| Author |
Message |
Luka Borscak
|
 Posted: Wed 31 Jul, 2013 3:44 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Philip Dyer wrote: | | Matt Lentzner wrote: | Here's something related that has always intrigued me.
These period art often show a minority of knights wielding falchions as opposed to swords.
So I wonder:
Does this represent the reality of weapon choices, that some would prefer a falchion over a sword or is it just the artist trying to break up the monotony of swords? Certainly the falchions look stylized to me, but I lack the experience to say so with any authority.
If it is true that falchions were used how do that square with what we know about the relative protective qualities of mail? It seems to me that mail is essentially cut proof from any bladed implement. Does a falchion cross over into being an impact weapon that does blunt trauma to the person under the mail? |
At least from what I understand about Falchions, they are shorter, for blade heavy, and because they bare single edged, more of a robust design and easier to make, thus being cheaper. Given that most people wouldn't be wearing any metal armour, if you are surrounded you would want a close quarter weapon, and that swords are expensive, arming swords probably more so than a Falchions, I would be surprised if some knights, exspecially from poorer areas, would use Falcions. Falchions being more blade heavy, would probably be a better shock deliever but if you truly were concerned about delievering shock first a formost, it would be easier and cheaper to utilize a mace. |
The problem is, it's pretty much a myth that falchions were blade heavy and cheaper to make than double edged swords...
|
|
  |
 |
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Wed 31 Jul, 2013 8:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Luka Borscak wrote: | | Philip Dyer wrote: | | Matt Lentzner wrote: | Here's something related that has always intrigued me.
These period art often show a minority of knights wielding falchions as opposed to swords.
So I wonder:
Does this represent the reality of weapon choices, that some would prefer a falchion over a sword or is it just the artist trying to break up the monotony of swords? Certainly the falchions look stylized to me, but I lack the experience to say so with any authority.
If it is true that falchions were used how do that square with what we know about the relative protective qualities of mail? It seems to me that mail is essentially cut proof from any bladed implement. Does a falchion cross over into being an impact weapon that does blunt trauma to the person under the mail? |
At least from what I understand about Falchions, they are shorter, for blade heavy, and because they bare single edged, more of a robust design and easier to make, thus being cheaper. Given that most people wouldn't be wearing any metal armour, if you are surrounded you would want a close quarter weapon, and that swords are expensive, arming swords probably more so than a Falchions, I would be surprised if some knights, exspecially from poorer areas, would use Falcions. Falchions being more blade heavy, would probably be a better shock deliever but if you truly were concerned about delievering shock first a formost, it would be easier and cheaper to utilize a mace. |
The problem is, it's pretty much a myth that falchions were blade heavy and cheaper to make than double edged swords... |
I'm not taking about eight pound sword axes but how they not be easier to make? You only have to worry about making proper edge endge for good cutting on one edge. Maybe some liked having shorter weapons, which would be more handy id your surrounded?
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Schontzler
Location: WA, USA Joined: 15 Apr 2013
Posts: 99
|
| Posted: Wed 31 Jul, 2013 9:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Falchions are deadly weapons, just as much as a typical knightly sword. I think it comes down to personal preference.
|
|
|
|
|
Ian S LaSpina
|
| Posted: Wed 31 Jul, 2013 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
There is a considerable amount of artwork depicting men in full armor, including men with crowns on their heads wielding falchions. This is relatively common from the 13th through early 15th century. I think the notion of the falchion as a weapon of the lower classes or poorer gentry is not necessarily accurate. Falchions are clearly less popular than swords in depicted works, but I think it would simply come down to personal preference more than anything else.
My YouTube Channel - Knyght Errant
My Pinterest
"Monsters are dangerous, and just now Kings are dying like flies..."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Reimer
Location: Australia Joined: 16 Aug 2010
Posts: 56
|
| Posted: Wed 31 Jul, 2013 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Also the notion that all falchions are short weapons is not correct , there are illuminations that show them to reach hand and a half length. Also from memory the Conyers Falchion is about the same length as most "knightly" single hand swords, and just as well made.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Wed 31 Jul, 2013 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Philip Dyer wrote: | | Luka Borscak wrote: |
The problem is, it's pretty much a myth that falchions were blade heavy and cheaper to make than double edged swords... |
I'm not taking about eight pound sword axes but how they not be easier to make? You only have to worry about making proper edge endge for good cutting on one edge. Maybe some liked having shorter weapons, which would be more handy id your surrounded? |
No need to talk about eight pound sword axes when claiming that falchions are blade heavy - the claim is made for relatively modest weights, and for all swords of broad-tipped swords (from British P1796 LCS, Turkish kilij, oxtail dao, etc.). The falchion claim on blade heaviness appears to be part of this larger myth. "Myth" it is, since it isn't true - those various broad-tipped "heavy" swords are typically lighter and less blade heavy than "regular" swords. Because where they are wide, they are thin. So they look "heavy" in photos showing the profile, because you can't (easily) see the thickness in those. Thus the myth?
Looking at what falchion weights are available, maybe 900g (about 2lbs) is typical, vs about 1.1kg (about 2.5lbs) for a sword. There is variation, and some are heavy. For example, the Conyers falchion is 1.3kg (total length 890mm, blade 734mm long, 39mm wide and 6mm thick at the hilt, 109mm wide and 1.2mm thick at the widest part). But at 1.2mm thick, the blade might suffer more than the target if hit into metal armour with maximum force (I have an old golok of similar variation in width and thickness, and there are chips aplenty on the thinnest part).
As for cost, the hilts are the same for swords and falchions, the sword needs more metal, the falchion might need better forger (to get the thinner blade right) and be more likely to fail in heat-treatment, and the falchion would need more grinding. Doesn't seem like there'd be much difference in cost if made to the same quality.
So one would choose a falchion for fashion or for function. Nice slicing blades - how can you go wrong with a giant kitchen knife?
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
 |
|
|
Doug Lester
Location: Decatur, IL Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 167
|
| Posted: Wed 31 Jul, 2013 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
On the question of what maile could do against a sword I would recommend that you go to YouTube and call up Michael Load's Weapons That Made Briton about armor. I found it quite enlightening.
|
|
|
|
|
Luka Borscak
|
| Posted: Wed 31 Jul, 2013 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Philip Dyer wrote: | | Luka Borscak wrote: | | Philip Dyer wrote: | | Matt Lentzner wrote: | Here's something related that has always intrigued me.
These period art often show a minority of knights wielding falchions as opposed to swords.
So I wonder:
Does this represent the reality of weapon choices, that some would prefer a falchion over a sword or is it just the artist trying to break up the monotony of swords? Certainly the falchions look stylized to me, but I lack the experience to say so with any authority.
If it is true that falchions were used how do that square with what we know about the relative protective qualities of mail? It seems to me that mail is essentially cut proof from any bladed implement. Does a falchion cross over into being an impact weapon that does blunt trauma to the person under the mail? |
At least from what I understand about Falchions, they are shorter, for blade heavy, and because they bare single edged, more of a robust design and easier to make, thus being cheaper. Given that most people wouldn't be wearing any metal armour, if you are surrounded you would want a close quarter weapon, and that swords are expensive, arming swords probably more so than a Falchions, I would be surprised if some knights, exspecially from poorer areas, would use Falcions. Falchions being more blade heavy, would probably be a better shock deliever but if you truly were concerned about delievering shock first a formost, it would be easier and cheaper to utilize a mace. |
The problem is, it's pretty much a myth that falchions were blade heavy and cheaper to make than double edged swords... |
I'm not taking about eight pound sword axes but how they not be easier to make? You only have to worry about making proper edge endge for good cutting on one edge. Maybe some liked having shorter weapons, which would be more handy id your surrounded? |
Shaping one edge rather than two is easier, but not enough do reduce the price of the sword much... Look at the prices of high quality falchions today. For example by Tinker or Albion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Wed 31 Jul, 2013 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Timo Nieminen wrote: | | Philip Dyer wrote: | | Luka Borscak wrote: |
The problem is, it's pretty much a myth that falchions were blade heavy and cheaper to make than double edged swords... |
I'm not taking about eight pound sword axes but how they not be easier to make? You only have to worry about making proper edge endge for good cutting on one edge. Maybe some liked having shorter weapons, which would be more handy id your surrounded? |
No need to talk about eight pound sword axes when claiming that falchions are blade heavy - the claim is made for relatively modest weights, and for all swords of broad-tipped swords (from British P1796 LCS, Turkish kilij, oxtail dao, etc.). The falchion claim on blade heaviness appears to be part of this larger myth. "Myth" it is, since it isn't true - those various broad-tipped "heavy" swords are typically lighter and less blade heavy than "regular" swords. Because where they are wide, they are thin. So they look "heavy" in photos showing the profile, because you can't (easily) see the thickness in those. Thus the myth?
Looking at what falchion weights are available, maybe 900g (about 2lbs) is typical, vs about 1.1kg (about 2.5lbs) for a sword. There is variation, and some are heavy. For example, the Conyers falchion is 1.3kg (total length 890mm, blade 734mm long, 39mm wide and 6mm thick at the hilt, 109mm wide and 1.2mm thick at the widest part). But at 1.2mm thick, the blade might suffer more than the target if hit into metal armour with maximum force (I have an old golok of similar variation in width and thickness, and there are chips aplenty on the thinnest part).
As for cost, the hilts are the same for swords and falchions, the sword needs more metal, the falchion might need better forger (to get the thinner blade right) and be more likely to fail in heat-treatment, and the falchion would need more grinding. Doesn't seem like there'd be much difference in cost if made to the same quality.
So one would choose a falchion for fashion or for function. Nice slicing blades - how can you go wrong with a giant kitchen knife? |
Well, if your opponent lacks so much armour than he can be cut through, won't arming sword kill him as well? Easier to withdraw from a person's body since it has a curved edge rather than straight edges?
So falchions analogy= huge chef's knives Falchions=/= military machetes
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Thu 01 Aug, 2013 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Philip Dyer wrote: |
Well, if your opponent lacks so much armour than he can be cut through, won't arming sword kill him as well? Easier to withdraw from a person's body since it has a curved edge rather than straight edges? |
This might well be why regular swords were more popular than falchions. For functional advantages, the falchion might be better at cutting through textile armour, is lighter and can be faster, and single-edged can be an advantage in close-in fighting.
| Philip Dyer wrote: | | So falchions analogy= huge chef's knives Falchions=/= military machetes |
IMO, yes.
But "machete" can still work, for the right kind of machete. Lots of variation in machetes, depending on intended target. I have a working machete with a blade 1.4mm thick, nice and light so you can swing it all day (which people would do, swinging them for a living).
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matt Lentzner
|
| Posted: Thu 01 Aug, 2013 3:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Timo Nieminen wrote: | | single-edged can be an advantage in close-in fighting. |
How so?
|
|
 |
|
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Thu 01 Aug, 2013 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Matt Lentzner wrote: | | Timo Nieminen wrote: | | single-edged can be an advantage in close-in fighting. |
How so? |
a curved edger you can cut and follow the slice out whether a straight blade is more likely to cut and if not cut all the all through, get stuck?
|
|
|
|
|
Bob Haynes
|
| Posted: Thu 01 Aug, 2013 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hmm, very nice conversation going on about the falchion IMO.
However about mail... I know the armor should be avoided when possible, but what about light fighting axes? Specifically Viking age axes, how are they against mail? Would they at least transfer sufficient blunt force?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mart Shearer
|
| Posted: Thu 01 Aug, 2013 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What do you mean by, "the armor should be avoided"?
ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Thu 01 Aug, 2013 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mart Shearer wrote: | | What do you mean by, "the armor should be avoided"? |
Slice where the armor isn't, if you strike a sword, spear, axe, etc, anything with sharp edges or points, there is the vialiability that it could get damaged. Flesh, bone, and clothing are much easier meduims to go through
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Thu 01 Aug, 2013 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Philip Dyer wrote: | | Matt Lentzner wrote: | | Timo Nieminen wrote: | | single-edged can be an advantage in close-in fighting. |
How so? |
a curved edger you can cut and follow the slice out whether a straight blade is more likely to cut and if not cut all the all through, get stuck? |
You can support the blade with your free hand on the back of the blade. As seen, e.g., in German and Chinese swordsmanship. Instant monster leverage. Displace opponent's weapon, place blade against opponent's body, and slice.
Some falchions have a convex curved edge, but some have a concave edge, or a straight edge. I think that the concave edged falchions would be more likely to get stuck than a straight-edged sword, especially with a spike on the edge, like the ones discussed here: http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=26203
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Thu 01 Aug, 2013 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Philip Dyer wrote: | | Slice where the armor isn't, if you strike a sword, spear, axe, etc, anything with sharp edges or points, there is the vialiability that it could get damaged. Flesh, bone, and clothing are much easier meduims to go through |
When fighting for your life you aren't really worried about damaging your weapon. What you are concerned about is the enemy killing you while your blow is harmlessly bouncing off his armour. You aim for places that are not covered by armour because the chances of inflicting injury through the armour is too low to be worth the risk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Thu 01 Aug, 2013 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Philip Dyer wrote: | | Slice where the armor isn't, if you strike a sword, spear, axe, etc, anything with sharp edges or points, there is the vialiability that it could get damaged. Flesh, bone, and clothing are much easier meduims to go through |
When fighting for your life you aren't really worried about damaging your weapon. What you are concerned about is the enemy killing you while your blow is harmlessly bouncing off his armour. You aim for places that are not covered by armour because the chances of inflicting injury through the armour is too low to be worth the risk. |
That to, I sorta took the obvious, most important point for granted in that post. *facepalms*
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mart Shearer
|
| Posted: Fri 02 Aug, 2013 3:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
The problem with that line of thinking is that it would preclude striking ay a fully equipped knight from the 13th century onward. Mail chausses cover the legs and feet; the hauberk covers the body, thighs, arms, hands, and head, and the helm covers the face. Unless all blows were aimed at the eyes, soles of the feet, or palms of the hand, this reasoning would conclude that they shouldn't be attempted.
I've personally seen mail with non-penetrating cuts in the rings. Several accounts in the literature of the 12th and 13th centuries note rings being cut from mail, or mail (made of pure iron for the most part, although some was mild steel) breaking during prolonged fights after multiple strikes. Surely armored men were killed in battle, and even non-injurious blows could help wear an opponent down physically. At some point grappling with him to lift the hauberk skirt or remove the helm and ventail might become necessary, as we read happening at the Battle of Bouvines.
When fighting an armored man, the rule is, "Hit him hard, fast, and repeatedly."
ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Fri 02 Aug, 2013 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mart Shearer wrote: | The problem with that line of thinking is that it would preclude striking ay a fully equipped knight from the 13th century onward. Mail chausses cover the legs and feet; the hauberk covers the body, thighs, arms, hands, and head, and the helm covers the face. Unless all blows were aimed at the eyes, soles of the feet, or palms of the hand, this reasoning would conclude that they shouldn't be attempted.
I've personally seen mail with non-penetrating cuts in the rings. Several accounts in the literature of the 12th and 13th centuries note rings being cut from mail, or mail (made of pure iron for the most part, although some was mild steel) breaking during prolonged fights after multiple strikes. Surely armored men were killed in battle, and even non-injurious blows could help wear an opponent down physically. At some point grappling with him to lift the hauberk skirt or remove the helm and ventail might become necessary, as we read happening at the Battle of Bouvines.
When fighting an armored man, the rule is, "Hit him hard, fast, and repeatedly." |
Or you could use your huge spear and speed from your horse to stab straight through his chain or kill his horse hope that weight falls on top of him. We were just expressing what seemed to be logical preferable, not anything set in stone. If you have to hit sword to armor and hit a man repeatably in order to eliminate the threat, you do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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