|
Post by Verity on Jan 17, 2017 17:54:31 GMT
Hi all,
So I am looking for some info on the use of historical "war swords" of the XIIa and XIIIa persuasion (perhaps to some extent XVIa). E.g. Your typical "knightly war sword".
Now I have searched for info myself to an extent. Namely it appears that the XIIa was a battlefield war sword developed to combat the improving maille of the time period and was prevalent between 1270(ish) to 1380(ish) before plate became much more popular and we started seeing more sharply tapered and reinforced points. The XIIa definitely was still focused on cutting (or slashing or cleaving or otherwise messing folks up with the edge).
This is all known to me. What I have been looking for is whether or not general longsword techniques were used or stuff like montante (maybe both depending on the specific sword's length?). I also am trying to figure out whether this was the knight's predominant weapon or whether it was supplementary. Example being did they use a single handed weapon on horseback and use the XIIa once dehorsed? Did they have an arming sword at their hip while using the XIIa as a primary on foot weapon?
I know that everything was a myriad of exceptions, but am seeking to understand the general armament and protocol of a XIIa wielding soldier... I am making the assumption that they predominantly were wearing maille and opposing similarly armored opponents.
Any insight into this would be helpful. I am particularly interested in XIIa types and how they were used and in what conditions. Think like the Albion Baron or Atrim XIIa.4 "beefy war swords".
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by bob77 on Jan 17, 2017 20:12:16 GMT
Hi!
I'm also focused on xiia and xiiia type Swords. For me they represent the quintessence of the high middle-age in term of use but also aesthetic. Take a look on the Lockwood Swords , models sl-1013 and sl-1011. I own since a month now the XIIa sl-1013. This sword is for me the perfect incarnation of the spartan, austere, even monastic and noble knightly sword of the late 13 century and early 14 century. I purchased this expensive sword because of the historically accurate look of it. But it's also very sturdy and solid. I like the well-pronounced blade presence of these blades in general. I'm planning to make some cutting tests with this cutting-orented sword. For me this type is my favorite in term of aesthetic and in the same time it's the most advantageous for cutting. Briefly said, I will avoid spending such a sum of money for thrusting oriented swords that will not cut so well. So I definitvely made my choice between the different type of medieval Swords that are on the market. Maybe I will consider a second high end sword purchase in the future, but I'm already fixed on a XIIIa type, probably the other Lokwood sl-1011. I wish to say that the sl-1013 is my first sword purchase. A second high-end purchase will be very probably my last one.
To answer your specific question about the exact historical purpose of the emergence of this bigger hand-and-a half Swords, I suppose that these new variations of the earlier 12 century knightly swords correspond to the emergence of maybe more elaborated kind of mail armors mixed with some "proto- plate armor"of steel and leather on legs and arm parts. Or maybe simply bigger Swords used with both hands could deliver more power strikes than the previous ones. I'm personnaly now interresting in researches on the early 14 century armors between 1300 and 1325. I like the still archaic look of these armor suits which are sort of transition armor between crusader 13 century and more elaborated mid 14 century armors. Until about 1325, the knight armor are still mostly composed of mail but some plate armor parts begin to appear and the coat is still a long one. I personnaly like Knights armor with long coat, it give to the knight a kind of ceremonious and noble look. Around the second half of the 14 century, the coat will be shorter.
|
|
|
Post by Verity on Jan 17, 2017 20:25:25 GMT
Yeah what is driving my inquiry is I tend to collect XIIa bastard swords or longsword, having two "war sword" specimens in an Atrim XIIa.4 and a Christian Fletcher Winter Warden (based on an Albion Baron blade).
I am curious to put their use in context with other arms and armor of the time period and how it fit in a soldier's arsenal.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Jan 17, 2017 20:42:36 GMT
I know there's a theory that the longer arming swords evolved into proto-longswords as more and more people started wielding them with two hands. Roland is a big fan of this and has collected a bunch of period art showing knights double handing arming swords though I can't find the album off hand. But chronology with blades is notoriously tricky, so it'd really difficult to establish a clear evolutionary line. What we can say is that there must have been a push for two handed blades by the late medieval, simply because they start showing up in art and archaeology.
Based on that, there doesn't seem to be much evidence of early longswords as a second sword paired with an arming sword. Indeed they don't seem to have drawn a formal distinction between the two types. A knight would have a sword, dagger, lance, etc. but generally not a longsword *and* an arming sword. At least I don't remember seeing art showing both longsword and arming sword. They were all just "swords." One interesting theory I've heard recently is that they would have simply treated the longsword as having an implied shield in the strong of the blade, and that the techniques were similar. Sadly Liechtenauer's shield text did not survive. You certainly *can* work something like I.33 into the context of longsword. With side steps and big blows. But that doesn't seem to work too well for most of the text. Something changed between the early and late 14th. The plague of course changed a lot of stuff, so that may have caused a break with the old traditions.
For techniques we don't know for certain but given that Liechtenauer and Fiore both seem to have been operating in a well established world of longsword fighting by the end of the 14th, it's reasonable to conclude that earlier proto-longswords fed into this tradition. Thus, the earlier longswords would have been used for all purposes from duels to battlefield combat. Armored or unarmored. And they changed and got stiffer and pointier as armor got thicker. The lighter war swords such as the ones used as models for the Count and Steward are able to be used with one or two hands easily. I got to play with the a Count a while back, and was able to run both I.33 and longsword drills with it without wrist strain. Who knows if that tells us anything though.
There's also the theory that thicker armor allowed knights to stop using a buckler or shield and permitted a free left hand for the sword. It's a tempting idea, but there seems to be a fair amount of art showing a single handed use of an arming sword with no buckler or shield. And of course you have tons of pole arms from the Dane Axes on down wielded in two hands with mail and no shield. And pole weapons were usually the knight's primary weapon regardless of sword type.
|
|
|
Post by Croccifixio on Jan 17, 2017 22:29:03 GMT
I'd love more research into this as well. Oakeshott does not get as in depth as I would like.
There seems to be two running theories on this. One is the aforementioned branch that says they evolved from long arming swords and were principally designed due to armor advancement. Supposedly, the different regions of europe developed different anti armor swords. The Germanic states went for bigger swords that were only wieldable two-handed, so that cuts could generate enough force to go through the thinner armour of the day or injure the armored opponent. France and Italy went for pointier swords with tips designed to go through the gaps of armor.
A second theory I've read about is that these two cutting types were indeed used in an early form of Liechtenauer for both war and duelling. While possible, the lack of thrusting options seems to run against this theory, unless you assume that for duels, there would be no armor.
I personally like to believe that for knights of this era, great swords were both status symbols and weapons of intimidation. Status because all that steel would still have been quite expensive at this time, and intimidation because nothing says "f*ck off" like the ability to cleave a man in two. For the battlefield though, I think the arming sword and kite shield would still be the principal weapons due to the proliferation of bows and crossbows.
|
|
|
Post by Verity on Jan 17, 2017 22:34:34 GMT
The xiia definitely has a cutting primary use, but a point developing to provide better thrusting (so one can conclude people were thrusting with it). My interest is less on its development given I can sort of see its evolution along with armor and such.
But I find the XIIa to be somewhat anachronistic if you consider arming swords and shields still in use... ? So I am trying to put into context where it "fit" on the battlefield and in what capacity? Primary weapon? Supplementary in the event of being dehorsed? Why would a knight facing maille opt for a two handed sword vs sword and shield if plate was not prevalent. And if it were I would think something like a XVa or XVIa would be quickly derived.
|
|
|
Post by Verity on Jan 17, 2017 22:45:23 GMT
I also am loving the responses guys, thanks and keep them coming! I do consider the XIIa probably my "favorite" type of European sword so I am keenly interested in it.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jan 17, 2017 22:56:40 GMT
I know there's a theory that the longer arming swords evolved into proto-longswords as more and more people started wielding them with two hands. Roland is a big fan of this and has collected a bunch of period art showing knights double handing arming swords though I can't find the album off hand. But chronology with blades is notoriously tricky, so it'd really difficult to establish a clear evolutionary line. What we can say is that there must have been a push for two handed blades by the late medieval, simply because they start showing up in art and archaeology. Based on that, there doesn't seem to be much evidence of early longswords as a second sword paired with an arming sword. Indeed they don't seem to have drawn a formal distinction between the two types. A knight would have a sword, dagger, lance, etc. but generally not a longsword *and* an arming sword. At least I don't remember seeing art showing both longsword and arming sword. They were all just "swords." One interesting theory I've heard recently is that they would have simply treated the longsword as having an implied shield in the strong of the blade, and that the techniques were similar. Sadly Liechtenauer's shield text did not survive. You certainly *can* work something like I.33 into the context of longsword. With side steps and big blows. But that doesn't seem to work too well for most of the text. Something changed between the early and late 14th. The plague of course changed a lot of stuff, so that may have caused a break with the old traditions. For techniques we don't know for certain but given that Liechtenauer and Fiore both seem to have been operating in a well established world of longsword fighting by the end of the 14th, it's reasonable to conclude that earlier proto-longswords fed into this tradition. Thus, the earlier longswords would have been used for all purposes from duels to battlefield combat. Armored or unarmored. And they changed and got stiffer and pointier as armor got thicker. The lighter war swords such as the ones used as models for the Count and Steward are able to be used with one or two hands easily. I got to play with the a Count a while back, and was able to run both I.33 and longsword drills with it without wrist strain. Who knows if that tells us anything though. There's also the theory that thicker armor allowed knights to stop using a buckler or shield and permitted a free left hand for the sword. It's a tempting idea, but there seems to be a fair amount of art showing a single handed use of an arming sword with no buckler or shield. And of course you have tons of pole arms from the Dane Axes on down wielded in two hands with mail and no shield. And pole weapons were usually the knight's primary weapon regardless of sword type. Yeah, an arming sword type sword along with a proto longsword (two hand ability) does not seem to be logical (redundant), as you would use the longsword like an arming if you wished, so why carry (basically) two arming swords (or long swords) size wise. You would (along with dagger) have the longsword on belt while wielding polearm of choice. Still, another sword on the horse (backup, maybe with squire) was possibly the thing to do.
|
|
|
Post by Verity on Jan 17, 2017 23:23:15 GMT
Perhaps it came to best use in precisely the moment when the enemy lines began to collapse, when enemy shooters were already on the retreat and the pole weapons lost in density ... Tataa, entrance of knight Freiherr von Fürchtegott with his ferocious long sword >:D Now that is an interesting idea. I had not thought of specific regiments of war swords. Suggesting use like the flamberge or other great swords to break pikes or the opening flurries or archer regiments. Interesting...
|
|
|
Post by Derzis on Jan 18, 2017 1:20:07 GMT
The xiia definitely has a cutting primary use, but a point developing to provide better thrusting (so one can conclude people were thrusting with it). My interest is less on its development given I can sort of see its evolution along with armor and such. But I find the XIIa to be somewhat anachronistic if you consider arming swords and shields still in use... ? So I am trying to put into context where it "fit" on the battlefield and in what capacity? Primary weapon? Supplementary in the event of being dehorsed? Why would a knight facing maille opt for a two handed sword vs sword and shield if plate was not prevalent. And if it were I would think something like a XVa or XVIa would be quickly derived. Pairing sword vs armors I don't think is giving the entire picture of what is happening on battlefield. I am no scholar by any means, but in my opinion no weapon was adopted without a specific intention. When in battle, what is most important: to kill the enemy or to disable him? I think disable is first, killing is cherry on top. You need to stop from being a threat as many as you can and as quick as possible to ensure survival of you and yours. When you have enemies padded with wool and maille, a blow from an one handed sword wouldn't do too much damage, but a longer, heavier blade like those swords would not necessary cut through but would damage bones, give commotions and all the good disabling stuff when used in a normal slashing motion. Add to that a very decent stabbing capability and you have the winning weapon for the conditions. Later they became "specialized" swords, used to disable other weapons too. I think this type of sword was a normal step in evolution, when the need to disable persons (or things) that had some protection on them was more important than killing them based on duelling skills. PS you have now armor for swimmers agaist shark attack. It worked against white shark, no tooth penetrated. But the swimmer would have all the bones crushed due to jaws pressure. Same thing with this sword.
|
|
|
Post by Croccifixio on Jan 18, 2017 3:32:47 GMT
Hehe these are also my two favorite types. I wish there were better options between the HT GSOW and the Albion Squire GS...
One thing to note are the very thin cross sections of the surviving pieces. It may mean that they weren't intended to be used against a very hard material like maille but rather against cloth and leather beneath and between the armor. This would make them more like scalpels than cleavers and would be opposite their reputation as big and brutal and imprecise. Given the heat treatment back in the day, this wouldn't surprise me if it turned out true.
|
|
|
Post by Derzis on Jan 18, 2017 3:46:05 GMT
Or thin and wide profile means a lot of mass behind a very narrow impact surface. If it doesn't cut through, it sure displaces tissues and breaks bones below. I don't have an Albion, but I like a lot Tinker's GSoW.
|
|
|
Post by Croccifixio on Jan 18, 2017 3:52:44 GMT
Could be, but that would mean a chipped edge at the very least unless very well-tempered. And the fact that there are lots of surviving examples with intact edges can mean that they weren't put through abusive use (or that they were repaired very well after use).
|
|
|
Post by Derzis on Jan 18, 2017 3:56:46 GMT
Why cheaped edges? Rolling edges maybe but I doubt if you did not hit a stone. What was the hardness of the blade back then? And how pure the steel was? Similar to 1050? A maille is as tough as the meat behind when receives a direct blow. That's why they invented plated armors, to dissipate the shock - something a maille can't do.
|
|
|
Post by Croccifixio on Jan 18, 2017 4:50:33 GMT
Why cheaped edges? Rolling edges maybe but I doubt if you did not hit a stone. What was the hardness of the blade back then? And how pure the steel was? Similar to 1050? A maille is as tough as the meat behind when receives a direct blow. That's why they invented plated armors, to dissipate the shock - something a maille can't do. The existing studies document an average of mid 40s HRC, with some specimens hitting 55 and some going below 40.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Jan 18, 2017 7:53:00 GMT
I think you've hit on the key to its popularity--it can do all kinds of stuff. It can be a spear, a pole-arm, a riding sword or a dueling sword. Or a very effective wrestling tool. It's also a status symbol. Sword and buckler are IMHO better in an unarmored fight but you can't really use them against harness in half sword as well. Nor can you really invert them as war hammers.
Though it's also interesting that the longsword era only lasted from the mid 14th to the mid 16th. Nothing compared with the span of sword and shield or the solo sword. So maybe it was down to the unique set of circumstances.
Yeah I don't think there's much direct support for the old idea that longswords would have been used as impact weapons--at least unless inverted. They simply don't hit hard enough through armor when wielded as swords. But we know from texts during the height of their use that half swording and couching thrusts could penetrate through gaps. And they made amazing levers. Longsword harnessfetchen evolved as a way of using your sword as something other than a sword. Kind of odd when you think of it, but it apparently worked well enough at least until battles changed and longswords faded away.
|
|
|
Post by Croccifixio on Jan 18, 2017 8:40:49 GMT
I think the proliferation of iron/steel armour is overstated. Until the guild system was set up, mass produced iron was not a reality in early medieval europe. Most of your opponents would still wear something with less protection and be susceptible to cleaving with big swords.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Jan 18, 2017 11:47:54 GMT
Afaik since the 11/12th Ct. they slowly improved the bloomeries with water powered techniques and could make bigger blooms with more weight, which resulted in more and better steel. This could be the reason for gaining the ability to make longer swords and plate armor.
|
|
|
Post by Verity on Jan 18, 2017 16:57:31 GMT
Agreed. Intimidation and status surely were factors. I was just curious as to its martial context.
I think it is reasonable to assume for a war sword to have applied techniques of say Lichtenauer but also perhaps some of the great sword techniques as well.
While half swording is possible the wide blade and acutely sharp edge would make that trickier than with later XV types.
So I envision it bridging some interesting gaps while also being handicapped in some areas. But in a pinch it could be half-sworded with some success.
I do wonder if the point you made of "at that precise moment in battle the war sword came to wreak havoc on retreating folk" has some merit.
It is also fair to say that maille was expensive. Many on the battle field would not have it. A war sword could reap them like wheat.
|
|
|
Post by Derzis on Jan 18, 2017 20:42:03 GMT
Dismounting and joining the foot troops was an option for the privileged. And once dismounted they were never alone - they had around them the next best armored/geared/skilled guys. A knight down can multiply hopes for one side and bury them for the other sometimes. Strategy might be a point to take in consideration also in the development and usage of a(ny) weapon.
|
|