| Author |
Message |
|
Jared M. Olson
|
 Posted: Fri 31 Mar, 2006 4:09 pm Post subject: Two Questions: Single or Double? Archers and Swords? |
 |
|
Hello all. I have a few questions about swords, and I was hoping you might have some answers. It seems that most of the swords made in Europe were double-edged, whether used with one or two hands. There are, though, particular swords from Europe and to the east that have only a single edged blade (e.g. sabres, falchions, katanas, etc.) What are the advantages and disadvantages of each particular design, whether fighting opponents with no, light, and heavy armor?
A second question is this: I have a love for medieval warfare, and I particularly like archery. Problem is, archers are very vulnerable in melee attack. The Huns, Mongols and Parthians (to name a few) seem to help this some by mounting their archers on horses. Are there any other historical ways of protecting an archer? If they carried swords, what type would it be? And if I'm on horseback, would I need armor or a sword?
Thanks so much.
|
|
  |
 |
|
Joe Fults
|
| Posted: Fri 31 Mar, 2006 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here is one idea from the Frazier Museum in Louisville, Ky.
 Attachment: 102.3 KB
"The goal shouldn’t be to avoid being evil; it should be to actively do good." - Danah Boyd
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Fri 31 Mar, 2006 7:24 pm Post subject: Re: Two Questions: Single or Double? Archers and Swords? |
|
|
| Jared M. Olson wrote: |
A second question is this: I have a love for medieval warfare, and I particularly like archery. Problem is, archers are very vulnerable in melee attack. The Huns, Mongols and Parthians (to name a few) seem to help this some by mounting their archers on horses. Are there any other historical ways of protecting an archer? If they carried swords, what type would it be? And if I'm on horseback, would I need armor or a sword?
Thanks so much. |
Jared,
English longbowmen of the 14th-15th century sometimes traveled mounted, but always fought afoot. They would drive large stakes into the ground in front of them that rose at an angle to horse breast height. They used swords, clubs, hammers, mauls, knives, etc. if they had to abandon their bows and enter the fray (as they had to on several notable occasions). English formations in battle also helped protect archers. The archers stood at the flanks of columns of dismounted men at arms, funneling the attacking army toward the waiting men at arms. In one case, they stood in a marshy area unpassable by horses.
Crossbowmen often used the large shield known as a pavise which they could stand up on its own. They reloaded behind its cover.
Archers of that era were often lightly armoured with a simple steel skullcap, and perhaps a gambeson or maybe a brigandine if they'd looted well and/or captured a good prisoner. Their swords would be fairly simple affairs: plain but serviceable. Some seem to think that the falchion enjoyed great popularity among archers and foot soldiers.
Of course these are somewhat overly simplistic generalizations.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
  |
|
|
Wolfgang Armbruster
|
| Posted: Sat 01 Apr, 2006 3:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Hello all. I have a few questions about swords, and I was hoping you might have some answers. It seems that most of the swords made in Europe were double-edged, whether used with one or two hands. There are, though, particular swords from Europe and to the east that have only a single edged blade (e.g. sabres, falchions, katanas, etc.) What are the advantages and disadvantages of each particular design, whether fighting opponents with no, light, and heavy armor?
|
If you look at the old fencing manuals, both the German and Italian ones show a lot of strikes with the back-edge. Some of these strikes are downward-cuts with the back-edge for which you have to cross your arms (Krumphau etc.). That would't make a lot of sense with a single-edged sword. Therefore a lot of single-edged Euro-swords had a clipped point.
It's really quite a complicated matter since the double-edged swords in Europe changed quite a bit in their design, especially in the 15th century. Fencing in and out of armour is a big difference as well.
As a general rule you could say that thrusting with a straight and pointy blade is easier than with a curved single-edge blade. However there other factors one has to look at like blade-stiffness, the cross-section, blade profile etc.
In the the end it really depends on the swordsman, not if he's wielding a single- or double-edged sword.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Felix Wang
|
| Posted: Mon 03 Apr, 2006 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Single edged blades, straight or curved, have different blade cross-sectional geometry from double-edged blades. They can be made stiffer, and with more substance supporting the single cutting edge. In the 18th century, straight backswords were as popular as double-edged broadswords, and served pretty much the same role. As mentioned, a double-edged blade can be used for false-edge cuts; it is also helpful to have a spare cutting edge if the primary one is dulled or notched.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Felix Wang
|
| Posted: Mon 03 Apr, 2006 10:58 am Post subject: Re: Two Questions: Single or Double? Archers and Swords? |
|
|
| Jared M. Olson wrote: | Hello all. I have a few questions about swords, and I was hoping you might have some answers. It seems that most of the swords made in Europe were double-edged, whether used with one or two hands. There are, though, particular swords from Europe and to the east that have only a single edged blade (e.g. sabres, falchions, katanas, etc.) What are the advantages and disadvantages of each particular design, whether fighting opponents with no, light, and heavy armor?
A second question is this: I have a love for medieval warfare, and I particularly like archery. Problem is, archers are very vulnerable in melee attack. The Huns, Mongols and Parthians (to name a few) seem to help this some by mounting their archers on horses. Are there any other historical ways of protecting an archer? If they carried swords, what type would it be? And if I'm on horseback, would I need armor or a sword?
Thanks so much. |
Archers were vulnerable to shock combat. A very mobile archer is harder to catch, and the less armour, the less weight to carry around. However, if light archers were somehow trapped, they were in a lot of trouble. If you armour a horse archer, you slow him down and make him easier to catch, but harder to kill. You take your pick. Archers usually carried some sort of secondary weapon, often a sword, or sword and buckler. There are pictures showing dismounted archers in plate, but the written record suggests that these were rare.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Mon 03 Apr, 2006 2:51 pm Post subject: Re: Two Questions: Single or Double? Archers and Swords? |
|
|
| Felix Wang wrote: | | Archers were vulnerable to shock combat. A very mobile archer is harder to catch, and the less armour, the less weight to carry around. However, if light archers were somehow trapped, they were in a lot of trouble. If you armour a horse archer, you slow him down and make him easier to catch, but harder to kill. You take your pick. Archers usually carried some sort of secondary weapon, often a sword, or sword and buckler. There are pictures showing dismounted archers in plate, but the written record suggests that these were rare. |
May not be historically correct but could an archer also carry a spear, Bill, or a Pollaxe and just stick it in the ground next to himself, using a butt spike, while shooting from a fixed position: When pressed or out of arrows a Pollarm would give an archer a more effective weapon.
Such a Pollarm might not be carried all the time but be available when the tactical situation warranted: could be available for issue in the baggage train close to the arrow supply.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Eging
|
| Posted: Tue 04 Apr, 2006 5:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Also, the early medieval Byzantines mounted archers on horseback. In fact, a requirement for recruitment in these units was the ability to shoot a bow while mounted. As Chad mentioned, formation deployment in medieval Europe was also used to take advantage of the ranged weapon and provide a cover in close melee.
M. Eging
Hamilton, VA
www.silverhornechoes.com
Member of the HEMA Alliance
http://hemaalliance.com/
|
|
|
|
|
James Barker
Location: Ashburn VA Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 365
|
| Posted: Tue 04 Apr, 2006 10:21 am Post subject: Re: Two Questions: Single or Double? Archers and Swords? |
|
|
| Jared M. Olson wrote: | | A second question is this: I have a love for medieval warfare, and I particularly like archery. Problem is, archers are very vulnerable in melee attack. The Huns, Mongols and Parthians (to name a few) seem to help this some by mounting their archers on horses. Are there any other historical ways of protecting an archer? If they carried swords, what type would it be? And if I'm on horseback, would I need armor or a sword? |
In what time frame are we talking? What area?
I play a non mounted English archer from the 3rd quarter of the 15th century. I portray a member of a household retinue not a levied soldier. From what we can tell with muster rolls, period text, and art the typical archer had a sallet and jack, some had bills, most had a dagger and or short sword or falchion. Some items they owned some they were issued, but I don't know of anyone issuing swords to an archer.
Here is my kit:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Douglas Meek
|
| Posted: Tue 04 Apr, 2006 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
so how would a crossbow man be outfitted in 1100-1200 ad? I have been looking at paintings mostly maciejawski bible stuff and it seems they had chain maile and some odd looking hook thing to help draw the cross bow. If i wanted to portray a german crossbow man from the 13th century i would have....?
thanks
|
|
 |
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Tue 04 Apr, 2006 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | May not be historically correct but could an archer also carry a spear, Bill, or a Pollaxe and just stick it in the ground next to himself, using a butt spike, while shooting from a fixed position: When pressed or out of arrows a Pollarm would give an archer a more effective weapon. |
I'm not sure exactly what they did with them while shooting, but English archers certainly had polearms. A 16th century manual suggested a five foot hammer with six inch top spike. Sources on Agincourt also mentioned archers using various polearms. As I see it, the willingness of English archers to enter the melee was one of the main reason they were so effective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic