| Author |
Message |
|
Till J. Lodemann
|
 Posted: Sat 12 Feb, 2011 8:08 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Hi there!
Very interesting debate indeed.
I agree that medieval swords (and earlier ones) were never designed around the thought of knocking someone out with blunt force. The eastern full contact videos posted by ... illustrate that clearly. I participated in several buhurts and tournaments in Poland, Lithuania and Germany in the last two years and I got a lot of hits on the head (with anything from one-handed sword to maces and longswords) but never experienced any irritation from it.
If one has a serviceable helmet and padding ( we use bascinets (2,5mm sheet iron, unhardened) and padded wool stuffed between two layers of linen) there is no way you can pass out from a blow. A friend of mine, a small girl (ca 1,60 cm/ 55 kg) joined in a buhurt in Lithuania and was attacked by a big guy with a two handed wooden sledge hammer (he though she was a guy under the armour) vertically on the helmet (a straight oberhau, so to speak), she did not fall down from it, but her helmet shifted and she couldn't see through the ocularia anymore and fell over a body...
But Vincent made a good point about impact and it's implications in a dynamic fight.
I had an epiphany myself two years ago
We had a sparring session with a befriended viking group wich also experimented with full contact fighting. I used my late roman/migration period spatha ( 80cm blade,1000g and POB about around 25cm from the guard) for the first time in full contact fighting. I fought against a guy with a small bucklerish viking shield and light seax.
He was a good, fast and experienced fighter, but it was amazing to see how easy and often my sword sheared through his defence.
If he didn't parry centrally with his shield it would swing open and I would hit his helmet with still a good amount of force.
Also, as Craig mentioned, you need to overcome the inertia of the sword only once. When you keep it moving, a top heavy sword is fast enough, I hadn't any problem keeping up with the speed of the guy with the seax.
So far my anecdotes related to this topic 
|
|
  |
 |
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Sat 12 Feb, 2011 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig Shackleton wrote: | | I would speculate that swords with more force/mass on impact from the age of mail were designed that way for two reasons that are related, possibly in addition to the reasons stated by Vincent. One is to cut/ overcome shields. The other is kind of the reverse... why not? The additional momentum will carry your swing further, slowing your recovery time, but you defend with your shield, not your sword. |
That is one good point - the principle protection for most combattants in the pre-Medieval era was a shield, a fairly light wooden shield, and we know from for example the Icelandic sagas that it was quite common to hack shields to pieces fairly quickly.
I think the most obvious reason neglected by Vincent as to why Migration - era spathae et al were a bit more point-heavy is that the sword itself was not used as much for defense, just cutting, therefore it didn't need to be as agile. You used your shield for defense. So the sword could be made more of a dangerous cutter with more mass.
J
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Sat 12 Feb, 2011 1:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: |
I don't know why swords like spathae and riding swords of the age of mail were made to store more momentum than cut&thrust models, but it sure looks like this is made on purpose. You don't need that much punch to cut at unarmoured targets and incapacitate someone. Actually that heavy mass on the blade makes your recovery harder and thus exposes you once you've swung. Yet this does not give so much punch that you'll be able to defeat good armor. What does it give then?
|
To optimise for use from a moving horse? This moves the centre of the rotation further from the tip. The usual approximation, when wielding stationary, is that the centre of rotation is the grip. This fixes the ratio of angular momentum to linear momentum. Moving on a horse (or running forwards, even) while swinging at the same angular speed leaves the angular momentum the same, increases the linear momentum.
I haven't done the numbers for this. I don't know what the optimum effect should be. You probably don't want to have the angular and linear motion both stop simultaneously (which is the usual "optimum" used if stationary), since this would imply that the rider continues on without sword.
Anybody here played with a pell while mounted? (Alas, I have no horse, nor space for one.)
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
 |
|
Vincent Le Chevalier
|
| Posted: Sat 12 Feb, 2011 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: | | I think the most obvious reason neglected by Vincent as to why Migration - era spathae et al were a bit more point-heavy is that the sword itself was not used as much for defense, just cutting, therefore it didn't need to be as agile. You used your shield for defense. So the sword could be made more of a dangerous cutter with more mass. |
Are we sure of that though? As far as I know most sources for the shields show the sword being used to parry and defend as well as attack. Of course we don't have technical sources for the earlier period... Which is why the SCA became what it is.
Whatever the reason fighting with these swords was deemed feasible, the added weight must have been useful for something. You don't add weight to your weapon just because you can, you add it because it is useful. If all you want to do is thrust at the gaps or cut at the exposed flesh, you don't need that extra-weight (all the later sword do quite well without it). Directly defeating armour with insufficient padding but enough protection against slices seems as good a reason as any...
Regards,
--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
|
|
|
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier
|
| Posted: Sat 12 Feb, 2011 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Timo Nieminen wrote: |
To optimise for use from a moving horse? This moves the centre of the rotation further from the tip. The usual approximation, when wielding stationary, is that the centre of rotation is the grip. This fixes the ratio of angular momentum to linear momentum. Moving on a horse (or running forwards, even) while swinging at the same angular speed leaves the angular momentum the same, increases the linear momentum.
I haven't done the numbers for this. I don't know what the optimum effect should be. You probably don't want to have the angular and linear motion both stop simultaneously (which is the usual "optimum" used if stationary), since this would imply that the rider continues on without sword. |
Assuming the horse is running at a constant speed, all you have is a change of referential. The effects from the point of view of the rider will be exactly the same as if he was trying to cut at a moving target.
It's true that in this case, since the target arrives with momentum of its own, it's perhaps wise to have some mass at the impact point in case the target is not cut, otherwise your weapon will bounce back at great speed... So maybe these tip-heavy swords were optimized for use on a horse indeed.
Regards,
--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Sat 12 Feb, 2011 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think you follow Occams razor in cases where you have limited evidence, and that idea does not seem to be a logical conclusion to me. Of course the issue of how much textile was worn beneath mail in pre-Medieval times is another explosively contentious one (which we have no evidence to support either way) but as everyone has pointed out so exhaustively already, sword edges don't cause trauma very effectively. That is why it was so common to carry maces and various types of axes and hammers.
Also, Migration era or Classical era swords were not, as far as I'm aware, significantly heavier than Medieval swords if at all, the only actual difference is the shape and the point of balance. If you have evidence to the contrary I'd be interested to see it.
But it's all a bit beside the point. I think it's fairly obvious that more mass in a blade can contribute to more effective cutting, depending on the shape of the blade. That is why meat cleavers are made very wide. Falchions have wide blades for this reason as well though they are not necessarily much heavier (if at all) than swords they concentrate more mass at the point of contact. For cutting. Not for blunt trauma.
Cutting better is always good, especially when steel isn't homogeneous and tempering may be of varying quality. (though I've seen quite a few very slim la-Tene swords.) From my experience cutting through cloth equivalent to ordinary clothing is not always that easy so better cutting capability is always a plus. It's also worth keeping in mind men used these weapons to kill horses as well as other men. An armored rider on an unarmored horse is as vulnerable as his mount, but it takes a deeper cut to wound a horse.
J
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Sat 12 Feb, 2011 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I guess what bugs me about this idea is that is seems to be founded on this myth of the Medieval sword as a 'barely sharpened crowbar' that I would have thought most folks around this forum were well rid of by now. From what I understand about swords, they are about as far from a crowbar as you can get.
J
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Gallo
|
| Posted: Sat 12 Feb, 2011 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: | I guess what bugs me about this idea is that is seems to be founded on this myth of the Medieval sword as a 'barely sharpened crowbar' that I would have thought most folks around this forum were well rid of by now. From what I understand about swords, they are about as far from a crowbar as you can get.
J |
Both seem like generalizations. Swords came in innumerable shapes and sizes. I'm trying to very specifically limit the 'blunt force' question to particularly overbuilt bastard swords that appeared (roughly) alongside plate armor from the early 1300s onwards. I don't suffer the delusion that a strongly tapered 2 pounder was knocking guys out left and right via wrist flicks. The vast majority of swords have nothing to do with this and were designed for the opposite purpose of speed and balance.
Reading over the whole thread, maybe I should have entirely avoided the word "knockout" in favor of the more vague "stunned" or "knocked down". There was no 10-count rule in war. Anything disruptive enough to immobilize your opponent for even a split second I would consider worth utilizing. I only suggested that perhaps this was one of the factors in the design of these large, (relatively) heavy swords, which I don't see as clumsy crowbars at all but... Actually tend to favor.
We have come a long way since years ago when sword was synonymous with 'katana' and European 'broadswords' (yes, I know) were made out of unsharpened granite.
Hopefully... A long enough way that we can discuss something like this without anyone mistaking it for the resurgence of crowbar-combat, flat Earths and 500-pound armor. While many of you dwarf me in expertise I'm not that bad 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aleksei Sosnovski
|
| Posted: Sun 13 Feb, 2011 1:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Some thoughts regarding earlier swords with PoB further down the blade.
1) As already stated in this thread, it does not matter as much when you have a large shield
2) These swords usually faced axes in close combat, which are also not as fast as later cut-and-thrust swords, so maybe speed of these swords was perfectly enough
3) From my experience swords usually break either at the tang or at the last 1/3 of the blade. Having a lighter pommel would result in less stress on the tang, and having a wider point would make the blade less likely to break (while the former statement is always true, the latter one depends a lot on the actual shape of the blade, so should not be taken as an absolute truth).
4) There were some swords in the viking age made of IRON, yes, soft iron without any traces of steel edges welded on or something like this. There is at least one such swords found in Russia that is preserved well enough to conclude that there was no steel used in the construction. Obviously these swords were not very useful for parrying, but were more expensive than axes and were still considered worth their price. Using a shield as primary defense is the only explanation of why one would use such a sword. Also using an axe (the most wide-spread weapon of the time after the spear) for parrying is not the best idea, so it is very likely that parrying with your weapon was something to be avoided if possible.
However there were light strongly tapered thrust-oriented swords in the viking and migration age, so obviously people knew the advantage of the speed. There sure was a reason why these ligher blades were not very popular.
|
|
 |
|
Luka Borscak
|
| Posted: Sun 13 Feb, 2011 1:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
In the article I posted these are the results of a sword strikes on plate armor in a "deed of arms" at Noseroy in 1519:
"...Also, there were many other “gauntlets cut and many wounded in the hands to the effusion of blood.” These injuries were all done with two-handed swords."
"Claude d’Anglure was wounded in the arm “to the effusion of blood” by a single handed sword stroke."
"During the fighting with two handed swords there were “many basinets and armets driven in.”"
"Claude de Vienne was wounded in the head “to the effusion of blood” by a single handed sword stroke."
"Fighting with a two handed sword the count de Bussy “gave such a stroke to (Jean) de Falletans, on the armet, that he kneeled in the sand.” "
"The prince d’Oranges “gave a stroke of the sword on the crest of the armet of Phillipe de Falletans so that he had to take three steps back from the barrier and was unable to fight any more that day.” "
I don't have much personal experience but this leads me to believe that blunt trauma done with swords was not that harmless and hands which are protected with thinner plates and less padding are vulnerable enough to strong sword strikes and head is also a good target for blunt trauma attack even with sword. Of course it is hard to kill that way or seriously injure but all mentioned wounds are enough to disable your opponent for some time or to put him at a great enough disadvantage to defeat him quickly...
|
|
|
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier
|
| Posted: Sun 13 Feb, 2011 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Luka Borscak wrote: | | I don't have much personal experience but this leads me to believe that blunt trauma done with swords was not that harmless and hands which are protected with thinner plates and less padding are vulnerable enough to strong sword strikes and head is also a good target for blunt trauma attack even with sword. Of course it is hard to kill that way or seriously injure but all mentioned wounds are enough to disable your opponent for some time or to put him at a great enough disadvantage to defeat him quickly... |
Which reminds me of another reason why relatively light blunt trauma might have been sought: in some fights the goal was not so much killing the opponent but making him surrender. In these situations, using a mace or another dedicated blunt weapon might prove too dangerous for the opponent, and same thing with smart counters and thrusts to weak points. This kind of fight is not very well represented in the technical sources that focus heavily on judicial duels to the death, and perhaps calls for different techniques and weapon design...
Regards,
--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
|
|
|
|
|
Craig Johnson
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Sun 13 Feb, 2011 9:23 am Post subject: Where do you want your mass? |
|
|
| Aleksei Sosnovski wrote: |
However there were light strongly tapered thrust-oriented swords in the viking and migration age, so obviously people knew the advantage of the speed. There sure was a reason why these ligher blades were not very popular. |
This is very true and while the evidence for these being a minority in period is purely based on our perceptions of the finds left to us. So they may have been more integral than we realize at this time.
The placement of the mass in the blade as Vincent has pointed out so well with his research, is indicative of he intended use and style of that use for the sword. One aspect of the fore weighted blade in the early period s that is often over looked is the excellent potential it provides for the determined thrust. The combination of a shield and a powerful thrusting sword is a very dynamic kit for the combatant to use.
When working with some of the frankish style saxes of the period it becomes obvious that the big blades would be fearsome cutters they also would be exceptional thrusting weapons. This is due to the for-weighted blades much like the way a bowie knife can be used in the fight.
Best
Craig
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Sun 13 Feb, 2011 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Luka Borscak wrote: | In the article I posted these are the results of a sword strikes on plate armor in a "deed of arms" at Noseroy in 1519:
"...Also, there were many other “gauntlets cut and many wounded in the hands to the effusion of blood.” These injuries were all done with two-handed swords."
"Claude d’Anglure was wounded in the arm “to the effusion of blood” by a single handed sword stroke."
"During the fighting with two handed swords there were “many basinets and armets driven in.”"
"Claude de Vienne was wounded in the head “to the effusion of blood” by a single handed sword stroke."
"Fighting with a two handed sword the count de Bussy “gave such a stroke to (Jean) de Falletans, on the armet, that he kneeled in the sand.” "
"The prince d’Oranges “gave a stroke of the sword on the crest of the armet of Phillipe de Falletans so that he had to take three steps back from the barrier and was unable to fight any more that day.” "
I don't have much personal experience but this leads me to believe that blunt trauma done with swords was not that harmless and hands which are protected with thinner plates and less padding are vulnerable enough to strong sword strikes and head is also a good target for blunt trauma attack even with sword. Of course it is hard to kill that way or seriously injure but all mentioned wounds are enough to disable your opponent for some time or to put him at a great enough disadvantage to defeat him quickly... |
But unless I misread your link (admittedly only skimmed it) that this was referring to a formal tournament fighting at the barriers. Which includes two important differences to a real fight:
1) It's a totally artificial situation with significant numbers of combatants beating on each other across a barrier up to their waist over and over and over again for a long period of time. Yes when you are just standing three feet apart and only allowed to strike the upper body, under the impact of hundreds of repeated blows iron will eventually fail.
2) They use tournament armor and tournament weapons designed for this sport (probably heavier and definitely blunted weapons)
I think unless I missed something and this also included a bunch of combat anecdotes, I the above is really more about the Baroque equivalent of a formalized combat sport with a lot of rules like what re-enactor groups do today. It has very little if anything to do with actual combat.
If you want to compare modern sport combat with 16th century sport combat, you may have a point. Using this as a basis for real warfare I think is spurious. It just goes back to the kitchen knife as knock out implement analogy. A kinfe edge makes a really lousy hammer.
J
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Sun 13 Feb, 2011 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: | | Luka Borscak wrote: | | I don't have much personal experience but this leads me to believe that blunt trauma done with swords was not that harmless and hands which are protected with thinner plates and less padding are vulnerable enough to strong sword strikes and head is also a good target for blunt trauma attack even with sword. Of course it is hard to kill that way or seriously injure but all mentioned wounds are enough to disable your opponent for some time or to put him at a great enough disadvantage to defeat him quickly... |
Which reminds me of another reason why relatively light blunt trauma might have been sought: in some fights the goal was not so much killing the opponent but making him surrender. In these situations, using a mace or another dedicated blunt weapon might prove too dangerous for the opponent, and same thing with smart counters and thrusts to weak points. This kind of fight is not very well represented in the technical sources that focus heavily on judicial duels to the death, and perhaps calls for different techniques and weapon design...
Regards, |
I have read that at Agincourt and Poitiers English archers used tent mallets for this purpose.
J
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier
|
| Posted: Wed 16 Feb, 2011 1:57 pm Post subject: Re: Where do you want your mass? |
|
|
| Craig Johnson wrote: | | One aspect of the fore weighted blade in the early period s that is often over looked is the excellent potential it provides for the determined thrust. The combination of a shield and a powerful thrusting sword is a very dynamic kit for the combatant to use. |
That's an interesting perspective because the blade heavy swords are not commonly associated with thrusting efficiency... What is your experience? That blade heavy swords make it more difficult to set the thrust aside? That's basically the only specificity I can think of...
Regards,
--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
|
|
|
|
|
Craig Johnson
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Wed 16 Feb, 2011 2:15 pm Post subject: Re: Where do you want your mass? |
|
|
| Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: | | Craig Johnson wrote: | | One aspect of the fore weighted blade in the early period s that is often over looked is the excellent potential it provides for the determined thrust. The combination of a shield and a powerful thrusting sword is a very dynamic kit for the combatant to use. |
That's an interesting perspective because the blade heavy swords are not commonly associated with thrusting efficiency... What is your experience? That blade heavy swords make it more difficult to set the thrust aside? That's basically the only specificity I can think of...
Regards, |
Yes Vincent! 
That is the main advantage as the structure of the blade provides an exceptional penetrating ability with a loaded thrust. This combined with a shield for added protection in the case of a sword or large fighting knife creates a very difficult attack to counter. The large fighting knives and shorter swords of the early period almost certainly where just as aggressive in thrusting as in the hau.
There are distinct parallels to some of the heavy knife fighting you see practiced today. I am not advocating that it was taught or viewed in the same context but you have very, very similar physical weapons being used by humans for personal combat. The result is going to have some similarities no matter how you would separate the two by time.
When we view the objects and look at the boundaries of physics and the core principles of how one survives in personal combat I think the thrusting dynamic becomes pretty clear. We have a bronze age sword that is in really great condition in The Oakeshott Collection, when you pick it up it really engages the hand in a way that would allow you to load it up for a thrust behind your shield and deliver a very deceptive attack to several target areas of your opponent. When doing some combatives with similarly weighted pieces it really drives home how difficult it it to beat aside such a thrust with out completely opening ones self up or being ineffectual with your counter.
The dynamics of the weapons and shields interacting is one of the areas where I think these fore weighted blades are evolved from and an area that has possibly been overlooked to some degree.
We find the same types of dynamics occurring with the Frankish seaxs we have as well, as I mentioned earlier I think.
Best
Craig
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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