Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2010 20:25:33 GMT
2) when you come down to the basic necessities, a sword, especially a longsword, is a bloody stupid weapon for war. Imagine yourself, standing in the middle of a lot of other e.g. archers or whatever, the enemy is running in your direction... and you, together with a hundred others, try to draw a really long and sharp blade. You would be making friends like hell  Useless?!  A sword was by no means useless in war. Even though pole weapons would be better (in most instances), a Longsword definitely had it's place on the battlefield. Sword and Buckler men were used to great effect by the Spanish at the battle of Barletta after the initial engagement when they were able to rush under the Swiss pikes and "...laid about them so furiously, that they made a very great slaughter of the Swiss, and gained a complete victory.” (Machiavelli, p. 66). And one would think that the sword would be drawn before the enemy charged |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2010 23:36:37 GMT
I agree if the sword was a useless weapon for war then it would not have been used and honored above all other weapons for so long.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2010 16:05:27 GMT
I agree if the sword was a useless weapon for war then it would not have been used and honored above all other weapons for so long. I think thats more because of symbolic that practical values. A longsword was a noble weapon and a symbol of power. Take imperial regalia or, as another example, the stone figures in old churches: there you find bishops with a sword in hand. Meaning: That bishop had not only churchly, but also secular power. So if you wanted to demonstrate your power and show your status, you just had to have one. But a Longswords as a weapon of war? Just look at it from a practical point of view: As a backup-weapon for knights, sitting on a horse? Ok, may make some sense. As a backup-weapon for bow- or pikemen (standing quite close to each other to work effectively)? Would you choose a weapon you couldn't even draw without causing serious problems for your neighbours? As a first weapon for some kind of infantry? To use it effectively, you would need some space around you. So no backup by your comrades. I am no historian, but from a practical point of view, a longsword as a weapon of war doesn't make much sense to me. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2010 18:05:21 GMT
I agree if the sword was a useless weapon for war then it would not have been used and honored above all other weapons for so long. I think thats more because of symbolic that practical values. A longsword was a noble weapon and a symbol of power. Take imperial regalia or, as another example, the stone figures in old churches: there you find bishops with a sword in hand. Meaning: That bishop had not only churchly, but also secular power. So if you wanted to demonstrate your power and show your status, you just had to have one. But a Longswords as a weapon of war? Just look at it from a practical point of view: As a backup-weapon for knights, sitting on a horse? Ok, may make some sense. As a backup-weapon for bow- or pikemen (standing quite close to each other to work effectively)? Would you choose a weapon you couldn't even draw without causing serious problems for your neighbours? As a first weapon for some kind of infantry? To use it effectively, you would need some space around you. So no backup by your comrades. I am no historian, but from a practical point of view, a longsword as a weapon of war doesn't make much sense to me. All relatively good points, however, look at the facts: The spear was the primary weapon of footsoldiers the world over, but when the fighting became too hectic and closed in, the sword was the perfect weapon. It was also the preferred backup, or even primary in some time periods, of cavalry for its effectiveness in close quarters, especially when taken into account that a lance is next to worthless after the initial charge, especially if the shaft breaks, something that is much less likely with a steel sword. And while archers would fire in close knit groups at the beginning of a battle to soften the enemy, they certainly wouldn't fight that way. After all, most archers carried either a falchion or an axe as a back up weapon when the enemy got too close, though the axe was more common for its utility. And, unlike a sword, an axe lacks a sharp point for thrusting abilities, so it had to be swung full arm, using the same distance you would need for a sword; more so, in fact, given the lack of said thrusting capabilities. And as far as the primary weapon of footsoldiers, look at the native cultures of Southern America: the Aztec, Inca, Mayan, etc. The wielded the sword like object, macuahitl, which was essentially a long wooden stick with shards of obsidian stuck in it. While they had to fight in loose formations because of this (and because the weapons lacked a point), they were no less effective in battle. The macuahitl was capable of decapitating horses (albeit it took several swings), something attested to by Bernal Diaz del Castillo, a conquistador under Cortes himself. Then think of the Romans who, while the pilum was a primary weapon against cavalry and instrumental in certain formations, the Legionnaires were feared for their shield and sword tactics. Now tell me, is the sword really such a stupid weapon for war? |
|
|
|
Post by ShooterMike on Sept 9, 2010 18:37:19 GMT
I think you guys are mixing sword and longsword together in your agruments. Apples and oranges if you will. I can't recall hardly any depictions of longswords being used in artwork depicting major battles with lots of folks. Lots of swords in use. But almost all are shown as arming swords or shorter hand & a half swords.
From what I've been able to read and glean from various sources, longswords were more for individual combat. That's why so many fechtbuchs evolved around their use in dueling and other individual combat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2010 20:02:26 GMT
I think you guys are mixing sword and longsword together in your agruments. Apples and oranges if you will. I can't recall hardly any depictions of longswords being used in artwork depicting major battles with lots of folks. Lots of swords in use. But almost all are shown as arming swords or shorter hand & a half swords. From what I've been able to read and glean from various sources, longswords were more for individual combat. That's why so many fechtbuchs evolved around their use in dueling and other individual combat. Good point, Mike. I'm more partial to short swords, so any sword over a certain length is a longsword to me, but I suppose an actual longsword would be a large two handed affair like a claymore. However, I believe that Clown's original argument included all swords and then continued in saying that they were more symbolic than practical, so perhaps not. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2010 21:13:22 GMT
Makes sense guys. To me a longsword is NOT a true two hander like a claymore. I also understand that the longsword was used heavily for civilian combat but does it make sense to say that it would not work on the battle field at all.
This also may just be me but to me the techniques in fight manuals that I have read seem to teach many techniques that keep the sword close you your body especially like the guards. This could be so that it was more useful in battle type situations.
|
|
