| Author |
Message |
Dan Howard
|
 Posted: Sat 19 Aug, 2017 6:14 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
A warhammer and horseman's pick is the same weapon. At the time the word "hammer" was used to denote the sharp pointy part, not the blunt bludgeoning part. What we call a "pick" is what they called a "hammer". What we call a "hammer", the blunt bludgeoning part, was called a "poll" at the time.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
|
|
  |
 |
Michael Curl
Location: Northern California, US Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 487
|
| Posted: Mon 21 Aug, 2017 1:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Another way of looking at this is to look at Middle Eastern gear, since they wore full mail until the end of the armoured era, and never developed anything like a type XV sword. They used arrows, maces (lots of maces), and spears. So if it worked for them we shouldn't be surprised that Europeans used spears and maces. It's not like you can have a mace and a sword on your horse, and you can use either.
Plus we have to remember that on all of our surviving pieces of head-to-toe mail the mail is not uniform. Hands and armpits were frequently lighter than the main parts on the chest, so a heavy thrust with a not optimal blade to lighter area may have been able to work anyway.
Lastly the element which we can't forget is that they fought mounted, and modern weapon's testing does not take this into account unless they are testing lances, but a charge with a sword will give a lot of power to a blow. Giovanni Battista Gaiani in Arte di maneggiar la spada (1619) writes that an armoured horseman can be badly wounded from a cut on horseback, and that pauldron's of vambraces might be detached by such blows. If that is true for 17th century plate, then it seems very possible for mail. BTW I found that citation in a secondary source: Sydney Anglo's Martial Arts in Renaissance Europe p. 265.
E Pluribus Unum
|
|
 |
|
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Mon 21 Aug, 2017 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Curl wrote: | Another way of looking at this is to look at Middle Eastern gear, since they wore full mail until the end of the armoured era, and never developed anything like a type XV sword. They used arrows, maces (lots of maces), and spears. So if it worked for them we shouldn't be surprised that Europeans used spears and maces. It's not like you can have a mace and a sword on your horse, and you can use either.
Plus we have to remember that on all of our surviving pieces of head-to-toe mail the mail is not uniform. Hands and armpits were frequently lighter than the main parts on the chest, so a heavy thrust with a not optimal blade to lighter area may have been able to work anyway.
Lastly the element which we can't forget is that they fought mounted, and modern weapon's testing does not take this into account unless they are testing lances, but a charge with a sword will give a lot of power to a blow. Giovanni Battista Gaiani in Arte di maneggiar la spada (1619) writes that an armoured horseman can be badly wounded from a cut on horseback, and that pauldron's of vambraces might be detached by such blows. If that is true for 17th century plate, then it seems very possible for mail. BTW I found that citation in a secondary source: Sydney Anglo's Martial Arts in Renaissance Europe p. 265. |
Good point. It shows that I'm calvarymen's blades then to be longer and much more blade heavy to take advantage of the force addition you can get on horseback. But allot of that power generation is lost if the calvaryman's mount is forced to come to a halt, so how would these now relatively unwieldy swords be used when you don't have the impetus of the animal to back your strikes and stabs up?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew Huang
Location: Vancouver Joined: 14 Mar 2017
Posts: 16
|
| Posted: Mon 21 Aug, 2017 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Curl wrote: | | Lastly the element which we can't forget is that they fought mounted, and modern weapon's testing does not take this into account unless they are testing lances, but a charge with a sword will give a lot of power to a blow. Giovanni Battista Gaiani in Arte di maneggiar la spada (1619) writes that an armoured horseman can be badly wounded from a cut on horseback, and that pauldron's of vambraces might be detached by such blows. If that is true for 17th century plate, then it seems very possible for mail. BTW I found that citation in a secondary source: Sydney Anglo's Martial Arts in Renaissance Europe p. 265. |
Blunt trauma with a sword v plate?
Can you give me the quote.
Andy Huang
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Sep, 2017 1:47 pm Post subject: Re: Sword use and armored combat in the High Middle Ages |
|
|
| Dashiell Harrison wrote: | | 1) Why did swords evolve to be able to handle combat against armored men? Gus Trim recently wrote a fairly in depth post on facebook about how some Type XII and XIV swords seem to have been designed to be heavier with somewhat less acute edges specifically to be able to hold up in combat against armor from the High Medieval Period. Why bother designing a sword to be able to withstand combat against an opponent it's not going to be terribly effective against. |
Effectiveness is relative. Remember the anecdote about the battle of Benevento (1266), where the German knights were so heavily armoured that their French adversaries could not harm them with swords except by thrusting into their armpits? It wouldn't have been easy to punch through a mail-protected armpit with a type XII or XIV sword that would have been available by then, but it would have been so much easier than trying to bash through the other parts of the body (presumably protected by early coats-of-plate and plate or splinted arm/limb defences).
It's also worth noting that acute points intended to pierce mail didn't just suddenly appear with the type XII. Many type X and XI examples -- as well as earlier "Viking" blades -- had similar points intended to make them more effective thrusters.
| Quote: | | 2) Why didn't knights just switch wholesale to axes, since an axe is handy against unarmored *and* armored opponents? |
Because if they wanted to use an axe, they'd carry both a sword and an axe. Same thing with maces -- we see men-at-arms carrying both swords and maces, not simply discarding the sword for the axe or mace.
| Quote: | | I understand that a sword would still be handy against the un-armored or partially armored opponents one might encounter in warfare during the period, but it seems strange to me to carry a weapon that won't fare especially well against the most dangerous adversary you might have to fight, i.e. knights armored cap-a-pie in mail, when a different weapon will do about as well against unarmored adversaries and much better against armored ones. I understand that swords were side-arms for much of this period, but they seem to have been very common and widely used sidearms and more popular than some of the others that were available. Why? |
I'd guess that a huge part of it is because swords could be conveniently stored and carried in scabbards. This was much harder to do satisfactorily for axes, maces, and similar impact weapons. So now we have a versatile weapon that would have been murderously effective against unarmoured or poorly-armoured troops, moderately effective against decently-armoured troops, and could be carried in a safe manner since it was fully covered and secured inside a scabbard. What's not to like?
| Quote: | 3a) Why isn't it until the 14th century that anti-armor weapons (including anti-armor swords) come into major play? I understand that axes and maces were in use before this, but they (along with other anti-armor weapons) don't seem to have really reached their zenith of popularity until after the age of mail as state-of-the-art armor gave way to plate. If mail was so effective, why didn't some of this stuff come out earlier.
3b) I hear a lot about how rigid bladed swords were designed to thrust into gaps in armor... but those gaps were frequently protected by mail. If swords could defeat the mail voiders of the 14th and 15th centuries, then why weren't swords designed to defeat the mail hauberks of the 12th and 13th? |
I'd say it was a game of percentages. Mail was effective enough to lower the percentage of lethal or incapacitating hits to an acceptably low level, but on the other hand the likelihood that available weapons would pierce mail -- while low -- was still high enough to justify the use of those weapons. Plate armour lowered that percentage even further to an unacceptable level until new weapons that could raise that percentage back up were developed.
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Curl
Location: Northern California, US Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 487
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Sep, 2017 1:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry for my late response, I finally submitted my MA so I have been busy.
To Philip: at least in the 16th century a long estoc was carried by Spanish men-at-arms, and a lighter one-handed sword was as well as a warhammer. So they would be able to switch between them. In addition, even once the horse stops, a short weapon can't reach in front of one's head, so ironically it might be that the longer weapon is more manoeuvrable in the since that it can be manoeuvered to attack and defend the front and rear of the horse where the short weapon wouldn't. I mean, if your weapon is too short to attack an enemy horse's head from behind your own, it doesn't matter how quick it is.
To Andrew: As I wrote it was given in a secondary source and I don't have access to the original, but it is supposed to be in Giovanni Battista Gaiani's Arte di maneggiar la spada (1619). Anglo was quite specific so I doubt he would just make this up, but since I have had to return all of my books to the library I can't double check it now. If you have access to Anglo's Martial Arts in Renaissance Europe, you could find the page number of the primary source and then double check.
Personally I find this easy to believe because there are many accounts where lances tore off vambraces or pauldrons, and we see these in ‘El Passo Honroso de Suero de Quiñones’, which you can find translated in Noel Fallows's Jousting in Medieval
and Renaissance Iberia. The lance points aren't reported as penetrating, but rather catching on the armour and then ripping it off, meaning that the underlying straps and ties are are being pulled in two directions as the two horses pass one another.
I would want to double check the above mentioned source before I made any ex cathedra statements, but it is a fact that the additional power of a moving mount, or even two mounts moving towards each other, is not factored into any modern sword vs. armour tests.
E Pluribus Unum
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Friede
Location: Austin Joined: 15 Mar 2014
Posts: 39
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Sep, 2017 8:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just to point something out...swords could still be useful against armor...you just have to hold it differently. There is reference to half-swording earlier. The mortschlag ("murder stroke") used the cross of the sword like a pick. Swords stick around because of their versatility, as well as tradition.
I have seen thrusts from a spatulate blade (Viking style) cut through butted mail into a gambeson, for what it's worth..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew Huang
Location: Vancouver Joined: 14 Mar 2017
Posts: 16
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Sep, 2017 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It seems like the axe, mace or warhammer is the preferred weapon of the Knight on Horseback after his lance broke. The sword is only a weapon of last resort.
Robert the Bruce, Richard I, Duke of Bedford, John II, Richard III all seemed to have used axes.
Andy Huang
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Sat 09 Sep, 2017 12:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Er . . . no. Did you completely ignore Benevento (1266) and the many many other battle accounts that clearly mention men-at-arms drawing swords and fighting with them in the main phase of the battle (i.e. not just during the pursuit of the defeated enemy)?
|
|
|
|
|
Luka Borscak
|
| Posted: Sat 09 Sep, 2017 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Lafayette, do you maybe know where could one find the passage about French knights using swords against Germans at Benevento? I remember there was some talk about it here on myArmoury and I think the conlusion was that it was not either a first hand account or that it was about some other battle, not Benevento...
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Sat 09 Sep, 2017 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Luka Borscak wrote: | | Lafayette, do you maybe know where could one find the passage about French knights using swords against Germans at Benevento? I remember there was some talk about it here on myArmoury and I think the conlusion was that it was not either a first hand account or that it was about some other battle, not Benevento... |
True. The Benevento claims are bogus but there are other battles in which combatants are described using swords in the main melee. IIRC during the Fair of Lincoln, William Marshall is hit multiple times around the head and shoulders with a sword but received no injury.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew Huang
Location: Vancouver Joined: 14 Mar 2017
Posts: 16
|
| Posted: Sat 09 Sep, 2017 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've been reading wikipedia and it says in the Battle of Verneuil, swords could "smash skulls" How true is this?
Andy Huang
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Sun 10 Sep, 2017 3:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Andrew Huang wrote: | | I've been reading wikipedia and it says in the Battle of Verneuil, swords could "smash skulls" How true is this? |
Very true if you can get their helmet off first. 
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
|
|
|
|
|
Alexander Hinman
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Sep, 2017 10:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Andrew Huang wrote: | | I've been reading wikipedia and it says in the Battle of Verneuil, swords could "smash skulls" How true is this? |
Very true if you can get their helmet off first. |
This is actually an important aspect not much mentioned, but ripping off armour was a quite common tactic. Consider this passage from William the Breton:
| Prose Account wrote: |
But a knight of their group called Eustache of Malenghin began to yell out loud with great arrogance "Death, death to the French!" and the French began to surround him. One stopped him and took hold of his head between his arm and his chest, and then ripped his helmet off his head, while another struck him to his heart with a knife between the chin and the ventaille and made him feel through great pain the death with which he had threatened the French through great arrogance. |
You don't even need bladed weapons to follow up, of course. The judicial duel described by Galbert of Bruges has the victor defeat his opponent by reaching under the hauberk and literally throwing him by the balls.
Yet blows could sometimes be felt through armour as well, with the head being a viable target even against inflexible armours.
During the Battle of Bremule, per Henry of Huntington, William Crispin hit Henry I so hard in the side of his head that "the strength of the blows forced the hauberk itself a little way into the king’s head, so that blood gushed out". William's confrontation with Henry is also asserted by Orderic Vitalis. Gutierre Diaz de Gamez which described an instance where Pero Niño hit a Moorish "knight" hard enough on his helmet to kill him, and William the Breton also mentions a man knocked down by a sword blow to the helm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Sep, 2017 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Alexander Hinman wrote: | | Dan Howard wrote: | | Andrew Huang wrote: | | I've been reading wikipedia and it says in the Battle of Verneuil, swords could "smash skulls" How true is this? |
Very true if you can get their helmet off first. |
This is actually an important aspect not much mentioned, but ripping off armour was a quite common tactic. Consider this passage from William the Breton:
| Prose Account wrote: |
But a knight of their group called Eustache of Malenghin began to yell out loud with great arrogance "Death, death to the French!" and the French began to surround him. One stopped him and took hold of his head between his arm and his chest, and then ripped his helmet off his head, while another struck him to his heart with a knife between the chin and the ventaille and made him feel through great pain the death with which he had threatened the French through great arrogance. |
You don't even need bladed weapons to follow up, of course. The judicial duel described by Galbert of Bruges has the victor defeat his opponent by reaching under the hauberk and literally throwing him by the balls.
Yet blows could sometimes be felt through armour as well, with the head being a viable target even against inflexible armours.
During the Battle of Bremule, per Henry of Huntington, William Crispin hit Henry I so hard in the side of his head that "the strength of the blows forced the hauberk itself a little way into the king’s head, so that blood gushed out". William's confrontation with Henry is also asserted by Orderic Vitalis. Gutierre Diaz de Gamez which described an instance where Pero Niño hit a Moorish "knight" hard enough on his helmet to kill him, and William the Breton also mentions a man knocked down by a sword blow to the helm. |
This makes even more sense if we go off most artistic evidence that Great Helmets and Bassinets didn't have chinstraps, relying on their fit, size and mass to stay on a person's head.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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