Curved Swords in Europe?

2.my most recent assertion (less aristo/more central) was what I had gathered as the point of your post, outside trying to disprove mine. Trying to find a task which could be presented to the OP from what you said. If not that, then what?

It goes back to material conditions and circumstances on the ground. Medieval European cultures won't favor a curved sword unless there is a definite advantage to using one any more than the Arab and Persian powers aren't going to go with one because it is less advantageous.

caliburdeath said:
3. I understand that India is a very diverse region worth at the very least half a Europe. But, is that so true before the mughal conquest(probably so)? And, Japan is most certainly not any more diverse than a single large European kingdom.

In India this was much more the case with a degree of ritualization setting in with war suggesting there was a certain status quo expected to be maintained. It was, in fact, thanks to being so used to this status quo that allowed the Delhi Sultanate to roll over so many northern Ganges domains.

Sengoku and Bakufu Japan matches the circumstances of Medieval Europe pretty closely in many respects, down to the nature of warfare in some ways but there is one major difference: ANYONE with a weapon up until Toyotomi Hideyoshi formalized a new caste system could be a samurai. This meant the same issues of self-equipment were, if anything, even more endemic in Japan than they were in Europe.

caliburdeath said:
4. I never said my assertions were universally true. I said they were tendencies. So, south Asia and a small part of east Asia are heavier armor. What with west, central( & what there is of a north), & most of east Asia, and that's excluding southeast Asia, wearing lighter armor according to you, I think that still counts. And you didn't even refute that Europe tends towards heavier armor (until gunpowder). Byzantines, okay, they were an exception, and like a third Asian.
Now, if we say that the warring states period in China, and the Mesopotamian times generally wore heavier armor, which is probably true, then THAT would invalidate that part of my statement.
And of course we have the Celtic peoples, but that was in mostly tribal times. I don't think the Germanic feoderati or romanized Celts were the same.

The problem isn't that you are asserting such tendencies existed, it is that you are asserting these tendencies were dictated by what continent one was on or some kind of implied overculture that never really existed in any of the examples discussed. In each case the nature of war, the equipment used, and the tactics employed were a direct consequence of the specific circumstances they were each facing and not due to some kind of latent cultural or continental factors.

Also another thing you're missing is by adding all the nomad steppe tribes in the mix is you've added another element in there: the tribal nomad army. That was a completely different beast from the other two models already discussed that developed out of their pastoral way of life where every male had to know how to fight to defend the tribe. Even this model would end up disappearing and being replaced with either warlord armies (similar to to the aristocratic situation) or with the Great Hordes of the Mongol Empire that much more closely resembled the centralized armies of China and the Caliphates. And of course the Germanic and Celtic tribal levies were their own situation as well but one where it was unlikely they regularly wore armor outside of a handful of individuals and leaders prior to Romanization; we know as much from Caesar's account of his war in Gaul and the many descriptions of the Germanic tribes in Tacitus and other sources. There it was, again, due to economic and material limitations more than any other reason leading to those groups of cultures to develop their own responses to the situation and its limits.
 
It goes back to material conditions and circumstances on the ground. Medieval European cultures won't favor a curved sword unless there is a definite advantage to using one any more than the Arab and Persian powers aren't going to go with one because it is less advantageous.
I think you had a typo here, but, yes. So the question is, how can we create such an advantage, so that curved swords are significantly more common in Europe, (though not necessarily even close to the majority)?
In India this was much more the case with a degree of ritualization setting in with war suggesting there was a certain status quo expected to be maintained. It was, in fact, thanks to being so used to this status quo that allowed the Delhi Sultanate to roll over so many northern Ganges domains.

Sengoku and Bakufu Japan matches the circumstances of Medieval Europe pretty closely in many respects, down to the nature of warfare in some ways but there is one major difference: ANYONE with a weapon up until Toyotomi Hideyoshi formalized a new caste system could be a samurai. This meant the same issues of self-equipment were, if anything, even more endemic in Japan than they were in Europe.
Ok. I think there's not really a point being debated here anymore.


The problem isn't that you are asserting such tendencies existed, it is that you are asserting these tendencies were dictated by what continent one was on or some kind of implied overculture that never really existed in any of the examples discussed. In each case the nature of war, the equipment used, and the tactics employed were a direct consequence of the specific circumstances they were each facing and not due to some kind of latent cultural or continental factors.
I made no such assertion. It may have come across as such, but I was not in any way implying the light armor or curved swords were an inherent cultural feature throughout Asia, or even in any part of Asia, nor that heavy armor was an inherent feature in Europe. I never claimed that these tendencies I was claiming to exist were not the result of economic/political/logical issues, and by saying they could be changed, I was implying the opposite (that they were based on those factors).

Also another thing you're missing is by adding all the nomad steppe tribes in the mix is you've added another element in there: the tribal nomad army. That was a completely different beast from the other two models already discussed that developed out of their pastoral way of life where every male had to know how to fight to defend the tribe. Even this model would end up disappearing and being replaced with either warlord armies (similar to to the aristocratic situation) or with the Great Hordes of the Mongol Empire that much more closely resembled the centralized armies of China and the Caliphates. And of course the Germanic and Celtic tribal levies were their own situation as well but one where it was unlikely they regularly wore armor outside of a handful of individuals and leaders prior to Romanization; we know as much from Caesar's account of his war in Gaul and the many descriptions of the Germanic tribes in Tacitus and other sources. There it was, again, due to economic and material limitations more than any other reason leading to those groups of cultures to develop their own responses to the situation and its limits.
We've discussed several models already. Light armor and heavy armor, as you yourself would I think support, are factors, parts of a model, not models in themselves. Part of the Horde model was light armor. Other parts were lifetime training, horsemanship, usually bowmanship, etc. The roman armies had heavy(ish) armor, conscription, tight formation, and melee weapons as some of their major components, while later European armies had heavy armor, horsemanship, and aristocracy as major components. Et cetera.
 
"Flash'd all their sabres bare,
Flash'd as they turn'd in air,
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army, while
All the world wonder'd."

Charge-of-the-Light-Brigade.jpg
 
Curved knife -> Curved sword

Alexander The Great fights with Poros and beats him as OTL.

However, while researching the battlefield and getting together their troops, focus his attention on a small curved-edge knife that some of the Poros soldiers had, a predecessor of the Kukris, as we know now. Some macedonians are surprised by the damage produced this knife, and start to use it.

While the Asia campaign ends, some macedonian smiths start to make their own knifes based on these ancient kukris, and start designing new swords based in same design.
 
Alexander The Great fights with Poros and beats him as OTL.

However, while researching the battlefield and getting together their troops, focus his attention on a small curved-edge knife that some of the Poros soldiers had, a predecessor of the Kukris, as we know now. Some macedonians are surprised by the damage produced this knife, and start to use it.

While the Asia campaign ends, some macedonian smiths start to make their own knifes based on these ancient kukris, and start designing new swords based in same design.
Eh? The kopis has more or less the same shape as a kukri, and it's quite possible the kukri is ultimately derived from the kopis in the first place, I've never heard of curved swords being used in India prior to the Greek invasion. Afterwards forward-curving swords similar to the kopis became very popular and the kukri is derived from these. Also, the original, pre-20th Century kukris are in no way small. They're about as big as a blade can get away with while still being called a knife.
 
Its more probable the kukri as we know, had been derived from the sickle, as some swords, and not from the kopis.

In India there were similar knifes like the kukri, but used mainly as tools. Im focusing in a transition between knifes and swords, resulting in a sword like the Sica, or the Falx (almost ASB).

BTW, these ilyrian swords (Sica and Falx) were curved, and were the main reason the roman armies changed their armor, so we can say in OTL there were curved swords in Europe :D :D :D
 
The premise is still flawed because the Greeks already had curved swords well before they ever invaded India. The idea that Alexander would be amazed by curved Indian knives and, inspired by them, makes them into full-length curved swords therefore has no logic to it. Also, what's with the focus on the Balkans? Does Greece not count as Europe now? Nor Iberia with the falcata that's identical to the kopis?
 
Curved knife -> Curved sword

I didn't say the macedonians adopting a new curved sword, i said a curved knife, and with ASB, they create a new sword based in these curved knifes...

This is a kopis:
hossomkopis02ww.jpg


and this is a kukri:
Kukri-Handles.jpg


I dont know you, but i see them distinct.. specially the notch near the handle, between other things, used to prevent blood going into handle, but i dont know if this was a later add on.
 
That's a very specific (and modern) version of a kopis. They came in many shapes, many of which resembled the typical kukri. In fact that modern kopis actually looks more like a makhaira to me, those had less pronounced curves. Here's some actual examples of a kopis:

BC490GreekHopliteSwordKopisMet01.jpg



Really, besides the slightly larger size, the only real differences are that the kopis/falcata is likely to have more of a guard, and the kukri has that notch which there for both practical and symbolic reasons. For comparison here's a 19th Century kukri:

4pkk.jpg
 
First of all, when is this period wherein "Eastern" troops uniformly have "lighter" armour than "Western" ones.

Not the middle ages prior to ca. 1350 surely? Because there's no difference as such and if there is, the more metallurgically advanced Eastern Mediterranean and the areas connected to it by trade on the whole arms its elites better.

Western Europe was famous for quality swords and big shields, not armour per se. They used mail just like everyone else.

Secondly, I hope people aren't using Napoleonic sabres to judge sabres from the age of armour for their killing capability. They are somewhat more massive compared to later examples and often have both a point and a reinforced flat area behind the tip (yelman' in Russian, probably taken from a similar word in Persian, too lazy to look it up). This added stiffness and strength and weight to the weapon, as well as a blunt surface used for parrying.

Sabres that we have preserved from the 16th c. and earlier show extensive notching on the edge, meaning they encountered metal objects (that means armour) on a regular basis. Yet they overtook straight swords that Russians, Byzantines, Arabs, Persians, Hungarians and Turks used prior to the rise of the sabre. This process started in the 11th c. and completed by the 16th.

This has less to do with people wearing less armour (in some areas totally reverse trend) and way more with the universailization of the eastern cavalryman, who emerged as the go-to basic unit instead of the complex army structures that preceded him (dedicated heavy horse, light horse, infantry, foot archers etc.)

The medieval sabre is a weapon that performs adequately against cavalry and infantry, armoured and unarmoured opponents. It went well with the spear and the bow which are both also universal weapons. After the migrations of the 11th-13th c. upended the eastern world, state structures simplified favouring a universal warrior, and this lagged the recovery of the material capabilities. Metallurgy recovered quickly, organization took centuries.

In Western Europe combat arms remained specialised and saw more dramatic developments like the gendarme lances and foot pike and plate harness and arbalests and so on because restricted terrain and fixed social systems allowed to specialise one arm to defeat another and ignore other tactical concerns.

Thirdly, who said that there were no curved blades? Falchions, grossmeissers, as well as eastern-derived sabres and yataghans were all widely used throughout the period.
 
Alexander The Great fights with Poros and beats him as OTL.

However, while researching the battlefield and getting together their troops, focus his attention on a small curved-edge knife that some of the Poros soldiers had, a predecessor of the Kukris, as we know now. Some macedonians are surprised by the damage produced this knife, and start to use it.

While the Asia campaign ends, some macedonian smiths start to make their own knifes based on these ancient kukris, and start designing new swords based in same design.

LOL

Kopis existed in Greece from 5th century BC at least. For example Xenophon (who lived 80 years before Alexander and never even got near India ) suggests that the Kopis is the ideal cavalry sword. This certainly demonstartes that kopis use was widespread.

Some historian try to find a link between the egyptian Kopesh and the Greek Kopis but the time difference (the Egyptians stopped using the Kopesh circa 1300 BCE and the Greeks started using the Kopis (there are many 5th century illustrations) circa 6th century BCE). It was either a copy of an Etruscan sword or a local inovation.
 
Top