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

[Storm Bringer]

In the story I'm reading at the moment, futuristic types are stranded on a lower-tech world, which is militarily at the level of the Age of Pike and Shot. One of their earliest actions when they gain the confidence of some local forces, is to basically upgrade them to Napoleonic levels (rifled muskets with ring-socket bayonets in place of the smoothbores with plug bayonets they had).

Are there any historical examples of a Napoleonic-style army coming up against one still using pikes?

Heirs of Empire, by David Weber? good book, enjoyed it.


to answer the question, not really. i think a theirs a few examples of Russian conscripts being given "pikes" that were only 8 foot long, during the 1812 invasion, but i cant think of any real examples of it happening. the time gap is just too great.


its like the british redcoats trying to invade Zululand, and being met with the modern South African Defense force.

[Kiero]

The Americans used pikes against the British, but that was before Napoleon

Otherwise:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Rebellion_of_1798

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

saw one side using large quantities of pikes.

I don't mean it has to be an army from the time of Napoleon, merely that they'd moved on to socketed bayonets and no longer used pikes. Apparently the French army made the socket bayonet standard issue in 1703 - so anything from that time onwards where an army that no longer "needs" pikes faces one which still uses them.

Heirs of Empire, by David Weber? good book, enjoyed it.


to answer the question, not really. i think a theirs a few examples of Russian conscripts being given "pikes" that were only 8 foot long, during the 1812 invasion, but i cant think of any real examples of it happening. the time gap is just too great.


its like the british redcoats trying to invade Zululand, and being met with the modern South African Defense force.

Yep, Heirs of Empire.

Indeed, all the examples of "pikes" (which includes those Vinyadan references) always seem to be poorly-equipped peasant/conscript forces who have nothing else, rather than militaries that choose to fight with pikemen and musketeers.

[snowblizz]

In the story I'm reading at the moment, futuristic types are stranded on a lower-tech world, which is militarily at the level of the Age of Pike and Shot. One of their earliest actions when they gain the confidence of some local forces, is to basically upgrade them to Napoleonic levels (rifled muskets with ring-socket bayonets in place of the smoothbores with plug bayonets they had).

Are there any historical examples of a Napoleonic-style army coming up against one still using pikes?

Basically bayonets and rifling are two separate but complimentary technologies finally combining into the same weapons, en masse, at about the Crimean War.

Plug-bayonets aren't exactly "pike and shot". Plug-bayonets bridge the gap between late "pike and shot" and early line-of-battle tactics, muskets with bayonets not stopping you from shooting, ie Napoleonic era. Plug bayonets reduced pikes from integral part of the battle line (though the reduction in pikes in favour of firepower is ongoing from the Renessaince forwards, and probably this stimulated the idea of bayonets but the plug version was an unsatisfactory compromise in function) to basically a curiosity, something to steady the command and colours. But they also had a fairly short life-span as plugging the gun sorta defanged your army.

Rifled muskets aren't really Napoleonic level either (in that the majority of the troops were issued with smoothbores still until about mid 1800s). Rifled muskets are something you start to see en-masse with the minie-ball as rifling and roundball is difficult to load and foul easily. The British e.g. used the smoothbore Brown Bess almost till the mid-1800s making it a century old before being replaced. This is because speed of loading and thus weight of fire was prized above accuracy in the line-of-battle style.

Other than that Vinyadan covered the instances I woulda mentioned. I think that's the closest you'll get. Most of the last serious use of pike disappears early 1700s during the War of Spanish Succession.

I will point out that during the Napoleonic wars the French went back to charging with weapons (well bayonets) in lieu of firepower as a fairly successful means, so getting rid of pikes isn't strictly a technological upgrade. The combination rifled/bayonet may be enough to render a determined charge impractical however. Even with bayonets a Napoelonic troop woudl likely find it hard to resists a pike charge as they be massively outranged if the attackers are not disordered by the volley.

Indeed, all the examples of "pikes" (which includes those Vinyadan references) always seem to be poorly-equipped peasant/conscript forces who have nothing else, rather than militaries that choose to fight with pikemen and musketeers.

That is in part because "linear tactics" was The Thing in the 1700s-1800s, it is how you fought like a proper civilized nation and hence the only way most officers could think of. Naturally history tended to show the most intransigent how wrong they were.

But also if the enemy is just walking towards you and you can shoot them at your leisure that's usually a good way to win.

Now I recall tough you might want to look up some of the battles of the Jacobite rebellions, the Highlanders were lightly equipped with firearms compared to the Royal troops but sometimes won, at least once in part due to the bayonets. Which was actually mentioned on wikipedia in the entry for plugbayonets. That coudl form a model for a potential not so shooty vs totally shooty army.

[Kiero]

Basically bayonets and rifling are two separate but complimentary technologies finally combining into the same weapons, en masse, at about the Crimean War.

Plug-bayonets aren't exactly "pike and shot". Plug-bayonets bridge the gap between late "pike and shot" and early line-of-battle tactics, muskets with bayonets not stopping you from shooting, ie Napoleonic era. Plug bayonets reduced pikes from integral part of the battle line (though the reduction in pikes in favour of firepower is ongoing from the Renessaince forwards, and probably this stimulated the idea of bayonets but the plug version was an unsatisfactory compromise in function) to basically a curiosity, something to steady the command and colours. But they also had a fairly short life-span as plugging the gun sorta defanged your army.

Rifled muskets aren't really Napoleonic level either (in that the majority of the troops were issued with smoothbores still until about mid 1800s). Rifled muskets are something you start to see en-masse with the minie-ball as rifling and roundball is difficult to load and foul easily. The British e.g. used the smoothbore Brown Bess almost till the mid-1800s making it a century old before being replaced. This is because speed of loading and thus weight of fire was prized above accuracy in the line-of-battle style.

Other than that Vinyadan covered the instances I woulda mentioned. I think that's the closest you'll get. Most of the last serious use of pike disappears early 1700s during the War of Spanish Succession.

I know plug bayonets aren't pike and shot. I was trying to avoid getting into the details of the fictional scenario, because I don't think they've very important to the question I was asking. Essentially, the forces the protagonists pick up are already less pike-dependent than their foes; they have plug bayonets and like to use as many bills/polearms as pikes partly to compensate for their smaller population. By contrast, the enemies they are fighting are full-on Pike and Shot, they have large blocks of pikemen with musketeers supporting them.

The protagonists then introduce rifled muskets with socket bayonets, removing all their forces pikemen/billmen and replacing everyone with riflemen. Another scenario-specific point is that on this world they don't have real cavalry (lacking horses or analogues), only a sort of dragoons, but that's not really germane.

But you've answered my question in part that the only meaningful overlap between pike and shot, and line tactics is the early 1700s.

I will point out that during the Napoleonic wars the French went back to charging with weapons (well bayonets) in lieu of firepower as a fairly successful means, so getting rid of pikes isn't strictly a technological upgrade. The combination rifled/bayonet may be enough to render a determined charge impractical however. Even with bayonets a Napoelonic troop woudl likely find it hard to resists a pike charge as they be massively outranged if the attackers are not disordered by the volley.

I'd call that a very specific exception for Napoleon's chosen method of psychological warfare. He had an artilleryman's scorn for infantry, and didn't seem to much care about the casualties they took as long as they won. The column shattered the morale of the opponents they came up against rather than beating them in a conventional manner (ie via firepower as you allude).

I do agree a pike block could absorb a lot of punishment, but I'm particularly interested in whether there were any real world examples where the ability of a phalanx to absorb fire they couldn't respond to in anything like the same volume was tested.

Was there no transition period where some militaries still relied on the pike and others had made the change over to line tactics?

That is in part because "linear tactics" was The Thing in the 1700s-1800s, it is how you fought like a proper civilized nation and hence the only way most officers could think of. Naturally history tended to show the most intransigent how wrong they were.

But also if the enemy is just walking towards you and you can shoot them at your leisure that's usually a good way to win.

Now I recall tough you might want to look up some of the battles of the Jacobite rebellions, the Highlanders were lightly equipped with firearms compared to the Royal troops but sometimes won, at least once in part due to the bayonets. Which was actually mentioned on wikipedia in the entry for plugbayonets. That coudl form a model for a potential not so shooty vs totally shooty army.

I think the '45 rebellion was the one that cemented the (plug) bayonet and the particular tactic of stabbing left, but I don't think the Highlanders made much use of the pike. That's specifically what I'm trying to find.

[snowblizz]

The protagonists then introduce rifled muskets with socket bayonets, removing all their forces pikemen/billmen and replacing everyone with riflemen. Another scenario-specific point is that on this world they don't have real cavalry (lacking horses or analogues), only a sort of dragoons, but that's not really germane.

Actually that's critically gemane to the situation since the pike before it and the bayonet after it are specifically there as something to deal with cavalry. Remove cavalry and pikes are less interesting and bayonets most likely would not be invented at all.

I'd call that a very specific exception for Napoleon's chosen method of psychological warfare. He had an artilleryman's scorn for infantry, and didn't seem to much care about the casualties they took as long as they won. The column shattered the morale of the opponents they came up against rather than beating them in a conventional manner (ie via firepower as you allude).

Not entirely, the 1700s Swedish army was fairly "hands on" too during the Great Northern War, the "Karolins" were quite famous for it, both cavalry and infantry. It's not as suicidal as may seem, smoothbores are terribly inaccurate and it's quite possible to goad a salvo out of a unit a bit too early for it to do much damage. It tended to be more decisive than the linear tactics normal manner of salvoing each other for ages. The military thinking kept going back and forth on the issue of melee or fireing during the entire "horse and musket" era.

I do agree a pike block could absorb a lot of punishment, but I'm particularly interested in whether there were any real world examples where the ability of a phalanx to absorb fire they couldn't respond to in anything like the same volume was tested.

Was there no transition period where some militaries still relied on the pike and others had made the change over to line tactics?

Not really no. The "problem" being that by the pike and shot era the pikes may still be considered the queens of the battlefield, and important as anchors for regiments without which shot would not survive, the real business of killing was mostly up to shot and artillery units. And changes tended to be imported rather quickly, many soldiers, especially officers moved about the various powers diffusing know-how. And eg during the 1700s most western nations took their cues from the French army either fighting against or with it.

[Flicker Nicker]

How well would a metal version of an Aztec War club work? Sorry for the strange question.

[Jormengand]

How well would a metal version of an Aztec War club work? Sorry for the strange question.

If you're talking about the weapons I think you are (macahuitls), part of what made them so horrific was that they left bits of themselves inside the target, because obsidian is super fragile... but it was also sharper than steel coul easily be got.

On the other hand, it's not like making what basically amounts to a big double-sided hatchet and swinging it at someone is going to be ineffective.

[DrewID]

On average, falchions don't weigh more than any other single-handed sword of the same era. The typical falchion (type 1a, see below) has a very thin cross section to make up for the large width.

Here is the full range of falchion/messer blades (the difference is in the hilt). These all weigh about the same on average, single-handed sword weights are remarkable similar throughout the medieval period and beyond- generally between 1 and 3 pounds.

I'd say your sword above is a type 5a falchion with 0 curvature.

This brings to mind a Weapons Question: What weapon typology systems exist? I know that there is Oakeshott typology for medieval swords, Wheeler typology for Viking swords, and now I know hat there is Elmslie typology for falchions/messers (thank you for that, BTW). Are there others?

DrewID

[Lvl 2 Expert]

How well would a metal version of an Aztec War club work? Sorry for the strange question.

That's a sword.

No, seriously. A quick google for "macuahuitls weight" (thanks for the word Jormengand) gives me these data:
Weight 2.0–3.0 kg (4.4-6.6 lbs)
Length 90-120 cm (3-4 foot)
That's a bit on the heavy side for a European longsword, with a comparable or slightly shorter length. The weight sits further towards the front, so it will wield a bit like a cavalry saber, or maybe even towards a light axe, the weight packs a punch.

That's the brilliance of the design, they managed to combine the properties of two materials, wood and obsidian(/flint/some sort of stone) to achieve the same design that independently proved effective elsewhere, where they could make the things out of one material.

If you'd try to make the exact shape of these weapons out of steel rather than wood and stone the weapon would be way too heavy. Steel is roughly 9 times as dense as wood or 4 times as dense as stone. You'd have a 20kg (44 pound) weapon, way too heavy to really use. But if you'd take the same idea and tried to construct that out of steel rather than wood and stone, you'd have a sword.

[Jormengand]

I don't really think that "That's a sword" is necessarily accurate when macahuitls had a tendency to look like this. It's wielded more like a saw than a conventional sword, from what I've seen, too.

[Brother Oni]

The issue is that the macuahuitl's is basically using broken glass to cut through targets. As Jormengand mentioned, this is both ridiculously sharp and fragile, so to maintain a metal version's effectiveness, you'd have to mount the obsidian blades into a metal club.

As Lvl 2 Expert pointed out, directly replicating the weapon in the same dimensions with steel is unfeasible, but a lighter, thinner version would be possible, although it'd be more like a steel bar with obsidian blades than a sword.

According to Conquistador accounts, the one-handed macuahuitl was capable of decapitating horses (sometimes in a single blow), which is beyond what a sabre or other one handed sword can do to the best of my knowledge. I haven't seen any records of the two-handed macuahuitl's performance in comparison, but a more unwieldy, heavier hitting weapon (as it's still made out of wood) would be expected.

[eru001]

In the story I'm reading at the moment, futuristic types are stranded on a lower-tech world, which is militarily at the level of the Age of Pike and Shot. One of their earliest actions when they gain the confidence of some local forces, is to basically upgrade them to Napoleonic levels (rifled muskets with ring-socket bayonets in place of the smoothbores with plug bayonets they had).

Are there any historical examples of a Napoleonic-style army coming up against one still using pikes?

The Rebellion of 1798 in Ireland involved large numbers of Irish pikemen going up against British Redcoats. It ended predictably poorly for the Irish. Though is is worth noting that the pikes were only used because the Irish were not provided with all of the promised muskets from France, so utilizing large numbers of pikemen was more of a, "we have to use something" than a "we think this is a good Idea" situation


During the American Civil war there was a plan, though it was never carried out, by the Confederacy to equip some units of pikemen


In WWII, due to a shortage of firearms, "invasion pikes" consisting of a bayonet welded to a pole, were issued briefly to some units of the British Home Guard.

[Kiero]

The Rebellion of 1798 in Ireland involved large numbers of Irish pikemen going up against British Redcoats. It ended predictably poorly for the Irish. Though is is worth noting that the pikes were only used because the Irish were not provided with all of the promised muskets from France, so utilizing large numbers of pikemen was more of a, "we have to use something" than a "we think this is a good Idea" situation


During the American Civil war there was a plan, though it was never carried out, by the Confederacy to equip some units of pikemen


In WWII, due to a shortage of firearms, "invasion pikes" consisting of a bayonet welded to a pole, were issued briefly to some units of the British Home Guard.

I was looking for real pikemen, rather than scratch pikemen raised because there was nothing better available. That was the situation in the story.

As mentioned, weren't the "pikes" in the Tone Rebellion spears as far as we'd be concerned?

[wolflance]

The issue is that the macuahuitl's is basically using broken glass to cut through targets. As Jormengand mentioned, this is both ridiculously sharp and fragile, so to maintain a metal version's effectiveness, you'd have to mount the obsidian blades into a metal club.

As Lvl 2 Expert pointed out, directly replicating the weapon in the same dimensions with steel is unfeasible, but a lighter, thinner version would be possible, although it'd be more like a steel bar with obsidian blades than a sword.

According to Conquistador accounts, the one-handed macuahuitl was capable of decapitating horses (sometimes in a single blow), which is beyond what a sabre or other one handed sword can do to the best of my knowledge. I haven't seen any records of the two-handed macuahuitl's performance in comparison, but a more unwieldy, heavier hitting weapon (as it's still made out of wood) would be expected.

I think it might be better to just weld metal teeth to a metal club (or wooden club). Metal-level of sharpness should be sufficient for most combat needs, and you get a sturdier weapon to boot.

I also think the conquistadors were exaggerating, as one-swing decapitation is unlikely to be achieved with a saw-like weapon that cannot even draw-cut like a curved sword. A one hit kill that leaves the poor horse with a large, messy and zagged wound and pulverized neck bone might be possible, though.

[Socratov]

I think it might be better to just weld metal teeth to a metal club (or wooden club). Metal-level of sharpness should be sufficient for most combat needs, and you get a sturdier weapon to boot.

I also think the conquistadors were exaggerating, as one-swing decapitation is unlikely to be achieved with a saw-like weapon that cannot even draw-cut like a curved sword. A one hit kill that leaves the poor horse with a large, messy and zagged wound and pulverized neck bone might be possible, though.

Wouldn't that make a flat mace or morning star? I mean, you don't want a saw blade in metal as it could get stuck very easily, at least with such teeth.

[Vinyadan]

I think that decapitation was possible. The only realistic depiction of a Macuahuitl we have was made by XIX century antiquarians in Madrid, about a decade before the last surviving specimen was destroyed in a fire.

Spoiler

Show

It is a sword.

The book in general is very interesting. It's the third volume of a series of three. You can download it at the address in the picture.

[Deepbluediver]

I think that decapitation was possible. The only realistic depiction of a Macuahuitl we have was made by XIX century antiquarians in Madrid, about a decade before the last surviving specimen was destroyed in a fire.

Spoiler

Show

It is a sword.

The book in general is very interesting. It's the third volume of a series of three. You can download it at the address in the picture.

I always assumed it was difficult to behead someone- that's why "the executioner's axe" is a trope and and the guillotine was invented. Apparently though, it's easier than expected in some instances: click here for slightly gory account of butchering goats.

But it got me thinking about exactly what sort of circumstances you'd be comparing things between. In combat, it might be difficult to decapitate someone because the neck is a small, often heavily-armored target, and your enemy is focused on protecting his head and face anyway. By contrast, domesticated livestock would probably let you walk right up to them and take all the time you need to line up a two-handed power shot. So maybe the "difficulty" comes from different aspects (aim vs. cutting power, etc).

I'm still not convinced there isn't some element of propaganda to the horse-decapitation stories; "look at these horrid barbarians that we defeated through the grace of god!"- that kind of thing. Also, horses didn't exist in the Americas at this time, so they would have had to be brought over (at large expense) on a ship, and I doubt the spaniards where sacrificing valuable beasts of war for gits and shiggles. Finally horses are BIG animals- a horse's neck is easily as wide around as a person's torso, and heavily muscled, so it's less like decapitating a human and more like trying to bisect a human.
On the other hand, there aren't good historical records of a lot of pre-columbian cultures, so maybe some weapons where less like a sword and more like an axe. And the, under just the right set of circumstances, it's possible to decapitate a horse with a stone-chip blade.

[Mabn]

I think that decapitation was possible. The only realistic depiction of a Macuahuitl we have was made by XIX century antiquarians in Madrid, about a decade before the last surviving specimen was destroyed in a fire.

Spoiler

Show

It is a sword.

The book in general is very interesting. It's the third volume of a series of three. You can download it at the address in the picture.

What interests me in the picture is the edge configuration of the Macuahuitl "sword". Could you make a metal sword with a series of small rectangles with sharply rounded edges as its blade and still maintain the sharpness of such an edge? The design seems like it would be amazing at cutting soft targets because the rounded parts shear flesh as they pass and the multiple forward sections make many little cuts which widen the hole as they go. However I couldn't imagine actually sharpening such a sword without specialize implements. A flamberge style curve is one thing, but the curves on the Macuahuitl are far more pronounced and closer together.

[Mr Beer]

Beheading goats is one thing, would be much easier as described in the above link than doing so to human opponents. They have thinner necks than humans, were held still, sword wielder could use a downward chop, they have no armour and they’re not trying to kill you with deadly weapons.

Horses would be even tougher to decapitate, certainly war horses in a combat situation. Not saying it can’t be done but static goat chopping sounds like a far cry from taking out Spanish war horses with Stone Age weaponry.

Edit

It’s relevant that you don’t need a special sword or superhuman strength to behead near human sized animals though.

[wolflance]

I think that decapitation was possible. The only realistic depiction of a Macuahuitl we have was made by XIX century antiquarians in Madrid, about a decade before the last surviving specimen was destroyed in a fire.

Spoiler

Show

It is a sword.

The book in general is very interesting. It's the third volume of a series of three. You can download it at the address in the picture.

The problem with Macuahuilt horse beheading, besides its saw-like design, is that once those monomolecular obsidian blades cut into their target, a fat blunt wooden club gets in the way and prevents you from pushing the blades any deeper.

[Vinyadan]

The question is "how fat".

We imagine the cross-section to be like this:

__________
__________|
          \___
              \
           ___/
__________/
__________|

obsidian thinner than the wood holding it in place

or

___________ ___
___________|   \
                \
___________     /
___________|___/

obsidian thickness = wood thickness

or

           _____  
__________|_    \
____________|    \
                  \
____________      /
____________|    /
          |_____/

obsidian thicker than wood.

I personally am for the second option, with obsidian having about the same thickness as the wood. Maybe it was obsidian tapering in a certain way, maybe it was wood.

[Zombimode]

None of those options adress the issue: that you have to work a big fat club through the horse's neck.

[Vinyadan]

None of those options adress the issue: that you have to work a big fat club through the horse's neck.

If the club (or, I would say, plank) isn't larger than the blades, yes, they do.

[Max_Killjoy]

If the club (or, I would say, plank) isn't larger than the blades, yes, they do.

A sharp fat club is still a fat club.

Most metal blades have to consider the tradeoff that comes with blade thickness behind the cutting edge -- a wider max width is harder to push through the cut material than a thinner max width.

An inch-thick object is harder to force through the cut material than a quarter-inch-thick object, all else being equal.

[Knaight]

If the club (or, I would say, plank) isn't larger than the blades, yes, they do.

That removes the problem of having to push something blunt through. There's still a very fundamental problem of volume displaced - which is the cross section of the neck along the cutting plane times the thickness of the blade used to cut*. This applies to blades in general, and is part of the reason you get the extremely thin blades in falchions and the like.

A machuatl goes very much the other way. They are exceptionally sharp, and they likely tend towards higher angular momentum (though they might well have tapered; it's a tricky design that involves a lock of skilled obsidian-knapping, but there's no reason to think the people making these weapons weren't good at it), both of which would help with the cutting, but that extreme thickness doesn't.

There's also the small matter of how the cultures that used and developed the machuatl didn't have horses, and didn't have a lot of time to develop weapons to deal with them. That's not to say that they couldn't kill horses just fine, just that straight up decapitation was unlikely.

*There's obviously a level of simplification here.

[Carl]

Don't forget obsidian is ridiculously sharp compared to even a good steel blade, it may break more easily but it's also going to take a lot less force to cut through things.

[Spookykid]

Obsidian isnt sharper, its serated! That add a whole lot of cutting power, i've seen tests with arrows but never swords.

[Socratov]

Don't forget obsidian is ridiculously sharp compared to even a good steel blade, it may break more easily but it's also going to take a lot less force to cut through things.

Obsidian isnt sharper, its serated! That add a whole lot of cutting power, i've seen tests with arrows but never swords.

No matter the profile, for travelling through something semi solid or liquid all that matters is the ultimate profile that will displace the semi-solid/liquid stuff. The sharpness of the obsidian is great at severing the fibers, but a fat club that travels behind is still will create a lot more drag and will take great amounts of energy to travel through.

And yes ceramics, especially if they resemble sillicate flakes on a molecular level then it is freakishly, no, ridiculously sharp. Very brittle, but very sharp.

And serrated edges only work well when you drag them along. They create beautiful lacerations but won't penetrate all that deeply (as again, the serrations create more profile to create drag instead of 1 continuous line that allows for penetration).

[Mr Beer]

Obsidian isnt sharper, its serated! That add a whole lot of cutting power, i've seen tests with arrows but never swords.

It's sharper.


Well-crafted obsidian blades, as with any glass knife, can have a cutting edge many times sharper than high-quality steel surgical scalpels, the cutting edge of the blade being only about 3 nanometers thick.[44] Even the sharpest metal knife has a jagged, irregular blade when viewed under a strong enough microscope; when examined even under an electron microscope an obsidian blade is still smooth and even.[45]

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

[Vinyadan]

About whether or not it could decapitate a horse: the claim in Wikipedia is likely due to the primary sources contained in this paper: http://www.woosterglobalhistory.org/...33c717a7fb.pdf

I think that they must have been decent slashing weapons, and that the plank was an impediment because of its larger volume compared to steel swords, but not so extreme as to stop the weapon from penetrating (slicing thourgh?) after the very short obsidian blade. There are a couple of reasons for this, one being that I base my image of the weapon on the drawing I posted earlier, which looks very different from most reconstructions; these appear to consider the macuahuitl a very sharp flanged mace, while I see it as a cutting weapon, the same way in which it is described in accounts. The more convincing reason is the teputzopilli, a "spear" built with the same technology, and which looks a lot like a piercing weapon to me. While piercing weapons obviously make it easier to penetrate because of the smaller entering volume, it means that the technology could be used, at least in this case, without having a plank with such a wide section as to stop the weapon from following the obsidian blade. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._in_Madrid.png

I haven't read the paper thouroughly yet, btw. It was the last step in an attempt to find the Spanish sources and check the translations.