Another question from Scotland.
I don't own any swords, weapons etc and so have no hands on experience of their use. Nor do I ride a horse.

My question; what would be the preferred type of sword / axe / mace / etc for use by a mounted man against foot soldiers who were disorganised or fleeing. I am not including lances / spears / bows at this time.
With regards to swords; would it be of cutting or thrusting style? Any suggestions as to examples?
Any input would be really appreciated.

Malcolm;

I would say it would all depend upon the circumstances, i.e. what sort of infantry are you running down? If they are unarmoured, I would say a good cutting sword would be perfectly sufficient. I personally would refrain from using a thrusting sword, since the target tends to wiggle a LOT when hit, and would have the ability to either wrench the sword from your hand, or even wrench you from the saddle if the thrust were deep enough and at the right angle. I realize that most of the 20th Century swords/sabres were designed for this, but I have my doubts as to the wisdom of it, myself. For the thust I would stick to the Lance, but since you've excluded it, I'd say slash downwards with the edge. No need to kill, just incapacitate.

If they're wearing some sort of armour, then a mace would be better. Not sure about an axe, though I know that they were certainly popular among horsemen for many years. I suspect it would be quite the effective weapon against either armoured or unarmoured opponents though!

My own experience in running down "flying Foote" (this was unintentional, but still a blast) was with a sword (rubber) against muskets sporting bayonets (steel). Much of my efforts were in making sure that the bayonets bobbing about didn't contact either me or my horse, for which a sword (even a rubber one) was quite handy. Smacking infantrymen in the back was easy, and would have been easy to hit them on the head too, had that been optional. But the biggest source of damage was, as usual, the 1200 pound weapon I was riding, the horse. Hit a guy anywhere with the chest of a horse at a full gallop, and he moves. Gives new meaning to "Flying Foote", LOL!

I hope that this is of some help,

Cheers,

Gordon

I think the sword would be the weapon of choice for cutting up fleeing infantry. Any decent cutter would probably do. One handed maces, axes and hammers tend to be a bit short, rarely more than two feet. And a descending sword blow from horse back would most likely be enough to knock out most men in helmets. If they're running in full armor the fatigue will get them if the sword doesn't. Because of them, you often hear of men throwing down helmets and armor in a rout. So overall armour probably wasn't a major concern.

I remember reading somewhere that swords, in the hands of cavalry, accounted for the majority of wounds in the French wars of religion.

spear or lance would be primary. the sword/axe/mace secondary

Malcolm,

I would have to say that a well balanced not too heavy hand and a half would be optimal for what you describe. Light enough to use one handed but with sufficient reach. Having fought on horse (though not against infantry) I have come to understand the limitations of even a regular onehanded sword. You have to be really close to get within good striking range of your opponent unless all you are going to do is slap blades.

Could the source for the information about sword wounds in French wars of Religion be Wood's "The King's Army"? Or another source quoting it? It's the only published work I know of that contains any hard facts about the cause of wounds since the author has used two 16th Century investigations which amogn toher things looked at the cause and location of scars and wounds among french infantry. However the most through investigation was only conducted on two infantry companies which is too small a group to be fully conclusive. Anyway 54% of the scars from wounds which the men had were made by swords but at a glance I can't finf a quote were the author connects that number with swords in the hands of mounted troops. The foot carried swords as well and used them on each other both in battle and in the frequent brawls and fights inside camps and garrisons. Woudl not the sheer power of a mounted cut or thurst also make such a blow much less survivable than one sustained by other means? Cavalry getting in among fleeing foot soldiers was a recipe for slaughter unless the mounted men were in a mercifull mood or raw troops unused to the charge and killing. (The last charge of the Swedish cavalry in 1813 at Bornhoft invovled bowlign over and riding down lots of danish infantry with their horses but the actual number of deaths and injuries suffered at the hands of the Swedish hussars was low, very low considerign that the Danish units had their formations throughly broken.)

Regards
Daniel

Preferred sword from horseback attacking footsoldiers? Hmmm... Well, I'd definitly wouldn't want something with too long a grip; maybe I'd carry a single-hand sword just for this purpose. Perhaps a Type XIII or XVIII would be my choice(s). The Tritonia sword that Peter Johnsson makes through Albion would be great for use on horseback :!:

Hi guys. Once again I have asked a question and in next to no time I received some excellent responses - many thanks!

From some reading / searching I have managed since my initial post I thought I would share the following with you.

Lance / spears being best; well it is hard to argue with this. Consider the Battle of Towton. When the Lancastrian army broke the fleeing men, on foot, were pursued by the Yorkists of course. Of note is the fact that some lightly armoured / armed cavalry, called "prickers" as they carried spears, and who initially were used to prevent their own men from deserting, where used to follow up the rout. No doubt their spears were very effective. Yorkist men-at-arms, who initially had fought on foot, called for their horses to have a go at the fleeing enemy as well. As they probably had used polearms during the main battle, I guess they would have resorted to using their swords during the chase [though any with maces and axes may have used them]. As there was a great number of dead in this battle and in the chase/rout, whatever was used must have been effective.

Cutting with a sword; I would guess that any blow delivered would be effective as it had the momentum of the horse included. I guess that as sword making skills got better from Norman times onwards, and curved swords became available, then sabres etc became the preferred choice. I acknowledge freely that the debate of cut versus thrust went on for ages with both sides believing they were right.
I should have defined my question a bit better in that I was pitching my quesiton in the context of a time period of 1100 to 1300AD

Anyway, thanks again for all inputs; you guys are the best!!!!!

This one would be my choice as far as swords go. If you've ever handled a Sword of St. Maurice you would know why. It's got a VERY long blade for a single handed sword and is balanced to favor the cut. Just the thing for a pursuit.

[ Linked Image ]

If I've got a lot of armor to deal with this might fit the bill...

[ Linked Image ]

Since you didn't exclude the estoc in its various forms, I'll tentatively propose that as a reasonable compromise between sword and lance. Use it in the hammer or icepick grip. It seems to have been especially popular in Central/ Eastern Europe. The Graz armoury has lots of them. And since the Scots imported arms and armour from Germany, it would be not be out of the question to find one in use (by a border horseman, say) ca. 1550-1650. On the other hand, the border horsemen were famed for their skill with the lance, so that would have to be one peacock of a reiver to trade in his native lance for an imported estoc! A headman, perhaps?

First - lance (9' to 11' long with a triangular steel head)

Second - Albion Steward [ Linked Image ]

Third - long handled mace [ Linked Image ]

or small warhammer [ Linked Image ]

Like Gordon, I do a LOT of cutting, lancing, and other weapons work from horseback. I would much rather have my sword be a better "cutter" than "stabber" and the Steward definitely fits that bill in spades! When combat grinds to a halt and the horseman is at a standstill, a good impact weapon is paramount as it causes a great deal of damage with little chance of becoming "hung up" or taken away.

Russ;

As you may have noticed the Gaddhjalt has a lot in common with the Sword of St.-Maurice as it also has a very long blade for a one hander: As long as many Hand and a Half swords and a similar pommel.

It definitely depends on the circumstance, but if I had to choose it would be a long bladed single handed sword like a type XI. Something similar to the Albion Ritter, after all swords of this type were primarily meant to be used from horseback.

When it comes to choosing weapons for a particular task, we are actually in a much better position than out historical counterparts; We literally have a world to chose from.
We have knowledge about the development of weapons through the ages, and at different locations. A 18th century Cuirassier didn't know about the existence of the Greatsword . And even if he did, he wouldn't be able to get one.
Modern soldiers don't get to pick their own rifles, either. They are stuck with what is available in their country.

For cutting down fleeing infantry I would say a sabre, which is why they were used from the 13th century onwards by Islamic armies, the Mongols and the Russians. However AFAIK Western Europeans only started using sabres in the 18th century. The sabre would still be a secondary weapon with lances as the primary weapon (or composite bows in the case of horse-archers). Islamic armies also used "saddle-axes", so they would be another potential secondary weapon.