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

[Mike_G]

Contributing may not be the right word. I believe the PBS series "The Vietnam War" state that only 20% of the members of the soldiers (*) saw combat.

Which in such a conflict seems reasonable to me, if you count soldiers in a certain way (i.e. my asterisk).

So, are you just counting combat trained troops? Don't forget about those in logistics, training, medical and administrative billets. And except for the riverboat crews, the Navy sailors really didn't see combat. And then the Air Force, Do bomber pilots counts? Or only if they get shot at? All of the support crew in the Air Force wouldn't count.

Anyway, what I'm getting at is 20% of what?

The context of the study is 20% of combat soldier in combat. Like 2 of the 10 guys in a rifle squad. This doesn't include support troops.

The study is still very very poorly done, and full of holes an ignores simple explanations of poor hit ratios to force the conclusion that men are just squeamish about shooting one another.

[Max_Killjoy]

The context of the study is 20% of combat soldier in combat. Like 2 of the 10 guys in a rifle squad. This doesn't include support troops.

The study is still very very poorly done, and full of holes an ignores simple explanations of poor hit ratios to force the conclusion that men are just squeamish about shooting one another.

My expectation from speaking with people who've seen live combat is that most soldiers, once they're taking fire and someone is trying to kill them and their friends, will engage with deadly force -- I find the notion that 80% of combat troops, in combat, never direct "shots to kill" against the enemy, to be dubious at best.

[Mike_G]

My expectation from speaking with people who've seen live combat is that most soldiers, once they're taking fire and someone is trying to kill them and their friends, will engage with deadly force -- I find the notion that 80% of combat troops, in combat, never direct "shots to kill" against the enemy, to be dubious at best.

I completely agree.

Some men don't shoot, but I think that's more because of fear or opportunity, like they don't have a target, than reluctance to hurt a guy who is actively trying to kill you. And there area million reasons that hit percentage in battlefield conditions is way lower than under rifle range conditions.

[Clistenes]

About class conflicts in Athens, there is an article about the stele of Dexileos that delves into how representation of a cavalryman was bound to aristocratic status, and also talks about a shared tomb (Polyandron) that was decorated with the images of a hoplites and a cavalryman striking the enemy in unison, probably inviting to unity of different classes for the sake of the polis. https://www.ancient.eu/amp/2-631/

I have read that the underdevelopment of cavalry in Greece was due in part to social and political reasons, in addition to Greece not being horse country, and pre-styrrup cavalry not being that effective unless the riders had trained during their whole lives...

So escarcity of horses (and hence, they were very expensive) plus need of a lot of free time to train (which only very rich people could afford), plus there weren't professional soldiers and everybody was expected to train themselves and to buy their own weapons and armor and mount, meant cavalry was very strongly associated to aristocracy AND very small in numbers...

Also, during the aristocratic period armies were really small, there weren't large battles, and a large part of it were raids for cattle and slaves, piracy and sieges against weaker settlements.

Enter the democratic period and the creation of large armies of citizen soldiers, poorly trained, but with the numbers and cohesion to compensate that. The hoplite soldier is created, and official doctrine is "we don't need expensive horses or full-time warriors, we are many, we are brave and we are united and that's enough to kick any aristocratic horseman's ass!". That discouraged the Greek from trying to develope good cavalry...

The Spartans were professional full-time warriors, but they were still too poor to afford horses, and had a strong sense of unity and equality between Spartoi citizens...

[Kiero]

I have read that the underdevelopment of cavalry in Greece was due in part to social and political reasons, in addition to Greece not being horse country, and pre-styrrup cavalry not being that effective unless the riders had trained during their whole lives...

So escarcity of horses (and hence, they were very expensive) plus need of a lot of free time to train (which only very rich people could afford), plus there weren't professional soldiers and everybody was expected to train themselves and to buy their own weapons and armor and mount, meant cavalry was very strongly associated to aristocracy AND very small in numbers...

Also, during the aristocratic period armies were really small, there weren't large battles, and a large part of it were raids for cattle and slaves, piracy and sieges against weaker settlements.

Most of Greece is mountainous or coastline (barring Thessaly), so no, not cavalry country. Aristocrats rode when they hunted, but were expected to fight in battle on foot. As before, if they did ride in battle, they were viewed with suspicion, since it facilitated easy flight if things weren't going well. So all the pressures are against developing much of a cavalry tradition.

I have to debunk the stirrup thing, that's a myth. You don't need stirrups for effective charges, they provide lateral (side-to-side) stability which gives you a more stable archery platform, and improves your survivability in a standing melee.

Again, though, Thessaly was a notable exception to the overall picture, they had good cavalry and their nobility preferred to ride. It's coastal plains and lowlands are flatter than most of the rest of Greece and so more conducive to movement of large bodies of horse.

Enter the democratic period and the creation of large armies of citizen soldiers, poorly trained, but with the numbers and cohesion to compensate that. The hoplite soldier is created, and official doctrine is "we don't need expensive horses or full-time warriors, we are many, we are brave and we are united and that's enough to kick any aristocratic horseman's ass!". That discouraged the Greek from trying to develope good cavalry...

The Spartans were professional full-time warriors, but they were still too poor to afford horses, and had a strong sense of unity and equality between Spartoi citizens...

You're conflating two different things here. The democratic period certainly led to the creation of huge fleets of citizen-oarsmen who weren't much in a fight (battle of Sphacteria aside), but you can't really get away with a poorly-trained phalanx. Moving as a unit requires training as a body, and the yeoman farmers and upwards who made up the phalanx had the leisure time to put aside to train together. The institution of the gymnasium encouraged them to maintain their fitness as well, not to mention the presence of many professional and amateur athletes in the phalanx. Being an Olympian didn't exempt you from standing in the line of battle when the rest of the citizen were summoned. That didn't make them professionals, but nor were they an untrained rabble.

In the period of war with the Persians, most Greeks served as either oarsmen or heavy infantry. Given they were often outnumbered and fighting a lot of (very good quality) cavalry, there wasn't much call for having a lot of their own. Then we move into the period of Athenian ascendancy and war with the Spartans, where most of the action took place in summer in Boeotia, between two bodies of hoplites or else cross-border raiding.

Outside of the regular summer campaigning were marine/amphibious actions, which didn't see much use of cavalry. Transporting horses around the place adds a whole new dimension of logistical burdens, and they're not the most useful for things assaulting island strongholds.

Once more, Thessaly's cavalry tradition continued to develop in this period, their mastery of the horse was something that allowed them to keep their southern neighbours at bay, even though they weren't particularly numerous.

Also notable that once the mantle had passed to Makedonia as the primary power in Hellas, the Thessalian tradition they'd adopted was in the ascendant. The Seleukids even exported Thessalians as military settlers to Syria to give them a reliable source of recruitment for heavy cavalry.

[Vinyadan]

About the aristocracy being expected to fight on foot, I am not sure if that's the case, at least in Athens. Here being a rider was bound to census (hippeis). Now, we can wonder exactly how long the timocratic system kept working (I think that Aristoteles noticed that it had lost social meaning by his time), but only the two upper classes could be riders: the question is if they could or they had to. (Being in these classes, pentakosiomedimnoi and hippeis, was also very good because the highest magistrates could only come from them, something that was changed over time to the advantage of the zeugites, who were the hoplites).

As a side note, it's interesting that even the Macedonian cavalry was aristocracy-driven. This in a kingdom that had enough money to have actual siege trains working with the army, which afaik was very unusual in Greece.

Generally, there sure is no doubt that cavalry was secondary in the south. Athens probably never had more than 1.000 horsemen. Personally, I believe that they were more active than we would assume, but also very limited in function by number and horse quality.

[Kiero]

About the aristocracy being expected to fight on foot, I am not sure if that's the case, at least in Athens. Here being a rider was bound to census (hippeis). Now, we can wonder exactly how long the timocratic system kept working (I think that Aristoteles noticed that it had lost social meaning by his time), but only the two upper classes could be riders: the question is if they could or they had to. (Being in these classes, pentakosiomedimnoi and hippeis, was also very good because the highest magistrates could only come from them, something that was changed over time to the advantage of the zeugites, who were the hoplites).

As a side note, it's interesting that even the Macedonian cavalry was aristocracy-driven. This in a kingdom that had enough money to have actual siege trains working with the army, which afaik was very unusual in Greece.

Generally, there sure is no doubt that cavalry was secondary in the south. Athens probably never had more than 1.000 horsemen. Personally, I believe that they were more active than we would assume, but also very limited in function by number and horse quality.

Just because you qualify as a hippeus, doesn't mean you'll opt to, or are obliged to fight that way. Cavalry was always aristocracy-driven, you needed money and lands to raise your own horses. That's not really what's at question here.

It's not an "even" in the case of the Makedonians, they basically switched over to a horse-based aristocracy some time before Philip. And once again, they basically adopted the Thessalian model, so it's not very surprising.

[PhoenixPhyre]

A question that came up in another thread--

How useful (if at all) would a decorative weapon be in actual combat? I'm thinking of the cheap display swords that are mass manufactured in China (or their medieval equivalent, if such existed)? What about a wooden practice sword (like the solid ones used for kendo training)?

It also plays into the trope of the over-decorated weapon carried by a fop that is totally unsuited for actual use. Did such things exist in the historical record or is that a modern invention after such weapons were already obsolete?

[Clistenes]

Aristocrats rode when they hunted, but were expected to fight in battle on foot. As before, if they did ride in battle, they were viewed with suspicion, since it facilitated easy flight if things weren't going well. So all the pressures are against developing much of a cavalry tradition.

You are thinking of the democratic period. Things were different during the aristocratic period: During the aristocratic period usually only as small aristocratic elite actually fought, there weren't real armies, and aristocrats fought whatever way it was most convenient for them. Most of the fighting was done on foot, but it wasn't related to cavalry being looked down.

Eventually certain non-aristocratic groups gained power in cities, and pushed aristocrats out of power, largely because they found that 500 merchants/artisans/whatever with armor, shields and long spears could defeat 10 aristocratic warriors.

I have to debunk the stirrup thing, that's a myth. You don't need stirrups for effective charges, they provide lateral (side-to-side) stability which gives you a more stable archery platform, and improves your survivability in a standing melee.

Maybe. It doesn't change the fact that merchants and artisans didn't have as much free time to spend training as nobles did. Plus many people who could afford armor weren't able to afford horses.

You're conflating two different things here. The democratic period certainly led to the creation of huge fleets of citizen-oarsmen who weren't much in a fight (battle of Sphacteria aside

That came later, starting during the Greco-Persian Wars and the rise Athenian power. Only Athens and Corinth developed huge warfleets, but most Greek states developed armies of citizen-soldiers.

but you can't really get away with a poorly-trained phalanx. Moving as a unit requires training as a body...

...In the period of war with the Persians, most Greeks served as either oarsmen or heavy infantry. Given they were often outnumbered and fighting a lot of (very good quality) cavalry, there wasn't much call for having a lot of their own. Then we move into the period of Athenian ascendancy and war with the Spartans, where most of the action took place in summer in Boeotia, between two bodies of hoplites or else cross-border raiding.

Greek warfare became increasingly sofisticated over time, eventually evolving into fully professional armies during the Macedonian and Hellenistic period. At the beginning, when they toppled the nobles during the VII-VI a.C, they had just enough training to stay in formation and move towards the enemy.

We tend to see Greek history as an homogeneous thing, but there were around 160 years between Maraton and the conquest of the Persian empire.

and the yeoman farmers and upwards who made up the phalanx had the leisure time to put aside to train together. The institution of the gymnasium encouraged them to maintain their fitness as well, not to mention the presence of many professional and amateur athletes in the phalanx. Being an Olympian didn't exempt you from standing in the line of battle when the rest of the citizen were summoned. That didn't make them professionals, but nor were they an untrained rabble.

Being and athlete is very different from being a martial artist, and even more different from being a trained soldier. Training with sword and spear was, surprisingly, unpopular in Athens during the classic period.

And not everybody could afford to spend a lot of time training in the gymnasium. There is a difference between the ideal the Greek set for themselves and their reality. People like Socrates and Plato actually had an aristocratic mindset, and the ideal citizen they described was modelled after the athenian upper class, but many artisans, merchants and farmers had to work long hours.

Also, the term "yeomen" isn't really appropiate for Greece. During the classic period Athenian society was, roughly speaking, divided into rich landowners who had labourers work their land, city-dwelling merchants, artisans and sailors, and poor farmers who owned their own land but had to word hard and didn't had leisure time. Free farmers became poorer and poorer during the classic period, losing a lost of land to rich landowners, creating social tensions, until most free farmers were very poor people working the worst lands who couldn't afford to buy hoplite armor.

[Gnoman]

How useful (if at all) would a decorative weapon be in actual combat? I'm thinking of the cheap display swords that are mass manufactured in China (or their medieval equivalent, if such existed)?

Most such display swords are made of mild steel, not the weapon-grade stuff that real blades are made of. I own a few, and even a cheap pocketknife is enough to gouge the blades pretty badly. I highly suspect that a single blow from a real weapon swung for effect would destroy one. That said, you can sharpen them, and they will hold an edge for a blow or two, so you could probably cut someone up pretty bad if they didn't have armor.

Apart from that, most are not properly balanced for fighting, and many have really impractical decorative hilt designs. They'd be pretty unwieldy compared to a real sword.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Most such display swords are made of mild steel, not the weapon-grade stuff that real blades are made of. I own a few, and even a cheap pocketknife is enough to gouge the blades pretty badly. I highly suspect that a single blow from a real weapon swung for effect would destroy one. That said, you can sharpen them, and they will hold an edge for a blow or two, so you could probably cut someone up pretty bad if they didn't have armor.

Apart from that, most are not properly balanced for fighting, and many have really impractical decorative hilt designs. They'd be pretty unwieldy compared to a real sword.

That's what I presumed. I have two decorative swords--one is super cheap (no real tang, mild steel, horrible balance), the other is slightly better (in my amateur opinion).

Was having a decorative weapon (other than maybe an ancestral weapon that's too old to be used due to brittleness) a thing back in medieval times?

[Vinyadan]

Just because you qualify as a hippeus, doesn't mean you'll opt to, or are obliged to fight that way.

Do you have a source for this?

[Vinyadan]

About "skill" and training: I am under the impression that the idea of hoplite was strictly bound to making personal skill less important and putting much more on discipline.
So individual skill - like fencing - became far less important than cohesion. Now, the fact that a soldier knows how to stick to his comrades makes him skilled, in a way: a different kind of skill.
The less respected kinds of warrior, like the horseman, the archer, the slinger and so on, needed instead high levels of individual skill: riding, marksmanship.... At the same time, however, they were less in danger.
Hoplites, being heavily armoured and pressed from all sides, had far less mobility, and skill would have benefited them less. At the same time, melee probably needed less skill than shooting. What hoplites really needed was the courage not to give up to fear, and the discipline to stick together. And these skills were easier to give to well equipped unprofessionals, compared to making fencers out of them. Culture also surely helped a lot, not only in Athens: Archilochus fr 114 West: "I have no liking for a general who is tall, walks with a swaggering gait, takes pride in his curls, and is partly shaven. Let mine be one who is short, has a bent look about the shins, stands firmly on his feet, and is full of courage." https://www.loebclassics.com/view/ar...LCL259.153.xml
In practice, it was the opposite of the Homeric world of individually skilled aristocrats duelling against each other.

[Clistenes]

Do you have a source for this?

I know that, during the Persian War young Athenian aristocrats gave the harnesses of their horses to the temple of Poseidon (or was it Athena's?) to show that they would fight on sea rather than on horse... not sure if the city could command them to change back to being cavalry...

[snowblizz]

It also plays into the trope of the over-decorated weapon carried by a fop that is totally unsuited for actual use. Did such things exist in the historical record or is that a modern invention after such weapons were already obsolete?

Actually yes I think so. There's a whole class of "dress swords" where the primary function is to look good and usefulness as a weapon is somewhat secondary. The same is actually true for armour.

I'm leafing through a "big book of weapons" thing and I've just passed pages of superbly decorated swords I'm not certain are super practical. Especially weapons that are engraved, blued and in other ways decorated in ways that would interfere with proper tempering would make thme more pretty than practical. You also get hilts that are overlaoded with stuff. This is true across all cultures from the West right across to Japan, those with wealth and station liked to show it off, either for themselves or in lavish gifts to others. Most such persons could probably expect to not be in great need to see to thier own safety. Ie there was bound ot be someon clsoe by with actually practical weapons for defence if need be. Unless those also had over-ceremonial weapons as many "parade" lifeguards did.

One caveat though. Modern overdecorated weapons are much much less practical than the pasts overdecorated foolishness. There was noone churning out not-practical weapons when you could take a decent enough weapon and decorate it. In other words I'd say historical weapons that are overly decorated are much closer to being proper weapons than what is amde today. You'd not want to have to rely solely on them but you could at least have some use out of it. Theremonial halberds of the 17th century would not stand up to the use a 15th century war halberd would but you could use one to stab a guy with a rapier pretty solidly.

There's a dagger given to Henry IV by the citizens of Paris on his marriege that's absolutel loaded with decoration, though the edge is plain and could probably be fairly functional.

That's ignoring weapons that were outriiht made to be ceremionial like ridicilously oversized swords given to temples and such.

Was having a decorative weapon (other than maybe an ancestral weapon that's too old to be used due to brittleness) a thing back in medieval times?

Again I think there are examples. Even from earlier times too. I am positive I've seen ancestral swords passed along mentioned somewhere. The Japanese certainly did. Some of the finest katanas are the 14th-15th century ones before warproduction kicked in during the Sengoku Jidai period. Ancestral weapons were often used even.
Now I notice you kinda asked the opposite question but there are example of decorated weapons, partly or wholly ceremonial from about the time metal was used for weapons. Just looked at an egyptian dagger with an ironblade from 1360ish BCE that would not have shamed a Roman emperor or medieaval king. Seriosuly, I had to read the paragraph twice saying it was Egyptian. However in Europe at least a lto medieaval blades end up incredibly corroded but you can see on the hilts at least that they were lavishly decorated. Haivng decorated weapons has beena thing about from the day after the first human cut himself on a sharp rock and had an idea.

[Max_Killjoy]

I am under the impression that period-made ornamental and ceremonial weapons, which tended to be preserved and often ended up in collections and museums, have been a source of much misunderstanding and misinformation.

Suits of armor that would be impractical in combat were regarded as examples of things actually worn in battle.

Giant, heavy, poorly-balanced, unedged swords never used in combat were taken as evidence that European medieval combat was a clumsy, unskilled mosh of men beating each other with sword-shaped clubs.

[snowblizz]

I am under the impression that period-made ornamental and ceremonial weapons, which tended to be preserved and often ended up in collections and museums, have been a source of much misunderstanding and misinformation.

Suits of armor that would be impractical in combat were regarded as examples of things actually worn in battle.

Giant, heavy, poorly-balanced, unedged swords never used in combat were taken as evidence that European medieval combat was a clumsy, unskilled mosh of men beating each other with sword-shaped clubs.

As with most things, that's probably the fault of Victorian British. They are probably the fist to start hoarding weapons decoratively. In the on the wall display kind of way at least.

[Vinyadan]

I know that, during the Persian War young Athenian aristocrats gave the harnesses of their horses to the temple of Poseidon (or was it Athena's?) to show that they would fight on sea rather than on horse... not sure if the city could command them to change back to being cavalry...

Poseidon was the god of both sea and horses, so that must have felt very appropriate, if it was in his temple.
The problem I see is that, if the people who could afford being horsemen chose not to, the city could find itself without a cavalry force. I mean, I think that the point of the timocratic system system was to make sure that all arms would be available.
In the case of Athens, the richest citizens also paid the trierarchy liturgy, which meant having to equip a whole trireme and commanding it for a year. However, I don't think that this was the case of the young men you named, mainly because I believe that so much money would have been in the hands of older members of the family.
There could also have been a more religious aspect, in that certain aristocratic families had hereditary priesthood (others believed to be descendants of the gods, Plato was supposed to be a descendant of Poseidon). This also had a political importance. Anyway, I wonder if this cerimony meant that they were exchanging what was a duty towards the mores of their family and towards Poseidon for another way to wage war for the benefit of the city.
I am kinda building this up mixing what I know and what I suppose. If you can remember the source of this episode, I'd like to take a look at it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Actually yes I think so. There's a whole class of "dress swords" where the primary function is to look good and usefulness as a weapon is somewhat secondary. The same is actually true for armour.

<snip>

Again I think there are examples. Even from earlier times too. I am positive I've seen ancestral swords passed along mentioned somewhere. The Japanese certainly did. Some of the finest katanas are the 14th-15th century ones before warproduction kicked in during the Sengoku Jidai period. Ancestral weapons were often used even.
Now I notice you kinda asked the opposite question but there are example of decorated weapons, partly or wholly ceremonial from about the time metal was used for weapons. Just looked at an egyptian dagger with an ironblade from 1360ish BCE that would not have shamed a Roman emperor or medieaval king. Seriosuly, I had to read the paragraph twice saying it was Egyptian. However in Europe at least a lto medieaval blades end up incredibly corroded but you can see on the hilts at least that they were lavishly decorated. Haivng decorated weapons has beena thing about from the day after the first human cut himself on a sharp rock and had an idea.

I figured that they'd decorate even practical things. We're still doing it--the nose-paints and decals on all sorts of things come to mind. I just wasn't sure about the use of (relatively) expensive metal to make useless things outside of a display of wealth.

Most such display swords are made of mild steel, not the weapon-grade stuff that real blades are made of. I own a few, and even a cheap pocketknife is enough to gouge the blades pretty badly. I highly suspect that a single blow from a real weapon swung for effect would destroy one. That said, you can sharpen them, and they will hold an edge for a blow or two, so you could probably cut someone up pretty bad if they didn't have armor.

Apart from that, most are not properly balanced for fighting, and many have really impractical decorative hilt designs. They'd be pretty unwieldy compared to a real sword.

I am under the impression that period-made ornamental and ceremonial weapons, which tended to be preserved and often ended up in collections and museums, have been a source of much misunderstanding and misinformation.

Suits of armor that would be impractical in combat were regarded as examples of things actually worn in battle.

Giant, heavy, poorly-balanced, unedged swords never used in combat were taken as evidence that European medieval combat was a clumsy, unskilled mosh of men beating each other with sword-shaped clubs.

As with most things, that's probably the fault of Victorian British. They are probably the fist to start hoarding weapons decoratively. In the on the wall display kind of way at least.

Thanks everybody!

[Vinyadan]

I can think of decorative weapons in Roman times, like the six-bladed spears used by the guard of Massentius and excavated about ten years ago.
You are more likely to find this kind of stuff in very rich areas of the Middle Ages. So Rome and Constantinople are the first places I'd look. Rome: the Pope gave away oversized weapons as a gift to political leaders https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessed_sword_and_hat
Constantinople: ceremonial weapons were used when creating officers. In particular, a sword suspended to a special belt was given to guard captains, and has been found in Viking cemeteries. Other special weapons were sent as gifts. I am not sure of how usable they were.
In the Islamic world, two-bladed swords were sometimes produced to represent a legendary sword: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zulfiqar

[Knaight]

Giant, heavy, poorly-balanced, unedged swords never used in combat were taken as evidence that European medieval combat was a clumsy, unskilled mosh of men beating each other with sword-shaped clubs.

That's part of it, but a bigger part had to do with how medieval swords generally don't work if you try to wield them like a modern fencing foil - which people did, at which point they came to the conclusion that the swords were too heavy and basically useless, rather than the conclusion that the style of sport fencing was less than ideal for the kind of combat that happened in the medieval period.

[Clistenes]

Poseidon was the god of both sea and horses, so that must have felt very appropriate, if it was in his temple.
The problem I see is that, if the people who could afford being horsemen chose not to, the city could find itself without a cavalry force. I mean, I think that the point of the timocratic system system was to make sure that all arms would be available.
In the case of Athens, the richest citizens also paid the trierarchy liturgy, which meant having to equip a whole trireme and commanding it for a year. However, I don't think that this was the case of the young men you named, mainly because I believe that so much money would have been in the hands of older members of the family.
There could also have been a more religious aspect, in that certain aristocratic families had hereditary priesthood (others believed to be descendants of the gods, Plato was supposed to be a descendant of Poseidon). This also had a political importance. Anyway, I wonder if this cerimony meant that they were exchanging what was a duty towards the mores of their family and towards Poseidon for another way to wage war for the benefit of the city.
I am kinda building this up mixing what I know and what I suppose. If you can remember the source of this episode, I'd like to take a look at it.

I think it happened when Themistocles convinced the Athenians to spend the wealth of the silver mines of Laurion in building a warfleet able to fight the Persians.

Mmmm... Poseidon was the god of both horses and ships, but Athena was credited with the invention of harnesses, and she was the goddess of war and the protector of Athens, so she makes sense too...

Here is a source: "... ... and a group of his noble friends who were all riders in the cavalry staged a demonstration to assert the loyalty of the aristocracy and its backing for Themistocles. They dedicated their bridles at the temple of Athena on the Acropolis ..."

Anyway, going back to the original question, I think that rich citizens provided cavalry and funded the warfleet though the trierarchia mostly to preserve their reputations, not because of a strict law... popular image being very important, because being perceived as a stingy or as a coward who refused to contribute to the defense of the city could get you exiled (ostracism). So rich people probably did just what was expected of them, regardless of what actual law said...

[Vinyadan]

OK, thanks. It comes from Plutarch's Life of Cimon, 5.2-3

"When the Medes made their invasion, and Themistocles was trying to persuade the people to give up their city, abandon their country, make a stand with their fleet off Salamis, and fight the issue at sea, most men were terrified at the boldness of the scheme; but lo, Cimon was first to act, and with a gay mien led a procession of his companions through the Cerameicus up to the Acropolis, to dedicate to the goddess there the horse's bridle which he carried in his hands, signifying thus that what the city needed then was not knightly prowess but sea-fighters. 3 After he had dedicated his bridle, p419 he took one of the shields which were hung up about the temple, addressed his prayers to the goddess, and went down to the sea, whereat many were first made to take heart."

[Clistenes]

In the Islamic world, two-bladed swords were sometimes produced to represent a legendary sword: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zulfiqar

Mmmm... about Zulfiqar... I remember seeing picture of a weird arabic gigantic scissors/dagger/shortsword... the book claimed that it was a real weapon, and that its purpose was to open the scissors when the were stuck in the gut of the foe, making horrible, untreatable internal wounds, but I don't think that would be practical at all, and I wonder if that scissors-sword was a ceremonial blade intended to represent Zulfiqar...

[DerKommissar]

What was the purpose of a flame-bladed sword? Whats the advantage of the „flames“ over a straight edge?

[Storm Bringer]

What was the purpose of a flame-bladed sword? Whats the advantage of the „flames“ over a straight edge?

minimal, as far as I am aware. a lot of these "wavy" swords are mainly intended to look good on parades, much like how some modern armies still use full length wooden stocked rifles for some ceremonial functions.

Spoiler: off topic tangent

Show

others just use their modern, short service rifles and dare anyone to snigger at the man with the bayoneted rifle and campaign medals on his chest.

sorry, couldn't resist a quick dig.

that said, I cannot and will not categorically state they were never used in warfare, only that I've not heard of it being done (I.E. absence of evidence, not evidence of absence).

[snowblizz]

What was the purpose of a flame-bladed sword? Whats the advantage of the „flames“ over a straight edge?

Not sure if it can be claimed as a direct advantage but it's possible it enhances cutting. Generally curved blades are considered better cutters, but that may not matter too much on a two-handed sword.

I think primarily it's to look rad. But I think I've seen wavy bladed weapons that weren't clearly ceremonial. Not all modifications are necessarily for an enhancement sometimes it's just becasue.

[Galloglaich]

Not sure if it can be claimed as a direct advantage but it's possible it enhances cutting. Generally curved blades are considered better cutters, but that may not matter too much on a two-handed sword.

I think primarily it's to look rad. But I think I've seen wavy bladed weapons that weren't clearly ceremonial. Not all modifications are necessarily for an enhancement sometimes it's just becasue.

Agreed. I suspect that it was to enhance slicing or draw cutting, which could become necessary with the type of swords you usually see this on (mainly montante / zweihanders and rapiers) but the TL : DR on it is that the jury is still out. There is still a lot of debate.

Some clearly are ceremonial (and not sharp) but some are sharp and I suspect it's a lot of work to make a blade like that anyway.

The Filippino Kris type blades and some of the Middle Eastern ones seem to be wavy for ceremonial / magical reasons. One story I love from the Philippines was that a kris was used to 'stab' the shadow of an enemy as part of putting a curse on them.

[Mike_G]

Agreed. I suspect that it was to enhance slicing or draw cutting, which could become necessary with the type of swords you usually see this on (mainly montante / zweihanders and rapiers) but the TL : DR on it is that the jury is still out. There is still a lot of debate.

Some clearly are ceremonial (and not sharp) but some are sharp and I suspect it's a lot of work to make a blade like that anyway.

The Filippino Kris type blades and some of the Middle Eastern ones seem to be wavy for ceremonial / magical reasons. One story I love from the Philippines was that a kris was used to 'stab' the shadow of an enemy as part of putting a curse on them.

I fenced a guy this weekend who used a flambard rapier. I asked him if it made a difference and he said it behaves a bit differently in a bind.

I didn't notice, but I'm new-ish to HEMA blades. It may have had an effect that I didn't register. I did win the bout and a number of binds with a borrowed straight bladed rapier. His weapon was on the heavy side, which I think was more relevant than the curves.

Obviously, we weren't really cutting one another, so I don't know about that, but I figured I'd pass on the anecdote.

[DerKommissar]

I found so far only three modern uses for blades with a wave edge:

- cutting machines for bred, sausage cheese, etc: they recommend this edge for bread with a hard crust, straight edge for meat

- carpenters tools: they recommend it for cutting hard surface and mineral wool

- outdoor: cutting ropes, seatbelts, this kind of stuff, not good for cooking, difficult to sharpen

So it seems to develop an effect a bit like a saw, but doesent tend to get stuck (don’t know the word, maybe bite?) while the sawing movement.
Did armor/weapon have parts that could be sewered? Like leather parts you could reach from the outside?