Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Longswords in the hands of common soldiers? Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next 
Author Message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Wed 26 Jan, 2011 1:16 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Thom R. wrote:
When you read these rolls, you realize that most of the men-at-arms had swords,


They all did--it was part of the qualification for being one!


Quote:
about half of the hobelars had swords(hobelars relied primarily on the lance and the horseman's axe seems to have been a common alternative to the sword), maybe some of the archers had swords but very few of the foot soldiers had swords - they relied on polearms.


We should note, however, that this was in Ireland--a depressingly poor backwater by 14th-century standards. On the Continent we could have expected most proper soldiers to have had swords or at least long daggers in addition to whatever other weapon they carried (bow, crossbow, polearm, etc.), though these swords would predominantly have been one-handed types rather than the longswords that were the original focus of the discussion.
View user's profile Send private message
Christian G. Cameron




Location: Toronto, Canada
Joined: 07 Dec 2009
Likes: 13 pages
Reading list: 4 books

Posts: 193

PostPosted: Wed 26 Jan, 2011 4:21 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Warning--wild speculation.

Wrestling--at one end of the MA spectrum--and fighting in armour--at the other end--are both part of Fiore. And both part of a Chivalric upbringing. The more time I spend on Fiore (both academically and WMA wise) the more "connected" it all seems. I'm very interested in how knights and "chivalric professionals" trained, and I'm very interested , now, in longsword usage vs shorter sword usage.

seems to me--At some, almost comic book level of simplicity, the longsword is a prybar for forcing close combat--for allowing the man better trained in abressare to dictate the fight. That's what i see, and more and more, it seems to me that the longsword is not intended as a fight ender when in armour, but merely as a means to a joint lock, arm break, shoulder dislocation... perhaps ending in a pommel to the face or a point in the face, but not necessarily.

If that's accurate, then the long sword is really a tool of chivalric professional combat. To carry one would require serious training and upkeep--rather like the SMG in modern spec ops training. Sure, anyone can have an SMG, but really, only the elite can USE one. Hence most footsloggers carry assault rifles--robust, good at all ranges, not needing the training an SMG requires.

??? It's speculation.

That said, the longsword is also--compared to a side sword or any shorter weapon--damn clumsy to carry, clumsy to draw, more limited in use (imagine fighting with one in a medieval house? In a tavern?) more obvious that you are wearing it, and much, much more expensive.

BUT a trained man with one would be--devastating, even against several men with single swords. Or rapiers. Is the rapier really the saturday night special of the early renaissance?

Heh, I'm just speculating, and should do some work. Interesting topic, though.

Christian G. Cameron

Qui plus fait, miex vault

www.hippeis.com
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Thom R.




Location: Tucson
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Reading list: 30 books

Posts: 630

PostPosted: Wed 26 Jan, 2011 8:31 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Lafayette C Curtis wrote:
Thom R. wrote:
When you read these rolls, you realize that most of the men-at-arms had swords,


They all did--it was part of the qualification for being one!

.


Uh, no. please re-read what I said in my post. In the expedition docs for 1353, Man at Arms for the English army was defined by two things - [1] possessing a heavy/large horse with some barding /horse armour and [2] having personal armour (mail and COP) to protect your own body. Weapons (and shields) are not mentioned as being a qualifier. I am not saying that they didn't have swords, I am sure most or all probably did - my point is that within period, their definition of Man at Arms in that case did not necessarily involve having a sword. cheers, tr
View user's profile Send private message
David Teague




Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Joined: 25 Jan 2004

Posts: 409

PostPosted: Wed 26 Jan, 2011 9:55 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hi Christian G,

I don't agree with you on the longsword as when used in 2 hands the weak side shoulder shortens the arc of your sword.

In period, while you may be a longsword packing knight, the common armed man would be packing an arming sword and buckler.

If he is well trained it it's use, he has a effective set of 2 weapons and with the uncoupled sword can come close to the same sword arc as your longer coupled blade. He should have all the same locks and throws at his disposal as you and he can do all sorts of binds. locks and smashing attacks with his buckler...

if he brings 4 of his well trained friends you are in trouble... even if you're in harness IMO.

The longsword was designed to be a fight ender, but a fight ender when used on unarmored foes. When harnesses are involved with only longswords, then you are correct in the fact that you don't use the longsword as a longsword, you use it as a poleaxe, dagger, spear, and prybar (as you have 3 types of levers with the longsword).

Hello Thom R.

I think if you poke around you'll find a English royal decree that spells out the weapons and equipment for each level of society when call to serve in the King or Queen's name. The law in question dates back to the Saxon Fyd and was adjusted as arms and equipment changed by a number of the Royals of England. A sword was always listed as a needed item as you got higher up the list.

Robert the Bruce issued out a similar edict in Scotland.

Cheers,

David

This you shall know, that all things have length and measure.

Free Scholar/ Instructor Selohaar Fechtschule
The Historic Recrudescence Guild

"Yea though I walk through the valley of death, I will fear no evil: for Thou's sword art is with me; Thy poleaxe and Thy quarterstaff they comfort me."
View user's profile Send private message
Douglas S





Joined: 18 Feb 2004

Posts: 177

PostPosted: Wed 26 Jan, 2011 11:16 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

David Teague wrote:
Douglas S wrote:
David Teague wrote:
Douglas S wrote:
So, similar to the handgun, those who are in charge of maintaining some sort of order might be compelled to keep others from getting easy access to any weapon that would allow rebellion.

Is that really far off the mark?


Yes, horribly off the mark.

I don't want to come off snarky but I must ask, do you have any real concept of the medieval feudal system beyond Hollywood and Victorian literature?

Cheers,

David


Yes, but if you have some texts that would fill in my knowledge, this would be the place to share.


OK,

Try reading "Daily Life in Medieval Times" by Frances Gies. Book link

This is all three of his Life in Medieval Times works under one cover (LIFE IN A MEDIEVAL CASTLE, LIFE IN A MEDIEVAL CITY and LIFE IN A MEDIEVAL VILLAGE). This book alone with help enlighten one on how the feudal system worked for all three of the Estates of the realm and how they relied on each other.

1066: The Year of the Conquest by David Howarth will give you insight on how the "English" raised their troops and how those very laws stayed in effect in to the WotR.

Those would be a nice start to a basic understanding.

Cheers,

David


Thanks, I read those about 20 years ago. Bye.
View user's profile Send private message
Thom R.




Location: Tucson
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Reading list: 30 books

Posts: 630

PostPosted: Wed 26 Jan, 2011 11:55 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hi David, hope you are staying warm and keeping all four wheels on the road Big Grin It seems clear that by the 100 years war / Edward III, that weapons availability wasn't so much of an issue in England as horses and armour. I just think we often forget that the knight or Man at Arms primary weapon at that time was his horse(s). And that armour also was expensive to buy and maintain. ditto good warhorses which needed to be trained, and you needed groomers to care for them. The sword was certainly a symbol of status, and a required tool, but armour and horses were probably the two most expensive things for a knight or Man at Arms to acquire and maintain and bring on campaign. That is all I am saying. tr
View user's profile Send private message
Christian G. Cameron




Location: Toronto, Canada
Joined: 07 Dec 2009
Likes: 13 pages
Reading list: 4 books

Posts: 193

PostPosted: Wed 26 Jan, 2011 12:15 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

At David--don't disagree with a word of that, so perhaps I expressed myself badly. And I get to eat crow anyway, as this AM, just after answering, Cole Cioran sent me some late 14th c. Italian art that seems to show every soldier at the crucifiction with a longsword...

sigh.

Christian G. Cameron

Qui plus fait, miex vault

www.hippeis.com
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,121

PostPosted: Wed 26 Jan, 2011 2:58 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I think what we can safely say was that men-at-arms needed money to maintain their arms, armour, horse and other equipment. The main difference between men-at-arms and armed men in the 14th and 15th centuries is the mounted to unmounted.

As for how common weapons were. From the accounts I have seen from commoners (although usually well off commoners) the lovely isle of England was awash with arms and armour. Swords range in price from in the pence catagory to pounds so anyone could afford one if they had the desire to as a day labourer in England made some 3-4 pence a day eariler on in the 13th and 14th.

Another thing is forced knighthoods which is really in vogue during the 14th, though of dubious effect. Edward I loved to force knighthood on peoples with money. In the 14th century it was 20-40 pounds a year usually, whether in landed rents or income. What this shows is that commoners with money were not only able to become knights but since many refused and dodged knighthood made up a decent part of the men-at-arms classification. In royal records demanding men, men-at-arms are often required of counties (possibly knights) and cities and towns (more often than no in England not knights). I have records of loads of commoners serving as men-at-arms. Were they wealthy, you bet, in their time very wealthy. Most of them likely better off than many knights. The houses of some of the Southamptonians from the late medieval period were massive, taking up multiple blocks modern city blocks. These guys had money, status and wealth and many had little interest in leaving their class because the additional requirements demanded of them once they were knighted. Of course some did, some did very well from this move.

RPM
View user's profile Send private message
David Teague




Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Joined: 25 Jan 2004

Posts: 409

PostPosted: Wed 26 Jan, 2011 3:31 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Douglas S wrote:
[Thanks, I read those about 20 years ago. Bye.


The you might want to reread them as they do give a nice lay persons explanation of how the three of the Estates of the realm functioned and how like just the citizen soldier of the 18th century Americas, the English man of arms bearing age was expected to own and maintain arms and protective gear consummate to their station in society (even if it was a iron cap, padded cloth coat, 24 arrows, bow and a dagger for the poor of the late 14th century).

It was from his own tenants that the 10-14th century English noble would draw his troops at times of war or raiding and they had to have their own basic equipment.

Things really start to change with the 15th century with the cost of warfare and the rise of the free companies.

Bye.

This you shall know, that all things have length and measure.

Free Scholar/ Instructor Selohaar Fechtschule
The Historic Recrudescence Guild

"Yea though I walk through the valley of death, I will fear no evil: for Thou's sword art is with me; Thy poleaxe and Thy quarterstaff they comfort me."
View user's profile Send private message
Mikael Ranelius




Location: Sweden
Joined: 06 Mar 2007

Posts: 252

PostPosted: Sun 30 Jan, 2011 4:58 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

There are references to longswords being used by peasant soldiers in 15th century Sweden. At the battle of Brunkeberg (1471) the Swedish commander Sten Sture is said to have been shielded by a peasant soldier going by the name of "Strong Björn" who wielded a longsword.
View user's profile Send private message
Thom R.




Location: Tucson
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Reading list: 30 books

Posts: 630

PostPosted: Sun 30 Jan, 2011 9:15 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I think Randall and I are saying thre same thing.... of course that is in great part to paying attention here and at AA to Randall's excellent posts about all of the in-period documents he has researched Big Grin

Although available to a soldier in the 15th century I think that it still would be rather rare for a foot soldier to rely primarily on a long sword because when on foot, you were part of a company that had to fight together and you had to work and fight as a team with your comrades. I don't know that there would be a lot of value in having a longsword when your mates mostly had polearms and sword/buckler (or bow). if you were not mounted, and were fighting on the line where polearms predominated, i don't know how much value there would be to carrying a longsword. a shorter single hand sword or axe with a buckler would probably be a better backup to a polearm.
View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Wed 02 Feb, 2011 11:26 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Thom R. wrote:
Lafayette C Curtis wrote:
Thom R. wrote:
When you read these rolls, you realize that most of the men-at-arms had swords,


They all did--it was part of the qualification for being one!

.


Uh, no. please re-read what I said in my post. In the expedition docs for 1353, Man at Arms for the English army was defined by two things - [1] possessing a heavy/large horse with some barding /horse armour and [2] having personal armour (mail and COP) to protect your own body. Weapons (and shields) are not mentioned as being a qualifier. I am not saying that they didn't have swords, I am sure most or all probably did - my point is that within period, their definition of Man at Arms in that case did not necessarily involve having a sword. cheers, tr


Probably because the expectation that a man-at-arms would have a sword was so deeply entrenched in the military culture that it didn't need to be spelled out. On the other hand, I recall that medieval muster rolls, military edicts, and the like often used the format of "like the preceding category, but also with this and that," so now I'm wondering if the Irish expedition document had something like that, which would have obviated the need to explicitly mention the sword for the man-at-arms if it had been mentioned as part of the equipment for some lighter sort of horseman (presumably one without a covered horse). In any case, although it's not explicitly mentioned in the document, I'm pretty sure any commander would not have seriously believed anyone who claimed to be a man-at-arms but did not possess a sword (which would have been one of the cheapest items in his fighting equipment anyway).
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,121

PostPosted: Thu 03 Feb, 2011 6:23 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Thom,

You are right. The later the period my guess is by in large most soldiers are using something else as their primary weapon. Even men-at-arms would likely have a lance or pole axe early on. I think the change is more, what happens later in the battle when men are switching from bows and longer pole weapons to shorter hand weapons.

RPM
View user's profile Send private message
Zach Gordon




Location: Vermont. USA
Joined: 07 Oct 2008

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 252

PostPosted: Thu 03 Feb, 2011 11:15 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

The analogy for swords in the medieval period that I have heard is that a sword to medieval man is what an M16 is to a normal person today.

It sounds a bit far-fetched at first but as you think about it... it starts to make more sense. In war soldiers use M16s, but how many M16s do you see on a daily basis around town? If you live in an area in which everyone is carrying an M16 like everyone carries a sword in hollywood movies, it's a pretty unsafe area. In most places it would be socially unacceptable to walk up with an M16 hanging off your shoulder. That doesn't mean they don't exist or that people don't use them in war.

What do you say, good analogy?
View user's profile Send private message
David Teague




Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Joined: 25 Jan 2004

Posts: 409

PostPosted: Fri 04 Feb, 2011 12:05 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Zach Gordon wrote:
The analogy for swords in the medieval period that I have heard is that a sword to medieval man is what an M16 is to a normal person today.

It sounds a bit far-fetched at first but as you think about it... it starts to make more sense. In war soldiers use M16s, but how many M16s do you see on a daily basis around town? If you live in an area in which everyone is carrying an M16 like everyone carries a sword in hollywood movies, it's a pretty unsafe area. In most places it would be socially unacceptable to walk up with an M16 hanging off your shoulder. That doesn't mean they don't exist or that people don't use them in war.

What do you say, good analogy?


No, the soldiers main weapon was his "M-16", be it polearm, longbow, crossbow or hand gonne.

The sword was his "M-9", his secondary weapon to use if his first was lost, broken, or the battle changed so his main weapon was no longer the correct choice (think archers that are over run,)

Medieval man did not stroll around with swords strapped on their hips... unless formally under arms.

Cheers,

David

This you shall know, that all things have length and measure.

Free Scholar/ Instructor Selohaar Fechtschule
The Historic Recrudescence Guild

"Yea though I walk through the valley of death, I will fear no evil: for Thou's sword art is with me; Thy poleaxe and Thy quarterstaff they comfort me."
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,121

PostPosted: Fri 04 Feb, 2011 6:32 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Besides the fact that many people could and would walk around with arms during the period. It seems the law against others bearing arms around was only imposed in England when the bearer used them or was a rival to those in power.

For example, a gent in London gets arrested for wearing a brig and sallet as well as having a pole axe, sword and buckler but he is only done so because he was interfering with a local election. He was not arrested near his home so clearly until he rocked the boat people were unfazed.

We have hundreds of years of civic fine books but few of them are for simple possession of arms in public. It is more of an additional law to increase the punishment possible and keep the gov.s rivals in theory limited. As to real use very little. Towns like London, York and Norwich seem to have men about with some form of weapons fairly commonly, It seems worse in Scotland and a handful of other countries as well... so the M-16 analogy while interesting is just not supported by actual law enforcement universally. My guess in decentralized German and to a lesser effect France you'd see it depending on the Local and regional lords level of interest.

It was not all that long ago in the western cultures that bearing of some form of personal arms would have been socially accepted. Just now perception has changed. We should be wary to impose that ideal on the medieval period.

RPM
View user's profile Send private message
Robert Hinds




Location: Whitewater, Wisconsin USA
Joined: 15 Sep 2010
Likes: 4 pages

Posts: 249

PostPosted: Fri 04 Feb, 2011 9:19 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Just like to add that an Italian visiting england noted that everyone went around with a sword and buckler and that farmers would lay their weapons at the edge of the field when they were plowing. For the life of me I can't remember where I saw that but I'll try and find it. Think it might have been on the ARMA site.
"Young knight, learn to love God and revere women; thus your honor will grow. Practice knighthood and learn the Art that dignifies you, and brings you honor in wars." -Johannes Liechtenauer

"...And he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one..." Luke 22:36
View user's profile Send private message
David Teague




Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Joined: 25 Jan 2004

Posts: 409

PostPosted: Fri 04 Feb, 2011 10:03 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Randall Moffett wrote:
Besides the fact that many people could and would walk around with arms during the period. It seems the law against others bearing arms around was only imposed in England when the bearer used them or was a rival to those in power.


Hello Randall,

Reasons I hate these little posts. Worried Each part of medieval Europe differs on this issue and I'm writing from a Scottish/English viewpoint of the 14th century.

I'm not saying that in the 13th-15th century that folks never carried weapons. It's the middle ages and everybody had a knife of some sort on their person and in many counties, the age bearing men were required to have arms equal to their station stored at home for civil defense so... bows, arrows, spears, pikes, poleaxes, swords & bucklers are not unexpected and quite common.

What I'm taking about is the American concept of medieval Europe that had the "brute squad" swaggering about town wearing swords along with all nobles (in their armour, even when making love!) and criminals 24/7 while the peasants dressed in poorly made rag like clothing (only in dull browns colors) were brutalized by all. WTF?! WTF?! WTF?!

That's the mis-belief I'm combating. Surprised

Using modern examples, lets talk about Alaska: I live in a land where age bearing men (and women) have the right to bear modern arms(avoiding the "F" or "G" words here) both openly and concealed.

We are a lot like medieval England in the fact that almost all households have a cache of weapons for (hunting,) personal and "civil defense" yet it's a surprise to see a fellow Alaska strolling around town or in a store with a openly carried modern arm from their hip or shoulder (most that feel the need to be armed do so discreetly).

If you poured over the Anchorage arrest records for the last 30 years you find a handful that were arrested for making the mistake of having a bad attitude (AKA Disturbing the Peace) with the Police when they talked to the person on why they felt the need to be carrying a longarm/handarm in the "Coffee shop" or such.

It's the later Renaissance where the sword became part of the daily wear of the elite and the middle class as I undersand it.

Cheers,

David

This you shall know, that all things have length and measure.

Free Scholar/ Instructor Selohaar Fechtschule
The Historic Recrudescence Guild

"Yea though I walk through the valley of death, I will fear no evil: for Thou's sword art is with me; Thy poleaxe and Thy quarterstaff they comfort me."
View user's profile Send private message
David Teague




Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Joined: 25 Jan 2004

Posts: 409

PostPosted: Fri 04 Feb, 2011 10:28 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Robert Hinds wrote:
Just like to add that an Italian visiting england noted that everyone went around with a sword and buckler and that farmers would lay their weapons at the edge of the field when they were plowing. For the life of me I can't remember where I saw that but I'll try and find it. Think it might have been on the ARMA site.


The question isn't that that happened, the questions would be" when did it happen" and "why did the men carry arms openly"?

There are English writers that complained about the Scots the same way but they were writing about the armed Scots during the Scottish Reformation. During the Reformation of Scotland there was major civil unrest, uprisings against the Queen and the Border Reivers were at the height of their power. Lots of reasons to travel in armed groups, be armed at church services, bar the door at night, and be prepared to defend ones self.

Cheers,

David

This you shall know, that all things have length and measure.

Free Scholar/ Instructor Selohaar Fechtschule
The Historic Recrudescence Guild

"Yea though I walk through the valley of death, I will fear no evil: for Thou's sword art is with me; Thy poleaxe and Thy quarterstaff they comfort me."
View user's profile Send private message
Robert Hinds




Location: Whitewater, Wisconsin USA
Joined: 15 Sep 2010
Likes: 4 pages

Posts: 249

PostPosted: Fri 04 Feb, 2011 10:33 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I want to say the date was 1359 but I can't be sure. I saw the quote in an article/topic on sword and buckler but can't remember where... Worried
"Young knight, learn to love God and revere women; thus your honor will grow. Practice knighthood and learn the Art that dignifies you, and brings you honor in wars." -Johannes Liechtenauer

"...And he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one..." Luke 22:36
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Longswords in the hands of common soldiers?
Page 3 of 4 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
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