[Dashiell Harrison]

I apologize if this has been asked before, but this is a question that has niggled at me for some time. If it's answered in detail somewhere else please feel free to point me to the thread, I couldn't find one when I looked.

Swords vs Mail Armor:

By the end of the 12th century knights were armored from head to toe in mail and deployed in sizable numbers. This trend increased into the 13th century. From what I understand, swords are generally viewed to be sub-optimal weapons for going up against men in mail armor. So, if that is the case then:

1) Why did swords evolve to be able to handle combat against armored men? Gus Trim recently wrote a fairly in depth post on facebook about how some Type XII and XIV swords seem to have been designed to be heavier with somewhat less acute edges specifically to be able to hold up in combat against armor from the High Medieval Period. Why bother designing a sword to be able to withstand combat against an opponent it's not going to be terribly effective against.

2) Why didn't knights just switch wholesale to axes, since an axe is handy against unarmored *and* armored opponents? I understand that a sword would still be handy against the un-armored or partially armored opponents one might encounter in warfare during the period, but it seems strange to me to carry a weapon that won't fare especially well against the most dangerous adversary you might have to fight, i.e. knights armored cap-a-pie in mail, when a different weapon will do about as well against unarmored adversaries and much better against armored ones. I understand that swords were side-arms for much of this period, but they seem to have been very common and widely used sidearms and more popular than some of the others that were available. Why?

3a) Why isn't it until the 14th century that anti-armor weapons (including anti-armor swords) come into major play? I understand that axes and maces were in use before this, but they (along with other anti-armor weapons) don't seem to have really reached their zenith of popularity until after the age of mail as state-of-the-art armor gave way to plate. If mail was so effective, why didn't some of this stuff come out earlier.

3b) I hear a lot about how rigid bladed swords were designed to thrust into gaps in armor... but those gaps were frequently protected by mail. If swords could defeat the mail voiders of the 14th and 15th centuries, then why weren't swords designed to defeat the mail hauberks of the 12th and 13th?

One explanation for the continued popularity of swords that seems to come up a lot is that they were status symbols. I think there is some truth to this, but it strikes me as an over-used argument. There is a vast body of evidence that medieval Europeans put a lot of energy into optimizing both sword design and swordfighting systems. I can't really see a military culture that was practical in other respects devoting that much energy to a weapon that was only popular because it was a status symbol.

[Cyrus S.]

G'day Dashiell,

All good questions and I will try to answer them. Someone more experienced with the Oakeshott typology will be able to explain in detail the advancement of sword technology for you.

1. The key thing to note is that the sword was a sidearm, not a primary weapon. In fact, polearms and spears never truly lost their popularity, they can be seen in use from the Bayeux Tapestry to the War of the Roses. They offer excellent reach, are arguably the easiest weapon to pick up and wield, yet a well train spearman can lunge and maneuver, all the while keeping enemies away from him.

You may have noticed up until the end of the 12th century, gloves are rather uncommon. You would think sword-wielding combatants would want to protect their hands, but they didn't need to. The spear was the backbone of medieval armies.


Detail of spears being used defensively from c.1400 - note the spear piercing the man's armpit

2. Axes are slow, so are maces. Spears offer excellent reach against every weapon, and that reach is only lost against a longer polearm. Spears averaged 8-9 feet. It might seem obvious to take an axe and bash em' all around the chops, but against a group of spearmen, you would quickly change your mind. Keep in mind that as weaponry advanced, poleaxes became popular. The weight and blunt force of an axe, with the reach and thrust of a spear. Marvelous.

3. Plate significantly reduces the danger of slashing and piercing from spears and swords, this is why weapons technology had to advance as plate became commonplace. It is also true that a heavy, blunt impact on plate can cause serious damage underneath without getting through the armour, and that was the purpose of such weapons.


Poleaxes - c.1250-60

You are correct, swords were a symbol of knighthood, the cross, of wealth, of power and of other sentiment. But the sword is in fact a very useful all-round weapon. A trained swordsman had considerable reach, and could thrust and swing with speed and nimbleness. It could be used two-handed, one handed, with or without a shield, on the ground or on horseback, and it had no 'specific' purpose. The sword remained as a constant side-arm because it was the ultimate in utilitarian weaponry.

Hope that helps!
Cheers

[Craig Peters]

It's also important to remember that many of the combatants in the 12th century, particularly the infantry, could easily have had little or no armour at all. Thus, a sword would be of advantage against them

In my view the primary/secondary distinction between sword and lances is misleading. The lance is used first, but once your lances have broken, the sword comes out. Is the lance the "primary" weapon? Maybe, if we understand "primary" in the sense of "utilized first". Yet a substantial amount of the fighting, particularly in a battle, would have involved the sword; depending upon how quickly your lances broke, you might actually find yourself fighting the bulk of the battle with the sword! So I think it's more helpful to avoid the distinction of "primary" and "secondary" and simply mention that lances were used first, swords second. Obviously, in the case of infantry, the spear was probably often the first and only weapon in a substantial number of High Medieval conflicts.

Do not forget that you can still kill a 12th century knight armed from head to foot in mail with a sword. Nasal helmets and Phrygian cap helmets were common throughout the century: both leave parts of the face exposed. While it's less clear how well swords would fair against mail itself when hewing, it seems that a well-planted thrust could split through mail. Mail is good armour, but it it is not impervious to swords.

[Juraj S]

Another aspect is that you can eliminate a foe without killing him (once he´s down, you´ll see whether you have the time to finish him off). A broken forearm of the sword arm is almost as good as a cut-off hand, same goes for the legs and I would not bet that my bones could take a sword hew even with mail. Also, even in a great helm, I guess a good sword swing around the head could very well mean a KO. Doubly so, when the longsword appears.

[Timo Nieminen]

[Dashiell Harrison]

[Michael Beeching]

[Cyrus S.]

[Dashiell Harrison]

So if we assume that swords evolved to defeat armor (as Craig quite rightly pointed out, armor was probably evolving in response to spears more than swords) then it seems to me that we can probably conclude that military swords in use in the 12th and 13th century were probably reasonably effective at inflicting serious contusions and fractures through mail since people didn't start seriously investing in swords that could stab through mail until after plate rendered blunt-force trauma with a sword unfeasible. I'm guessing a lot of dudes got smacked in the elbows, shoulders, and knees since that's where we start seeing plate first. Does that sound more or less right to folks?

[Philip Dyer]

[quote="Dashiell Harrison"]So if we assume that swords evolved to defeat armor (as Craig quite rightly pointed out, armor was probably evolving in response to spears more than swords) then it seems to me that we can probably conclude that military swords in use in the 12th and 13th century were probably reasonably effective at inflicting serious contusions and fractures through mail since people didn't start seriously investing in swords that could stab through mail until after plate rendered blunt-force trauma with a sword unfeasible. I'm guessing a lot of dudes got smacked in the elbows, shoulders, and knees since that's where we start seeing plate first. Does that sound more or less right to folks?[/quote
If you wanted to capture your fellow knight, that is where you would hit him, disable the limbs. Another thing I would thing spurred along the developed of stiff pointy sword when it did is that mail become more common for the common soldier and basicnets. Great helmets were often ditched after the lance charge and people would is a coif and skullcap. This leads to the fragile bones of the bottom side of the head only protected by mail, you could try to stab the man in the face or smash his facial bones through the mail. With a basic net, you try just a swing and you swing is nullified by the sides of the basicnet, you have to stab in the face if you want to kill him.

[Mark Moore]

[James Rogers]

Modern ballistic body armor is rated to withstand a single impact from whatever the test round is (grade IV armor is tested against .30-06 AP rounds, for instance) but can't be guaranteed against additional impacts in or near the same location, because the earlier hit(s) will compromise the integrity of the plates.

Could this also be a factor in medieval armor, especially mail? Is it possible that a mail defense might be reliable for withstanding *a* thrust from a pointy sword, but if one kept attacking the same areas, eventually you'd get the point through? That might explain why later pointy sword forms were given reinforced points, prioritizing durability over actual ease of penetration.

[Matthew Amt]

[M. Eversberg II]

[James Rogers]

[Matthew Amt]

[Luka Borscak]

I didn't test mail against swords but I did test it with a 55lb longbow. Dude who shot it has a long draw and probably draws it to about 60lb. The mail was placed over gambeson and over mail there was two layers of linen to act as a surcoat. Inside the gambeson was a cardboard box. Without "surcoat" gambeson and mail would defeat arrows, they would bounce off, but often one ring would be deformed and rivet would fall out from it, but surrounding rings held and arrow would lose enough Energy that it wouldn't have any more strength to penetrate the gambeson. Several arrows resulted in a few rings with their rivets popped out and a bit deformed, but the integrity of the mail was still good. No way anyone could exploit such small defects with a sword point unless by pure luck. With "surcoat" over mail, even less rivets were popped out and rings were only slightly deformed. And all that is on a mail I believe was not riveted properly because tips of wedge rivets were too small to form a proper "mushroom". So repeated thrusts to the mail would have to rely on luck to find that place where maybe on ring got broken or rivet fell out. Unless the thrust was so strong to break the ring and keep the momentum to pass though padding and into the target. That would be extremely hard to do with a sword, especially if one is not halfswording. I think the main reason the sword remained an important weapon in the age of mail is that killing a person was not a priority. Injuring and maiming is as good as killing, or even better if you get a ransom money later. And poor soldiers who didn't have enough money to be ransomed were easier to kill as they had less armour. Also, as long as the kite shield was Popular, it was really hard to thrust to anything other than the face.

[Andrew Huang]

A huge amount of troops on the battlefield didn't wear metal armor. So a huge time the Knight would likely be cutting down opponents with the sword(when on horseback) after his lance broke. Also in civilian life, the sword would be the personal weapon for self defense.

Swords of the 1200s were quite heavy on the blade side. They were perfectly fine with crushing bones through mail and gambeson. So Knight using a sword against mail is perfectly viable. Sword v Axe probably was more of a preference thing.

It was not till plate armor, till anti-armor tips were made. Two handed Longswords rather than be blade heavy, were more pointy not to pierce plate, but to drive the point in the mail gaps like the armpits. The axe was not as common anymore, since like the sword the blows would glance off. For armored opponents, the mace and warhammer was developed to deal with them and that didn't appear widespread till mid-1300-1400s.

[T. Kew]

[Andrew Huang]