Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV

[Brother Oni]

Flying, tool-using, predators larger than a lion sound like they would make the Stone Age a living nightmare.

If the humans lived in caves or dense forest and only came out at night, it would remove most of the natural advantages of the predators, although it depends on the predator species population numbers on whether they'd be the fully dominate species or just another apex predator for humans to be wary of.

[Mr Beer]

If the humans lived in caves or dense forest and only came out at night, it would remove most of the natural advantages of the predators, although it depends on the predator species population numbers on whether they'd be the fully dominate species or just another apex predator for humans to be wary of.

Probably being at very cold latitudes would fix reptiles as well. But inability to spread out to temperate climates outside dense forest or being obligated to operate nocturnally would likely have a significant effect on human development.

Of course, if this is set in a Stone Age, it makes sense. Even then, no savannah ape stage except at night.

[Rakaydos]

Every weapon/armor expert I've talked to harps on technology building out of nesessity. In gaming terms, the meta is always evolving.

I'm basically trying to avoid a simple "medival fantasy with armoed dragons" by working out how the meta evolved.

So it sounds like, pre bronze age, the Drakes own the temperate grasslands. And it's probably the tribes in colder regions who develop smithing, while the forestdwellers would have better ranged weapons.

This eventually pushes the Drakes back to elevated, defensable terrain. But not high enough it starts getting too cold. A volcano might be nice.

So, the Drakes start to learn from their enemies, Pierce their wing at armpits and waist to belt equipment on, more aerial projectiles, perhaps some Spears and basic armor of their own.

Where does it go from there?

[khadgar567]

Every weapon/armor expert I've talked to harps on technology building out of nesessity. In gaming terms, the meta is always evolving.

I'm basically trying to avoid a simple "medival fantasy with armoed dragons" by working out how the meta evolved.

So it sounds like, pre bronze age, the Drakes own the temperate grasslands. And it's probably the tribes in colder regions who develop smithing, while the forestdwellers would have better ranged weapons.

This eventually pushes the Drakes back to elevated, defensable terrain. But not high enough it starts getting too cold. A volcano might be nice.

So, the Drakes start to learn from their enemies, Pierce their wing at armpits and waist to belt equipment on, more aerial projectiles, perhaps some Spears and basic armor of their own.

Where does it go from there?

are drakes are mounts or legit monsters average joe needs to be scared of?
if mounts then who is the proverbial Stoick to make the first tame?
if they are monsters average joe needs to be scared then why nerigigante needs freaking admantaine full plate to defend himself from attacks? Houston we have a logic problem?

[Mendicant]

I mean, do we even assume they're necessarily in conflict most of the time? If I'm one of these creatures my preferred prey is probably not going to be the kind that whips darts and sling stones at me.

If there was conflict, it wouldn't be of the ambush predator type. Intelligent tool users would try to exterminate or drive out competing alpha predators.

[Rakaydos]

are drakes are mounts or legit monsters average joe needs to be scared of?
if mounts then who is the proverbial Stoick to make the first tame?
if they are monsters average joe needs to be scared then why nerigigante needs freaking admantaine full plate to defend himself from attacks? Houston we have a logic problem?

Playable race, not a mount.

[khadgar567]

Playable race, not a mount.

know that explains the logic.

[Rakaydos]

know that explains the logic.

Can you restate your question? Something is getting lost in translation here.

[khadgar567]

Can you restate your question? Something is getting lost in translation here.

them being playable races thus need armor to adventures instead of being mooks to be killed by players.

[Carl]

Can you restate your question? Something is getting lost in translation here.

I think he meant "Now that explains the logic"

[Rakaydos]

The goal I wish to jusify is a legitimate need for what is basically Drake heavy infantry, and what that would involve given their opposition.

Brestplate, gorget, helm, vambrace, a narrow whiplike blade along the leading edge of their wing (with a "hilt" protecting the wing-wrist), a Cuisse that entends past the knee far enough to protect a raptorlike leg, basic footgear, and enough metal on the tail to counterbalance everything up front. Shortsword and narrow kite shield or 2 hander.

But that may be skipping a few steps.

[Mr Beer]

Don't worry about skipping steps, start with the goal and work backwards. Drakes fight humans in dragonish plate, wielding swords and wing-enhancers, that's what you want? Well then drakes are in conflict with (some, all?) human lands. Probably drakes have mountainous areas which prevents the more numerous humans from swarming them. Drake and human technology evolved at the same time, presumably drakes and humans have troubled but not consistently genocidal relationships.

[wolflance]

Question again： How does Late Medieval - Thirty Years War (15 - 17th century) military training look like?

What was the scope like? Did soldiers train for indivial combat only? Or they trained for fighting in a unit (squad/company/regiment etc)? Or they organize military exercise that requires coordination between multiple units?

How often/long did they train? Daily? Weekly? Only during the preparation phase of a war? Or did soldiers participated in training "boot camp" on regular intervals (say, a one month training camp every year)?

Did knights/nobles trained with commoner troops?

Was there performance accessment? Did individual got promoted/demoted based on his training performance?

(I know this is an incredibly broad question as there's little to no standardization back then)

[Carl]

Don't worry about skipping steps, start with the goal and work backwards.

This, pick a point somwhere in your story and work as far forward or backward or both as you need to.

Most of my idea's work like this, often involving brief snapshot flashes of a major event or three in a dream and then building out from there.

All my EFGT setting basically grew out of dream snapshots of the Stonehenge incident, (current day) and the Vatican Reformation incident, (around 200 years later), and the Cultist Invasion of Earth, (another 100 years after that), with me then taking the info contained in those snapflashes and the limits they set on things like technology society, geopolitics and interstellar politics and building outward to fill in all the gaps. Yet you won't have heard much about those events when i've talked about said setting before because whilst their important to explaining why and how things got to where they are, their effect on the day to day is relevant only in so much as they shaped events that got things to the current point. They don't actually decide anything much on a day to day basis.

[Deepbluediver]

So I've got a question that's a little bit different from our usual fair.

I'm wondering about the real-world providence of this sword, where the design might have come from and how it might have been used (see picture in spoilers, if it goes down or doesn't work, message me):

Spoiler: Sword

Show

I didn't have any bananas, so I grabbed some other stuff from my kitchen to try and give a sense of scale. Overall it's about 45 inches long, with the sharpened part of the blade being 29.5. If I put the tip on the ground and stand next to it, the sword is about stomach-height.
Also, it weighs around 3.6 pounds.


I bought this off of one of the numerous websites selling cheap reproductions for the sole reason that I thought it looked cool, but now I'm kind of wondering if there's any realism to this sort of design at all. I'm not a trained swordsman in the slightest, but from my research (and this thread) the weapon seems a little heavy for a one-handed weapon, but to light for a two-hander. Also, three-and-a-half pounds might not be abnormally heavy, but the sword's length makes it feel a bit awkward, too.
I was wondering if it might be something like a cavarly-saber, where you could count on the horses momentum for movement instead of just your own swing, and the added length would be useful for reaching people, especially standing on the ground.

The closest match I've been able to find to anything else was the German knecht kriegmesser (translation: big knife), although all the pictures of that seem to have straight handles and wide hilts.

So help me out- have you ever seen anything like this from another source? Maybe in a museum? What would it's preferred method of usage have been? What sort of fighting style did it mess with? Is there anything at all to indicate that this is in fact not just a ludicrously oversived filleting knife and/or heavy wall-decoration?

[Socratov]

So I've got a question that's a little bit different from our usual fair.

I'm wondering about the real-world providence of this sword, where the design might have come from and how it might have been used (see picture in spoilers, if it goes down or doesn't work, message me):

Spoiler: Sword

Show

I didn't have any bananas, so I grabbed some other stuff from my kitchen to try and give a sense of scale. Overall it's about 45 inches long, with the sharpened part of the blade being 29.5. If I put the tip on the ground and stand next to it, the sword is about stomach-height.
Also, it weighs around 3.6 pounds.


I bought this off of one of the numerous websites selling cheap reproductions for the sole reason that I thought it looked cool, but now I'm kind of wondering if there's any realism to this sort of design at all. I'm not a trained swordsman in the slightest, but from my research (and this thread) the weapon seems a little heavy for a one-handed weapon, but to light for a two-hander. Also, three-and-a-half pounds might not be abnormally heavy, but the sword's length makes it feel a bit awkward, too.
I was wondering if it might be something like a cavarly-saber, where you could count on the horses momentum for movement instead of just your own swing, and the added length would be useful for reaching people, especially standing on the ground.

The closest match I've been able to find to anything else was the German knecht kriegmesser (translation: big knife), although all the pictures of that seem to have straight handles and wide hilts.

So help me out- have you ever seen anything like this from another source? Maybe in a museum? What would it's preferred method of usage have been? What sort of fighting style did it mess with? Is there anything at all to indicate that this is in fact not just a ludicrously oversived filleting knife and/or heavy wall-decoration?

The blade construction and handle really lead me to believe that it is in fact a messer. One problem though, as far as I recall messers usually have a hefty cross guard with either a pin (nagel) or ring sticking out. So as far as I'm concerned it's an incomplete messer.

[Spiryt]

So I've got a question that's a little bit different from our usual fair.

I'm wondering about the real-world providence of this sword, where the design might have come from and how it might have been used (see picture in spoilers, if it goes down or doesn't work, message me):

Spoiler: Sword

Show

I didn't have any bananas, so I grabbed some other stuff from my kitchen to try and give a sense of scale. Overall it's about 45 inches long, with the sharpened part of the blade being 29.5. If I put the tip on the ground and stand next to it, the sword is about stomach-height.
Also, it weighs around 3.6 pounds.


I bought this off of one of the numerous websites selling cheap reproductions for the sole reason that I thought it looked cool, but now I'm kind of wondering if there's any realism to this sort of design at all. I'm not a trained swordsman in the slightest, but from my research (and this thread) the weapon seems a little heavy for a one-handed weapon, but to light for a two-hander. Also, three-and-a-half pounds might not be abnormally heavy, but the sword's length makes it feel a bit awkward, too.
I was wondering if it might be something like a cavarly-saber, where you could count on the horses momentum for movement instead of just your own swing, and the added length would be useful for reaching people, especially standing on the ground.

The closest match I've been able to find to anything else was the German knecht kriegmesser (translation: big knife), although all the pictures of that seem to have straight handles and wide hilts.

So help me out- have you ever seen anything like this from another source? Maybe in a museum? What would it's preferred method of usage have been? What sort of fighting style did it mess with? Is there anything at all to indicate that this is in fact not just a ludicrously oversived filleting knife and/or heavy wall-decoration?

It looks like one of those 'tactical' swords many sword makers were/are making lately.

Basically some kind of sword/saber but with 'modern' design and feel look wise.

So it, of course, won't have any close historical analogies at all.

Looking bit like 'two handed dao' is probably closest.

There's nothing wrong with it's 'stats' at all, 3.6 pounds seems like very good weight sword.

Without actually handling it, or some very detailed stats, there's no way to tell whether it's well balanced/designed sword, of course.

So you have one completely non historical sword.

And whether it would be a good sword in some kind of swordy applications is something that's impossible to tell from pictures.

Fighting style would probably be similar to katana or any kind of long sword with very limited 'guard'.

[Deepbluediver]

The blade construction and handle really lead me to believe that it is in fact a messer. One problem though, as far as I recall messers usually have a hefty cross guard with either a pin (nagel) or ring sticking out. So as far as I'm concerned it's an incomplete messer.

Yeah, that's the only thing I've found so far that it seems to be very similar too, I was just under the impression that the hilt was kind of important. This video was fun to watch, but my sword cost nowhere near as much. Also the clips of actual cutting seem to be showing the sword used with 2 hands, and according to the stats his sword was around ~20% lighter than mine. I can get both my hands on the handle fairly easily, but I don't know what a comfortable sword-grip is supposed to feel like, and I'm slightly above-average in size. I've seen videos of zweihander techniques, and it seems like they allow you to choke up quite a bit, which this almost definitely wouldn't. If I spread my hands out to the point there they are wrapped around the metal bits of the handle, too, there is at most about 3 inches of clearance between them.

Anywho, thanks for your feedback!

It looks like one of those 'tactical' swords many sword makers were/are making lately.

I don't recall what, if anything, the description on the website said it was supposed to mimic or be designed for.

There's nothing wrong with it's 'stats' at all, 3.6 pounds seems like very good weight sword.

I'm an above-average sized person and it still felt heavy to me, but I admit I've never trained with a sword (or any other weapon) so maybe this is just one of those things you need to develop the muscles for.

Without actually handling it, or some very detailed stats, there's no way to tell whether it's well balanced/designed sword, of course.
And whether it would be a good sword in some kind of swordy applications is something that's impossible to tell from pictures.

Is there any additional information that I can provide you with that would be helpful?
At the sharpened part of the blade the sword is between 1.75 inches across near the hilt and 1.5 inches nearer the curling tip; it's also about 3/16ths of an inch thick along nearly the entire length. It seems to balance about an inch-and-a-half past where the sharpened part of the blade starts, and the handle has a circumference of ~5 inches.

It just FEELS big- I've got a few other reproduction pieces in my collection as well, and this is easily the largest.
Here it is next to a roman-gladius style sword, and a plain woodchopping axe.

Spoiler: swords 'n axes

Show

Fighting style would probably be similar to katana or any kind of long sword with very limited 'guard'.

I used to own a reproduction Katana as well, and it feels WAY heavier than that did.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I used to own a reproduction Katana as well, and it feels WAY heavier than that did.

Part of that may be the metal used--

I have two reproduction katanas. Both about the same size. One is super cheap and significantly heavier than the more expensive (and better made) sword. It's thicker through the blade (cross-section) and made out of lower-carbon steel than the "better" one.

Note: neither one is great, but the difference between the ~$75 one and the ~$300 one is enormous. And if it's balanced differently, it can feel heavier than it is, regardless of actual mass differentials.

[Deepbluediver]

Part of that may be the metal used--

I have two reproduction katanas. Both about the same size. One is super cheap and significantly heavier than the more expensive (and better made) sword. It's thicker through the blade (cross-section) and made out of lower-carbon steel than the "better" one.

That could certainly be part of it, I think. All the reproductions I bought were pretty cheap.
I stopped collecting for a while when I went back to school, and I kinda want to start buying again but since I don't really DO anything with them, I don't know how much I want to spend on what's essentially artwork.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Question again： How does Late Medieval - Thirty Years War (15 - 17th century) military training look like?

That period is called the military revolution, and it's named like that because pretty much everything you ask about changes during it. Standing national armies are introduced, formations and with them formation drills become really important, knights evolve into cavalry, and for a moment in the middle lancers and other horseback melee units are almost gone.

The middle of the revolution is basically the "pike and shot" era, and then just after the 30 years war the plug bayonet is invented which ends that period quickly.

So yeah, this question is even broader than you thought...

[wolflance]

That period is called the military revolution, and it's named like that because pretty much everything you ask about changes during it. Standing national armies are introduced, formations and with them formation drills become really important, knights evolve into cavalry, and for a moment in the middle lancers and other horseback melee units are almost gone.

The middle of the revolution is basically the "pike and shot" era, and then just after the 30 years war the plug bayonet is invented which ends that period quickly.

So yeah, this question is even broader than you thought...

Umm, I kind of expected this, but thanks for taking your time to answer me.

So, to narrow down my question, what were the training of the BEST units of the period look like? Units like Swiss mercenaries, French Gendarmes (and other elite cavalry that came after them), the most elite of the Spanish Tercios, Cromwell's Ironsides etc??


Most of the time, when I read about a renowned military unit, I only see vague descriptions like "well-drilled", "trained meticulously" etc. without elaboration on what or how they trained. The only exceptions are Roman Legionnaires (marching in full gear for 20 Roman miles), and English longbowmen (archery practice during weekends and holiday), and even that only present a very incomplete picture of the full scope of their training, I believe.

[Martin Greywolf]

So I've got a question that's a little bit different from our usual fair.

I'm wondering about the real-world providence of this sword, where the design might have come from and how it might have been used (see picture in spoilers, if it goes down or doesn't work, message me):

Spoiler: Sword

Show

...

The closest match I've been able to find to anything else was the German knecht kriegmesser (translation: big knife), although all the pictures of that seem to have straight handles and wide hilts.

So help me out- have you ever seen anything like this from another source? Maybe in a museum? What would it's preferred method of usage have been? What sort of fighting style did it mess with? Is there anything at all to indicate that this is in fact not just a ludicrously oversived filleting knife and/or heavy wall-decoration?

Well, the exact model of it is probably based on Arwen's sword from LotR, especially the metal knob near the base of the blade - only thing remotely similar to it is a Schilt on a Feder, but that's a training sword, and a two handed one at that.

Overall, it's a reasonable weapon, you see blades and hilts similar to this mostly in central Eurasia, usually with a little more crossguard, but not that much. Good points of comparision are shashka, yatagan or early magyar sabres. Some of the dao types, especially earlier ones with relatively slender blades, are also pretty similar. Thye closest weapon to this I can't find a good replica of, it's high medieval Slavic dussack, it looked a bit like this:

Spoiler: Dussack

Show

...but with simple, straight, knife handle without any fancy bits. They are found in modern Slovakia and parts of former HRE, especially Czech republic. Most of them are from 14th-15th cent., but some are from as far back as start of 13th. From 14th century up, they have a simple bar of iron going off at a right angle from the crossguard to protect side of your hand, called Nagel (nail) in German, but earlier ones don't have it.

Spoiler: Blade of a 15th century one

Show

As for the use, these are hybrid swords, meant for use both on foot an horseback, some are heavier and more choppy, better suited for horseback, others are lighter and more controllable, better suited for fencing on foot. The two types can look exactly the same as often as not.

Yours is almost certainly too heavy, all historical examples I'm aware of are under 1.5 kg, mostly being under 1.3 kg.

As for the longer hilt, that's a common thing on swords without a pommel, it acts both as a balance and is good for the blade not sliding out of your grip when you hit someone at a full gallop. The coinstruction of the hilt is not terribly historical, almost all swords have the metal pegs that hold the wood in place in one line at the centre of the hilt, and they are usually bigger.

[snowblizz]

The middle of the revolution is basically the "pike and shot" era, and then just after the 30 years war the plug bayonet is invented which ends that period quickly.

That's not entirely right. The 30YW ended in 1648 and pike was still the queen of the battlefield. The pike and shot period is generally considered ended around 1700, when some militaries were still fielding som pike blocks but where quickly phased out in the coming wars of the early 1700s. Yes the 1700 is kinda arbitary but it looks nicely bookendish if the 16-17th century is pike and shot and then the 18-19th are "horse and musket".

Umm, I kind of expected this, but thanks for taking your time to answer me.

So, to narrow down my question, what were the training of the BEST units of the period look like? Units like Swiss mercenaries, French Gendarmes (and other elite cavalry that came after them), the most elite of the Spanish Tercios, Cromwell's Ironsides etc??


Most of the time, when I read about a renowned military unit, I only see vague descriptions like "well-drilled", "trained meticulously" etc. without elaboration on what or how they trained. The only exceptions are Roman Legionnaires (marching in full gear for 20 Roman miles), and English longbowmen (archery practice during weekends and holiday), and even that only present a very incomplete picture of the full scope of their training, I believe.

That's because training tended to be kinda spotty and mostly personal. There are military manuals, and drill books but few armies or units were extensively drilled as units. In part because soldiers were often hired professionals on contracts who woudl move about if not paid (happened often enough) or contracts were up. Many suhc units considered well trained would in reality have a strong moral cohesiveness. The Ironsides weren't just trained they were of good moral composition so to say, putting the military objective before other considerations.

Promotion was usually based on competence/merit in action for common men and power/money/position for officers, though few retain higher command without actual ability or good counsel. For nobles/officers it was largely on the job training too, young nobles, particularly rojalty would work on an apprenticeship basically. Often visiting and trailing along armies in current wars on whatever side their family was (many great commanders and kings would have been present at well known battles of their youth). Then they'd be given a lower officer command under someone who could look after them and usually rather quickly rise in the ranks unless grossly incompetent. Though to aspire to actual unquestioned command of armies you did need to be rather qualified, part antural ability, part theoretical studies, part actual experience.

I'm gonna have a deeper poke in some Osprey books when at home. I will be back.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

So, to narrow down my question, what were the training of the BEST units of the period look like? Units like Swiss mercenaries, French Gendarmes (and other elite cavalry that came after them), the most elite of the Spanish Tercios, Cromwell's Ironsides etc??

What I know is that in the pike and shot era pikes and muskets/arquebuses were often mixed at the platoon level, where a platoon, depending on time, location, and just how deadly and/or profitable the last few engagements had been would usually be somewhere between 20 en 50 people. So a good captain or lieutenant running a platoon could drill his troops on cooperation, even though the main battlefield formations were much bigger, hundreds or even thousands of men in a single block. I don't think realistic exercises were that common, but drills were, and they were in at least some cases past down from higher up. The Dutch Maurice of Nassau implemented a three row system for pikes, the Swedish (I think) king distilled this into a two row system where the men could advance while holding the line. Maneuvers like that would have definitely been practiced, musketeers retreating between the pikes would be practiced, but I don't know if they were practiced in real formations or at a platoon level.

I think Snowblizz is probably right in that a lot of it came down to experience. There is no good way to practice not breaking the line when there are horses charging towards you. You can drill on staying in line no matter what, but it's never going to be like an actual life or death situation. So units consisting of a bunch of veterans all sticking together would have been good units, and higher officers would probably place them where they are useful, but not thrown away. Even the quality of the gear would probably be a lot better among groups of fighters with a few good pay days in their past and decent knowledge of what happens to gear on a battlefield between them.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

So I've got a question that's a little bit different from our usual fair.

I'm wondering about the real-world providence of this sword, where the design might have come from and how it might have been used (see picture in spoilers, if it goes down or doesn't work, message me):

Spoiler: Sword

Show

I bought this off of one of the numerous websites selling cheap reproductions for the sole reason that I thought it looked cool,

What did the site call it? What category did it fall in?

The hilt looks pretty traditional European/western, like a style you could still find on some of the more gentlemanly pocket knives. I think that kind of look started gaining track around 1600 or so? The complete lack of handguard suggests it might have been at least in part a tool, but it looks kind of thin for a European style machete. Plus 45 inches is way too long for that. That's more like a cavalry saber.

[snowblizz]

More on the training of pike and shot. In general I find as you did, there's not a lot of information about training. In part becasue it wasn't organized very effectively, unlike the Roman army, which as you note we have ample information about. Ultimately most of the training went back on Roman and Byzantine military texts anyway. It seems fair to assume most training was rather short and basic, few armies existed until they were raised and there was usually not a lot of time for extensive training (even the richest nations didn't really afford paying for standing armies, the ones who got close to having one it did so by virtue of just being at war more or less constantly). From what little I can dig up training falls on the fileleaders/corporals. Most regiments at the time were essentially the colonel's property as a military entrepeneur so training would also reside in the colonel's unit in part or whole. There's a number of military manuals from the period but the fact that msot of them are written/translated in reaction to perceived lack of training/information we can only assume there wasn't a lot of formal training going on. As was mentioned it was also a tranformational period throughout where as decades passed ideas and composition changed.

I will note for every nation, army, commander etc training could and would vary, though there were usually certain trends (and there's just not a lot pof things you do as pikeblock). After the Dutch reforms, and especially the Battle of Niewport where it was shown to be effective, the knowledge was disseminated and adopted. E.g. the Swedish model was so close to the Dutch system that the troops enlisted from disbanded "Danish" troops in 1629 could be quickly retrained into the Swedish model.

The Swedish army of the period had a coheisve set of regional regiments where conscripts were trained as a unit before being sent out (half to 1/3 was usually stationed at home for defence and presumably would form the basis for a training unit too). Unsurprisingly the Swedish army was able to function more cohesively and is often considered one of the first examples of a truly standing army.

Those who managed a standing army, like Maurice of Nassau could have an entire army practice battlefield deployment which the Ducth at least did on occasion. Not in the least for diplomatic purpsoes, ie impressing foreign dignitaries and rulers.

Now, you can trained most anyone into a passable pike company in a fairly short time, I forget how long it took them to do so with a rugby team in a tv show. It's not like some of this required years of study. But I also think as most armies were raised in times of need only, that morale/experience will have been a large factor in the "well trained" moniker.


I think we can broadly assume that training tended to go from indivudual weapon handling (which for many could be before they joined up) to small units of 10-20ish men who would be the closest working together, and then the regiment, to much less frequently brigades and armies as a whole. Varying a bit on role and entity. So a French Gendarme was probably expected to know his weapons and such and need only to work as a team while a Swedish peasant conscript had to learn everythign froms cratch. The latter had the benefit of an existing system to do just that.

Going back to the first post, I've not seen any mention of frequency or duration of training. I know it will vary a bit. Places who had militia traditions to fall back on (England in part, and Sweden) would have some regulariy to excercising but more likely at a minimum proving ownership of equipment. Though oversight was problematic as eg the practice where one horse might show up in different musters show. What I can say it would have been very rudimentary and spotty. There were no career soldiers with regular training camps. There existed part-timers or professional mercenaries only more or less. The former got most of their training in the short time leading up to war, if any (this is why morale is kinda important, the vast majority of troops tended to be green), while the later would be expected to have the necessary skills. Only in the absolutely last part of the period, the Swedish "Carolingian era" (1650ish and beyond), does a system of "part-time" (in the sense that they ahve off-duty time as soldiers and not unemployed) professional soldiers appear who would train regularly in between wars. These were farmer-soldiers with a plot of land and house tied to their job and were essentially supported by a number of farmers in whose stead they soldiered.

Nobles would not generally be training with troops (other than well by giving orders), since they would usually fill officer roles which required other skills.

[Deepbluediver]

Well, the exact model of it is probably based on Arwen's sword from LotR, especially the metal knob near the base of the blade - only thing remotely similar to it is a Schilt on a Feder, but that's a training sword, and a two handed one at that.

After someone else confirmed that it looks like a messer of some sort I went looking for videos and the sword Albion uses is of similar size (lighter in fact) and he seems to be using it two-handed. When I think "two handed sword" I normally picture something almost man-height, but maybe that's just fantasy tropes throwing off my sense of scale.

Overall, it's a reasonable weapon, you see blades and hilts similar to this mostly in central Eurasia, usually with a little more crossguard, but not that much. Good points of comparision are shashka, yatagan or early magyar sabres. Some of the dao types, especially earlier ones with relatively slender blades, are also pretty similar. Thye closest weapon to this I can't find a good replica of, it's high medieval Slavic dussack, it looked a bit like this:

Spoiler: Dussack

Show

...but with simple, straight, knife handle without any fancy bits. They are found in modern Slovakia and parts of former HRE, especially Czech republic. Most of them are from 14th-15th cent., but some are from as far back as start of 13th. From 14th century up, they have a simple bar of iron going off at a right angle from the crossguard to protect side of your hand, called Nagel (nail) in German, but earlier ones don't have it.

I will look all those up, thank you. Sometimes it's just a matter of knowing what to search for. Like that time I went nuts trying to recall what they called those giant two-handed shields with spikes :P
(skip to 1:50 for the craziness)

What did the site call it? What category did it fall in?

"I have no idea", and "swords", respectively.
This was several years ago, and I don't recall where I bought it from. In fact now that I think about it a bit more, it might even have been Ebay.

The hilt looks pretty traditional European/western, like a style you could still find on some of the more gentlemanly pocket knives.

That I didn't know- when I think "European" the default image is like the arming sword you see in a lot of depictions.

That's more like a cavalry saber.

That was one of my thoughts, too, and I only hesitated because it seemed like it would be nightmare to draw and sheathe this thing while on horseback. I guess rather than carrying it yourself though, you could strap it to your saddle and that might alleviate the issue.

[Mike_G]

It's pretty big and heavy for a one handed sword. You'd have a hard time defending yourself with it one handed, just because of the effort of moving that mass and the lack of hand protection. It would lose out to a traditional sabre if you tried to use it like a sabre. Maybe use it with a shield, but it still seem on the big side for a one hander. It's reasonable for a two handed sword, but it's not exactly like any historical sword I've ever seen.

I think it's probably functional, and I'd guess you could use it like a big-ish katana. Not really suitable for longsword with no crossguard, and it's a bit short and just single edged, so there are a lot of longsword techniques that wouldn't work well with it.

[wolflance]

Snip

Thanks for the answer, it is a lot clearer to me now.

It seems like the spotty/ad-hoc? military training of that period run counter to everything we know about modern military training (or maybe I should say they were replaced by more modern practices precisely because they were deemed not effective enough).

I am under the impression that most armies of the period were multinationals (i.e French cavalry + Swiss infantry). So if most soldiers only underwent short and basic training shortly before the war, and mostly only trained with 10-20s of their fellow comrades under the same colonel/captain, then

a) How did a supreme commander of an army maneuver his many units around during a battle? Especially during the later part of 30 yrs war where everyone liked to field many, many smaller blocks.



Or did he simply laid out the deployment plan, and let each unit do its own things once the battle started?

b) How did two units from the same side communicate with each other (when they likely didn't even speak the same language?)

c) Since soldiers mostly trained in smaller 20ish men groups, won't that cause confusion for the commander of a large pike block? What if certain trumpet signal mean advance for one group and retreat for another group (within the same pike block)?

d) Wouldn't that cause a lot of conflicts when a multinational army marched & camped together? (Especially when some of the units may had fought with each others in the past)


You mentioned "trend/model" and the rapid dissemination of effective tactics/training, which suggest that at least the top commanders and thinkers did realize the shortcomings of military training practices of the period. Ditto for the drill manuals and later reforms and Swedish "part-time soldiers".