Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2007 14:38:41 GMT
hey everyone,
is there any info out there on techniques for earlier longswords more dedicated to the cut (probably something like type XIIa) used around the 13th century... give or take?
i guess this would predate Liechtenauer and that sort of thing... or would many of the same techniques have been used?
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Nov 14, 2007 22:02:15 GMT
Generally speaking, Longswords came about far later than the 12th c. Bastard swords tended to gain a bit more popularity in the mid 13th c., but still weren't all that common place. The 14th c is were things really start to get interesting in terms of longsword usage, and it continues well into the 16th c., at least.
As for techniques....No known fighting manual survives from the era you're looking for (that I'm aware of), but Liechtenauer's Manusript should be more than adequate for what you desire.
|
|
|
Post by septofclansinclair on Nov 14, 2007 22:50:35 GMT
Ramm - where can one find this manuscript?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2007 1:45:42 GMT
pretty sure I saw a bit of it on myarmoury... I'm looking for it now.
Mandorallin
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2007 1:47:10 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2007 18:42:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Nov 15, 2007 19:05:25 GMT
Luka, just because they existed doesn't mean they were widespread The two handed sword did not gain much popularity until the 13th c. Obviously there were forerunners, but they were the exception to the rule.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2007 19:39:10 GMT
I know. But it's nice to know they were there. I love two handed weapons and I always fantasized about two handed viking or early knightly sword and here they are. And that part about the battle of Benevento is interesting regarding the handling of these swords (the main subject of this topic after all ). And that part about Benevento also indicates that large war swords become common in Germany by 1266.
|
|
|
Post by ShooterMike on Nov 15, 2007 19:40:23 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2007 8:26:15 GMT
Consider that it not likely that Liechtenauer invented the fighting system but rather accumulated the knowledge and refined it. Many of the longsword methods work with any two-handed weapon such as a glaive or a two-handed mace. Liechtenauer most likely had many long traditions to draw ideas from that existed many centuries earlier to him. Consider that musket and bayonet training in the 17th century is based on earlier pike methods of attack and defense. In a similar way I speculate that the longsword techniques evolved from other two-handed weapons.
It is interesting to consider that Liechtenauer is very critical of fighting from the Long Point. That leads me to believe that it was a very popular and effective alternative method of the time. In fact it outlived Liechtenauer's longsword methods. Rapier, smallsword and epee all followed that route. One of the things I do for fun is fight with the longsword from that point-in-line method against other guys fighting with just Liechtenauer's teachings .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2007 16:34:55 GMT
some great info guys, thanks! i especially enjoyed the thread luka posted that discussed the battle between german and french armies using type XIIIa and XIV/XV swords respectively. i posed my origional question because i've recently been talking to Angus Trim about picking up an AT1566 in his 'pay off the damn machine sale' and just yesterday i sent in a down payment for one (needless to say, i am VERY excited ) anywho, while not based on any specific historical piece to my knowledge, the sword seems to be roughly classifiable as either a XIIa or XIIIa ( check it out here: www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=11418, ) so i was curious to see how swords similar to this one would have been used historically.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2007 3:46:50 GMT
The description of the events at the battle of Benevento really reminded me of something I read about the battle of Hasting in 1066. The Anglo-Saxons had great big axes that they would lift above their head to smite the Norman... and the Norman would swiftly stab them in the chest or gut with a sword.
I'm not sure how well founded that statement is, but the parallels are interesting!
Ancalagon
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2007 23:54:51 GMT
The description of the events at the battle of Benevento really reminded me of something I read about the battle of Hasting in 1066. The Anglo-Saxons had great big axes that they would lift above their head to smite the Norman... and the Norman would swiftly stab them in the chest or gut with a sword. I'm not sure how well founded that statement is, but the parallels are interesting! Ancalagon Relating to the Anglo-Saxons and their big "Dane axes", there was a group of warriors that survived in Ireland. The Gallowglas would typically fight with one big axeman, flanked by two of his own spearmen to keep him flanked. I'm pretty sure that the Huscarls knew that tactic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2007 14:16:30 GMT
Gallowglasses fought in quite loose formations as offensive shock troops with their retainers (skirmishers) and Housecarls fought in a shieldwall, tight defensive formation, with lightly armed troops behind them, (Saxons were not very famous for having skirmishers in their army) so their tactics were not very similar. Both used great battle axes but Gallowglasses later adopted two handed swords. (It's hard to say which weapon was more popular, swords were maybe more versatile, but the axe was cheaper...)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2007 18:10:38 GMT
Gallowglasses fought in quite loose formations as offensive shock troops with their retainers (skirmishers) and Housecarls fought in a shieldwall, tight defensive formation, with lightly armed troops behind them, (Saxons were not very famous for having skirmishers in their army) so their tactics were not very similar. Both used great battle axes but Gallowglasses later adopted two handed swords. (It's hard to say which weapon was more popular, swords were maybe more versatile, but the axe was cheaper...) This is very interesting. Do you have any historical links. I would like to read up on this. We have questioned the historical use of two-sword forms in the past. No one ever offered this as evidence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2007 15:41:54 GMT
Not two swords, two handers (if I understood you well). I'll put links if I find them, it was a long time ago when I read it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2007 17:14:57 GMT
Caveat: This is referring to Western Europe (defined as West of Byzantium, for clarification's sake)
The biggest problem with any weapon that uses both hands (be it two weapons, or a two-handed sword) is that there was not much in the way of rigid armour at the time. The more highly armoured people generally had a helm, and mail. Neither one was worth more than about 3-4 blows before either being crushed (thin helms) or bones broken underneath (mail). The main "re-useable" (in a single battle context) was your shield. So going without meant you were either crazy, stupid or both. Most of the two-sword references I have seen were in Norse sagas, generally as an indication someone was a BAMF.
Why would the technology develop for two-handed swords? The main formation about the turn of the millenium was a tightly packed "conroi" of couched lances, in a 10-15 man unit. Foot soldiers stayed together, or died. To be able to swing a two-handed sword generally meant you were run down, lanced, or otherwise died in short order, due to your armour not really protecting much at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2007 18:55:02 GMT
Sorry, I read that wrong.
From what I have seen in melee two-handed swords do little good. A pike or a glaive has more range and can deliver more power. With the extra range, a polearm-man can use the cover of his shieldmen and be effective. The few times I have seen short two-handed weapons do good, is if the enemy tries to break through and things get very confused. Even there the kill ratio is usually 1:1.
Shieldman attacking straight into shieldmen also have kill ratios of 1:1 (unless they manage to out-flank). Same goes for polearms vs polearms or spears vs spears. Polearms and spears working within shieldwalls tend to get very good kill ratios.
I think two-handed swords serve best as a convenient compact weapon when traveling for your personal defense. It is not something I would take into battle.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2007 19:53:10 GMT
I searched a little and found both teories about gallowglasses, on myarmoury forum. One theory - loose formation, offensive tactics, second theory - tight formation, defensive formation. Probably both true, depending on situation... Regarding the two handers, they were mostly used to break spear or pike formations by cutting the spear shafts, and if you are well armoured, they could be great when attacking a greater number of opponents not very well armoured. And when the things get confused, halfswording rules.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Dec 6, 2007 20:24:27 GMT
Cutting through spear hafts is a myth as it has constantly been rebuffed by actual tests.
It's more likely that the force generated by the sword would lliterally knock aside a few shafts.
|
|