| Which would be the “one” sword that you would take into battle? Assume that you may be up against a mix of adversaries with a mix of medieval weapons but with limited to light armor (assume very limited to no plate armor) |
| The Crecy |
|
56% |
[ 37 ] |
| The Baron |
|
12% |
[ 8 ] |
| The Knight |
|
12% |
[ 8 ] |
| The Oakeshott |
|
18% |
[ 12 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 65 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Quinn W.
Location: Bellingham, WA Joined: 02 May 2009
Posts: 197
|
 Posted: Tue 31 May, 2011 4:56 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
With all this talk about the Albion Crecy, I had a related question. As is obvious from the name, the sword would be most appropriate for the mid 14th century, but what would be the upper limits on when a sword like this would still make a moderately regular appearance on the battlefield?
"Some say that the age of chivalry is past, that the spirit of romance is dead. The age of chivalry is never past, so long as there is a wrong left unredressed on earth"
|
|
   |
 |
|
P. Cha
|
| Posted: Tue 31 May, 2011 5:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: | | P. Cha wrote: | | the other two are one handers only. |
I'd agree with Paul Hansen that in the context described a one-hander would actually make sense... Looking at history I'm under the impression that one-and-a-half types only become dominant when armour becomes comprehensive enough.
That being said I'm sure the original poster will be very happy with a Crecy anyway, I have its little brother the Squire and it's really a nasty sword...
Regards, |
What Jean said...basically one handers while maybe good enough for the context given, having the option to go two handed or with a shield is a pretty useful ability. And the crecy is pretty comfortable in both modes...not the best...but comfortable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Cha
|
| Posted: Tue 31 May, 2011 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quinn W. wrote: | | With all this talk about the Albion Crecy, I had a related question. As is obvious from the name, the sword would be most appropriate for the mid 14th century, but what would be the upper limits on when a sword like this would still make a moderately regular appearance on the battlefield? |
I would say early 15th. Maybe even mid 15th if you take the moderately regular out.. The XVIs seems to have been popular in a pretty small window compared to say the XVs and XVIIIs.
|
|
|
|
|
Ahmad Tabari
|
| Posted: Tue 31 May, 2011 6:02 pm Post subject: Oakshott all the way |
|
|
|
Personally, I would chose Oakshott. Since the oponents you would be facing have little to no armour, then you are more likely to adopt slashing attacks rather than thrusting ones. After all swords like Crecy were designed to pierce armour. But then again my choice has a bit of bias in it as I was never particularly fond of late Medieval tapered swords.
|
|
|
|
|
Craig Peters
|
| Posted: Tue 31 May, 2011 10:34 pm Post subject: Re: Oakshott all the way |
|
|
| Ahmad Tabari wrote: | | Personally, I would chose Oakshott. Since the oponents you would be facing have little to no armour, then you are more likely to adopt slashing attacks rather than thrusting ones. After all swords like Crecy were designed to pierce armour. But then again my choice has a bit of bias in it as I was never particularly fond of late Medieval tapered swords. |
The thing is that the Crecy is not necessarily an optimal design for piercing armour. If you look at the blade, while it does have a nasty point, its taper is still somewhat gradual, and the point relatively spatulate. In fact, I think this is one of the reasons why Oakshott indicated in Records that he previously confused XVIa swords with XIIa swords; the two types are similar in a lot of ways. Type XVIa swords appear when most of the armour was still mail or brigantine, rather than suits of full plate, which only start to appear at towards the close of the 14th century. It's XVa and XVII swords especially that are the dedicated anti-armour swords, with some of the members of the XVIII family filling this role as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Watson
Location: Upper Hutt, New Zealand Joined: 08 Feb 2006
Posts: 395
|
| Posted: Wed 01 Jun, 2011 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
The XVIa is still acute in profile compared to the earlier swords, I do not think there is any mistaking as an example the Crecy's shape for something like the Baron. Also the reinforced points have effect.
Why I was considering it's thrusting capabilities is based on the consideration of that type of attack vs light or no armour. A thrust can expend less energy than a cut for the attacker and when targeted correctly it can be a lot more deadly for less effort and should logically penetrate any level of defenses that are possible to be penetrated a lot easier than a cut.
That is one of the reasons I voted for the Crecy given the requirements of the OP even though it is probably my least favourite of those swords when considering them purely from the point of view as a collector.
I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, but that which it protects. (Faramir, The Two Towers)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Woodruff
|
| Posted: Wed 01 Jun, 2011 4:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Paul, considering that you are a pretty big guy, I would definitely say go for the Crecy. Some people find it easier than others to wield a hand-and-a-half one-handed, but at your size it should be no problem. I am currently working on a sword using an Albion "type XVI" (really a XVIa) blade blank. It is almost precisely the same blade as the Crecy (shorter fuller) and both my girlfriend and I find it quite easy to use one-handed. I am just under 1.8m tall and weigh about 70kg. I am just really impressed with the XVI, it truly is a perfect compromise between cutting and thrusting. I wouldn't go for one of the single-swords unless you were planning on getting a shield or buckler, and even then I would still say the Crecy is a better choice.
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Wed 01 Jun, 2011 5:35 am Post subject: Re: Oakshott all the way |
|
|
| Craig Peters wrote: |
The thing is that the Crecy is not necessarily an optimal design for piercing armour. If you look at the blade, while it does have a nasty point, its taper is still somewhat gradual, and the point relatively spatulate. In fact, I think this is one of the reasons why Oakshott indicated in Records that he previously confused XVIa swords with XIIa swords; the two types are similar in a lot of ways. Type XVIa swords appear when most of the armour was still mail or brigantine, rather than suits of full plate, which only start to appear at towards the close of the 14th century. It's XVa and XVII swords especially that are the dedicated anti-armour swords, with some of the members of the XVIII family filling this role as well. |
Mail and plate armor are defeated the exact same way...thrusts through mail. What makes a sword suitable to thrust through mail is a point acute enough to enter a mail link, regardless of taper, and a blade stiff enough to take a hard thrust. The Crecy has both. A XIIa may or may not have a point acute enough (most don't) but lacks the stiffness and is therefore not suitable.
XVa are narrow because they are thick to make them stiff and would otherwise be two heavy. Once a point breaks a few links it can go in quite deeply whether the blade is narrow like a XVa or less so.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
William Frisbee
Location: South Shore, MA Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 93
|
| Posted: Wed 01 Jun, 2011 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
What Michael said. That was the whole reason behind the design of the XVIa... in Oakshotte's own words "a long, tapering blade, broad at the hilt, with a sharp, often reinforced, point." It was a design off of the XII specifically to help defeat armour of the day, which was the transitional plate kits.
Break a link with a point and the guy under the armour is going to have a VERY bad day.
Remember, during the transitional phase and most of the 15th century, the armpits, back of the elbow, back of the legs and groin were typically only protected by maille. Thus, in the German longsword anyways, we see a lot of "ort" from the bind and of course halbschwert going after just those targets with the accute point. Sword like the XII, XIIa and XIIIa (and I'm only covering the longsword here, I really don't feel comfortable talking about the sword as I don't know enough about them) just were not designed for that thrust, rather for the cleave...
|
|
|
|
|
Craig Peters
|
| Posted: Wed 01 Jun, 2011 8:57 am Post subject: Re: Oakshott all the way |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: |
Mail and plate armor are defeated the exact same way...thrusts through mail. What makes a sword suitable to thrust through mail is a point acute enough to enter a mail link, regardless of taper, and a blade stiff enough to take a hard thrust. The Crecy has both. A XIIa may or may not have a point acute enough (most don't) but lacks the stiffness and is therefore not suitable.
XVa are narrow because they are thick to make them stiff and would otherwise be two heavy. Once a point breaks a few links it can go in quite deeply whether the blade is narrow like a XVa or less so. |
I would think that a blade with a narrower cross section than the Crecy, like some of the XVas and XVIIs would be better for trying to wedge into armour. Obviously, a thrust to the face or targetting the groin is a different story, and the Crecy would do well for both, but I don't think it's as good, hence my original point about being "optimal".
Second, your statement about mail being defeated isn't quite true. We have numerous accounts, some historical, many others literary, of mail armour being shorn away by cutting blows. I'm not talking about swords cleaving through mail or anything like that, but rather links being popped open by the force of the blows, and mail shirts becoming a bit ragged over the course of a battle. In such situations, it was certainly possible to be wounded by a sword cut, if not killed.
|
|
|
|
|
William Frisbee
Location: South Shore, MA Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 93
|
| Posted: Wed 01 Jun, 2011 9:17 am Post subject: Re: Oakshott all the way |
|
|
| Craig Peters wrote: |
Second, your statement about mail being defeated isn't quite true. We have numerous accounts, some historical, many others literary, of mail armour being shorn away by cutting blows. I'm not talking about swords cleaving through mail or anything like that, but rather links being popped open by the force of the blows, and mail shirts becoming a bit ragged over the course of a battle. In such situations, it was certainly possible to be wounded by a sword cut, if not killed. |
But remember Craig, by the time the style swords we are talking about were being used, most, but not all were wearing some type of plate. Yeah we can play the game where only the rich or moderately wealthy were wearing plate... but none-the-less...
Thats the whole reason sword designs changed.
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Wed 01 Jun, 2011 9:28 am Post subject: Re: Oakshott all the way |
|
|
| Craig Peters wrote: |
I would think that a blade with a narrower cross section than the Crecy, like some of the XVas and XVIIs would be better for trying to wedge into armour. Obviously, a thrust to the face or targetting the groin is a different story, and the Crecy would do well for both, but I don't think it's as good, hence my original point about being "optimal". |
Not really. The point is what matters. The point has to get inside a link and pop it open. Once that happens, more of the blade goes in. A narrower blade will be able to go deeper with less force, but it's more academic than practical. Unless you're on a charging horse, I don't think people can thrust hard enough to make it matter.
From judicial duel techniques shown in the manuals, the sword piercing the mail in the armpit (or wherever) was not typically depicted as a killing blow, which suggests that you could not expect to pop open enough links to get the sword deep enough.
| Quote: |
Second, your statement about mail being defeated isn't quite true. We have numerous accounts, some historical, many others literary, of mail armour being shorn away by cutting blows. I'm not talking about swords cleaving through mail or anything like that, but rather links being popped open by the force of the blows, and mail shirts becoming a bit ragged over the course of a battle. In such situations, it was certainly possible to be wounded by a sword cut, if not killed. |
Well wear and tear did occur, of course. A sword can't cut mail, but it can bend links and dimple the iron. More blows can add to that, and eventually it can break.
That does not mean this is what you expected to encounter in a typical scenario.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Johan Gemvik
|
| Posted: Wed 01 Jun, 2011 9:30 am Post subject: Re: Oakshott all the way |
|
|
| Craig Peters wrote: | | Second, your statement about mail being defeated isn't quite true. We have numerous accounts, some historical, many others literary, of mail armour being shorn away by cutting blows. I'm not talking about swords cleaving through mail or anything like that, but rather links being popped open by the force of the blows, and mail shirts becoming a bit ragged over the course of a battle. In such situations, it was certainly possible to be wounded by a sword cut, if not killed. |
That a torn open spot in maille means you can hurt the person under it through that spot should be obvious to all. Hope it never happens to any of us in battle. 
To learn more on the realities of this happening and how literary soruces describe it, I'd be most grateful to some links to these sources to use in my own research.
Though I tend to support the reality of a thrust being much more likley to penetrate maille, I'm a great fan of the idea of shearing or crushing rings to open a rent in the armour also, it'd be difficult at the very least but given enough mightly force perhaps still doable with a sword, especially against soft iron rings, or ironically against over-tempered steel rings that could shatter on impact. Some weapons would certainly be more suitable for this than others, say an axe with a hooking lower edge or perhaps the saw-blade edged tulwar seen at the Wallace collection.
My own tests show that even without rending or even visibly damaging the maile, given a powerful blow you can subject flesh under it (even with a jack or gamboised padding under it) to deep tears that look like cuts in addition to normal blunt trauma. These can be bone deep even through thick flesh, imagine the bicep or thigh being cut into that way. Perhaps this would be described in contemporary literary sources as "cutting through" the maille but in reality what happened was a shockwave induced cutlike tear in the flesh below delivered via the maille that did little or no damage to the weave.
To get this effect you'd be best off with a stiff blade with a decent presence (as in blade heavy). Interesting enough I only get this effect with sharp edged swords, not blunts.
"The Dwarf sees farther than the Giant when he has the giant's shoulder to mount on" -Coleridge
|
|
|
|
|
Craig Peters
|
| Posted: Wed 01 Jun, 2011 11:47 am Post subject: Re: Oakshott all the way |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: |
Not really. The point is what matters. The point has to get inside a link and pop it open. Once that happens, more of the blade goes in. A narrower blade will be able to go deeper with less force, but it's more academic than practical. Unless you're on a charging horse, I don't think people can thrust hard enough to make it matter.
From judicial duel techniques shown in the manuals, the sword piercing the mail in the armpit (or wherever) was not typically depicted as a killing blow, which suggests that you could not expect to pop open enough links to get the sword deep enough. |
I was more talking about the profile of a slender XVa or XVII being better suited for thrusting between gaps, because its thinner in width. But, from what you say, it sounds as though the point itself is what matters, and not the blade's profile taper.
If this is so, why were swords like the Crecy primarily dated to the 14th century? If XVIa swords are truly just as well-suited as an XVa or XVII for piercing armour, why don't we see them more often later on? Perhaps their relative decline in popularity has little to do with their capacity for penetrating armour, but it seems to me that this is a natural and reasonably logical conclusion to draw. Just to make it clear, in case I was not last time around, I am talking about targetting thin gaps and articulations in plate armour where there is no mail underneath. It seems to me in such a context that a blade with a narrower profile taper would have an advantage, but perhaps I am mistaken.
| Quote: | Well wear and tear did occur, of course. A sword can't cut mail, but it can bend links and dimple the iron. More blows can add to that, and eventually it can break.
That does not mean this is what you expected to encounter in a typical scenario. |
It seems to come up often enough in literary descriptions, not to mention descriptions of actualy combat, as to make me wonder if it really is that uncommon or unusual for a typical scenario. As you know, more than a few medieval illumanations and illustrations depict men bleed from wounds they've received through their mail, and in some cases, the enemy sword is shown creating a hacking wound, so that there can be no doubt that the wounds were from cuts, not stabbing. This being the case, it seems that what you and I described above must have been reasonably frequent.
Furthermore, textual sources frequently mention knights fighting with sword, shield and mail, mentioning them delivering many mighty and powerful blows to one another, which is exactly the circumstances under which we'd expect to see mail deformation and eventual failure. The various pieces of evidence suggest to me that this happened more often than one might think.
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Wed 01 Jun, 2011 12:16 pm Post subject: Re: Oakshott all the way |
|
|
| Craig Peters wrote: | | If this is so, why were swords like the Crecy primarily dated to the 14th century? If XVIa swords are truly just as well-suited as an XVa or XVII for piercing armour, why don't we see them more often later on? Perhaps their relative decline in popularity has little to do with their capacity for penetrating armour, but it seems to me that this is a natural and reasonably logical conclusion to draw. Just to make it clear, in case I was not last time around, I am talking about targetting thin gaps and articulations in plate armour where there is no mail underneath. It seems to me in such a context that a blade with a narrower profile taper would have an advantage, but perhaps I am mistaken. |
I don't know. There were also crowbarish swords made that had almost no edge, so I'm assuming some people didn't think even a XVa was stiff enough. XVIIa seem to be more suited to armored combat than XVa, so don't think of the XV as the penultimate example.
The truth is probably a mix of marketing, personal beliefs, what looks nicer, word of mouth, and what some factories were better at making.
Maybe most XVIa were not stiff enough. The Brescia Spadona certainly isn't. Maybe a stiff XVa could be made longer than a stiff XVIa and remain lighter.
| Quote: | | It seems to come up often enough in literary descriptions, not to mention descriptions of actualy combat, as to make me wonder if it really is that uncommon or unusual for a typical scenario. |
Ask yourself how times swords hit mail and did not break through. Then count all the depictions we have of swords breaking mail, multiple them by 100, and you still get a tiny, tiny statistically insignificant fraction.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
William Frisbee
Location: South Shore, MA Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 93
|
| Posted: Wed 01 Jun, 2011 12:29 pm Post subject: Re: Oakshott all the way |
|
|
| Craig Peters wrote: | [It seems to come up often enough in literary descriptions, not to mention descriptions of actualy combat, as to make me wonder if it really is that uncommon or unusual for a typical scenario. As you know, more than a few medieval illumanations and illustrations depict men bleed from wounds they've received through their mail, and in some cases, the enemy sword is shown creating a hacking wound, so that there can be no doubt that the wounds were from cuts, not stabbing. This being the case, it seems that what you and I described above must have been reasonably frequent.
Furthermore, textual sources frequently mention knights fighting with sword, shield and mail, mentioning them delivering many mighty and powerful blows to one another, which is exactly the circumstances under which we'd expect to see mail deformation and eventual failure. The various pieces of evidence suggest to me that this happened more often than one might think. |
Craig, there are literay and art work descriptions of men hitting each other with swords and cleaving helms from the top to the neck as well, but we know thats damn near impossible with a decently made helm.
Modern scient shows even with a wrought iron helm, that the human form can barely give a one handed blade the energy to break a helm, let alone cleave one in two...
You are reading the literary/art of the era which oft protrayed men and knights as our version of superheroes.
Did swords slash thru mail... I'm sure they did. But thats the exeption rahter than the norm.
Maille was worn for thousands and thousands of years because it worked, and worked well.
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Wed 01 Jun, 2011 6:42 pm Post subject: Re: Oakshott all the way |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: |
I don't know. There were also crowbarish swords made that had almost no edge, so I'm assuming some people didn't think even a XVa was stiff enough. XVIIa seem to be more suited to armored combat than XVa, so don't think of the XV as the penultimate example.
|
There is no Type XVIIa. Did you mean XVIIIa?
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
 |
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Wed 01 Jun, 2011 10:24 pm Post subject: Re: Oakshott all the way |
|
|
| Chad Arnow wrote: |
There is no Type XVIIa. Did you mean XVIIIa? |
Oops. I meant XVII. I tend to throw the "a" in there whenever I think of longswords. Darn Oakeshott, that inconsistent Englishman.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Wed 01 Jun, 2011 11:25 pm Post subject: Re: Oakshott all the way |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: |
I don't know. There were also crowbarish swords made that had almost no edge, so I'm assuming some people didn't think even a XVa was stiff enough. XVIIa seem to be more suited to armored combat than XVa, so don't think of the XV as the penultimate example.
|
Now that we've established we're talking about the Type XVII (), I feel the need to point out a couple things. The Type XVII's lifespan was much shorter than that of the Type XV (and its subtype). If Type XVII were better suited to armoured combat, wouldn't it have seen a longer period of popular use than the circa 75 years it had?
Type XV (and XVa) swords were in use at the beginning of the 14th century and even a little before. They stayed in use until late in the 15th century and perhaps later. Perhaps this type was more effective the XVII or maybe it was just easier to make. Who knows for sure, but the XV's long lifespan (which lasts from the beginning of the transition from mail to plate until well into the plate era) speaks to its effectiveness and versatility.
It's also worth bearing in mind that there will be variations in stiffness and section within a given Type. In the case of the XV family, examples range from very flattened and wide diamond sections to extremely thick but narrow pronounced diamond sections and everything in between. Some of the former might be somewhat wide and flexible when compared to examples of the latter.
I get the points people are trying to make, but some of the generalizations about a given type and its effectiveness seem overly broad in my opinion.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
William Frisbee
Location: South Shore, MA Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 93
|
| Posted: Thu 02 Jun, 2011 4:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
All the blades we are talking about have one thing in common... the accute point designed for the thrust to penetrate what they could.
Single handed penetration of maille was one of those things that was probably a rarity. Its just very hard to generate the power, which is why we see the migration from the XV to XVa blade types. The XVI and XVIa blades take everything learned with the XV and earlier blades into one package. It finall got the proper "mix" of cutting and thrusting in one package where neither is outweighed by the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
