[Sam T.]

This may have been discussed before but, are there any swords that were designed to fight armor directly? And if so did they work well? I saw two handed swords with the wavy edges, are those for armor piercing?

[R. D. Simpson]

[Craig Johnson]

Sam

Swords evolved many variations over the time of there use, the type that was most successful against plate armor and often was used in duels and armoured combat was a Tuck style. This could be hilted as a sword of the appropriate period or several variations from giant rondels to spiked guards and pommels. These had blades of varying cross sections but most often where square or triangular and usually symmetrical. Basically these are long spikes.

Best
Craig

[Sam T.]

[Russ Ellis]

[Greg Coffman]

The curves on two handed swords were not there for penetrating plate. No sword was really designed to try to penetrate plate. A tuck would have the most chance, but that is not what it was made to do. There were many sword designs, most longswords during the age of plate, just as effective at defeating plate as the tuck. The advantage of the tuck is that it does not have any sharp edges (I could be wrong here) so you can't possible cut your hand when half-swording. Half-swording or course is the preferred method employed with any sort of longsword as well as the tuck precisely because of its effectiveness in facing plate armored opponents. (This is also the downside of the tuck since it can't cut against unarmored or less armored opponents as a longsword can.)

You seem to be under the impression that plate armor was extremely difficult to defeat. While it did offer the the best protection to date, it was still very vulnerable. A person in plate armor could be overwhelmed or knocked down. I am not saying that plate armor was so heavy that a person could not get back up again, but when the person who knocks you down then puts his foot on your neck or otherwise pins you down, you are certainly at his mercy. Maybe that's still not the end of the world, but it's close. There were always vulnerable spots in the armor that could be exploited. It is not unlikely that a well trained fighter possed the accuracy to thrust to these gaps including eye slits in helmets. Generally, as plate armor evolved to better protect more of these vulnerable spots flexibility and the ability to deal with threats declined. Therefore persons in plate might become even more vulnerable to being overwhelmed or knocked around even if the plate still stood up to the beating.

There were all sorts of weapons designed to defeat plate armor. The longsword evolved to feature a stronger taper. The tuck was an eventual derivative of this longsword. A dagger specially designed to fight heavy armor, the rondel, had been around before plate and would continue to be used. And of course, pikes, halberds, poleaxes, and other polearms were well suited to take on the plate armored opponent. In fact in most situations, battlefield or many duels, the longsword was in fact a sidearm to whatever polearm the fighter is carrying including the basic spear or pike.

Notice that I use the term "defeat" plate armor instead of "pierce" or "penetrate" plate armor. The ability for plate to be pierced or broken by even the weapons best suited to this task is up for debate. However, in comparison to the difficulty of piercing plate, it is relatively easy to defeat a plate clad opponent using the weapons as they were designed to be used and with the techniques taught and practiced by the fighters whose very lives depended on being able defeat anyone on the battlefield.

[Sean Flynt]

Estoc cross sections vary, with the most extreme being square and quite thick. These also were acutely pointed, and I'm not sure they were intended for directly attacking plate. My understanding is that these blades are meant to exploit the small gaps in armour (including sights and between bevor and visor) and, perhaps, break through the mail links protecting some of those areas. To attack plate directly, you'd likely want a more robust, reinforced point like those seen on some axes, halberds and spears. And, yes, halfswording would be very helpful, considering the size of the gaps to be exploited and the force required to drive the point deep enough to break or deform mail rings (the point wouldn't have to be very deep to cause grave injury to groin, armpits, eyes, throat, brain, etc).

See this thread and take special note of the discussion on page 2.
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=7292&start=0

Also, keep an eye on this site's content updates. Maybe something on estocs will turn up!

[Sam T.]

So if the only way to defeat plate is to overwhelm them and try to thrust into the gaps doesn't mean that the men in plate will have a significant advantage over someone in older forms of armor like lamellae? I mean just think about what the kill ratio would be if the guys in lamellae have to go through all that to kill their enemy.

[Sean Flynt]

It's not that thrusting through the gaps is the only way to disable an armoured opponent. It's one of many ways to do so, and probably the best way as far as swords are concerned. Daggers can be used the same way. Personally, I'd want a poleaxe or halberd against an armoured opponent (or lance, if mounted). A mace can disable and kill an armoured opponent. There are lots of ways to damage the body without breaching the plate, but some weapons can do that, too. Firearms, lance, etc.

[Russ Ellis]

[Szabolcs Waldmann]

Hi,

All your questions seem to be very mechanical. As if hitting harder would solve a fight. Well, as far as our research goes, what really counts in a duell or battle, first and foremost is fighting spirit, guts, endurance and speed. Recovery speed, to be precise. If you read Lichtenauer (1389) and you try to imagine a fight fought the way he taught, it is very fast, and decisive within seconds.

The armour is not there, to alone protect the man inside. That's why you have your weapon and your martial art! Of course, armoured men can be defeated in a number of ways, including smashing them to tin balls or piercing only one time through the right gap right to the heart, BUT before it comes to defeating the armour, you have to defeat the man and his weapon first.

If we are talking about duels, like juridical duels or knightly tournaments, when done in armour, one wears apropriate armour and the weapons used are duelling weapons, often two matching. Every dueling type has different requirements. If we are talking about a battle, the whole setting if different, yet before we discuss a weapon's penetrating abilities, we should discuss the psychology of armour, or warfare in general. Like, how men react when charged by a warhorse-line with knights in plate armour. Or how somebody reacts, when facing a helmet, for example, a problem which should not be underestimated. The face shows many things, in fact, it is one of our basic communication chanels. If you do not see the face of your enemy, your will find yourself facing strange feelings, like fear.

It is not right to overestimate the plate armour, yet the opposite could prove fatal as well.

But, to answer your questions directly, a sword cannot 'cut' through plate. It could, in a small degree, pierce a thinner plate, yet it would definetelly not cause a mortal wound. While halfswording, regardless if done with a tuck or a longsword or whatever kind of weapon one uses against an armoured opponent, the goal is to thrust inside the gaps. Not all thrusts are aimed, some go wide or glance away from the plate, and no single thrust would stop an armoured fighter.

Armoured fights are an ART. Yet, they are sure as sure brutal.

And no, not all men-at-arms had plate. Or no full plate. And definetelly not, if they fought on foot, in which case many abandoned their leg protection for better mobility.

Thanks for reading

Szab

[Mikko Kuusirati]

[Max von Bargen]

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Max von Bargen]

[Lafayette C Curtis]

Well, the medieval use of "men-at-arms" would have included such men as well as knights, as long as they had the right balance of equipment, skill and mentality to serve as heavy cavalry and heavy infantry--although even this is a huge generalization. Some German men-at-arms seemed to have been reluctant to dismount, while some others (the French and Englishmen in the HYW come to mind, but it is by no means restricted to them) seemed to have "gone light" and conducted raids and chevauchees as light cavalrymen by taking off some of their armor and riding unbarded horses to gain speed at the expense of tactical shock power.

[Russ Ellis]

[Sam T.]

[quote="Mikko Kuusirati"]

[Max von Bargen]

[Sam T.]