|
Post by Verity on Jan 18, 2017 21:29:57 GMT
So let's assume knights mostly were on horseback, as I have considered this. A single handed weapon with a long blade (like the arming sword of St. Maurice) would seem a better weapon than a war sword given the heft and balance. While war swords could be used in one hand they did so at a handicap when compared to one handed weapons (grip binds the wrist etc in one handed techniques).
I have always assumed the war sword was predominantly a pedestrian weapon, not a cavalry based one. So if we assume horseback and only one primary sword, I'm not convinced a war sword was the choice? (Playing devil's advocate).
Bear with my assumptions for a second and assume a war sword was a pedestrian weapon, how then does that affect the above scenarios?
And if it WAS a horse back weapon, why bother with the two handed grip at all and not use a large and powerful cutting single handed?
I have always assumed the war sword was either a supplementary weapon in the event of being dehorsed, or... a pedestrian weapon...
|
|
|
Post by Derzis on Jan 18, 2017 21:55:43 GMT
I don't think the fact that the sword was used by pedestrians affects in any way the usage, as long as you think on battlefield more important is to wear your opponent down until he no longer presents a threat as quick as possible - killing him is a bonus.
|
|
|
Post by Derzis on Jan 18, 2017 22:38:55 GMT
Question: If this type of sword was used by mercs (and there are indications in this direction), what would have been the appealing factor beyond symbolism, horse, armors, etc?
|
|
|
Post by Verity on Jan 18, 2017 22:41:10 GMT
Question: If this type of sword was used by mercs (and there are indications in this direction), what would have been the appealing factor beyond symbolism, horse, armors, etc? Another great point. Mobility perhaps? Trade off between shield and sword vs two handed sword? Intimidation still applies.
|
|
|
Post by Verity on Jan 18, 2017 22:53:47 GMT
Agreed. I imagine the lance, halberd or pole axe was a main staple regardless of sword being carried.
|
|
|
Post by Derzis on Jan 18, 2017 22:57:31 GMT
Question: If this type of sword was used by mercs (and there are indications in this direction), what would have been the appealing factor beyond symbolism, horse, armors, etc? Another great point. Mobility perhaps? Trade off between shield and sword vs two handed sword? Intimidation still applies. I added the answer to my own question but I realized you quoted without. I will repeat it here: In my opinion is its efficiency against the period gear. To make a vet interested in any weapon, it must be something he can count on it when life is at stake. Mobility, intimidation factor, versatility etc have just one purpose - to bring you back alive.
|
|
Alan Schiff
Registered
Manufacturers and Vendors
Posts: 464
|
Post by Alan Schiff on Jan 18, 2017 23:22:47 GMT
The XIIa is my favorite among Oakeshott's typology, and much of my own research revolves around them and the period in which they were used.
One thing to note is that, with a few exceptions, swords were generally a secondary or tertiary weapon, especially for a knight on horseback. The lance or spear would be the primary weapon, possibly followed by an axe or hammer, which are (perhaps arguably) more effective against armor.
There was a discussion on MyArmoury (if memory serves) awhile ago about the use of swords on the battlefield. The question there was considering that polearms appear to be more effective against armor, why the use of swords at all? One reason was definitely status. Swords were expensive and a personal sword conveyed that status to others. However, there are also accounts of swords being kept in armories for use by men-at-arms and other non-knightly fighters, so status alone couldn't explain their prevalence.
I'm still not really sure why swords were so prevalent. Obviously they must have been an effective battlefield weapon or they wouldn't have been used so widely, but exactly how they were used against armored opponents seems to have been lost at some point. From what I've seen, Liechtenauer and Fiore dealt mainly with unarmored combat, and IIRC Liechtenauer's is the oldest surviving treatise on use of the longsword.
That being said, over at MyArmoury it was concluded that perhaps the sword was a good choice as a knightly weapon because of its weakness against armor. Against an unarmored or lightly-armored opponent, which much of an army would be composed of, the sword is extremely effective. In period it was common to ransom a defeated knight, wherein he or a member of his family would pay for his return, and the victor would also keep his armor, weapons, horse, and other gear. In such a case, knights fighting other knights would want to keep deaths to a minimum, as a dead body couldn't be ransomed, so using a weapon that was less lethal against an armored opponent would make sense. Two knights would likely fight only until one was incapacitated or too fatigued to continue, rather than to the death. This is, of course, based on what I remember from that thread and my own research, so may not be fact. :)
As far as these larger "swords of war" are concerned, at this time it was also becoming more common for lower-class fighters to armored. As mentioned above, iron and steel were becoming easier to obtain, so outfitting a group with armor wasn't as expensive as it had been before. Since, by being larger, heavier, and more powerful in the cut, these swords were more effective against armor than arming swords, it seems reasonable that they should develop at this time.
All of this, of course, is conjecture on my part, but seems reasonable to me.
Hope that helps, Alan
|
|
|
Post by Verity on Jan 18, 2017 23:56:16 GMT
Another interesting point Alan, thank you! Intentional handicapping the battle to prevent death through weaponry is a very interesting theory.
I find it amusing there is so little material on the XII and XIIa when, if my memory serves, most of the surviving medieval era swords fall into this type. I think I read that on the MyArmoury dissertation on the type XII and its larger sibling the XIIa.
|
|
|
Post by Croccifixio on Jan 19, 2017 4:17:02 GMT
I agree with most of what Alan has said and would add a bit to that:
Swords, while less effective against metallic armour, would be far more effective against leather and cloth armour so long as they were kept sharp. I imagine the sword to be the most maneuverable and agile hand weapon available to a knight or man-at-arms. If the opposing force is 90% militia and 10% armoured cavalry/infantry, then I would definitely choose to carry the weapon more effective against the 90%. It must be noted that weight is a big factor in combat and campaigns, so you could only carry so much. Why not just carry a lance and a greatsword, instead of having to lug around a big fat shield along with an arming sword? Some considerations for that.
I also just finished watching an old Lindybeige video wherein he stated that in medieval times, there were very few battles (in the field) compared to sieges (which is what most wars were based upon). In a siege, cavalry would be far less effective and a Teutonic Knight defending a castle might prefer to carry a powerful two handed weapon to sweep aside the besiegers scrambling up ladders, assault towers, and through broken gates than a single handed weapon and shield which will tire me out on foot quite fast and not do as much damage. The nature of warfare would thus demand a heftier and more powerful weapon.
Now some have stated that polearms were the main battlefield weapons, and I would agree that they could do more damage than a greatsword. However, there is always a tradeoff. Polearms were heavier - somewhere from 5 lbs to 8 lbs. They were also shorter in terms of effective range except for thrusts, since you had to have a wide grip to deliver heavy and controlled blows. They were also pretty cumbersome to carry around compared to great swords (unless we're talking about zweihanders which are basically polearms already but could be wielded like swords). So I'm sure some knights or men-at-arms were still more comfortable with the lighter and faster weapon. Even at the peak of armor use, you still had plenty of soldiers vulnerable to the blade.
|
|
nddave
Member
Posts: 4,083
Member is Online
|
Post by nddave on Jan 19, 2017 23:49:23 GMT
Great points here! I'll chime in as well with my theories and research.
For starters we have to look at when in time long swords began to be used. The first real substantial usage if long swords was in the 13th century. A time when armored calvary began to see a decline due to the prominence of the longbow and archery. A knight reaching close to 9' on horseback makes an easy target for an archer. The Lance was pretty much useless against the longbow or a line of archers so we began to see infantry take a larger role in warfare. Same was apparent in the Middle East where we see the long sword gain massive popularity. Again a place where foot soldiers were in more abundance than horses.
With a long sword you have extra reach, a more powerful cutting and thrusting weapon due to two-handed use, and the ability to attack mounted combatants from foot. Also the long sword isn't that far from the arming sword in weight and balance. The average long sword is really at most only a pound heavier than most arming swords and usually have a lower point of balance to counter that extra weight. You also have the ability to use it two handed which adds to the ability to use it with equal speed and movement to an arming sword. Usually due to the POB and two handed stance on average long swords tend to feel more alive and less cumbersome in hand compared to most arming swords of the same time. The similar weights and balance also allowed the user the ability to use it one handed to equal effect.
Blade length was the major factor in choosing a long sword over an arming sword. The average blade length of period arming swords was 30"-34". The long sword was around 32"-38". The reach and versatility alone were enough for a man at arms to choose a long sword over arming sword. Here was a sword that could combat the spear and pole arm's obvious reach advantage as well as create such an advantage against other combatants using various single handed weapons. For example the arming sword, mace, axe or even the curved Middle Eastern Shamshir.
Also you have to look at each type of early long sword and understand that though similar in design each had a primary focus on the battlefield by their individual designs. First let's look at the Type XIIa.
The type XIIa, similar in design to its type XII arming counter part, the swords base design was meant to evolve the lenticular cutting sword of yesteryear (type X, Xa and XI) and give it a more pronounced thrusting tip to combat mail, while still retaining good cutting capabilities. Being the first long sword by terminology, it seemed to simply take a standard type XII blade and extend the handle and blade moderately for two handed use and extended reach. It had great reach, decent thrusting capabilities and great cutting prowess. Again explaining why it was such a popular model and still is appreciated today by modern enthusiasts and historians.
Now let's take a look at its closely related cousin the type XIII and more importantly the XIIIa. The type XIII is noticeablely different to the XIIa due to its broader blade and spatulate tip. Oakeshott initially had the Type XIIa included into this typology but soon changed it due to the obvious taper and acute point of the XIIa over the XIII. This type is clearly a cutting sword resembling the later Type X with its broad lenticular blade profile and rounded tip. Now the question comes, if chain mail was so prominent at the time the XIII came into existence, why is it so cutting oriented? Well the answer is simple. You have to look where the Type XIII was developed and became popular with.That being the people of Germany.
Now at this time (13-14th centuries) Germany was the head of the Holy Roman Empire. During this time the crusades began weighing on the kingdoms of Europe, too many men and money had been lost funding campaigns to the Middle East. At this point and time starting with the 5th and 6th crusades the German grounded Holy Roman Empire began funding and touring campaigns to combat the Turks and gain control of the Holy Land. This is where and when we see the type XIII and it's subtypes gain popularity, not necessarily in Europe but in the Middle East combating the "infidels" as they were called. Again horses weren't cheap and most of the men at arms fighting for the cross and empire were in fact common men taking arms to absolve their sins or gain the prominence of knighthood. These men on foot lightly armored due to lack of funds as well as to combat the horrid heat of the desert chose to use these large cutting swords due to their effectiveness on foot and against their lightly armored as well and usually mounted Middle Eastern opponents. In combat against the European armored Knight the XIII wasn't the best sword to use but against the lightly armored Turk it was very effective.
Over in main land Europe we see another evolution of the long sword though, that being the more thrust oriented type XVIa and a little later the XVa. One being more similar to the XII and XIV being a more versitile hybrid cut and thrust sword to better functionality (Type XVIa) and a little later a more lithe thrust oriented long sword the type XVa. Each attributing to the even more versitile and popular Type XVIII and its sub types.
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Jan 20, 2017 6:16:27 GMT
One thing to consider when discussing the use of great swords in the 14th Century (and perhaps even earlier) is the growing popularity and use of the hobelar. There are a lot of arguments about the origin of the hobelar (Irish or Welsh origins have the strongest claims, seemingly). A hobelar was a soldier who would ride a lighter, faster horse to (or away from) the battlefield, and then dismount to do his actual fighting. Fighting from horseback was the furthest thing from the hobelar's mind; it was almost entirely a mere means of transportation and effective, strategic deployment.
Such a soldier would not really want or need a spear or lance. The hobelar would have the option of carrying an arming sword or a great sword, and many people in this thread have already commented on the advantages the latter would have over the former. Perhaps the rise in hobelar use coincided with that of great sword use? Just a guess. Coincidentally, hobelars also seemed to have lighter armor than some of their counterparts who chose to stay mounted. That was another aspect of this discussion--there would almost always be ligther armored foes, and thus, swords would almost always be effective in some way or other on the battlefield.
|
|
nddave
Member
Posts: 4,083
Member is Online
|
Post by nddave on Jan 20, 2017 7:09:42 GMT
Execellent post by nddave. I can envision a knight marching into battle in the harsh conditions of a foreign country, carrying his big sword on his shoulder, empathizing with the passion of Christ, ready to kill and/or die for salvation. Thanks. The type XIII and XIIIA'S hilt family was also testament to this. If you look at many of the historical examples of this type you'll see that they are almost entirely consisting of a straight cross section and circular pommel. Well known to represent the holy cross of the crusader. The Type XIII was definitely the later crusader's sword of choice and was only seen prominent use in that short span of less than a century and more than likely by them exclusively. It was also considered a sword almost exclusively used by the Germans with a few examples originating from Spain, another country that was heavily influenced and directed by the church. The Type XIIa seemed to be most popular in Britain and the Type XIV by both Britain and France almost equally. Some people tend to forget or dont realize that the Oakeshott typology isn't chronological exactly. For example both Type XIIa and XIII/XIIIa were used prominently at the same time, just by different countries or regions. For example the Type XII, XIII, XIV and towards the later part XVI and their respective subtypes were all used prominently in the 13th to early 14th centuries throughout Europe. With the XVI and XV gaining popularity and continued use in the 14th century, especially during the Hundred Years War between England and France. With the XV staying popular even into the 15th and 16th centuries.
|
|
|
Post by Croccifixio on Jan 20, 2017 7:09:44 GMT
This might be counter-intuitive, but if we deconstruct the use of the spadone/montante in the 16th-17th century treatises as a weapon for defending an important person and as a very good weapon for "resisting multiple opponents," then the XIIa and XIIIa greatswords could have been popular for the same purpose, especially the larger specimens. Imagine defending priests and pilgrims on the way to the Holy Land. You'd need a weapon that was both intimidating and effective against larger groups of brigands, robbers, and enemies of the faith.
I also believe that the number of surviving specimens is potential proof that this was the height of the sword's usage in warfare in Europe, before iron and steel armor became so prevalent and relatively affordable, and at the peak of knighthood's military dominance that would erode due to the professionalization of armies and the creation of actual nation-states.
|
|
Luka
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,848
|
Post by Luka on Jan 21, 2017 12:23:35 GMT
Great points here! I'll chime in as well with my theories and research. For starters we have to look at when in time long swords began to be used. The first real substantial usage if long swords was in the 13th century. A time when armored calvary began to see a decline due to the prominence of the longbow and archery. A knight reaching close to 9' on horseback makes an easy target for an archer. The Lance was pretty much useless against the longbow or a line of archers so we began to see infantry take a larger role in warfare. Same was apparent in the Middle East where we see the long sword gain massive popularity. Again a place where foot soldiers were in more abundance than horses. With a long sword you have extra reach, a more powerful cutting and thrusting weapon due to two-handed use, and the ability to attack mounted combatants from foot. Also the long sword isn't that far from the arming sword in weight and balance. The average long sword is really at most only a pound heavier than most arming swords and usually have a lower point of balance to counter that extra weight. You also have the ability to use it two handed which adds to the ability to use it with equal speed and movement to an arming sword. Usually due to the POB and two handed stance on average long swords tend to feel more alive and less cumbersome in hand compared to most arming swords of the same time. The similar weights and balance also allowed the user the ability to use it one handed to equal effect. Blade length was the major factor in choosing a long sword over an arming sword. The average blade length of period arming swords was 30"-34". The long sword was around 32"-38". The reach and versatility alone were enough for a man at arms to choose a long sword over arming sword. Here was a sword that could combat the spear and pole arm's obvious reach advantage as well as create such an advantage against other combatants using various single handed weapons. For example the arming sword, mace, axe or even the curved Middle Eastern Shamshir. Also you have to look at each type of early long sword and understand that though similar in design each had a primary focus on the battlefield by their individual designs. First let's look at the Type XIIa. The type XIIa, similar in design to its type XII arming counter part, the swords base design was meant to evolve the lenticular cutting sword of yesteryear (type X, Xa and XI) and give it a more pronounced thrusting tip to combat mail, while still retaining good cutting capabilities. Being the first long sword by terminology, it seemed to simply take a standard type XII blade and extend the handle and blade moderately for two handed use and extended reach. It had great reach, decent thrusting capabilities and great cutting prowess. Again explaining why it was such a popular model and still is appreciated today by modern enthusiasts and historians. Now let's take a look at its closely related cousin the type XIII and more importantly the XIIIa. The type XIII is noticeablely different to the XIIa due to its broader blade and spatulate tip. Oakeshott initially had the Type XIIa included into this typology but soon changed it due to the obvious taper and acute point of the XIIa over the XIII. This type is clearly a cutting sword resembling the later Type X with its broad lenticular blade profile and rounded tip. Now the question comes, if chain mail was so prominent at the time the XIII came into existence, why is it so cutting oriented? Well the answer is simple. You have to look where the Type XIII was developed and became popular with.That being the people of Germany. Now at this time (13-14th centuries) Germany was the head of the Holy Roman Empire. During this time the crusades began weighing on the kingdoms of Europe, too many men and money had been lost funding campaigns to the Middle East. At this point and time starting with the 5th and 6th crusades the German grounded Holy Roman Empire began funding and touring campaigns to combat the Turks and gain control of the Holy Land. This is where and when we see the type XIII and it's subtypes gain popularity, not necessarily in Europe but in the Middle East combating the "infidels" as they were called. Again horses weren't cheap and most of the men at arms fighting for the cross and empire were in fact common men taking arms to absolve their sins or gain the prominence of knighthood. These men on foot lightly armored due to lack of funds as well as to combat the horrid heat of the desert chose to use these large cutting swords due to their effectiveness on foot and against their lightly armored as well and usually mounted Middle Eastern opponents. In combat against the European armored Knight the XIII wasn't the best sword to use but against the lightly armored Turk it was very effective. Over in main land Europe we see another evolution of the long sword though, that being the more thrust oriented type XVIa and a little later the XVa. One being more similar to the XII and XIV being a more versitile hybrid cut and thrust sword to better functionality (Type XVIa) and a little later a more lithe thrust oriented long sword the type XVa. Each attributing to the even more versitile and popular Type XVIII and its sub types.
Sorry Dave, but historical evidence doesn't really support this theory. Graphic evidence, miniatures, effigies, and surviving examples themselves show that these swords were used by wealthy, fully armoured men at arms. They are mostly very good quality, often with running wolf mark and other famous marks showing they were made by famous workshops for wealthy buyers. Miniatures show them being used both mounted and dismounted, but always by well armoured men. Lighter infantry in shown using almost always polearms and missile weapons, sometimes when fighting other light infantry, shorter one handed weapons like hand axes and shorter swords with bucklers or other shields... And when fighting cavalry, infantry will always choose weapons with best reach, missiles and long polearms and spears... And Germans didn't even go to Crusades much at the time these swords gained popularity, they were fighting in their Baltic crusades, Mongols and Italians...
|
|
|
Post by Verity on Jan 21, 2017 15:45:53 GMT
These are all great theories and speculations based on our collective research, thank you all! This is a very enlightening discussion!
|
|