>Of course, having too much [initial] spirit and too little order can be as bad as being a disheartened coward

Ahh, Morale, Bravado and Arrogance, all kissing cousins of one another, and all the difference between a glorious success and a spirit-crushing failure... :)

I mentioned earlier the "Slath" sword as described by Sir John Smythe.

In the Zeughaus Catalog "Das Wiener Bϋrgerliche Zeughaus: Gotik Und Renaissance" published in 1960, they have a Zweihander, Catalogue #98, labeled as "Schlachtschwerter der Bϋrgerwehr"

Their Catalogue has, in all, four ceremonial Zweihanders manufactured between 1580 and 1590, and are described in the Catalog as:

Zweihander, sogenannte "Schlachtschwerter"

or:

Zweihander, so-called "battle swords"

So, now you've all got a new word to bandy about... :)

This topic has been promoted into a Spotlight Topic.

Perhaps the medieval combatant who spent his entire life training for a variety of situations was not capable, or trained to avoid repulsing cavalry with spear and/or two handed sword.

Historical evidence seems to imply that native Mexican indians did a pretty good job of attacking on the offense, wounding or killing every last man of Spanish cavalry units with two handed wooden swords (embedded with flint edges) and simple spears. Bear in mind, they had not even seen horses before! I don't know if comparable information exists with the indians defending a "heavy charge", but have little doubt that at least some warriors, somewhere, must have taken on the horseman and won.

Eye Witness Accounts of Mesoamerican Swords. http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=118

I agree with your assessment that the indians (and most other poor combatants elsewhere) probably fared poorly when Cavalry was on the agressive in good conditions.

The whole issue is basically true of all battle tactics, situation dependent. As I understand it, Cavalry is in a bad situation if it gets slowed down (say to less than 10 mph), and scattered. Numerous accounts of the indian encounters describe horses being severed (with entrails spillling out) from a single blow from these large paddle like swords. I have seen how little it takes to make large Shire-cross eventing bred horses fall, throwing riders abruptly over the horses neck, (I could teach a child to do it with a 2"X4" knock to the legs) that there is little doubt in my mind that soldiers would know how to move in and take advantage with Calvary mired down in mud, fooled by a feint and scattered/ confused, etc.

I don't aspire to do mounted combat, and really don't research it. Is La Régle du Temple (quotes Knights Templar instruction for conduct of mounted charge, as well as numerous other quotes up to around 1850) considered a good reference? It seems to state that an isolated charge by one Knight is suicide, and that a frontal charge against footmen arranged several lines deep is also suicide. According to this account the "old ones" (experienced knights) are wise enought to arrive bunched up at moderate speed....togather.

---

 Attachment: 10.34 KB
[ Download ]

Jared; You're right about the American Indians having a tough time with the Spanish Horse, but also being able to deal with them on occasion. Bernal Diaz del Castillo, in his autobiographical "True History of the Conquest of New Spain" makes note of a War Mare who was virtually beheaded by a Tlaxcalan Warrior early in the Conquest, before the Tlaxcalans figured out that these Spaniards might be useful in dealing with the Aztecs. Diaz spends a fair amount of space praising the breeding and qualities of the Mare... much more than when speaking of his fellow soldiers! (Interesting point in that the Spaniards of that day prefered Mares for Light Cavalry, a taste that they inherited from the Arabs).

The Spaniards fairly early on though figured out that the proper tactic was to keep a tight formation, and indeed it was with 15 horses that the primary battles of the Conquest were won (Cortez started with 16, and the Mare was the only major casualty until after reinforcements, and then the larger battles for Tenochtitlan itself came about) There are numerous references to American Indians, be they Tlaxcalan, Aztec, Maya, Chibcha or Quechua standing up to pounding by artillery (which we as modern technophiles would assume would terrify them), while breaking and running at the charge of a small group of horses. Missiles, no matter how they were projected, were understood. Centaurs were not. Another good book to look into is "The Broken Spears" which is a compilation of Aztec writings, taken down by the Spaniards later on, concering the Conquest. Their comments on horses are most interesting, and usually embody details like hot breath, flashing eyes, flailing hooves and other things that are still pretty darned intimidating in a horse. As Gonzalo Jimenez de Quesada, conqueror of present-day Columbia said "After God, we owe our Victory to our Horses", a feeling that was pretty much universal among the Spanish Conquistadores. And for very good reason.

Of note is that one of the horses later was captured and, along with several captured Spaniards, sacrificed to the gods of the Aztecs, as the Aztecs thought of the horses as other warriors in and of themselves (some truth to that, too!). Needless to say, the surviving Spaniards weren't pleased by either sacrifice.

Cheers!

Gordon

Great post, Matthew. I seem to recall reading your posts elsewhere--martialartsplanet, perhaps?

Matthew Kelty wrote:

'Giacomo DiGrassi, His True Art Of Defence' Translated By I.G., 1594 "The two hand Sword, as it is used now a daies being fower handfulls in the handle, or more, having also the great crosse, was found out, to the end it should be handled one to one at an equall match, as other weapons, of which I have in treated. But because one may with it (as a galleon, among many gallies) resist many Swordes, or other weapons: Therefore in the warres, it is used to be placed neere unto the Ensigne or Auncient, for the defence thereof, because, being of it selfe hable to contend with manie, it may the better safeguard the same."

Di Grassi also mentions the use of the 2-hander by city guards.

Quote:

'Certain Discourses Concerning Formes And Effects Of Weapons' Sir John Smythe, 1590. (In reference to how the Imperial forces are drawn up) "When the great Princes of Germanie...are disposed to make warre...being bound (as they are) by their tenure Militarie to the Empire, some to find horsemen, and others to finde footmen at their own charges...form their regiments of footmen into great bands of 500 to an Ensigne... ...their milicia consisting of Harquebuziers, Piquers, and some Halbarders, with a few slath swords for the gard of their Ensignes..." ('Slath' sword is a euphemism for a two handed sword. I recently acquired a Catalog from the Landeshaus Graz that was printed in the 60's, and two of their two-handed blades are described as something like 'slather schwert' (sp? I'll dig up the book later)

"Slath sword", as well as "slaughter-sword", are both English corruptions of the German schlachtschwert ("battle sword"). I realize you already mentioned this on another post, but I wanted to bring everyone's attention to "slaughter-sword" as well. :)

Quote:

Bernard Van Orley: Ahhh, the Pavia Tapestry. One of the best works contemporary with that event, and so little is published about it... The Osprey book has a few pictures from it, but they are all black and white photos, and miniscule. The Original is on display at an obscure Museum in Italy. The best images I have are from a book published by Banco Toscano, and is titled "Giovanni Delle Bande Nere". It's in Italian, and is a Coffee Table book with various essays about Giovanni De Medici. ~$35.00 plus shipping, kind of hard to find. While not a complete record of the Pavia Tapestry, it has a few excellent plates of various sections. Of particular note is one section, where a Doppelsoldier is pictured about to dispatch of a Pikeman (or Halberdier) who is weilding a pole that has been cracked. This might be where the myth of the "Pike Breaker" comes in.

What about Marozzo's section on the spada da due mani, where he shows all the broken polearm shafts on the floor?

Quote:

In all, almost every example of a Zwiehander has it portrayed near Halberdiers and the Ensign. Most distributions of Halberdiers/Billemen in a Company are at about 20%, and the ratios that are apparent in *every * single illustration I've seen: 1. For every flag visible, you only ever see one or two Zwiehanders. 2. For every Zwiehander visible, you see about 20-30 Halberds/Bills.

But can this really be relied upon?

Quote:

As to the chopping off the horses legs, that appears to be a Braveheartism. I've already firmly entreched them in the middle of the Pike square, but to agree with and add to David's point 1. Horses are quick 2. Horses are smart 3. Horses are big 4. Horses are mean (when trained to be mean) 5. Horses are expensive, and useful Kill the man, not the horse, and a Halberd, Glaive or Billhook is a hell of a lot better way to get a Rider's complete and undivided attention.... :)

What about the famous drawing by Urs Graf, which shows the dead horse missing a leg? This was clearly the result of either a long-bladed polearm or a bidenhander.

Best,

David

David;

Glad that you are recuscitating this thread as I rather enjoyed it!

I certainly won't disagree with you at all about the rodeleros continuing to be used for another century, albeit in fairly limited numbers for the most part. And I agree completely with you about their efficacy in regards to weapons other than Halberds, be they pikes, katanas or maquahuitl... or pistols, for that matter. On anything approaching one-on-one, such a defensive weapon is invaluable, especially in the hands of one who knows it's full employment! And I shall stand corrected as well on their significant use in such engagements as Lepanto, where such on-on-one tactics were the norm. Indeed, the Military Regulations of the Colony of Virginia make note of the necessity of using Targeteers armed with broadsword and pistol, and expecting that Sergeants and Officers too will carry Targets while in the field against Indians, rather than Halberds or Spears.

One of the things I would note about Cortez's men was that a number of them (especially the one's who "reinforced" Cortez, who had landed under the command of Panfilio Narvaez to arrest him) were veterans of the Wars in Italy, and quite possibly of Ravenna. So their trust in the rodelo would be well placed, both in the field against Aztecan warriors armed with maquahuitl and shield, or in the siege of Tenochtitlan later. I too would be interested as to how much effect such troops had at Garigliano, where tight quarters and bad weather reduced the abilities of the French to effect their usual tactics. (One might ask a similar question, as to how effective would targeteers have been at Pavia, had the Spaniards continued to employ large numbers?)

Oh, and thanks for the info on Andrea Pessoa vs the Japanese... I had heard some mention of it, but not any specifics. I would enjoy hearing more on that one!

But I would suggest that the primary reason for the decline of the mass use of Targetteers/Rodeleros was their inability to stand against Heavy Horse of the French variety. They did magnificently in the Reconquista against the Moors, and the siege fighting that often was so prevalent in the Italian Wars, and perhaps against light cavalry of the Jinete variety, but against French Heavy Horse and Swiss Halberds (with Pikes as well, obviously) in the open field, they tended to fair more poorly (not that they couldn't manage to kill Gaston de Foix and his entourage at Ravenna!)

Again, thanks for the information!

Cheers,

Gordon