| Author |
Message |
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
 Posted: Wed 09 Jul, 2008 12:26 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: | That line of thinking is a double edged sword, however, no pun intended.
It is because we don't grow up around these weapons in use that we don't really know what to expect from them. People today expect swords to perform in unrealistic ways, and ways that the type in question was not designed to perform. Who knows why and how a particular sword was used in a particular period? |
The point I was trying to make is that we can't dismiss something just because we don't understand it.  Those who used that blade style knew why they used it and we can't assume we know more than they do. Their practical knowledge supersedes our own in these matters. It's that simple. It's left to us to figure out how something was used, using period art and text, scholarly works, and sometimes good common sense. And we don't have all the answers. That's why these debates are entertaining.
You think they wouldn't have been useful so you can't imagine why we see them. Someone back them obviously had some use for them. Since we have less knowledge of why than they did, we have to employ some educated guesswork to figure out what that use was. If we can't figure it out, we have to chalk it up to our lack of knowledge compared to theirs. And that's tough for us modern humans to do: admit we can't figure out something that someone figured out centuries before.
A Type XIII blade would be less effective against boars than you might think. The lack of an acute point and the flex some of these have would make them bad for thrusting. All the specialized boar weapons we see are thrusting weapons (spears and swords). And they typically have a crosswise lug to prevent the boar from lurching up the weapon at the weilder. Many bladed weapons for the hunt seem designed to keep the quary as far away as possible, typically at the end of an acutely-pointed thing. Hunting swords, trousses, etc. seemed to be better suited for dispatching a more docile wounded animal (like a deer).
| Quote: | Maybe some mercenary captain said "Hey, see those XIII's in that church basement? I bet they'd be real good at bringing down horses..let's get a bunch of 'em together and rehilt 'em!"
|
A mercenary captain (or anyone else of that time for that matter) wouldn't have known what a XIII was, as that classification system postdates the era in question by hundreds of years. But I get your point. 
Were they execution swords? I'm not so sure as we have purpose-built execution swords that look different.
My guess is this:
1) At worst they were at least thought to have some level of effectiveness. That's why they were resurrected. Perhaps a small number were made and found to be useless and ended up in museums.
2) At best, they had some effectiveness or use in some people's minds and were used.
We do know they didn't totally supplant newer types and almost certainly remained a minority. Beyond that, we're guessing.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
    |
 |
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Wed 09 Jul, 2008 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
More information on the Bohemian sword posted above. In Records of the Medieval Sword, Oakeshott calls it:
| Quote: | | ...a very good example of the revival of XIIIa's at the very end of the 15th century. |
All the rest of the XIIIa's published in that book fall into the typical date range for the type.
Oakeshott's Sword in Hand says this of Type XIII's in the chapter "The 'Grant espee d'Allemagne'":
| Quote: | | Though there is no doubt that these "Grete Swerdes" were very widely used during this particular period of c. 1250-1360, the type seems to have become popular again late in the 15th century; and we now have sufficient good evidence to show that it was used (how widely we do not yet know) as early as the beginning of the 12th century. |
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Wed 09 Jul, 2008 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You know what this reminds me of? Gun enthusiasts will often discuss what sort of pistol calibers they would carry, and they debate the high magazine capacity of the 9mm vs the stopping power of the .45, etc. They can go on and on with specialized knowledge, most of them never having shot anyone in their lives (I'm a 9mm man myself ).
Meanwhile, the street thug who dropped out of school in kindergarten and is 90% brain dead and 10% stupid just shot and killed a rival gang member with a .32, a gun the enthusiasts would scoff at as being ineffective and lacking stopping power.
The point is, we're acting like ivory tower warriors...a XIII may not have been optimal, but it's still a sword and could do the job. I just doubt that a well educated and experienced professional would have chosen one as a battlefied sidearm.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Wed 09 Jul, 2008 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: | | a XIII may not have been optimal, but it's still a sword and could do the job. |
That was my whole point. For some people, it was effective enough to be resurrected.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Wed 09 Jul, 2008 1:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chad Arnow wrote: | | Michael Edelson wrote: | | a XIII may not have been optimal, but it's still a sword and could do the job. |
That was my whole point. For some people, it was effective enough to be resurrected. |
So I guess you win.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Wed 09 Jul, 2008 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: | | So I guess you win. |
There's really no win or lose. It's just trying to see each other's points. I guess I could have been more clear from the start.
Like you said, I would think that any experienced professional warrior would want (and could afford) the latest and greatest, which most wouldn't think would be a Type XIIIa in the late 15th century. However, the fancy writhen hilt of the one I posted above implies some wealth. Of course, wealth doesn't always mean smart or experienced, but often your upper crust were your warriors.
Fun to speculate about.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Wed 09 Jul, 2008 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chad Arnow wrote: |
Fun to speculate about. |
Indeed. What's always fascinated me are the reasons why swords changed as they did. We can speculate, and sometimes it seems obvious, but I've found that there can be subtle reasons why a design was the way it was, and unless you understand that, it can be easy to compeltely misunderstand its method of use and purpose. An interesting aspect of that question was how much of a sword's design was based on functionality and how much was based on aesthetics.
For example, the XV. Did it really have to be so evenly tapered? An XVIII point can be made to slide between links of mail also. But then again, maybe we're missing something.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Wed 09 Jul, 2008 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: | | Chad Arnow wrote: |
Fun to speculate about. |
For example, the XV. Did it really have to be so evenly tapered? An XVIII point can be made to slide between links of mail also. But then again, maybe we're missing something. |
Aesthetics and fashion count for a lot as one can say that a type XV and a type XVIII can do the same job with only some subtle differences in capability like the type XVIII can be a slightly better cutter without losing much if any of it's thrusting ability.
Many " OLD/WORN DOWN " type XV and XVIII end up very hard to know which they were when new, and depending on sub-type the overlap can be greater or smaller.
As to pure aesthetics considerations versus design differences one could pair down sword types to a handful to cover most possible uses: Some swords trying for a balance between the cut or thrust i.e. finding the " ideal " do it all sword, or specialized sword trying to do either the cut or the thrust as well as possible at the expense of being almost useless in the other. ( Even some swords of extreme design will try to keep a minimal cut or thrust capability ).
I know that I can look at a whole bunch of daggers that functionally would have very little to make one better or worse as a fighting tool but that aesthetically I will prefer some due to very subtle blade shape differences or like them all but perceive each as very different. ( And I mean the very slightest differences makes even two of the same design and pattern different for me ! Two handmade daggers made to the same pattern by the same maker even: Presented with 5 almost identical ones I usually find one that I like best. Oh, this would exclude machine made knives of the same model if the quality control is near perfection ).
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Glen A Cleeton
|
| Posted: Wed 09 Jul, 2008 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If one looks at the XVth century in isolation, there may seem little reason for more spatulate tipped, broad flat blades to have existed beyond that point but I look at it more like a bell curve, alongside the trend of full plate harness. While we know plate wasn't simply discarded in the XVIth century and beyond (even mail saw some later use), we also see cutting blades coming back to military use (not just the examples shared thus far but baskethilts and claymores(sic) zweihanders, on and on). One needs to also take in account other swords beside the XVas being dominant in the XVth century. Heck, even the broader and longer XVIIIas are not really so far removed from a XIIIa in impact crossection. They may have more of a profile, be a little stiffer and have more of a point but broad cutters, nontheless. From what I have viewed of dated period swords, the XIVth and XVth centuries seem to have seen use of a broad range of Oakeshott's typology. The latter XVIth century and beyond see a definite trend of considering cuts useful in regard to the virtue of a military sword.
The compromises of cut vs thrust, combined with mobility and tactic continued right up into the use of 20th century military swords.
Maybe what prompts me to post is an article I recently reread concerning reminices of the Crimean war. troopers complaining they could not pierce the heavy wool coats of their adversaries because the sabres would flex. At the same time surgeon reports of heads cleft from/through headress to chin. These near half the width of sabres a half century before and certainly no thicker at the business end.
Cheers
GC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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