Ancient weapon choices: why swords?

[piratedude]

A seax and later on the (lange/große) Messer was a long knife, i.e. a single edged weapon, a sword (spatha) is always double edged and was only used by knights (and legally reserved for them)

Im sorry, what?
There are plenty of double edged knives throughout history, and plenty of single edged swords too, unless for some strange reason you think sabers, cutlases, katanas, etc, aren't swords.

And swords were never illegal for commoners to own. In many cases they're legally required, and in some cases you may be restricted in length or where&when you can carry them, but never could they not own them

 

[VictorLaszlo]

Im sorry, what?
There are plenty of double edged knives throughout history, and plenty of single edged swords too, unless for some strange reason you think sabers, cutlases, katanas, etc, aren't swords.

In general parlance they might be called swords, but no expert in cold steel weapons will call them that.

And swords were never illegal for commoners to own. In many cases they're legally required, and in some cases you may be restricted in length or where&when you can carry them, but never could they not own them

Tell that to medieval peasants in whose possession a (real, i.e. double edged) sword was found and who were hanged for that offense. There was a reason why e.g. city militias were armed with long knives (Messer) instead of swords.

 

[piratedude]

In general parlance they might be called swords, but no expert in cold steel weapons will call them that.

Tell that to medieval peasants in whose possession a (real, i.e. double edged) sword was found and who were hanged for that offense.

Please do cite your sources for both of these

 

[piratedude]

There was a reason why e.g. city militias were armed with long knives (Messer) instead of swords.

Because knife making guilds wanted to break into the sword market monopolized by sword making guilds

 

[Analytical Engine]

A very good video on the laws on carrying swords during the medieval period, and on the "Messer was technically a knife" thing:

 

[piratedude]

A very good video on the laws on carrying swords during the medieval period, and on the "Messer was technically a knife" thing:

In addition,
This

And these

https://youtu.be/irJ96PyaEa8
https://youtu.be/zGCjglSr_Mo

 

[bernardz]

I'm not sure about that. Maybe being a really good swordsman would require lots of training, but the same would probably hold true of being a really good spearman, and with both weapons being good enough to fight in a shield-wall would probably require much less.

Good and effective are not necessarily the same. To be an effective swordsman does take a lot of training and practice, generally, they were professional

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Swordsmanship

Effective spearman could be quickly raised by the local population, trained in formation and sent in.

Machiavelli book "The Art of War" who would have seen both Swordsmen and Spearmen noted that that the Roman sword units were superior to spearman units but these units required more training that only rich professional armies could afford.

Japan is a whole different animal than China. I don't think you can make that comparison.

I am not making a comparison, I am just saying that Japan and Russia were in different sides for the most of WW2 and China if it did go to war in WW2 is likely to get involved in the war with one of them.

 

[A Piece of History]

Good and effective are not necessarily the same. To be an effective swordsman does take a lot of training and practice, generally, they were professional

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Swordsmanship

Effective spearman could be quickly raised by the local population, trained in formation and sent in.

Machiavelli book "The Art of War" who would have seen both Swordsmen and Spearmen noted that that the Roman sword units were superior to spearman units but these units required more training that only rich professional armies could afford.





I am not making a comparison, I am just saying that Japan and Russia were in different sides for the most of WW2 and China if it did go to war in WW2 is likely to get involved in the war with one of them.

I think you quoted me in the wrong thread

 

[kholieken]

I wasn't thinking "get rid of shields", just "why not swap another weapon?"

I should also say, don't limit to maces. As I think a bit more, there were flails, yo-yos (yes, they were weapons!), bolas, & various other weapons that might be used.

Not to mention accepting "no shield" as a valid choice.

And maybe developing a different design of shield, so it could be used with a polearm? Or a different tactical formation?

All that said, another question: did versatility trump lethality? Did it (does it) trump ease of production? Do maces (frex) have to be "shorter-ranged"?

How much of this is a cultural artifact, & how much a product of local ability to manufacture swords (or not)?

.

If you ever play with nun-chuk / nunchaku, you will know that any weapon with rope/chain is dangerous and more likely to hurt its user than opponent, so flail/yo-yo/bolas is not effective replacement.

No shield is valid choice (as in Japan), in that case spear/naginata/etc, two handed weapons predominate in battlefield. You still need sword as sidearm or in cities (two handed weapon is cumbersome to carry everywhere).

Spear and shield is very effective combo and used everywhere.

Longer sharp sides make swords more effective than axe/knife/mace/pick. And need less muscle strength. So sword is easier to learn and use.

Versatility, Lethality, Easy-of-use, etc all must be under consideration. Ease of production usually most important, so spear and axe is usually in larger number among nonprofessional soldier.

Longer mace is Staff, quarterstaff use is widespread, but sharp point is more effective to injure, so spear/naginata is more effective two-handed weapon.

 

[phx1138]

No shield is valid choice (as in Japan), in that case spear/naginata/etc, two handed weapons predominate in battlefield.

I was thinking of samurai when I wrote that.

Longer sharp sides make swords more effective than axe/knife/mace/pick. And need less muscle strength.

I've seen maces that have "squared" edges, like they mean to combine sword effects.

I also wonder about the police baton adapted as a weapon (heavier? with a bladed tip?); it would seem to need less strength.

spear/naginata is more effective two-handed weapon.

That's my thinking, too. It doesn't look like there's a "universal" weapon suited for all cases. (Which, I suppose, explains why the other options exist. )

 

[JanWellem]

Im sorry, what?
There are plenty of double edged knives throughout history, and plenty of single edged swords too, unless for some strange reason you think sabers, cutlases, katanas, etc, aren't swords.

And swords were never illegal for commoners to own. In many cases they're legally required, and in some cases you may be restricted in length or where&when you can carry them, but never could they not own them

What I've once read is that the length of the blade was counted per edge so that single edged weapons would meet the restrictions regarding their length while double edged weapons would not. And those restrictions, like so many others, did indeed depend on one's social status within the medieval feudal hierarchy. Serfs were AFAIK not permitted to own anything above the length of a simple kitchen knive.

 

[Richard V]

No shield is valid choice (as in Japan), in that case spear/naginata/etc, two handed weapons predominate in battlefield. You still need sword as sidearm or in cities (two handed weapon is cumbersome to carry everywhere).

Unless you are equipped with superior armor, not using a shield means you are highly vulnerable to missile weapons. Shields are a low cost solution in lieu of expensive armor.

 

[lefthandhummingbird]

Tell that to medieval peasants in whose possession a (real, i.e. double edged) sword was found and who were hanged for that offense. There was a reason why e.g. city militias were armed with long knives (Messer) instead of swords.

You are making vast generalisations about an entire continent over a thousand year timespan. Looking at the high medieval Swedish provincial laws, they postulated that every man should own weapons. All of them required a sword, except the Hälsinge law which allowed one to substitute an axe. A shield and a helmet were also required everywhere, and certain areas also required other forms of armour, bows, spears, etc. Now, the degree to which this was followed might be discussed, as can the quality of the arms, but there was most certainly no prohibition against commoners owning swords.

 

[Analytical Engine]

Certain cities forbade the carrying around of certain types of blades within their boundaries, just like how some places in the Wild West required one to check in their firearm whilst visiting. Other places didn't have such restrictions.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Machiavelli book "The Art of War" who would have seen both Swordsmen and Spearmen noted that that the Roman sword units were superior to spearman units but these units required more training that only rich professional armies could afford.

I don't know how much training Renaissance swordsmen were given, but until the Principate Roman armies weren't professionals, they were levies raised for a specific campaign and disbanded when it was over.

 

[bernardz]

I don't know how much training Renaissance swordsmen were given, but until the Principate Roman armies weren't professionals, they were levies raised for a specific campaign and disbanded when it was over.

Yes, the sword would certainly be in a decline by the Renaissance Era but what Roman era you are talking about? Roman history is a long time. Most historians would say the Romans troops originally were spearmen (something they never gave up) but they first started in a major way to use swords in the middle of the 2nd Punic War, these armies eg led by Scipio Africanus were professional.

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Gladius

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Yes, the sword would certainly be in a decline by the Renaissance Era but what Roman era you are talking about? Roman history is a long time.

"Until the Principate", like I said.

Most historians would say the Romans troops originally were spearmen (something they never gave up) but they first started in a major way to use swords in the middle of the 2nd Punic War, these armies eg led by Scipio Africanus were professional.

Most historians would say no such thing. The Roman hastati were using the sword and javelin by the time of Pyrrhus' invasion, and the principes by the time of the First Punic War. The triarii seem to have switched to using the gladius during the second century BC.

 

[piratedude]

Serfs were AFAIK not permitted to own anything above the length of a simple kitchen knive.

Maybe somed villeins where prohibited, but lords depended on calling upon an armed population to deal with criminals given the absence of a police force outside cities, ie: posse comitatus

 

[bernardz]

"Until the Principate", like I said.

That is still a big period in which Rome went thru several military revolutions

Most historians would say no such thing. The Roman hastati were using the sword and javelin by the time of Pyrrhus' invasion, and the principes by the time of the First Punic War. The triarii seem to have switched to using the gladius during the second century BC.

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Hastati

Hastati (singular: Hastatus) were a class of infantry employed in the armies of the early Roman Republic who originally fought as spearmen, and later as swordsmen. These soldiers were the staple unit after Rome threw off Etruscan rule. They were originally some of the poorest men in the legion and could afford only modest equipment—light chainmail and other miscellaneous equipment. The Senate supplied their soldiers with only a short stabbing sword, the gladius,

The gladius only comes after Pyrrhus' invasion.

 

[Kaze]

The other reason why is that a sword is nothing more than adding a couple inches to a kitchen knife. Every home in every nation has a kitchen knife of some sort - see how useful it is for making food, but it also when desperate could be used in home defense. Now add some inches to the kitchen knife - now you have leverage and reach to cut, stab, poke, and parry.