[Vincent F.]

hi everybody, i'm new.

i'm interested in armory and stuff from the middle-age.

i've always been curious about one thing: what are the functional differences between thick swords that was used during '500 and '600 (also '700) like rapier and side-swords and larger and shorter swords that were used during the 1000-1500 period?

why sword's design changed so much during the time? it was linked to the changes that happened during the renaissance's years in the battles?

and in a 1 vs 1 fight, who is the most advantaged fighters, the one with the rapier or the side-sword or the one with a larger one, like the arming sword?

if i made some mistake correct me, thanks

[Pedro Paulo Gaião]

[Vincent F.]

so, in synthesis, the oldest type of sword are more effective against men in chainmail and swords like spada da lato and rapier are more effective against knight with plates?

[Pedro Paulo Gaião]

[Luka Borscak]

Sideswords and rapiers aren't meant to be used against armoured people, they are swords for fighting lightly armoured or unarmoured people. Against plate no sword is really effective.

[Vincent F.]

so if rapier and that kind of small sword was for civilian use, during XVI and XVII centuries, what was the kind of sword used in war by knight and infantry?

i'm especially interested in the kind of swords used by soldiers during 1500

[Hector A.]

[Bryan Heff]

Hector

When you say "effective against plate"...can you expound on that a bit more? Denting the plate? Piecing the plate? Finding the spots between the plate and stabbing through?

Thanks

[Roger Hooper]

You can't cut through plate - you have thrust through various holes, creases and chinks in the armor. For this, the best swords are the dedicated thrusters, like XV's and XVII's. But better than swords would be -

A mace or hammer to immobilize and crush joints in the armor
And a rondel dagger to finish off your opponent.

[Matthew Amt]

[Hector A.]

[Vincent F.]

[Vincent F.]

i propose again my question

[Ralph Grinly]

The armour of Henry V111 shown above is not a typical armour..it's the "Top of the Line, Roll's Royce of armours. It was built to protect a King, and is not what one would normally expect to encounter on a battlefield. So..trying to match it to the penetrating ability of particular sword types is not a realistic exercise. You can have endless arguments for/against any weapon vs armour discussion. But...you have to remember this - all through History the dance between offense and defence is just that - a dance. Improvements in weapons are then matched by improvements in armour and vice versa. If something extra special comes along, then tactics may change. The best one can hope for is to consider the average - what is the average warrior, in average conditions, likely to achieve with the average weapon of the period against the average armour ?. One can always claim that weapon that weapon A can/can't damage armour B..and this may be proved in static, laboratory tests. But you can't be certain that such tests are a reflection of real life..

[Mark Millman]

Dear Vincent,

[Matthew Amt]

[Roger Hooper]

Go to This Thread to see pictures of some campaign, battlefield swords used in the 17th century (mostly from 1640 on)

[Vincent F.]

[Michael Parker]

Just as a point of procedure, I think we should try to use the words "thick" and "thin" to refer to the distal thickness of the blade, meaning how thick it would be along the ridge if it were a diamond cross section. "Wide" and "narrow" could refer to the profile, that is how broad the blade is from edge to edge.

[J. Nicolaysen]