or tactical acumen, it could increase morale and thus make for a more effective fighting force.

With regard to manoeuvrability, do you know of any links to demonstrations of the western armoured fighting techniques? My google-fu is failing me alas.

This video is one good resources on how little a well-fitted plate harness restricted movement.

[Galloglaich]

Well, European aristocrats had their own traditions of posturing and dueling, so the two sides could be well-matched in this regard. Even contests between some Native American groups and Spanish invaders during the 16th century involved dueling and showing off. Depending on the European and Japanese forces in question, battlefield duels might be likely. (Some British officers kept the tradition of dueling with blades into the 20th century.) For many historical warrior aristocrats - and some lower-born warriors as well - the point wasn't so much winning the battle as doing great deeds and increasing your family's honor. When coupled with willful stupidity, this ethos led to military disasters like French performance at Agincourt. When combined with strategic and/or tactical acumen, it could increase morale and thus make for a more effective fighting force.

Battlefield duels are recorded in abundance throughout Central Europe. Jan Dlugosz mentions dozens of cases in the 14th - 15th Centuries, there are also quite a few mentioned in the chronicles of the Teutonic Knights. This is one of the most famous in Russia, between a Russian monk and a Mongol Champion (both of whom died) in 1380.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Peresvet

It's not purely theoretical between the Japanese and Europeans either needless to say.

There were quite a few recorded duels between Japanese 'samurai' (unclear what their status was) and various Europeans. The Portuguese recorded 8 duels between their sailors and soldiers vs. Japanese 'samurai' in Nagasaki (which was founded by the Portuguese) during the mid-16th Century, after which they took extra measures to prevent such incidents. These are recorded in the Portuguese national archive, apparently the Portuguese soldiers won 7 of the 8 duels, though we don't know anything about who the Japanese were other than they carried swords.

There were numerous naval encounters during the 16th -17th Centuries including one major one between a Spanish galleon loaded with silk and the forces of a local Daimyo in Nagasaki harbor, which lasted for 3 days. There was an incident in which an English pirate ship and a Japanese pirate ship had a run in. At first they parlayed and even drank together, and showed each other all the booty they'd captured; then the Japanese suddenly pulled swords and killed several of the Englishmen, including the navigator, then the English pushed them into the hold with boarding pikes and, since none of them wanted to go in after them, they pulled up cannon and fired chain shot into the hold and killed them all.

This was recorded in letters from the captain of that ship, which you can read (along with other interesting and amusing stories) in this book

http://www.amazon.com/Nathaniels-Nut.../dp/0140292608

I think that is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to anecdotes though because huge numbers of Japanese Ronin were working for (mostly) Chinese Waco pirates, and there is at least one major engagement reported when the Spanish cracked down specifically on Japanese pirates who were being a little too rough with the locals in Manila.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wokou

But probably the biggest source of cool stories would come from the Dutch East India company since they apparently used huge numbers of Ronin as muscle during their takeover of Indonesia. Ronin were skilled Samurai of course and widely available from Japan since whenever their Daimyo lost a battle they basically had to leave since they no longer had a place in the Japanese feudal system. Quite a few of them were also Christian thanks to the devious efforts of Portuguese Jesuits which actually led to a big civil war in Japan.

To make it all even more interesting, the Spanish also used German Landsknechts, Aztec warriors, and Scottish and Irish Galloglass mercenaries in the Philippines, then you also have the French, British, Portuguese, Chinese, Koreans, Malay, Moro with their fantastic Barongs and Viking-like Berzerker abilities... so you could have had quite a few 'deadliest' warrior scenarios out there just waiting for somebody to transcribe and translate in various archives.

This video is one good resources on how little a well-fitted plate harness restricted movement.

My understanding is that some Gothic plate harness was as little as 35-40 lbs, with complete coverage except for the backs of the legs.

I just saw some really amazing examples from the Thune sketchbook. You can see a few of them here

http://vk.com/album-994488_185786618

G

[Incanur]

Those are lovely 16th-century images! The first one of pollaxe on foot against sword on barded horse is unusual and fascinating.

This thread over at MyArmoury has a wealth of information on armor weights. Based on those numbers - which could well contain many errors given how inaccurate museum catalogs can be - 35-40lbs is on the very low end for 15th-century full harness. 50-60lbs total - which includes 5-15lbs for mail and fabric underneath - seems like a better approximation.

[Galloglaich]

Those are lovely 16th-century images! The first one of pollaxe on foot against sword on barded horse is unusual and fascinating.

Yeah there are dozens more, apparently the painters and armorers guild in Augsburg merged some time in the 15th C, for reasons unknown, and the armorers used to make sketches of the stuff they were doing (including interestingly a lot of saddles and horse barding) and the artists took a bunch of the sketches and made them into paintings and made a book out of it. I'm trying to get Mike to post them all onto the wiktenauer but he's only interested in the ones depicting people fighting.

This thread over at MyArmoury has a wealth of information on armor weights. Based on those numbers - which could well contain many errors given how inaccurate museum catalogs can be - 35-40lbs is on the very low end for 15th-century full harness. 50-60lbs total - which includes 5-15lbs for mail and fabric underneath - seems like a better approximation.

Some of the Gothic harness were worn without mail underneath and probably with very light textile armor, you can see the backs of some of the legs of the guys wearing it in period paintings. Anyway I've seen a couple of nearly complete harnesses which I was told weighed around 30 lbs, but they were missing a couple of pieces. I'm not an expert on armor but I know some people who are and I'm just going by what they told me. If I find some specific examples I'll post them, I know they have some in the Hotel des Invaldes in Paris and some in Prague, but I'd have to spend some time tracking them down.

G

[Incanur]

Some of the Gothic harness were worn without mail underneath and probably with very light textile armor, you can see the backs of some of the legs of the guys wearing it in period paintings.

It's my understanding that pieces of mail to cover gaps like the armpit were standard for men-at-arms from the mid/early 15th century through the 16th century. (For example, Sir John Smythe mentioned gussets of mail for men-at-arms.) While lighter than a full coat, these mail pieces could be pretty extensive. As the thread I linked shows, the few surviving arming garments that include mail weigh in 7-14lb range. And, especially in the early 15th century, some men-at-arms still wore full mail coats under their plate harness.

I'm not saying a full harness couldn't be significantly lighter - I imagine some were. But at present the weight of the indicates that most full suits weighed 50-70lbs. I suspect this was because men-at-arms were supposed to have suits of proof, and I'm not sure 35-40lb harness would be able to have a breastplate thick enough to stop a couched lance or very heavy crossbow. You could where a harness of that weight without mail, but that would leave the armpits and such dangerously exposed.

Anyways, regardless of the exact weight, full plate from hardened steel protected the wear almost completely from non-gunpowder weapons and warriors could wear it hours on end without excessive fatigue or discomfort (at least according to de la Noue).

[Spiryt]

I seem to recall that some Polish hussar armors could weight as little as~ 27 pounds, with the catch that those were mostly somehow 'incomplete' - usually did have only rudimentary leg protection, often no back plate, etc.

[Incanur]

Less complete suits, suits for smaller people, and suits with thinner plates could certainly be 30lbs and less. In any formal duel, the parties would specify the level of armor, so it could vary considerably. Hussars, at least in their iconic incarnation, would only count as light cavalry by - say - Fourquevaux's standards. He noted how light cavalry wore less and thinner armor than proper men-at-arms:

First of all the men of armes shall be armed with soulleretz, whole grefues, cuisses, curets with tasses, gorget, pouldrons, vambraces, gauntlets, helmet with beuer, gossets, & great pieces: all which I haue specified perticularly, because of the men of armes at this present, who will be called me~ of armes, and notwithstanding are armed and furnished but like vnto light horssemen: and you knowe that a man that is armed light, shall neuer do the effect that a man may do that is well armed, who can not be hurt by hand-strokes, where as the light horsseman is subiect vnto blowes vpon many parts of his body, because that his harnesse is not so heauie, nor so sure as the men of armes ought for to be, and not without cause, for the paines that a light horsseman and other light armed ought to take, there is no man able to indure with a complet harnesse, nor horsse able to carry him: but as for the men of armes, who are appointed to abide firmely the assaults of their enemies, and not to runne from the one side to the other, may be laden with heauie harnesse; and to carry sutch a waight, they ought to haue strong and great horsses, for besides this, the horsses must be barbed.

The light horssemen must be good souldiers, and armed with curets, & tasses that shall reach to the knée, with gauntlets, vambraces, and large pouldrons, and with a strong and close head-péece, the sight being cut; their cassaks shall be of the collour of their Ensigne: they must carry a broad sword by their sides, a mase at the pomels of their saddle, and a launce of good length in their fist.

Now, Fourquevaux published manual in 1548, and harnesses may have gotten heavier than in the 1450s - though de la Noue wrote that the didn't get super heavy until later (and they were no longer complete suits at that time).

On a related note, 16th-century Japanese cavalry with spears strike me as similar to light cavalry in Fourquevaux's terms. Over the the course the 16th century, European commanders eventually judged such light cavalry more useful and cost-effective than men-at-arms. (It's unclear whether this would have happened without the influence of gunpowder weapons.)

[Aedilred]

A nomenclature question, since while I don't mind a bit of anachronism I like to be wrong deliberately rather than out of ignorance.

I'm looking at types of sword for an early/high mediaeval fantasy setting, and on a bit of research, all the familiar-sounding sword-types are actually from quite a bit later: longsword, broadsword, greatsword (and obviously thereafter claymore, zweihander, etc.) I'm reasonably familiar with fencing weapons from the early modern period onwards but I realise that anything before that is a bit of a mystery.

So for the period in question ( I'm thinking c.700-1300 from my end), are there any contemporary names for large swords that we know of? I've encountered the "arming sword", but I'm not sure if that's a retrofitted name to distinguish it from later swords, and likewise the "knight's sword" which seems to be just a different name for the arming sword. But I figure if there's a "knight's sword" it seems logical there must be other types of sword as well (otherwise it would just be "sword"). I don't seem to be able to find anything (on admittedly fairly cursory research) between the spatha and the arming sword.

So what would people at the time have called them? Would they in fact have called them longswords, broadswords, etc. and those just came to be applied to specific variants later? Or was everything just a "sword" and it's only in the modern period we've started giving specific names to these admittedly very similar types of weapon?

[Rhynn]

A nomenclature question, since while I don't mind a bit of anachronism I like to be wrong deliberately rather than out of ignorance.

As a general rule, the non-anachronistic name for any sword is "sword" in the local language. Not very useful, huh? This seems to be especially true in the Medieval period and earlier; in the Renaissance, you had enough specialized swords in use side-by-side that they got their own names (rapier, longsword, two-handed sword, etc.).

[Brother Oni]

On a related note, 16th-century Japanese cavalry with spears strike me as similar to light cavalry in Fourquevaux's terms. Over the the course the 16th century, European commanders eventually judged such light cavalry more useful and cost-effective than men-at-arms. (It's unclear whether this would have happened without the influence of gunpowder weapons.)

To a degree. Japanese warfare is a bit odd - apparently the famous 'cavalry charge' had only been introduced fairly late by Takeda Shingen in the 16th Century (I'm going to research this a bit more as it sounds a bit iffy in my opinion).

During the Sengoku, unified cavalry tactics were well feared, with the Takeda cavalry being the most infamous. That changed with the Battle of Nagashino, where they got badly shot up by Oda Nobunaga's matchlocks (casualty estimates range from 20% to 67% for the Takeda), losing the battle.

As a general rule, the non-anachronistic name for any sword is "sword" in the local language. Not very useful, huh? This seems to be especially true in the Medieval period and earlier; in the Renaissance, you had enough specialized swords in use side-by-side that they got their own names (rapier, longsword, two-handed sword, etc.).

The closest I can find in western history are Saxon terms, with sweord/sword (West Saxon/Mercian) for the obvious item and seax for the single edged blade described earlier (some of which are long enough to be used as swords).

The Chinese had a number of terms in the desired period, with dao as a single edge curved blade (usually translated to either broadsword or sabre) and jian for a straight double edged blade. There are some longer swords, such as the zhanmadao dating to the Song Dynasty (10th - 12th Century) and a number of variations.

Similarly, the Japanese had different terms - katana is slightly past the time period (first recorded use to differentiate from earlier swords is in the 12th Century), but the earlier tachi appears to be period correct. Mr Mask highlighted the straight blade chokuto which is a predecessor to the tachi.