|
Post by RufusScorpius on Jul 28, 2019 23:16:36 GMT
Interesting question. I think it would depend on how well the sword was kept, how much it was used, etc. Was the sword a family heirloom, or a functional tool? With the limited archaeological data, it's mostly speculation. But, as was pointed out in prior posts, the necessity of needing a weapon during a time of trouble would certainly see all kinds of "obsolete" weapons used. If not necessarily on a battlefield, then certainly for home defense militia.
And not to be Eurocentric, certainly we have tons of examples of Japanese blades being used for many generations. 300 or more years is not entirely uncommon. Granted, Japanese blades didn't evolve a whole lot, and there was some "street cred" for having an old blade with an established history vs. a new one. So the societal structure factors into the equation.
Availability is also a factor. Something like a Roman Gladius would have been easily available due to the sheer number that were manufactured over the centuries. I would expect something like that to see service for quite a long time and showing up in the most unexpected places. In our own time, it's not uncommon to see Mosin-Nagant rifles on modern battlefields even though the design was outdated by the first World War. It's just that so many were made that they are absolutely everywhere to be found.
Yes, interesting topic.
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Jul 28, 2019 23:18:29 GMT
Speaking as a Texan, I'm sure Jim Bowie's original knife is just as sharp and ready as it was at the Alamo....wherever it is. Who knows for sure? Speaking as a Texan, I'm sure that as the cloud of gun-smoke cleared a dying Jim Bowie placed the handle of his much-storied-knife into the small hands of E nrique Esparza, and told him to cast it into a pool of calm water. Young Enrique began to protest, but Jim reached out with a single blood-smeared finger and lay it across the boy's lips to silence him. Some say that when the boy finally found a pool of water as described by Bowie that the white clad arm of La Llorona stretched out of the water to catch it, and that the boy was so scared he completely forgot the location of the lake. Others suggest that the descendants of Enrique Esparza still have the legendary weapon in their care, and that one day, when a truly worthy successor is born they will pass on the blade along with a charge of noblesse oblige for the poor and downtrodden. Spot on 100% authentic history. Few people know the real truth about the death of Jim Bowie. It's good to see it posted here.
|
|
thomasthesecond
Member
"I thought I was an architect, but I was just moving dirt."
Posts: 153
|
Post by thomasthesecond on Jul 28, 2019 23:54:06 GMT
I was wondering myself if a type XIIIa would have been used in the late 14th century. I feel if it was, it would have been more of a "peasant slayer" more than anything. Lol
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2019 1:00:36 GMT
I was wondering myself if a type XIIIa would have been used in the late 14th century. I feel if it was, it would have been more of a "peasant slayer" more than anything. Lol An example that comes up as remaining over the centuries is the A&A Bohemian Broadsword www.arms-n-armor.com/sword167.htmlThen short swords such as the katzbalger family/genre With the advent of gunpowder in the western countries, it isn't so much armies abandoning armor but more confined to just the torso. I'm not remembering the exact regulation for medieval London from their city roles (which can be studied on the British History online site) but there was most often a militia of sorts both armed by the city nobles but also expected able body men own such as a helmet, hauberk, shield and spear or/and sword. So, I scrape the surface with this. All of Europe had such organization. www.medievalists.net/2018/04/medieval-origins-of-the-second-amendment/I'm putting the following up as an ancient bookmark but the Fordham University Medieval Sourcebook is worth checking out if interested. web.archive.org/web/20110522064216/http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/medievalprices.html#WAGESThere is often a lot of offhand speculation and running to the tip of the information iceberg but I read a lot of trying to reinvent the sources time and again. The more were put into our individual studies, the more we can accurately share. My main interests are later in history but if anyone wants good resources, I'd be happy to share.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2019 1:29:44 GMT
Not to take anything away from SBG's pages on the Oakeshott typology, there are other articles and sites. Perhaps the most extreme of coming back centuries later would be gladius like leaf blades of the 18th and 19th century, as well as a 20th century leaf blade Welsh sword meant for machine gun crews during WWI. Bolo type blades timeless and used by the US military. Reuse of blades and swords also found widely in the early modern and even contemporary use. I could dig for the reference of a Patton stenciled to an US Army Airborne Lt, likely Vietnam conflict. Or the same period of a helicopter pilot that kept a cavalry sword in in cockpit. Not to dismiss buckets of sword blades that became daggers and other combat knives. Quite a few 16th century and on blades recycled and refitted. The Welsh sword of WWI becoming the WWII smatchet and Fair Sword. Forgotten history in our hands. The USMC Horse Marines with their Pattons up to WWII.
|
|
thomasthesecond
Member
"I thought I was an architect, but I was just moving dirt."
Posts: 153
|
Post by thomasthesecond on Jul 29, 2019 2:17:38 GMT
Not to take anything away from SBG's pages on the Oakeshott typology, there are other articles and sites. Perhaps the most extreme of coming back centuries later would be gladius like leaf blades of the 18th and 19th century, as well as a 20th century leaf blade Welsh sword meant for machine gun crews during WWI. Bolo type blades timeless and used by the US military. Reuse of blades and swords also found widely in the early modern and even contemporary use. I could dig for the reference of a Patton stenciled to an US Army Airborne Lt, likely Vietnam conflict. Or the same period of a helicopter pilot that kept a cavalry sword in in cockpit. Not to dismiss buckets of sword blades that became daggers and other combat knives. Quite a few 16th century and on blades recycled and refitted. The Welsh sword of WWI becoming the WWII smatchet and Fair Sword. Forgotten history in our hands. The USMC Horse Marines with their Pattons up to WWII. Those are French artillery blades if I recall correctly? Like them quite a bit. Anyways, I've done a fair amount of research into the general origins of a "well regulated militia" for a few papers I had to write a few months ago, but your knowledge on the subject to just be able to pull from memory at a wim, is to say the least, very impressive.
|
|
|
Post by nddave on Jul 29, 2019 3:11:21 GMT
Imagine being a British officer with a smallsword or spadroon, and seeing some hulking scot with that thing barreling towards your squad. Yikes. From what I've read it was quite intimidating, lol. The old Highland Charge, baskethilts, claymores and hundreds of Scotts charging the front line screaming warcries. In some skirmishes it was intimidating enough to break the front line and have English soldiers drop their muskets and retreat before even firing.
|
|
|
Post by nddave on Jul 29, 2019 3:18:03 GMT
I was wondering myself if a type XIIIa would have been used in the late 14th century. I feel if it was, it would have been more of a "peasant slayer" more than anything. Lol Not necessarily a Type XIIIa, but that was the time when the Type XX and XXa were popular. So to that effect the warsword type both XIIIa and XX fall into were still used. Actually the the archetype XIIIa blade profile was used quite prominently in the Renaissance period and later in regards to greatswords such as Zweinhanders and Claymores as well as post typology longswords and bastard swords used in those post medieval eras.
|
|
thomasthesecond
Member
"I thought I was an architect, but I was just moving dirt."
Posts: 153
|
Post by thomasthesecond on Jul 29, 2019 11:12:23 GMT
I was wondering myself if a type XIIIa would have been used in the late 14th century. I feel if it was, it would have been more of a "peasant slayer" more than anything. Lol Not necessarily a Type XIIIa, but that was the time when the Type XX and XXa were popular. So to that effect the warsword type both XIIIa and XX fall into were still used. Actually the the archetype XIIIa blade profile was used quite prominently in the Renaissance period and later in regards to greatswords such as Zweinhanders and Claymores as well as post typology longswords and bastard swords used in those post medieval eras. I wonder if it's a coincidence that the XIIIa and XXa are my favorite sword types, as well as that being my favorite time in the middle ages as far as dress and armor are concerned? I may have very likely just seen those sword types in imagery of that period and fell in love with them.
|
|
|
Post by dc on Aug 25, 2019 19:38:21 GMT
I fear I'm taking this far too seriously, but here goes... It really depends on the general sword type. Most sword types tended to have long lifespans (around 2 centuries) of use. Many sword types were used in the same time periods as well. For example Types (and their subtypes) X, XI, XII, XIII, and XIV can be seen in use throughout the 12th-14th centuries. Or Types XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX and XX swords seeing use between the 14th and 16th centuries. So yes there was definite overlap of sword types through the middle ages. Of course armor as was mentioned played a big part in what sword types were used [...] Agreed. The older cutting swords even stuck around into the 14th+ centuries, presumably for use in civilian self defence against unarmoured bandits, instead of on the battlefield. Actually the XX looks a lot like an XIIa or XIIIa with fancy fullers. Everything I've read indicates this wasn't true during the middle ages. In the early middle ages common soldiers were armed with relatively inexpensive spears, pole arms, axes, and knives. Only the wealth could afford swords and carried them as both weapons and badges of rank. By the late middle ages swords were relatively common and most soldiers could afford them. There were many laws dictating the minimum arms and armour citizens had to own, with requirements increased based on income and/or the amount of land held. It was later, in the Rennaisance when standing armies with government issued weapons became common. This was certainly true in the early middle ages (Viking Era) when only the elite had swords or armour, with common warriors wielding spear and shield with no appreciable body armour. By the late middle ages most soldiers would've had at least a textile armour, and veterans or soldiers from the upper middle class, would've had mail and/or brigandine on top textile, perhaps with some arm and leg protection as well. Several factors probably led to this: - Peasant levies were increasing replaced by semi-professional soldiers. These soldiers were well paid and could afford good (though not the best) swords and armour.
- Improvements in steel smelting and forging decreased the cost of new swords and armour.
- Swords were a sidearm not a primary weapon, so many saw light use. They were also expensive enough that most owners took care of them. As a result swords could last a long time and an ever increasing number of used swords were available.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2019 19:47:35 GMT
Speaking as a Texan, I'm sure that as the cloud of gun-smoke cleared a dying Jim Bowie placed the handle of his much-storied-knife into the small hands of E nrique Esparza, and told him to cast it into a pool of calm water. Young Enrique began to protest, but Jim reached out with a single blood-smeared finger and lay it across the boy's lips to silence him. Some say that when the boy finally found a pool of water as described by Bowie that the white clad arm of La Llorona stretched out of the water to catch it, and that the boy was so scared he completely forgot the location of the lake. Others suggest that the descendants of Enrique Esparza still have the legendary weapon in their care, and that one day, when a truly worthy successor is born they will pass on the blade along with a charge of noblesse oblige for the poor and downtrodden. Spot on 100% authentic history. Few people know the real truth about the death of Jim Bowie. It's good to see it posted here. Jim Bowie or King Arthur?
My Irish ancestors fought the same type of warfare for hundreds of years, from the Dark Ages to the dawn of the Renaissance. The type of weapons and armor used throughout this period barely changed at all, at least superficially. Gallowglass warriors and their boys would be dispatched to recover stolen cattle from ruffians. That's basically how it went. Javelins, spears, arrows, long swords, arming swords and axes were used. The Gallowglass were heavily armored, the Kerns, not so much. One doesn't have to evolve when you're fighting poor peasants for beef.
Yes, I know this is a rather puerile take on my own history, but there you have it.
Now, do I dare bring up how ethnocentrism and isolationism can have a stagnant effect on the development of weapons, or will the katana folks eviscerate me for it?
|
|
|
Post by paulmuaddib on Aug 25, 2019 21:16:55 GMT
Spot on 100% authentic history. Few people know the real truth about the death of Jim Bowie. It's good to see it posted here. Jim Bowie or King Arthur?
My Irish ancestors fought the same type of warfare for hundreds of years, from the Dark Ages to the dawn of the Renaissance. The type of weapons and armor used throughout this period barely changed at all, at least superficially. Gallowglass warriors and their boys would be dispatched to recover stolen cattle from ruffians. That's basically how it went. Javelins, spears, arrows, long swords, arming swords and axes were used. The Gallowglass were heavily armored, the Kerns, not so much. One doesn't have to evolve when you're fighting poor peasants for beef.
Yes, I know this is a rather puerile take on my own history, but there you have it.
Now, do I dare bring up how ethnocentrism and isolationism can have a stagnant effect on the development of weapons, or will the katana folks eviscerate me for it?
As a katana guy I say go for it. I’m always interested in learning. While I like jars and waks among others they are not some holy object. So have at it, it’s all good
|
|
|
Post by paulmuaddib on Aug 25, 2019 21:18:05 GMT
Kats not jars. Damn spellcheck! Jars are ok though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2019 21:21:16 GMT
Kats not jars. Damn spellcheck! Jars are ok though. No, it's ok. I think one puerile comment is enough from me today. This thread is actually quite serious and I've been sitting at my desk thinking about a more academic answer to this question.
One idea I had is that some weapon types were still in use in some places where they had been replaced, had evolved, or fell out of favor in other places. Take the seax as an example. The seax was in use during the crusades in the same era as the quillon dagger.
|
|
|
Post by legacyofthesword on Aug 25, 2019 21:35:15 GMT
Spot on 100% authentic history. Few people know the real truth about the death of Jim Bowie. It's good to see it posted here. Jim Bowie or King Arthur?
My Irish ancestors fought the same type of warfare for hundreds of years, from the Dark Ages to the dawn of the Renaissance. The type of weapons and armor used throughout this period barely changed at all, at least superficially. Gallowglass warriors and their boys would be dispatched to recover stolen cattle from ruffians. That's basically how it went. Javelins, spears, arrows, long swords, arming swords and axes were used. The Gallowglass were heavily armored, the Kerns, not so much. One doesn't have to evolve when you're fighting poor peasants for beef.
Yes, I know this is a rather puerile take on my own history, but there you have it.
Now, do I dare bring up how ethnocentrism and isolationism can have a stagnant effect on the development of weapons, or will the katana folks eviscerate me for it?
I love Irish history and warfare. Bunch of wild hill ruffians running about barefoot, hitting each other with clubs (I've got a dash of Irish in me, so it's okay for me to say that). Interestingly enough, most Irish swords seemed to be of the wide tipped, parallel edged, cutting focused type (a la the early Medieval period).
|
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 9,842
Member is Online
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Aug 25, 2019 21:41:37 GMT
I think sometimes swords evolved to match other evolved arms and armor. In other times you use the best thing, your local smith can make, like a seax, messer, big knife (bowie) or machete. A broad, acute angled, single edge blade is never a bad idea, except you duel with Count De Money.
|
|
Zen_Hydra
Moderator
Born with a heart full of neutrality
Posts: 2,629
Member is Online
|
Post by Zen_Hydra on Aug 26, 2019 4:08:04 GMT
Jim Bowie or King Arthur?
My Irish ancestors fought the same type of warfare for hundreds of years, from the Dark Ages to the dawn of the Renaissance. The type of weapons and armor used throughout this period barely changed at all, at least superficially. Gallowglass warriors and their boys would be dispatched to recover stolen cattle from ruffians. That's basically how it went. Javelins, spears, arrows, long swords, arming swords and axes were used. The Gallowglass were heavily armored, the Kerns, not so much. One doesn't have to evolve when you're fighting poor peasants for beef.
Yes, I know this is a rather puerile take on my own history, but there you have it.
Now, do I dare bring up how ethnocentrism and isolationism can have a stagnant effect on the development of weapons, or will the katana folks eviscerate me for it?
I love Irish history and warfare. Bunch of wild hill ruffians running about barefoot, hitting each other with clubs (I've got a dash of Irish in me, so it's okay for me to say that). Interestingly enough, most Irish swords seemed to be of the wide tipped, parallel edged, cutting focused type (a la the early Medieval period). If you weren't a cattle thief of some stripe, you were Irishing wrong. I also appreciate any culture with heroic myths featuring a woman winning a literal pissing contest.
|
|
|
Post by legacyofthesword on Aug 26, 2019 5:09:14 GMT
I love Irish history and warfare. Bunch of wild hill ruffians running about barefoot, hitting each other with clubs (I've got a dash of Irish in me, so it's okay for me to say that). Interestingly enough, most Irish swords seemed to be of the wide tipped, parallel edged, cutting focused type (a la the early Medieval period). If you weren't a cattle thief of some stripe, you were Irishing wrong. I also appreciate any culture with heroic myths featuring a woman winning a literal pissing contest.
Yeah, good old Celtic mythology. I sometimes wonder if all the ancient Welsh, Irish, and Scottish were either almost entirely insane or just stoned out of their minds. That or staring at sheep all day long gives you an incredibly vivid imagination.
|
|
|
Post by nddave on Aug 26, 2019 13:07:03 GMT
I fear I'm taking this far too seriously, but here goes... It really depends on the general sword type. Most sword types tended to have long lifespans (around 2 centuries) of use. Many sword types were used in the same time periods as well. For example Types (and their subtypes) X, XI, XII, XIII, and XIV can be seen in use throughout the 12th-14th centuries. Or Types XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX and XX swords seeing use between the 14th and 16th centuries. So yes there was definite overlap of sword types through the middle ages. Of course armor as was mentioned played a big part in what sword types were used [...] Agreed. The older cutting swords even stuck around into the 14th+ centuries, presumably for use in civilian self defence against unarmoured bandits, instead of on the battlefield. Actually the XX looks a lot like an XIIa or XIIIa with fancy fullers. Everything I've read indicates this wasn't true during the middle ages. In the early middle ages common soldiers were armed with relatively inexpensive spears, pole arms, axes, and knives. Only the wealth could afford swords and carried them as both weapons and badges of rank. By the late middle ages swords were relatively common and most soldiers could afford them. There were many laws dictating the minimum arms and armour citizens had to own, with requirements increased based on income and/or the amount of land held. It was later, in the Rennaisance when standing armies with government issued weapons became common. This was certainly true in the early middle ages (Viking Era) when only the elite had swords or armour, with common warriors wielding spear and shield with no appreciable body armour. By the late middle ages most soldiers would've had at least a textile armour, and veterans or soldiers from the upper middle class, would've had mail and/or brigandine on top textile, perhaps with some arm and leg protection as well. Several factors probably led to this: - Peasant levies were increasing replaced by semi-professional soldiers. These soldiers were well paid and could afford good (though not the best) swords and armour.
- Improvements in steel smelting and forging decreased the cost of new swords and armour.
- Swords were a sidearm not a primary weapon, so many saw light use. They were also expensive enough that most owners took care of them. As a result swords could last a long time and an ever increasing number of used swords were available.
And.... I cant tell if your arguing for the sake of arguing or if you have something to add to my initial post? The tone is like you're correcting me but nothing you posted really corrects anything I posted and some of yours is debatable itself.
|
|