|
Post by spikeynorman47 on Nov 30, 2017 4:01:49 GMT
Swords are often seen being used in unarmored situations. However I feel realistically most fights involved some level of protection/armor. As battle fields, sieges and skirmishes would be way more popular than duels or self defense. But swords are very common side arms on battlefields where in fact decent amounts of armor would be worn. So discuss! I want to see your opinions on why this may have been, or tell me I'm wrong
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Nov 30, 2017 6:47:44 GMT
You can see in the "evolution" of the bladeforms from Oakeshott X to XVIII or later. In the medieval times swords were designed more and more to fight armor, from gambeson to mail to plate. First getting larger and pointier, later stiffer for thrusting.
|
|
christain
Member
It's the steel on the inside that counts.
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by christain on Nov 30, 2017 13:30:42 GMT
I think, in general, the poorer 'man-at-arms' would have been less armored than their knightly-class contemporaries. The poor man might only have a helmet (of simple design) and a gambeson-type body armor....maybe mail, if he was lucky. An axe, spear, or hammer would have probably been his weapon, since swords were quite expensive 'back in the day.'
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Nov 30, 2017 17:20:28 GMT
Spears and other pole weapons are going to be better in most cases against armor, but swords would have been viable. We know the methods for late medieval sword use against armor, and there's no reason to conclude that earlier swords were useless. The designs suggest that they were better at going around mail than trying to crack rivets though. My own theory is that the spatula-tipped swords were made so that they would slip under or around links and not get caught on them. Later on, when steel improved and there were fewer gaps in the harness, speartip swords evolved that could take on mail directly.
It seems to have been an ongoing arms race with the low guys on the totem always running behind the curve. Wisby militia armor was excellent by the standards of the 13th century, but unfortunately for them they were fighting a 14th century professional army able to counter it.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Nov 30, 2017 17:41:16 GMT
I always thought that blades were made to fight against the most expected armor, not the best armor of each time period. The spatular tips were thought to fight opponents with no extra armor, only (perhaps thicker) clothing besides the shield, pointy arming swords to penetrate gambesons and the narrow stiff thrusting swords to penetrate mail and gaps in plate. In the times of spatular tips there were not many warriors in mail.
|
|
|
Post by spikeynorman47 on Nov 30, 2017 19:46:08 GMT
Good points. But wouldn't a mace or hammer be more effective against armor? So why not carry that for dealing with armored opponents in the later centuries like 14-16th. We know that even common soldiers had a decent amount of armor in that time period.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Nov 30, 2017 19:57:11 GMT
Afaik they did so. Swords rather were a secondary weapon in those battles.
|
|
Ifrit
Member
More edgy than a double edge sword
Posts: 3,284
|
Post by Ifrit on Nov 30, 2017 19:59:32 GMT
One thing I remember hearing is to think of the sword as the pistol, the side arm, and to think of the spear as the rifle, the main weapon.
|
|