[Dan K. F.]

I've been wondering lately why most swords I've seen dating from the Migration Period onwards seem to have longer blades. I can understand the advantages of a longer sword but what kind of weapons would have been used when there wasn't room to wield a longer weapon? When fighting indoors, on fortifications, or even in a close press on an open battlefield it seems like a sword with a 30+ inch blade would be severely disadvantaged. The ubiquitous dagger would be more maneuverable but I would think something the length of a gladius would be a superior compromise between length and weight when closer range combat was expected such as in a siege.

I haven't seen many swords in the 20 to mid 20 inch range other than the gladius and swords from antiquity that predated it. Is there a reason for this or do I just need to do more reading?

[Craig Peters]

I have to say that this time period really is not my area of expertise, and I am sure that there are others who can answer much more fully than myself. One thing I can tell you is that, during the Migration era and Early Middle Ages, the seax was a common side arm that is much shorter than most swords. See here for more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seax. Other than saxes, there would probably have been many people who might have carried knives that could function as a sidearm. Remember, the distinction between knives and daggers is a little bit loose, especially before the 13th century, which is when specialized daggers start to become much more common in Europe.

[Matthew Amt]

All we can really say is, It worked for them! I don't think there was much fighting indoors aside from tavern brawls. Fighting from foritifications would include spears and missile weapons. Even on an open battlefield, swords were *secondary* weapons, most of the fighting being done with spears. So any kind of sword or axe or seax was a backup weapon. And close combat was probably not always as crushed and dense as you might think, so there was generally enough room to use a sword. It should be noted that even the Romans preferred to have some elbow room when fighting, with each man having 3 to 6 feet of space--a formation that was so tight that shields overlapped was comparatively rare.

The nice thing about a sword is that it doesn't require a huge swing or a lot of space to do damage. A wimpy jab or an awkward slice can still lay flesh wide open. I don't know about you, but that would ruin MY day...

Matthew

[Bartek Strojek]

Well, for most people in Migration period, in most migrating cultures at least, sword would be rather precious thing, not commonly owned.

All kind of seaxes/fighting knives would be actually way more popular as sidearms, I would imagine.

Or even all-around utility knives/blades used as a weapon.

[Ben Coomer]

I'm with Matthew. Even with my longsword, its not all broad strokes and huge lunges. Even excluding half-swording, I've got master strikes, wrist powered strikes, stop thrusts, hilt strikes, grappling and simple punches and kicks that work for close quarters. I figure earlier warriors would have similar responses.

That swords are so ubiquitous is probably due to their versatility in so many situations. They may not be perfect for everything, but many will a least give you a chance in most combat situations.

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Timo Nieminen]

[Guy Bayes]

Daggers are a good companion to swords. A lot of the longsword treatise emphasize dagger as well as longsword. Especially once it turns into wrestling daggers are awesome

[Henrik Granlid]

A man on reddit described the battlefields well, the press just wasn't there, everybody risked dying from a small cut, everybody could get hit by a stray spear. If you were in the press, nobody could tell who's side you were on.

The long and short of it is, nobody would smash into an enemy block. The blocks would close to non-spear-to-face distance and try to goad the other block (or their own) to attack. Once the psych was there to go, go, go, the blocks would close into swinging distance and either one would get the upper hand and grind/crush into the enemy block for the actual press, or they'd both back off and catch their breath before trying to psych up another attack. The crush would happen with heavier elite troops or wedges pushing in to break the enemy, most casualties were when footsoldiers broke and ran or when blocks became encircled and the systematic slaughter began.

In short, average battlefield encounter distance (until pikes and muskets) was so that you could hide behind your shield and lash out at an exposed head behind another shield, making the three foot sword a lot more logical. Especially when we look at the fact that once greatswords replaced longswords, we get the 25-30 inch katzbalger swords as the secondary weapons for once the pikes have been cut off.

[Ben Coomer]

[Ben Coomer]

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Henrik Granlid]

Furthermore, weren't large quantities of weapons in the field actually stored in wagons? Making the items you carry be those you came across at great personal expense if the rest of your wagon-buddies weren't trustworthy. This certainly cuts down on the "too clunky to carry" argument for weapons such as poleaxes, pikes, large swords and other such things.