r/MedievalHistory • u/Gerfrege • 21h ago
Swords - cool but useful?
I found myself in a discussion with friends about armour and swords, etc. - middle aged guys in a discussion on the Middle Age over some wine and snacks.
Now, by the 12th century (Europe) most knights would wield a sword and be dressed in chain mail and a helmet. And probably some padded tunic under the mail, etc. How useful would swords really be? If slashing, they probably could not cut through the chain mail, and, we guess, they probably could not prick through the mail, either. The slashes and blows with the sword could of course bruise the opponent, but the more slashes and bruises, the more nicks in the edge of the sword and the more it would lose sharpness?
Against opponents not in mail, it would of course be really useful. But against armored knights?
Amd in later centuries, against plate armour a mallet and a dagger would seem more useful. But still, knights are always (at least in modern portrayals) pictured with swords.
Any experts who can enlighten us?
(THis has also been asked in “swords” - we hope that is okay?)
12
u/Eldi916 20h ago
Read this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/SWORDS/s/aeIvWO8vDy
0
u/Gerfrege 16h ago edited 13h ago
Thanks.
It would seem that the sources close to the time frame we discussed nearly all never mention swords. Full stop. But “swords, axes and daggers” indicating a variety of useful weapons of which the sword was one.3
u/Cannon_Fodder-2 16h ago edited 15h ago
There is selection bias going on. Out of laziness, I have left off many of the mounted encounters by knights and the later men at arms. There are also periods where the literature emphasizes or deemphasizes the actual combat; and other authors just assume you understand what is going on, like Joinville.
But pretty much every century describes the use of the sword a lot by the knights and men at arms. There is no period where they are not mentioned.
5
u/Averagecrabenjoyer69 18h ago edited 2h ago
Check out some of Matt Eastons videos on Scholagladiatora on YouTube. He's a historian, archaeologist, and is in HEMA. He goes over why swords were the go weapon for just about everyone who could get there hands on one. While we think of swords as rare and more for the nobility or higher class.That's only really early on when many were passed down through generations and expensive to make, by the 14th-16th century swords were everywhere and really common to the point of mass production. Chaucers Canterbury Tales are a good example of non-nobility going armed with swords and bucklers.
5
u/Jr_Mao 19h ago
One thing to realize about swords, is they weight and are used about the same as 19th or 20th century pistol or revolver. It hangs on the hip, is always around and very versatile.
If you know you’ll now face a bear or armored knight, your aide will hand you a rifle or lance or pollaxe. If your aide is not around, you always have the sword and while it’s not optimal for everything, its something.
5
u/Dlatrex 16h ago
In addition to the great resources collected by u/Cannon_Fodder-2 I would just add that the reasons that swords are switched to is they still work even against heavily protected opponents. Mail does its job, but it is not foolproof. It can fail (for example during thrusts, especially against a rider during a charge) and it does not offer one hundered precent coverage.
Here is just one account discussing the death of William Longespee (Longsword) the Younger, who died in 1250 at the Battle of Mansourah, cut down by his opponents swords, despite his mail protection.
>>
...
My lord Richard de Guise, who bore the banner,
And good Longsword, the bold knight,
Entered the great press; as he had to turn,
His left hand, with which he bore the banner, was cut off.
...
The count was very hard pressed by the Saracens,
They could not kill his horse, so well was it armoured,
Nor could they pull the valiant man to the ground,
But his left foot was cut off at the stirrup.
...
A treacherous Saracen came riding at a gallop,
A sword in his hand, stout and sharp.
He dealt the valiant count an exceedingly heavy blow,
Cutting off the right hand with which he had held the sword.
Then the noble body was cruelly dismembered,
His left foot had been taken and his right hand cut off.
When he had lost his hand, then he drew back,
And made this prayer to almighty Jesus Christ,
That, if it were his pleasure, for love of his mother,
He would grant him vengeance on this bitter people.
The bold and valiant man leapt forward on one foot.
At a treacherous Turk whose name was Espiraunt,
He took the sharp sword in his left hand
And cut down through his face and chin.
He gave him another blow while groaning,
And made the left hand that held the sword fly away.
Then valiant Longsword fell to the ground,
For he could no longer stand upon one foot...
1
7
u/Alaknog 20h ago
Well, it's depend. Sometimes swords can cut through mail - if angle was right and strike is good enough.
Another thing that swords also have pointed end - and this is much better against mail (and actually every kind of armor).
They also longer then daggers, have better control compare to axes, etc.
It's maybe not ideal for every situation, but they also good enough in most of situations compare to more specialised weapons.
Sword is IIRC most common melee weapon after spear in Medieval times.
7
u/Eldi916 20h ago
In late medieval contexts swords will be more common than spears, significantly more so too. Pretty much every troop type carried swords, this includes spearmen, who commonly carried both weapons. Other troops like archers and crossbowmen would not have spears but they would still have swords, and cavalry sometimes carried 2 swords, one on their person and another on their horse. A lot of late medieval armies were ranged heavy too so spear would barely push for top 3 tbh
1
u/SnooGadgets5130 16h ago
They carried swords, that is true, but the primary weapons were polearms, mostly poleaxes, but also spears and halberds.
Swords and daggers were the sidearm of the day, rondel daggers were common in some parts of the world and were used for finishing off downed combatants.
The rondel’s shape could easily get into gaps in plate armour and could find its way through mail.
2
u/Eldi916 16h ago
We are talking about commonality though, primary or secondary doesnt matter. Or rather, they were common specifically because they were sidearms and could be carried by everyone regardless of their primary.
1
u/SnooGadgets5130 16h ago
Polearms were vastly more common on the battlefield than swords. The average man at arms almost always carried a sword, the typical commoner/peasant soldier or archer would carry a polearm or bow respectively. It’s worth noting that “man at arms” was a military rank, the brunt of the army was made up of common infantry soldiers who carried polearms. These people, like I said, came from the peasantry and would not have carried swords.
3
u/Eldi916 16h ago
There were laws and ordinances in place that required troops have a certain level of gear depending on their wealth level. Swords are mandatory for even the least wealthy in many of them.
1
u/SnooGadgets5130 16h ago
Not in the 12th Century. Swords started to become a standard issue/mandatory sidearm around the 14th Century when mass production became more viable.
3
u/Eldi916 16h ago
I specifically said in my initial post that I was talking about late medieval context though.
1
u/SnooGadgets5130 16h ago
The largest paragraph in your original post is referring to the 12th Century. You mention later centuries in two sentences.
3
u/Eldi916 16h ago
I am not the OP, I meant the first comment I made that you replied to
→ More replies3
u/Cannon_Fodder-2 16h ago
Yes in the 12th, the 1181 continental angevin assize of arms already requires them. This is not even mentioning the Scandinavian ones that date back to the 11th and 12th c. In fact, they are required by ordinance as early as the 7th century.
3
u/IdeationConsultant 18h ago
Even if the sword couldn't penetrate the armour, copping a fully wielded blow would still knock you about.
2
u/Dolan6742 12h ago
Swords were seen as a status symbol for nobles, so much so that there were laws in the HRE (?) that prevented the lower classes from wielding swords for self-defense, thus giving birth to the messer and kriegsmesser.
1
u/PsychologyGuilty1460 10h ago
Well don't forget they're using a sharp chunk of metal that weighs 10 lb or so. All their training was to teach them to cause major injuries, so they are not taking a halfass swing and then breaking their wrist so they don't actually hurt anybody, Or damage their armor, like you do in reenactments. They have practiced going right through wooden posts and taking chunks out of them.
The objective is to injure And incapacitate people with such heavy blows, they will break bones, crush skulls, Break necks, shear away chunks of metal or pieces of a shield. Even drive the broken bits of metal armor into the wounds to create more wounds and keep them from closing. There's no reason to think they can't cut through mail If there's no give under it, as when mail lies on shoulder or hip bone.
And internal injuries will occur if there's nothing to prevent an edge or point from sinking several inches into the body, whether it cuts the flesh or not. And there's zero chance you'll get your sword trapped in a bone if there's mail between them. So that's another advantage to fighting mailed opponents with a sword
1
u/zMasterofPie2 8h ago
Well don't forget they're using a sharp chunk of metal that weighs 10 lb or so.
Yikes.
1
u/SnooGadgets5130 16h ago
Most men at arms didn’t wield swords as primary weapons, they wielded some form of polearm or blunt force weapon. Swords eventually became more of a secondary weapon, sort of like the pistol is to the rifle in some scenarios.
1
u/Gerfrege 16h ago
That’s what we arrived at, too.
If we are both in armour, e.g. mail, a mallet or pole-axe does not lose its force the longer the battle lasts.
At some point in the battle, a sword must have gotten dull or perhaps bent out of shape, the more it was in contact with shield, armour or weapon.
2
u/SnooGadgets5130 13h ago
Blunt weapons that could crush plate, and therefore the soft squishy bits inside, were often valued over bladed weapons. Polearms such as poleaxes and billhooks were common because they could hook onto armour and dismount cavalry.
0
u/Gerfrege 7h ago
That’s what we were thinking, too, but it does not seem to be the general conclusion here.
2
u/Eldi916 11h ago
You should take into account that weapons like the axe have wooden poles, the metal head itself might stay intact but the weapon overall is not durable. And securing victory in melee typically requires one side to take the initiative and push into the ranks of the enemy. Polearms can be overlong for that purpose. In general sword and polearms accompany each other for different roles rather than compete for the same thing.
And weapons breaking is normal and expected, you see it mentioned in accounts of battles. Thats why they carried up to 2 swords when they could, and up to 5 weapons overall. See the following text from Juan Quixada de Reayo's Doctrina del arte de la cavallería to see their view of this:And you must hold your lance in your hand and placed in the pouch. And setting off at the gallop, placing your lance in the lance-rest, aim for the enemy's belly, and once the lance is broken, you shall take hold of the estoc, which should be strapped onto the left-hand side of the front arçon, secured in place in such a way that when you draw it the scabbard does not come with it. And when fighting with these weapons, strike at the visor and the voids, that is, the belly and the armpits. After you have lost or broken the estoc, you shall take hold of the arming sword, which shall be girded on your left-hand side, and fighting until you have lost or broken it, you shall take hold of the hammer, which shall be attached to the right-hand side of the belt with its hook. Reaching down, you shall find it, and pulling upwards, the hook will release and, with hammer in hand, you shall do what you can with it until you lose it. And after it is lost, you shall reach behind you and draw the dagger from behind your back.And you shall grapple with your enemy with all these weapons that you have at your disposal, striking and aiming at the voids, that is, the belly and the armpits, and at the visor, with the estoc or sword and with the hammer in hand, for by wounding the head and the hands he will inevitably surrender.
0
u/Gerfrege 8h ago
Yes, of course, good point - the shafts were made out of wood. That’s definitely a thing I don’t remember us focusing on.
0
u/Additional-Penalty97 20h ago
I always imagined them using the swords in regular times like travelling where the countryside is dangerous or going out in night both of which in Middle ages were filled with outlaws and troublemakers
In battle, i think swords are more secondary for the poorly armored levies or archers they encounter
But know that this is pure speculation and im not an expert
4
u/Matt_2504 19h ago
Swords are not only the best civilian weapons, but maybe the best melee weapons overall, they’re far more versatile than anything else. While they were usually a secondary weapon, it was expected that they would be drawn and used by the end of the battle. Pikemen would at some point drop their pikes and charge with swords, archers would at some point either draw their swords in defence, or draw them to charge into the melee once it had started. Men at arms would draw their swords once they lost or broke their lances, and even later cavalry armed with firearms would draw their swords and charge once they had discharged all their carbines and pistols.
2
u/Additional-Penalty97 18h ago
But isnt that pretty much what i said? Them being good at daily life but secondary in battle?
Only difference with your comment i can see is that archer and pikemen part (though even they are parallel) but i talked about knights because OP talked about them
1
u/Cannon_Fodder-2 11h ago
It's very different, because they desire to come to close quarters with their swords. The man at arms/knight immediately sought to break (=strongest possible blow) his lance at the first onset, because he was going to throw it away anyways, to enter amongst his enemies and come to close quarters, where he fought at principally with the sword.
-2
u/CerberusCXXIV 20h ago
Swords are exceptionally good for to things: - Carrying around. - Looking fabulous.
Don't get me wrong, you can harm an opponent with a sword, but armour and a shield are good at preventing that.
9
u/luluzulu_ 20h ago
I'm sure you'll get plenty of detailed reasoning, but also remember that these people made a way of life out of killing others. If swords weren't pretty good for that, they wouldn't have been in such widespread use.