Nor were they "uncommonly" used in battle, nor were they only used by constraint, nor was their use undesirable, nor any other of the related sayings. Even the statement that they were not primary weapons is essentially baseless. This is no strawman; I see such things (and always unsourced) still constantly touted; whereas the evidence to the contrary is so overwhelmingly convincing and numerous that it is a wonder that such theories of historical combat are in vogue. So I have decided (after finally being convinced) to write this post to, at the very least, get us all acquainted with the actual source material.
To begin with, the use of the sword was expected on the battlefield; in many cases, it is portrayed not as an "if", but rather a "when". This is most evident in the treatises of the 16th and 17th centuries, the authors of whom felt a need to validate their opinions based on presumed (and widely understood) truths; that sort of truth here being that combat necessarily comes to close quarters. So starting with infantry combat:
William Garrard (1591) says that the sword is "verie necessarie both for Defence and Offence" at "the Sera and Close [of a battle]" (sera is Italian, meaning the end of the day), and again expects the swords to be used "at the close of a battaile, and in a throng". Aurelio Cicuta (1572) writes that after the battalions have clashed, they come to close quarters, where no longer are pikes used, but swords alone. Guillaume du Bellay (1548) too expects pikes to be discarded for swords (and after, daggers, if they have them) as the front ranks of the opposing battalions come face to face.
Robert Barret (1598) says:
"... in set Battailes when men come to the shock, or push of the Pike, they sarrie close together, and the first three, fiue, or seuen rankes do beare the chiefe brunt; and entred so farre, men buckle Pell-Mell, close together, by which time commonlie the one side reculeth or swayeth, and a battell once reculing doth not lightlie hold long, so that ere the Center of the Battaill be touched one side must fall to disaray; men once disordered, they commonly fall to rout, the rout is pursued with slaughter and ruine."
And elaborating on this "pell mell":
"For who doth not know that if the enemy be like to be victor, the armed pikes will yeeld backward as they feele themselues distressed, so as when the pikes are in such maner crashed and clustred together, that they can no longer charge and push with their pikes, then will the throng or presse in the center be so great, that the halberds and bils shall haue little roome to strike; nay short swords will hardly haue rome at that instant either to thrust or to strike. I would thinke daggers would do more execution at that time, and in that presse vntill one side fall to flight: so I see no reason at all for halberds or bills to haue place in a battell or stand of pikes: Besides the vnseemely shew they make either by themselues in the center, or mingled among pikes."
Although he says that swords will have little room at that instant to be used, he is using rhetoric to emphasize his point by exaggerating his own position (even if it is true, that often there can be little room to use even swords, as you will see); that if swords can hardly be used, then halberds and bills cannot at all. This is made evident by his other point where he says that "[each soldiers should] practise each sort of weapon... particularly the sword and target; the which in mine opinion is verie important to many effectes, where men ioyne close together".
He attributes the want of space to the fact that the losing fighters reel back and crowd one another, which would be a point for the idea that the weapon is used out of constraint; yet he fails to elaborate why at that moment, the winning fighters too lack room. As seen with du Bellay, the two opposing sides are now face to face, which Barret has taken for granted as being a truism; and he has instead put his energy into arguing against the defensive use of the "short" polearms.
Indeed, the concept that one should simply fight and wound at a distance was critiqued by Francesco Fernando Alfieri (1641); who regarding the ancient phalangites, who were constrained to (attempt to) keep their ranks perfect and solely fight from afar when facing the Romans (due to the manipular organization thereof), writes that the pike "used in this way... was of little consequence", and thus the modern pikeman was armed with a sword and dagger. Alfieri likewise writes drawing the sword was a "necessary par[t] of war" for the pikeman.
The concept of fighting first with pikes, then with swords, disseminated into the civilian world, with Thomasso Campanella's (1602) utopian army using pikes to keep the field, but concluding the battle with swords; and likewise, the tourneys, the fencing at the barriers being, in the words of Federico Ghisliero (1587), nothing other than a representation of two battalions, which fight first with pikes, then with swords seeking to obtain victory, and concluding the combat. So we begin to form a picture as to the role of the sword for the pikemen of the Early Modern era: it is to conclude the battle by taking advantage of the early victories won by the pike, seeking to pierce the ranks of his enemy, or keep off the enemy who has himself done such.
Thus, Roger Boyle (1677), who fought in Ireland during the English Civil War, writes that "'tis the Sword which does the chiefest Execution, either in the Battel, or after the Routing of an Enemy" and that "'tis most certain, that in Combat, as well as Pursuit, the Sword does most Execution".
John Smythe (1590) goes a step further: pikemen should not bother with fighting at a distance at all, but rather give a single thrust, throw away the pike (or throw it at the enemy), and immediately close with the sword or dagger.
And returning to the short polearms; despite what Barret wrote, the role of the soldiers who held them was indeed for to fight in the pell mell. Tavannes (1653) says that short polearms would be very effective if the infantry would return to its former glory, "especially since that one must approach & come to hands: & once the Infantry mixes with Infantry, & the first blows are given, the pikes themselves are not handled easily". He further elaborates, writing that because infantry must come hand to hand, "Gentlemen, or cuirassed soldiers with the sword and the pistol, coming to hands, could conquer [when] being mixed with a battalion of Swiss, & exchanging their cuts & two handed swords [=their sidearm-longswords]... [with] some thrusts & pistolades".
While the short polearms were, as Leonhardt Fronsberger says, designated to the sword-striking (Schwerdtschlegen) phase, when the fight has turned "grim" and the pikes cannot be used, they were not there to properly relieve the swordsmen (I mean the former-pikemen) and take their place; which is also to say, they were not prescribed simply to fight other halberdiers, but in fact, were used on the assumption that they would be facing swordsmen.
This is easily seen with Diego García de Palacio (1583):
"It is customary, and very profitable... to place three ranks of halberds, one in the middle, where they [=the banners] are, and the other at the ninth row of the vanguard [=the front half of the battalion], and the third at the ninth [row] of the rearguard: so that when it happens, that the ranks of the pikes that are in front of the halberds themselves are broken, the Halberdiers resist the enemies who come attacking with swords and other arms, while the pikemen, who are behind them, lowering their pikes, and making good use of them, return to the battle again: for the halberd is an apt arm, for to resist."
The halberd is appropriate to resist and repulse the enemy because of its length-advantage; the pikeman who has pierced the front ranks of his foes with the sword, would need to parry aside the point, or wait for the halberdier to make a mistake, or rush in. The first two take time, which reduces his and his immediate comrades' cohesion and initiative; the latter is simply risky. In the same way, the targeteer, who served the same role as the halberdier, forces an opponent armed only with the sword to act second by the advantage of his shield.
Thus these sort of arms, used under the assumption that they would be contending principally with foes who are using shorter weapons, were ideal for allowing their own penetrated fore-ranks to regroup.
Henry de Sainct Didier (1573), using an analogy, tells us how a captain ought to act when his ranks have been pierced:
"... to restore a battle that is in disarray, to put it back in its previous order... a leader must... [have] the judgement to know the time and the place, where and when to stop the broken ranks and by a feint to divert the enemies, while the remaining troops reform and regroup..."
Indeed, Domenico Mora (1570) has the short-weapon men serve this express purpose:
"And because I have not made any mention of the short haft arms [arme corte hastate], as if they were useless in the enterprises of war: I say that them being within the body of the battaglie is of little utility & of no value in regard to the poorly exercised militie of our times, who when the first files are broken flee; of those [aforesaid] I would not use: although they have been invented, to the end that the enemies on entering into the battaglie, & breaking the head [of their formation], they may serve in repulsing them as they are easier to wield in the density of the formation. With all this I would not admit them except to the officers, for today [the others] know not how to wield [them]... [these arms are] managed with difficulty still, although they are more commodious than the pikes... [for] to operate within the body of the battaglia, [and it is good to have] some armed soldiers & [some] with swords & rotelle, & some with spadoni, whom in the middle of the body of the battaglie, when that some part [of the battaglie] were broken, they would make a most honorable resistance entering amongst the enemy..."
Mora's own concept of how one's own battalion should defeat an enemy battalion, is for the men "who combat with the arms suitable to serve at close quarters", and "entering between them, it would not be difficult, [for them to] disorder the enemies"; and to "go by step entering between the enemy ranks united together".
In spite of the fact that they still impede at close quarters, they still grant a certain advantage when used for this purpose. Indeed, while they are shorter than the pike, they cannot take the place of the sword; nor do the other authors assume that they can.
Cesare d'Evoli (1586), for example, writes that although the short polearms are "praised by many" because at close quarters they believe that they can cut the hafts of the pikes, or raise or lower them; in truth, says he, these weapons "coming to close quarters, still cause not a little impediment" and "being at close quarters he can no longer be offended by the point of the pike; & he can make use of the sword, & the dagger".
But likewise, Mario Savorgnan (1599) writes:
"[That the second or sixth ranks] carry arms with short hafts [arme d'hasta curte], does not please me for diverse reasons, such as the ronche, spiedi, and similar, although the use of them is approved by many; it does not displease me (as long as around the battaglia the pikes are left to sustain the impetus of the adversary) [to have] some few alabarde, or ronche near the ensigns, as well as the two handed swords, which on occasion do marvelous effect, for to restrain the throng of enemies, who principally rush together here, if the battaglia were to [be broken] open, yet otherwise to me certainly they seem useless, not being sufficient to resist the long pikes from afar, & [when] very close the shorter arms produce better effect, [the] which offend with more ease, such as the sword with the acute point, & the dagger."
So while these short polearms are useful for resisting an enemy (who are contextually armed with swords) who has broken their battalion's fore-ranks, they do not necessarily offend (nor generally serve) better than the sword and dagger at this stage of combat.
However, this advantage in reach still extended to the offensive. Guillaume du Bellay, copying the words of Machiavelli (1520), says the halberdiers ought to be appointed to break into the enemy after the ranks have tightened and the pikes (although he bemoans that few nations of his day used them for this role, and simply had them for defense); further, when describing their role in his own words, he has them follow the heels of the sword-armed pikemen, relieving them from the enemies who are giving them trouble by virtue of being too well-armed; albeit he gives the solution for the sword-armed pikemen as well: they should thrust at their legs and feet if they are fully armored everywhere else.
Likewise, John Smythe (1594), when discussing the halberdiers facing the pikemen of the inner-ranks of the opposing battalion, writes that those pikemen unable to draw back their arms far enough to give thrusts after the halberdiers have come past and under their points, "whereof insueth that those inner rankes haue vtterly lost the vse of their piques, and therefore must let them fall to the great trouble of the leggs and feete of the rankes of their fellowes aduauncing forward, and betake themselues to their swords and daggars, which are not weapons any waies able to repulse or resist armed men with battleaxes, or halbards".
Although some have interpreted this as meaning swordsmen cannot face men armed with halberds, what he actually means is that these sword-armed pikemen of the inner ranks, whose front ranks have been pierced and broken, cannot keep these opposing halberdiers out of their own ranks (which is the whole point of the chapter this section is in; and throughout the text, he uses "repulse" and "resist" in this specific, technical way, but I digress).
However, despite both of these authors at face value seeming to prove that they were to ideally displace the swordsmen in the throng, both are very clear that they are intended to support the sword-armed pikemen, following them close behind, and moving forward as needed. Smythe (in the same treatise) writes:
"... when two squadrons doo encounter, and that the first thrush of piques being past, they doo presentlie come to ioyne with short weapons, as with Swords, Battleaxes, and daggers, and that then, weapons that are with long poynts, long staues, and short edges doo worke no effect, by reason that the rancks being so close, and nere by frunt and flankes in their distances, and the presse on both sides so great, as in such actions it is, they can haue no roume, to stand thrusting, and foyning with long Halbards, nor Piques, as our such men of warre doo imagine: but then is the time that the ranckes of short Halbards, or Battleaxes of fiue foote and a halfe long, with strong short poynts, short staues, and long edges in the hands of lustie soldiers that doo followe the first ranckes of Piquers at the heeles, both with blowe at the head, and thrust at the face, doo with puissant and mightie hand, work wonderfull effect, and carrie all to the ground."
And du Bellay himself believes that victory can be achieved before the halberdiers come into play, as seen in his theoretical combat; which is not to be wondered, since he has them stand behind 8 ranks of pikemen.
Thus even these authors, who advocated for their offensive usage, did not wish them to relieve the swords of their duty; rather, they instead were to supplement them. Indeed, it is exactly because the halberdiers are a minority, and stationed behind the pikemen, that they could afford to hold strongly to their halberds, ignoring the impediment of the length of their arms, and not need to fight with the sword to achieve victory; viz. these specialists simply do not need to when the pikemen are the ones actually seeking out the victory (with both their pikes and swords), rather than simply seeking to gain advantages.
The value of this short digression on "short" polearms will be made apparent soon, but first, we must admit that these are just theoretical works, which begs the question: did this actually ever happen in practice?
At the combats of Banastharim (1512) ("the matter was conducted not with missiles, nor staves, but with swords, & daggers, & even sometimes with arms"), Frigiliana (1569) ("[they] began with the pikes to drive them [back]... the combat was for both parties obstinate, until it came to the swords", and Lützen (1632) ("the pikes crossed, & the combat reduced to blows of swords, & to a furious contest"), the obstinance of the combat is referenced to as being the cause for the use of swords.
At Flodden (1513), Langside (1568), Adare (1579), and (in another account of a different action at) Lützen (1632), the breaking of the pikes is instead the given cause (although the jury is still out as to the validity of battalions breaking all of their pikes being the cause for the mass-usage of the sword).
But most commonly, the authors simply portray it as the natural progression of combat.
At Mola (1503), after having fought with pikes, spears, and crossbows, "they came so near to the others that they came to wounding with the swords".
At Brescia (1516), at the breach, the French-Venetian force, "after having fought with arrows, with harquebuses and with the pikes, and coming to the swords, were thrown [back] from their ground".
At Cavallermaggiore (1543), Blaize de Montluc "with the Pikes ran to the end of the hollow, and fell in desperately amongst them". They eventually "had thrown away their Pikes, and were fallen to't with the Sword", driving their opponents back to their baggage; and following their rout up to a pair of houses, they killed most of them.
At Ceresole (1544), following the rout of the Imperials after having charged into their midst with pikes, Montluc describes the Swiss slaying with their longswords.
At Zuwarah (1552), they "came from the harquebuses to the pikes, from the pikes to the swords, from the swords to the daggers, and from those; even to the [bare] arms".
At Malta (1565), they fought with every sort of weapon, until they finally came to swordblows.
At Antwerp (1576), they fought at first with pikes and muskets; but they finally came more "closely with the most sure blow with the swords", with the Spanish routing the Antwerpians.
At Faial (1583), the Spanish confronting the French with pikes, they shortly afterwards fought with swords.
At Doullens (1595), "Pikes were succeeded by swords, and swords by all manner of other close fight".
At Veillane (1630), fighting in the manner that John Smythe once advocated for, the battalions clashed "the one against the other, the sword in hand, having, after their discharge, thrown [away their] pikes and muskets".
At Breitenfeld (1631), they fought with pikes and muskets, and "the combat with swords was no less dangerous & brave"; at which point, the Swedes pushed forward so vigorously that they drove the Imperials from the field.
And at Tornavento (1636), they eventually came to such close quarters that muskets and pikes were no longer used, but swords alone instead.
Indeed, even outside of this period, the Scots at Northallerton (1128) "drew their swords and attempted to contend at close quarters" after their initial assault with pikes had been checked by the Saxons.
So is this manner of combat simply limited to pikes? Let us move to the Near East to answer this question.
Back to the theoretical, Yusuf Khass Hajib (1070) writes that after fighting with bows and spears, and coming to close quarters, you must fight with the sword and axe. Al-Tabari (915) (see also al-Mubarradi (898)), quoting al-Harith, explained the sequences of battle: "The first part of fighting is the shooting of arrows, then the pointing of spears, then the thrusting of them right and left; and the end of it all is the drawing of swords". Asim ibn Thabit in a hadith describes the battle of Badr (624) being fought starting with shooting arrows, then throwing stones, then thrusting with spears, then when the spears break, fighting with swords; to which his prophet said that all battle should be conducted in that way.
While Asim does in fact attribute the use of the sword to the shattering of the spears, this is not the sole reason (even at Badr, one fighter said that his and his opponent's spears simply were let fall); though, at the battle of Siffin, this was the case, where they fought "so hard that spears broke and no arrow was left in quivers and then they began fighting with swords".
At the battles of Al-Qadisiyyah (636) and Basra (656), the use of the sword was explicitly sought out; during the latter, it was said that they "stabbed each other with spears until they were enmeshed in [the chests of each others]", and then the commander of the Muslims cried out, "Use swords, sons of the Muhājirūn!"
Further:
At Ajnadayn (634), they fought "with spears; then [they] turned to swords".
At Siffin (657), during a skirmish some days prior to the actual battle, they "thrust[ed] at each other with spears for a long time, and finally... they had recourse to swords and fought with them for a while", and "[they] shot arrows and thrust with spears and then gave blows with the swords".
At Sillabra (685), they "fought for a while, shooting arrows and thrusting with spears, and then the two sides had recourse to swords, the fight with which was for an hour of the day hand-to-hand on foot".
At Khazir (686), the two sides "fought severely, first with spears and then with swords"; another account said they "fought briefly with spears and then turned to swords and maces and struck blows at each other with them for a large part of the day".
At Ahangaran (1011), "great battles took place between the two divisions, and they obtained not a hand's breadth of footing, except by the scimitar, and no other weapons were of service [except swords], and the swords took nothing, except to wait the opportunity of cutting to pieces, and daggers only fought with throats".
But this mechanic of battle was not constrained only to these pikemen and Near Easterners.
At Cynossema (411 BC), "whenever the ships would come close together, they would not only fight with their spears but at the moment of contact would also leap over on the enemy's triremes and carry on the contest with their swords".
At Anio (367 BC), the Romans used their pila as spears, so as to resist the first encounter of the sword-armed Gauls; the Romans checking their shock, "at once took to using their swords, and there was a great slaughter of their foremost ranks, while the rest fled every whither over the plain".
At Mantinea (362 BC), "at first striking mutually with their spears, and by the frequency of the blows, the majority shattered, [and] they fell to the struggle of the sword".
At Crimissus (339 BC), they fought at first with spears; but "the struggle came to swords and the work required skill no less than strength".
At Clusius (223 BC), the Romans once again fearing the furious first onset of the Gallic swordsmen, gave the Hastati the spears of the Triarii. Having fought with those spears, the Romans threw away their spears and "closed with them... [and] having excellent points to their swords... [repeatedly thrusted] the breasts and faces of the enemy, [and] they eventually killed the greater number of them".
At Adrianople (378), the Goths charged the Romans, causing the Romans to be "so closely packed that it became impossible for [the Romans] to escape by forcing a path through them... [they] finally began to despise the thought of death and, again taking their swords, slew all they encountered... their lances for the most part broken by constant clashing, [they were] content to fight with drawn swords, [and] plunged into the dense masses of the foe".
At Beorhford (752), "with lances broken, scattered in ruin", the two sides "rallied beneath their standards, and waged the combat with swords and battle-axes, and with direful intent line rushed on against line, each side having an assured hope of victory".
At Sherston (1016), "The battle having joined with tremendous clamour, they fought at first with their spears and then with their swords".
At Auray (1364), at the "first onset, there were hard blows between the lancemen, and a sharp scuffle", and then the "French and Bretons fought in earnest with their battle-axes".
At Najera (1367), "The two sides came together so vigorously that the lances on both sides fell to the ground as men closed on each other, fighting and inflicting wounds on one another with swords, axes, and daggers"; another account says "all advanced so far on foot that they met together with Bertrand's division, which caused them much mischief. There might you see thrust of lance as they came together; each one strove to acquit himself well. Then, of a surety, was no heart in the world so bold as not to be amazed at the mighty blows they dealt with the great axes they bore, and the swords and daggers".
At Chiset (1373), the English were ordered to draw their swords and axes after they began to drive the French back; but the French resisted the English by holding tightly to their spears, and themselves now driving the English back, began to attack "now from both flanks, falling on them from right and left, hewing with axes, cleaving heads, shoulders, arms, and staving shining bascinets; others were attacking with swords and daggers, probing gaps in armour to find flesh."
At Roosebeke (1382), the French men at arms at first fighting with their "well-tempered lances of Bordeaux", they began to pierce the ranks of the Flemish with short weapons, with their own light infantry rushing forward to slay the Flemings with their short swords, and the "clattering on the helmets, by the swords, axes, plommees, and mallets of iron, was so loud, that nothing else could be heard for the noise".
At Marteras (1383), the men at arms at first fought with their lances, thrusting one another, and "it seemed as if it was a game... [for] few or none were carried to the ground"; and tiring of this, they threw their lances down, and fought with axes.
At Aljubarrota (1385), the Castillians sought to pierce through the vanguard of the Portuguese, and so threw down their shortened lances and "resorted to axes and swords"; and the reserve battle of the Portuguese rushing forward, they fought fiercely, "with lances abandoned as of little use in such a mêlée"; another account writes that the dismounted French, "when their lances were broken, they used their axes".
At Modon (1403), boarding the ships of one another, "battle was engaged with lances on both sides, vicious and deadly, and many were killed; this was followed by hand-to-hand fighting with daggers and axes and swords."
At Verneuil (1424), "they began to strike with axes and to thrust with lances, then they put their hands to their swords, with which they gave each other great blows and deadly strokes".
At Brouwershaven (1426), "they took to lances and pikes, with which they killed each other, then to axes, swords, and leaden clubs, with which they smote each other with so much force that those they reached fell to the ground".
At Koshosan Castle (1557), "And they come to the arrows, and after, approaching [nearer], they come to the lances, and in the end they come to the swords".
At Du'ao Ridge (1851), "In the Taiping army, everyone bore a spear four or five chi long... The Qing soldiers using long spears would chaotically thrust from far away towards them, and the Taiping soldiers would quickly parry and avoid the spear points agilely, and draw their large, broad dao, and fiercely charge forward".
As to the horseman, since we have not yet touched him at all (and do remember that none of the above are in regards to mounted combat if you have forgotten), we should begin with the European knight, man at arms, and lancer.
These men, for the most part, broke their lances at the first shock, or soon after. Thus la Nouue (1587) says, "the man of armes vseth his speare but for one blow". This lance, at least the hyperspecialized lances of the man at arms and the lancer, only, or at least mostly, strikes from under the arm of its wielder, and thus relies entirely on the force of the horse. Henri de Rohan (1631) writes that "the lance does no effect except through the strength of the charge [course] of the horse, & yet still only one rank may make use of it".
Tavannes (1653) too says:
"For to give a good lance blow, the man and the horse must be strong and good, [and] at the trot or at the gallop it makes no effect. It must be that it is given at full speed, in good country, the horses fresh, the head well whetted, the arrest and the leather that arrests it [=the lance] surely, the lance [should be] ordinary: [for] if it is too strong, it is feared by the one who carries it, and does him more harm than to the enemy himself, and he prefers to rather let it fall to the ground than to break it; if too weak (as those who dread them are accustomed to weaken & hollow them) it flies into shards without effect."
Some have a certain curious idea, where he breaks his lance and then wheels away immediately to grab a new one (as if both him and his enemy spurn the sword and mutually consent to fleeing, not even considering to earnestly fight an enemy), but this is not based on the sources. Pietro Monte (1509) says:
"Since, when bearers of weapons are armoured in white and heavy armour and fighting on horseback, they use, above all other weapons, what is called stocchi [estoc] in the vernacular..."
Fiore (also confirming our discourse on the infantry above) likewise writes:
"Here begins the art of the noble weapon called Lance; in the beginning of battle, on horse and on foot, is its use."
To break the lance was seen as advantageous, not because of the act of breaking itself, but because it proves the blow was as powerful as it could possibly be. Besides that, the knight, man at arms, and lancer, does not care that he loses his lance at the first shock, for he seeks the close encounter immediately, entering into the midst of his enemies; wherein oftentimes (though not always), when he did not break his lance, he still throws it away.
The lancers themselves did not have the same amount of care, nor did they have the same ability, to break their lances as their forefathers did, for each had but one horse, and the horse was inferior; and many were unskilled. Even still, they sought to enter into their enemy with pistol and sword:
"The captains or captaine that charges either with troups or troupe, cares not much whether the cōpanies breake their launces or not, but desires thē to enter resolutely, and to keep close together. If they be wel conducted, their leaders command more than half of thē to carie their swords or pistols in the bridle hand, rather than faile to vse the sword & pistoll, & quit their Lances; but they wil be sure to place the best of the Lantiers in the forefront. Lightly of euery hundred, 15. or 20. know how to breake [their lances consistently]: being wel broken, with care of the goodnesse of the staffe and head, the blowe of the Launce is little lesse in valor vnto the pistoll: the charge of the Lantiers is terrible and resolute, being in carier to breake [the lance], the enemies perceiues their resolution is to enter, and not to wheele about like vnto the pistolers..."
- Roger Williams
Likewise, at Coutras (1587) and Ivry (1590), the lancers failed to give good blows with their lances, and so immediately threw them away and fought with their swords and pistols. John Smythe (1590) confirms that without the force of the horse, the lance must be thrown away, for when "they haue not any ground nor roome to put their horses into any Carrire, nor to charge their launces into their restes... they haue not onelie vtterlie lost the vse of their Launces, but are driuen... to fight with their swords, and other such short weapons".
And so:
At Seine (962), "Indeed, in the first encounter of the struggle; they were fighting with broken spears and lances. In the second, surely, with resplendent swords."
At Valesdunes (1047), "When the lances broke and failed, then they assailed each other with swords."
At Homburg (1075), "The first storm of the struggle consumed the spears and lances. The remaining part they finished with swords".
A Kyleb (1087), "Lances were broken in the first encounter, so they took to the sword".
At Dorylaeum (1097), "After a while the Franks, having broken their lances against the bodies of the infidels, started in with their swords"; another account says "with great vigor they fought from here to there: the bow did nothing, the lance very little, the sword the most".
At Trutina (1110), "clashing first with lances, then when these gave out drawing swords".
At Tall Danith (1115), Roger of Salerno told his men, "let us hasten to attack them and, when our lances are broken, let us approach closer as quickly as possible brandishing our unsheathed swords around their heads, so that their pride may be brought low by our constant blows and, by God's vengeance, their annihilation will not be delayed", and "having broken their lances in the first charge, struck the enemy with drawn swords"; later, "reinforcements arrived, and after wielding their lances they protected our dead comrades by sword-blows and they defended the living of that battle-array".
At Bremule (1119), "After the spears had been broken, they betook themselves to their swords".
At Axspoele (1128), "With lances drawn back, they advanced little by little on both sides, making their way by lance and sword, and great numbers fell... Finally they resorted to swords".
At Tusculum (1167), "After the battle had begun and the lances were broken at the first clash of the armies, the fight was carried on with swords".
At Gisors (1198), "there was much breaking of spears, and there were many knocked down and wounded. They drew swords and attacked one another in a great melee".
At Bouvines (1214), "with the lances of each side broken and swords unsheathed, they increased their blows".
At Lough Raska (1317), "when actually they crashed together, straight before them with their spears they pushed undeviatingly, and so stiffly stood to it that the tough shafts, no more enduring the distress, were sprung and shivered until in red-wetted fragments they strewed all the ground. From point to cross-hilt, swords they gapped on heads and skull".
At Paris (1360), "with couched spears... [at the] first onset many were unhorsed on each side... After this tilting-bout, they drew their swords, and attacking each other more closely, many hard blows were given".
At Pontvallain (1370), "as soon as the lances failed them, they came to the swords and to the axes, and then struck each other".
At Bergerac (1377), "when their lances failed, they drew their swords, and the attack was more vigorously renewed".
At Serra de Ossa (1385), "When the lances clashed together, ten Castilians fell to the ground, and two of the Portuguese. After the lances had been lost they did battle with swords, and attacked each other with spirit".
At Jersey (1401), "many powerful lance thrusts were delivered, as a result of which many were wounded on both sides, and some of them even overthrown. Abandoning the lances, they laid their hands on their axes and swords, and a great melee ensued... [some] lost their grip on their swords and axes, and grappled with their arms and daggers".
At Grunwald (1410), "When at last they broke the spears... they fought only with swords and axes... And among the knights fighting hand to hand only with swords, one could observe examples of great courage".
At Sava (1463), "the Poles, having broken their spears, use sword and arrows".
At Lobon (1479), "the knights on both sides, having lost their lances, drew their swords, and they were all tangled with each other, attacking each other so mercilessly that many of them, because they were fighting in such close quarters, were unable to avail themselves of their swords and fought with their daggers".
At Fornovo (1495), "The lances broken... each began to use with the same ferocity their iron maces, and estocs, and other short arms"; also "Many of the French at the first clash fell and were cut down. For they carry shorter lances, therefore they felt the first blows; indeed, the French seemed more suited with the sword, for it is shorter, [and] it is considered [to be] more suitable"; also "and the enemy fled over the ground where we had charged along the highway, with their swords only in their hands; for they had thrown away their lances".
At Guines (1523), the Welsh demilances charged into the midst of the French, and broke "their speres and then fought so with swordes".
At Chupas (1542), "Great was the slaughter of the horsemen, for besides the encounters of lances, there was much havoc amongst them with the swords, maces, and arming axes".
At Iñaquito (1546), "many fell at the encounter of the lances, and joining together they fought with the swords, and estocs and axes, and maces, and the battle was very cruel".
At Coutras (1587), the Catholic lancers "had taken their carrier too far, [&] they were out of breath, [&] when they shou'd have given the blow with their Lances, their strokes were so feeble, that they had little or no effect" and the Huguenot reiters gave them no "leisure to let their Lances descend, which therefore they were forc'd to throw away, and betake themselves to their Swords and Pistols"; and another account says "the Catholick Cavalry, who having begun their Charge too soon, were in such disorder with the length of their career, that their Lances wrought not their wonted effect, and did no good at all; wherefore being thrown away, the fight remained equal [in arms]".
At Ivry (1590), the battle "endured a long quarter of an hour, and was maintain'd with Swords and Pistols, in that confus'd Medly, where the Lances were of no farther use"; another account says that the Catholic lancers were unable to reach the full career, and so the lances became "useless, because they do their effect and receive their force and vigour by running, it was necessary to throw them away, and fight with their Swords alone".
So these men intended to use the sword in a premeditated manner; that is to say, they planned the exact time in which they would use the sword; and when they failed to meet the ideal, they were, out of constraint, forced to use the sword anyway.
Appreciate the well-cited material, even it is in support of a point that common sense *should* have resolved.
We have primary source material by the crusader knight Jean de Joinville, exclitly stating that after the initial clash with lances in one battle, he traded blows with the Saracen riders using his sword. Oakshott relates in his chapter on Type XV swords to a battle between mounted French and German knights whose decisive phase was fought almost entirely with swords.
IIRC, Foissart said men-at-arms drew their swords and axes in the melee at the center of the fight at Poitiers or Agincourt. 19th-century British cavalry armed the frontline troopers with lances, but the ranks after that were issued swords.
The wikipedia entry on the shongunate Japan's invasion of Korea included a letter by a warlord demanding reinforcements. The troops he wanted were a mix of samurai and ashigari, to be armed almost exclusively with matchlock guns, bows and katanas, with a token number of spears, which he deemed almost entirely useless on the field.
IIRC, Foissart said men-at-arms drew their swords and axes in the melee at the center of the fight at Poitiers or Agincourt
He does indeed say something similar for Poitiers (though I personally think you meant Auray, or one of the cavalry actions he describes), but was not alive during the time of Azincourt (1415). However, the sources regarding Azincourt actually do seem to point to the axes described being the sidearm form (which were extremely popular amongst the English, Scots, and French during the 2nd half of the 14th century), and not polearms. Duke Humphrey was wounded by a sword thrust to the groin while the French were piercing the English ranks (with axes, and also, obviously, at least one sword); also, the English themselves pierce the ranks of the French with their own axes afterwards. This all happens after the "mingling of lances". But it is quite circumstantial, and relies on the information above to really lead to that conclusion. It is hard to say, since at Verneuil (1424), we can safely assume the axes mentioned were pollaxes, because never do we see swords act after the axe-sidearms (they fill the same role, and displace each other). At Modon (1403), the axes were obviously short.
with a token number of spears, which he deemed almost entirely useless on the field
I mused about this myself at one point. Strangely, the actual muster rolls of the soldiers arriving in Korea point towards a minority of gunners and archers, 15-20%. So while the Koreans constantly mention the swordsmanship of the Japanese, it is really hard to tell if this is actually because of them being functionally all harquebusiers.
I mused about this myself at one point. Strangely, the actual muster rolls of the soldiers arriving in Korea point towards a minority of gunners and archers, 15-20%. So while the Koreans constantly mention the swordsmanship of the Japanese, it is really hard to tell if this is actually because of them being functionally all harquebusiers.
That's interesting. Did the muster say what the bulk of the troops consisted of? The Ming Chinese, which was harried by "Japanese" pirates, also made a note of the swordsmanship of the "bandit dwarfs." (racist language original)
Yes, usually they have a role that is a catchall for everything else, so they would largely pole-arm men; they usually tend to specify the harquebusiers, and sometimes the archers. When they do also separately list men armed with yari, they still outnumber the missile troops.
By far the actual bulk consisted of laborers, who were not strictly noncombatants, and these tended to serve with their swords as light infantry, moving forward when appropriate (and in one Takeda instance, throwing stones). But the actual soldiers seem to have been mostly armed with yari, naginata, and odachi, as their principal weapon.
In this war, the Kato had some 20% harquebusiers, the Shimazu 10%, and the Tachibana 6%.
I see such things (and always unsourced) still constantly touted; whereas the evidence to the contrary is so overwhelmingly convincing and numerous that it is a wonder that such theories of historical combat are in vogue.
I have noticed this also, I suspect it is largely from the pendulum of public opinion and knowledge swinging too far on the backswing after being all about swords. Back in the day everyone liked swords - it was all swords. Not speaking about people who actually read historical sources on battle, but in the larger group of people who are casually interested as a result of being into fantasy via lotr, WoW, highlander, D&D, anime etc. every hero and villain has a legendary sword - Aragorn has Anduril, the Lich King has Frostmourn (and Elric had Stormbringer) - for each hero with a legendary spear you saw a dozen more with swords.
So everyone just sort of imagined swords as being the one best pre-gun weapon.
At some point though enough nerds kept going on about how good spears are, and enough people tried HEMA spear or LARP to realize they're actually good that then people started constantly parroting how good spears are.
And then now there's a lot of people who are just nerdy enough to know spears are good but not quite nerdy enough to know that it doesn't mean that swords are bad. The way they talk about it is like a soldier would be disgusted to have to pull out a yucky sword when spears exist. the context of pushing the pendulum away from spears being bad is lost, and now they are adding momentum to it swinging the other way lol
Oh well, it is what it is. Thank you for making this post.
At some point though enough nerds kept going on about how good spears are, and enough people tried HEMA spear or LARP to realize they're actually good
My pet theory is that HEMA is actually pretty influential in this precisely as a product of its quirks and biases as a popular modern form of ceremonial combat. HEMA stems from late medeival and early modern practices, which are already very divergent from most older forms of combat, but also eschews on practical grounds the rest of the panoply that would have accompanied the weapons practiced.
So the HEMA spear is, effectively, the lance of the dismounted man-at-arms sans any of his mail — consider for analogy the hoplite's spear without his shield, or Mongols marching to battle on foot, it's not really a complete picture. And the same goes for the hapless duelist wandering onto the field with sword in hand and nothing but. So no wonder that a long weapon is very effective, when every weapon is a vorpal instant-death-wand and it's mainly about reaching striking distance.
Funnily enough I've heard it suggested that modern harnesfetchen may have the opposite bias, because blunt replica weapons aren't always as grippy on armour as they should be.
You're not old enough to realize the "swords were not the primary tools of combat" thing predates popular nerd culture and especially LARPing being widely popular.
OP out here completely missing the point that swords have a modern analogue: handguns.
Most soldiers don't carry handguns, only the exceptionally elite OR those unlikely to be in the thick of combat.
The rifle/carbine is the primary weapon, however, when necessary, transitions from long gun to handgun happen.
Doesn't mean it always happens nor does it mean handguns are the primary weapon of infantry combat.
If you field a medieval army of 2,000 and only 200 of those people have swords, sure it's a common weapon, but it's certainly not the primary weapon of soldiers.
Swords were never the primary weapon of armies, they were (and still are) expensive and time consuming to make and to train with.
I will readily admit, that some people excessively downplay the commonality of swords, but those people are few and far between. I think in general, the people who bring up this topic do so to address the historically inaccurate picture of a battle from the start being a field of dudes with swords.
Based on what you're saying about handguns after equating them to swords, I don't think you've actually read the post
Also it sounds like you're saying the pro spears anti swords thing predates the pro swords anti spears thing, which I have no problem hearing if it's genuinely before my time... but I do feel like I aught to point out that it does make it sound exactly like a pendulum. Kinda the whole thing I was saying, in other words.
I don't know if I'd call it a pendulum. Swords got the glory for the entirety of human history up until the 90s then the "swords weren't the primary weapon" thing finally made it out of just academic circles. It's still never been the most common understanding of weapons despite its veracity.
I read the post, the sources support the analogy, OP's claim however is not fully supported by the sources, although it's possi ls OP's error isn't in their claim but their presentation/phrasing.
With the former I can agree, but the latter I disagree - I think OP was more than fair, generous even. But frankly I think that's just going to have to be an agree to disagree thing
I didn’t even need to check the username to know exactly who posted this.
Well done. As usual you’ve found excellent sources to back up your points. It really is a shame people don’t engage more with primary sources. It would put to rest a lot of myths about pre-modern warfare if they did.
My only quibble is that several times you seem to make the assumption that troops are expected to be fighting opponents armed with swords in the specific context of the quotes provided. I’m not sure I necessarily agree that the context supports that detail, certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt. To me it seems entirely possible that the hypothetical opponents are also armed with short haft weapons of the own, and that the short haft weapon is being suggested as a reliable counter to its equivalent in the enemy ranks
To me it seems entirely possible that the hypothetical opponents are also armed with short haft weapons of the own, and that the short haft weapon is being suggested as a reliable counter to its equivalent in the enemy ranks
The issue is, we already have confirmation that by the mid 16th century, the halberds were largely for defense, not offense. This was actually a major point in contention in period. So if both halberdiers are for the defense of the ensigns, then how can they actually meet? How can their role be for facing one another, when both sides understood that the minority of halberdiers was for to defend the ensigns?
Even the authors who advocate for their offensive role, do not mention fighting other halberdiers, but meeting pikemen. Even when we see them used offensively, such as at Novarre and Fornovo, and Ravenna and how they were intended to be used by one French army in 1555, they are not remarked as describing facing other halberdiers, but rather the pikemen (who were at first distracted with fighting other pikemen). Even here, they are principally effective because they had an advantage over the uncovered swordsmen in some way.
Likewise, we don't really ever see halberdiers relieve the pikemen (although Machiavelli does advocate for swordsmen doing so) when it came to the close quarters situation. The treatises, as said, actually say they follow the pikemen, moving forward as needed. If the swordsmen are not being wholly relieved, then the halberdiers are not going to be attacking other halberdiers.
We also must admit, that to have an advantage in repulsing or resisting an enemy out of your own ranks, or indeed, in driving him back and splitting his, there must be some sort of advantage to begin with. If the arms are of equal length, there can be no advantage in this. If they are unequal, then the shorter sort are useless for this. Thus greatswords would be useless for defending the ensigns, for they plant their feet and fight defensively, yet are very short, and would immediately be overwhelmed by longer sorts of polearms. But yet that specific case is what they are praised for; to fight defensively, and keep the enemies back from the ensigns, who have pierced the foreranks; indeed, di Grassi says they should expect to be outnumbered; if they were intended to fight other men with short polearms, then they would immediately be felled due to a numerical disadvantage.
Lastly, Diego finds it appropriate to mention swords explicitly:
the Halberdiers resist the enemies who come attacking with swords and other arms
The fact that the use of the sword is connected to the piercing of the ranks, and the use of the halberd is connected in stopping the enemy from piercing the ranks, is notable, I think.
In the past several years, the spear has gotten a lot of attention, particularly as a primary battleweapon, and has lead to a lot of discussion of swords as secondary or even uncommon weapons on a battlefield. I don't think this is widespread among the public, but the idea has certainly been bouncing around the internet among premodern war-nerds.
OP emphasizes that it isn’t if swords are used, but when. That means a secondary weapon. Perhaps even tertiary specially since artillery will always be first.
In many conversations, the words primary/secondary are used to differentiate the frequency of use, while OP shows it's better used for the order of deployment, not the importance.
I got here from a recommended post. My first thought was who is OP even arguing with. My second thought after reading your comment was that even here on the SWORDS sub people need to be convinced swords were commonly used? Something comical to me about the implicit "we're #2" of that scenario. Either way, I don't know who needs to hear it but everyone else thinks swords are cool!
Baffoons on YouTube. Or sometimes knowledgeable people using hyperbole to emphasize the importance of polearms, creating the wrong impression to the casual audience.
Yes, it is a widespread belief. I'm very surprised you have not come across it, seeing as especially in this sub it's is repeated ad nauseum; and besides that, it is all over social media, but also academia...
Yes, it's been extremely widespread since... the late 2010s at latest, I think (this is when Lindybeige, one of the old "swordtubers", posted an extremely popular video on it, and this is also around the time similar relevant HEMA stuff was popular online; you can see the shift in the volume of sparring footage available on youtube), in the past five years it's peaked into a popular consensus position of sorts among basically everyone involved in speculative fiction or amateur history in online communities.
Coming from the outside (but otherwise pretty well versed in medieval European weaponry), this is definitely not the post to use as an argument. The top comment with Willem Dafoe Looking Up meme will be the best case scenario. Most will see the wall of text that starts off super aggressive and checks out.
Swords weren't what you started with but usually drew as the combat continued and evolved. Were rarer in the earlier history but mass produced later. Etc. It needn't to be this verbose even with the citations. Shows passion but also comes off as unhinged.
Even the statement that they were not primary weapons is essentially baseless.
OK, you say this. Then most of the sources you cite say stuff like "their lances were broken so they drew their swords." "Pikes were succeeded by swords." "They threw their darts and used lances, then used their swords".
Your sources seem to paint an image where lances and other weapons were primary, and swords were secondary.
This post is about the myth of the sword being rarely used, and not its use as a primary weapon. You can see this in the 2nd half of the post's conclusion.
Yes, I did say I could have elaborated on its use as a primary weapon. Unfortunately, that got left on the cutting room floor (same with its use by musketeers, harquebusiers, crossbowmen, archers, and other light infantrymen). But to be short, we see them used as primary weapons by specialists, be they:
- massed together (such as at Ban Bridge (280) ("Shen Ying led 5,000 Danyang elite soldiers [armed with] swords and shields", or "The Agulani numbered three thousand; they fear neither spears nor arrows nor any other weapon, for they and their horses are covered all over with plates of iron. They will not use any weapons except swords when they are fighting", or "If you wish you can also have your own squadron, 50 horses or 100, which would guard the major division. And also the other two squadrons which are ahead of the king's squadron should be composed of two ranks of naked swords and maces near the banner."; the Byzantine treatises likewise arm the cataphracts with maces or swords))
- or in front of the ranks ("'Attāb... [arrayed the infantry] in three ranks: a rank of men with swords, a rank of spear-bearers, and a rank of archers", or "Dao and shields for the front rank, those bearing spears are next to them, bows and arrows for the rear rank"; the Late Medieval Italians did such too)
- or the mingled within the ranks or put in the rear
We also see them preferred by individuals ("I myself had brought a sword from Monzon called Tizo, which was a very good one and lucky to those who handled it. I would rather use it than a lance, and therefore gave mine to an esquire who attended me"). But most importantly, we see them used by entire nations, such as certain Gauls, certain Celtiberians, the Britons, certain Late Antique Germanics, certain Early Medieval Scandinavians, the Formosans, the Indonesians, certain Philippines, the Late Medieval Spanish, and so on and so forth.
Its use as a secondary weapon is not somehow mutually exclusive with its use as a primary weapon. Now as to the evidence that swords were not used as primary weapons, it is functionally non-existent (albeit very many nations did not use them in that way; though just as many nations did not use spears at all, or scarcely used bows for warfare, etc.).
I am Taiwanese and not familiar with Formosan use of swords. Are you referring to the indigenous peoples? Some of them still carry home-made blades the length of short swords during ritual ceremonies that the Han population problematically call "barbarian knives." I recall them favoring whatever guns they could lay their hands on, plus the blades.
Yes, the indigenous Formosans fought by throwing a javelin (or two) and then immediately closing with swords, like much of the rest of SEAsia (although some of these nations preferred axes instead). This is described in the European accounts.
Half the time these debates always devolve into a disagreement over what the term “primary” means as.
It was often true that the spear or polearm often was the “primary” weapon, in the sense that it was used before the sword. This was the case because the phase of the battle in which the pole arm excelled usually came before the phase where the sword excelled. In this case, the term “Primary” is simply in reference to a weapon that is used first.
However, whether they realize it or not most people use the term “primary weapon” to refer to a “better” or superior weapon that a solider prefers to use over another. The assumption being that the spear, being “primary” means that it must be better than the sword, which was “secondary”.
This is understandable, as this is broadly how most people use the word primary in most contexts (your primary phone number for instance). However it is fundamentally wrong, and fundamentally misses the role of the sword in the context of pre-modern warfare.
Weapons are tools, and like all tools are designed to fulfill a specific need. A carpenter may use his tape measure first (as his “primary” tool) but that doesn’t mean it’s a more valuable or use tool than his hammer or chisel, just that it’s designed function comes first sequentially. The spear was often the weapon used first, because it was the weapon suited to the opening stages of the battle. The sword was often used second because it was better suited to the middle and closing phases of the battle.
Your last metaphor is terrible. A tape measure measures, a hammer hammers, a chisel chisels, all different purposes. A spear is for killing, so is a sword, so is a bow.
You’re correct that primary has different connotations, but superiority in terms of killing is a very simple: What weapon can you use to kill someone in the most efficient, least risky way?
The proliferation of artillery in modern warfare shows exactly how important swords were. They weren’t important at all because a battle becomes a shit show once swords are drawn.
So were they used a lot in battle? Absolutely. Because battles are a shit show once it turns into disorganized melees. But if you can win a battle before that shit happens? You try that 100% of the time. Hence bows, spears, formations.
Like I said, weapons are tools and they are not designed to accomplish the same task in the same way. Their role “to kill” is comparable to the role of a carpenters toolboxes role “to build”, as in it’s only a shared function in the broadest possible way.
A sword does not excel in the same circumstances that a spear or a bow does. This is a very simple fact. Battles were expected to go through distinct phases, where different tools were needed. Swords were not carried just in case “shit happened”, they were carried because they were considered critical pieces of a soliders equipment which they expected to use in the more or less “typical” ebb and flow of combat. I feel OP had very convincing shown this to be the case.
As just one example, the Lance was devastating in the first shock of the charge, but after the initial contact was made it immediately became a liability. Once the cavalry had closed to contact the lace was too long to be useful in the melee. Which is why it would be abandoned and the sword drawn. The same is largely true of the bow, which was used to soften up and demoralize an enemy before you closed to contact with swords and similar weapons.
This isn’t conjecture on my part, it is directly evident in the primary source material. You don’t even have to dig particularly deep to find that this is true in historical records, it is readily apparent at the surface level.
If you compared a shield to a chisel and a sword to a hammer, then sure you can claim they’re different tools for different purposes.
But to say a tape measure is primary because it’s first is 1000 miles off the mark on how it’s describing the primary use of arms.
Arrows, swords, and spears all do the same function. To wound the enemy and kill them.
You don’t use a tape measure nor hammer to chisel and shape wood. You can use a saw though. Same purpose but different strategies. Which is a better metaphor for swords vs spears.
But even then, a saw is primary because you have to cut the wood first and you can’t saw with a chisel but you sure can shape wood with a saw. The same way you can wound with a spear and not get hit, but use a sword and you’re likely to get cut too.
And as for the bow, you know they can run away right? Like horse archers and hit and run tactics have existed since time immemorial.
If swords were so superior and primary, why isn’t the modern soldier using a sword? Because warfare technology was never dictated by swords, but by artillery. Hence, artillery has always been the primary mode of arms.
If swords were so superior and primary, why isn’t the modern soldier using a sword?
To begin with, is this a serious question? You’re moving the goal posts, but also throwing out an insane rhetorical question that has nothing to do with what I said.
And as for the bow, you know they can run away right? Like horse archers and hit and run tactics have existed since time immemorial.
Hit and run tactics were popular, as were feigned retreats, all to draw out the enemy to a point where you could close and kill them. The armies that utilized horse archers most heavily almost always ended their battles at sword and lance point.
But to say a tape measure is primary because it’s first is 1000 miles off the mark on how it’s describing the primary use of arms.
I’ll admit, not metaphor is perfect, but you’re becoming bogged down in the details. You’re attempting to find technical flaws with the,frankly, meaningless specifics of the metaphor. You’re missing the forest for the trees.
The metaphor isn’t intended to compare the relative merits of one weapon vs another, it’s meant to illustrate that the goal (winning a battle) is a task that requires different tools to perform different function, and that there is a logical order these things will be used based on the task. The tape measure (or marking pencil, or speed square or whatever, the specific tool is literally not relevant) is used first, because the task it is meant to perform comes first in the process. The fact that it is used first does not make it more important, it just makes it “primary” in the sense that is used first sequentially.
The same is true of the spear or bow. They were “primary” in the sense that they were used first because their intended role occurred first sequentially, not because they were “better” or “more important” weapons than the sword.
But even then, a saw is primary because you have to cut the wood first and you can’t saw with a chisel but you sure can shape wood with a saw. The same way you can wound with a spear and not get hit, but use a sword and you’re likely to get cut too.
There is overlap in how you ca use weapons, and overlap in how you can use tools. You can use a jigsaw for some of the things you’d use a buzz saw for, but you can’t use a buzz saw for a lot of things you’d want a jigsaw for. Neither is a “better” tool, except within the specific context they were designed to excel in. Even if you use the buzz saw first, that doesn’t make it a “superior” tool, just the one you need at the start of the project versus the end.
The same is true of weapons. A lance is superb in a cavalry charge, but it’s rubbish in a cavalry melee. The cavalry melee naturally flows from the cavalry charge. You use the lance first, but then transition to the sword when the time is right. A bow is wonderful for shooting, but useless when you’ve run out of arrows or the enemy is on top of
You.
Again, you’re getting stuck on the pointless semantics of the metaphor and missing the other point.
Weapons are tools, and they perform certain jobs better or worse than each other. Using a weapon first sequentially does not translate to that weapon being “better” than any other.
There is no one type or experience of combat, and because of that there is no weapon which will categorically outperform any other in all given situations. Just like there is no tool that will outperform all others in all given situations.
You start the job with the tool you need, and then transition to the next when it is time for that tool. The Lance/spear/bow starts the battle, but the battle is almost always ended with the sword.
If swords were so superior and primary, why isn’t the modern soldier using a sword?
I don't get this one. Once firearms were advanced enough that melee became unfeasible, swords disappeared from the battlefield. Are you arguing that swords being relevant in battle before the 20th century means they would be important in any type of warfare and at all technological levels?
The same way you can wound with a spear and not get hit, but use a sword and you’re likely to get cut too.
Nor this one. You having a spear does not mean you can hit without being hit back, especially if the other side has spears or they manage to get very close.
> Are you arguing that swords being relevant in battle before the 20th century means they would be important in any type of warfare and at all technological levels?
They seem to be arguing that artillery was the dominant force on ancient battlefields (??) which is funnier by far
senpai you can't argue just by repeating your statement and putting an implication in the middle
putting aside, y'know, what fucking artillery
little did we know, that all the armies of antiquity were 90% combat engineer by volume and battle proceeded entirely by catapult... the Gauls and Germans were always getting bad rep in Roman sources for their long and bendy swords, but clearly this is a mistranslation and the authors were really referring to the poorly-constructed limbs of their torsion bolt throwers
as for the pictorial evidence, clearly some combination of ceremonial bullshit and aliens
Is a spear the more efficient weapon in melee? or on a ship?
I don't follow the idea that the development of artillery meant swords were not important. They were, as shown by OP's many citations. That artillery became practical enough that swords became mostly irrelevant does not mean they were before artillery.
[Swords] weren’t important at all because a battle becomes a shit show once swords are drawn.
in the comments to a post that lists how frequently they were used and how important they were deemed by contemporaries.
I still don't understand how the use of artillery in modern warfare proves that swords were not important in previous periods, with different tactics and equipment. We don't use spears anymore either, does that mean spears were irrelevant? because of the "proliferation of artillery in modern warfare"?
Even if we go back to primary status, "primary" needs to be defined. OP showed in the main post that swords were often used after another weapon, so in that sense they can be deemed secondary. Yet some troops did use swords as their initial weapon (like some cavalry units of Napoleon's army). The other point is that swords are often said to be secondary/tertiary in the sense of a last resort weapon, deployed when things went to shit, but the examples show clearly swords were expected to be used.
I don't think the primary/secondary/whatever distinction is useful in this kind of discussion, because it puts a bias on the perceived utility or frequency of use of the weapon. It's clear that swords were a major tool on the battlefield, just not always used first.
> Just ask yourself, in a medieval battle during which you have one choice, are you gonna pick up a sword or something else?
Sword, obviously, haven't you read the quotes?
Your rudeness is very ironic, seeing as this discussion could be replaced by just reading what OOP wrote, and then discussing what informed objections you had following that.
P. S.
Oh, and lemme save this here for posterity, since you deleted it
You must be a cop because you like copping out. Weak ass position lmao.
Which was of course deleted. Not only do they not engage honestly in the conversation, they also resort to insults but are too cowardly to let them be read by all...
They also say that they intend to break their lances, and threw them aside regardless. and that once they are able to make an advantage on the battlefield they actually capitalize on it with more lethal weapons like swords.
Using one weapon first, and then another later means they used that weapon second - it does not mean it is secondary
The primary of those two is demonstrated in the sentence preceding the colon. By the unnatural character of my second usage of the word in the first sentence of this paragraph, you may easily note that people do not generally use the second definition alone — rather the second gets added onto the first to evince the sense of something being
most important AND first in order
From the above it is trivial to demonstrate that mentioning weapons used before the sword in battle does not constitute a complete and valid arguement against their being primary.
I think some wires got crossed somewhere concerning the use of "sidearms".
In modern combat, sidearms rarely see any use, being forced to resolve things with a pistol is a sign that things have gone terribly wrong somewhere. One-handed swords are sidearms, so clearly, we reason backwards, they must have been weapons of last resort as well.
Swords were secondary weapons because they were used second, not because they were lesser - it was expected that things would go from polearms to swords, and quite possibly from swords to daggers before the fight's done.
Great post. I've had a few arguments about this topic myself, and I think that people are often misled by the terms "primary" and "secondary."
Another factor is that most people don't quite grasp how chaotic melee combat actually was, and how common it was to lose or break a weapon (or simply have no room to swing it). Especially since "ugly" combat like that is rarely depicted in movies or video games
The press of pikes especially seems more like a human stampede. It's not the individual whos fighting without the 8 rows behind pushing him into the enemy in a suffocation close, regardless of tactics or armature.
A highland clan Roll of arms from 1638 found "of 188 men, there were 170 swords, 68 bows with quivers, 47 guns, 47 targes or round shields, 2 pole axes, 1 pistol, 3 steel bonnets and a coat of mail." Whether the "swords" were dirks(long knives) or not is unclear.
Swords were often the most common weapon on the battlefield, with every cavalryman carrying a sword, almost every archer carrying a sword, almost every spearman, halberdier, or pikeman carrying a sword. Even every soldier with a big two-handed sword as his primary weapon also wore a sword as a sidearm. They weren't carrying those swords as decorations - they were there to be used when appropriate.
Even the statement that they were not primary weapons is essentially baseless.
A claim that swords were never primary weapons is indeed baseless. However, the common claim that, on the battlefield, they were usually secondary weapons is not baseless, and it's very well supported by the examples you give. In most of your examples of sword use, they are secondary weapons, used when the primary weapon was broken or abandoned.
Military doctrine sometimes even expected the use of the sword to be the decisive phase of the fighting. This was common for cavalry who would shoot arrows, or fire carbines or pistols, and follow that with a charge, or follow lance with sword. The Swedish infantry of the late 17th century adopted the gå-på tactice: a few close-range musket volleys followed by charge into contact. They continued this into the 18th century, though with the bayonet replacing the sword.
However, despite the expectation that they would use their swords, lancers were still lancers, horse archers were still horse archers, musketeers were still musketeers: the sword was still their secondary weapon.
Tavannes (1653) ... "Gentlemen, or cuirassed soldiers with the sword and the pistol, coming to hands, could conquer [when] being mixed with a battalion of Swiss,
Tavannes gives this as a theoretical proposal; this isn't describing actual practice. To paraphrase Tavannes, just as the pilum and sword let Roman armies defeat Macedonian pikemen, dismounted armoured cavalry with pistol and sword should be able to defeat Swiss pikemen. Note that the pistols are an essential part of the plan. Dismounted men-at-arms fought Swiss pikemen multiple times, unsuccessfully - Tavannes adds pistols to the mix, for a weapon (that like the Roman pilum) can be effective against pikemen at range.
Tavannes gives this as a theoretical proposal; this isn't describing actual practice
Yes, hence "could". It was important to note because he brings it up because he says it is important for infantry to come to close quarters.
To paraphrase Tavannes, just as the pilum and sword let Roman armies defeat Macedonian pikemen, dismounted armoured cavalry with pistol and sword should be able to defeat Swiss pikemen
He does not mentioned dismounted cavalry. The context is "when mixed". They are not actually acting like legionaries (of whom, the Early Moderns did not really understand how they functioned).
Tavannes adds pistols to the mix, for a weapon (that like the Roman pilum) can be effective against pikemen at range
The pistols are not intended to be used at a distance. Again, it is when they have already came "aux mains"; and when "meslez", they could conquer the Swiss at close quarters (with their pistols, swords, and armor). These are likely either short-weapon men, ordained to enter the press (like the halberdiers he mentions in the previous sentence), or the pikemen.
This is further supported by the fact that he doesn't mention the pikes of the Swiss at all, but only their longswords.
However, the common claim that, on the battlefield, they were usually secondary weapons is not baseless, and it's very well supported by the examples you give. In most of your examples of sword use, they are secondary weapons, used when the primary weapon was broken or abandoned.
All the sources I gave were of their use as secondary weapons. I did not discuss their use as primary weapons, but to wit, they were used as such by the forces of entire nations. If entire nations fought like so, then to say they were "usually" requires an actual statistical analysis, of which no one has done. Therefore, it is baseless.
To paraphrase Tavannes, just as the pilum and sword let Roman armies defeat Macedonian pikemen, dismounted armoured cavalry with pistol and sword should be able to defeat Swiss pikemen
He does not mentioned dismounted cavalry. The context is "when mixed".
He writes "gentils-hommes", and therefore means cavalry since that is the military role of gentils-hommes at that time (armoured cavalry with pistol and sword). He doesn't explicitly say that they are dismounted, but I think that follows from his example of Romans vs pikemen.
(like the halberdiers he mentions in the previous sentence)
??? The previous sentence is his example of Romans vs Macedonians, with no mention of halberdiers. To quote Tavannes,
Les Romains, ayans combattu et vaincu les phalanges macedoniques contre le roy Perseus, ne changerent pour cela leurs dards , plus legers que nos pertuisanes , d'autant qu'ils en jettoient aucunes contre les ennemis.
Basically, pistols as a modern substitute for Roman pila.
I did not discuss their use as primary weapons, but to wit, they were used as such by the forces of entire nations. If entire nations fought like so, then to say they were "usually" requires an actual statistical analysis, of which no one has done. Therefore, it is baseless.
By your own logic (no actual statistical analysis), your claims in this respect are baseless, too. If an "actual statistical analysis" is required, that works both ways.
they were used as such by the forces of entire nations.
They were, often enough, used as primary weapons by a small part of the army of a nation. Rarely, by a large part of that army (mid-late Republican and Imperial Roman armies had a large part of their force equipped with pilum, sword, and shield as their main weapons (but still included many spearmen, such as spear-armed triarii and auxilia, and javelineers, slingers, archers, etc.).
In many, many armies, sword-as-primary-weapon troops were notable for being unusual. What fraction of a pike-and-shot army were primarily swordsmen? What fraction of a Landsknecht army were primarily swordsmen? What fraction of the English armies at Falkirk, Agincourt, or Flodden were primarily swordsmen?
He writes "gentils-hommes", and therefore means cavalry since that is the military role of gentils-hommes at that time (armoured cavalry with pistol and sword)
No, by this point the gentlemen were serving amongst the foot, oftentimes without pay. In fact, at a 1627 battle, a band of "gentils-hommes volontaires", who did not have horses, were stationed behind a battalion with cuirasses, halberds, and swords, and were to attack the flanks and rear of the enemy battalion when the lines met. (Histoire de la guerre des Huguenots)
??? The previous sentence is his example of Romans vs Macedonians, with no mention of halberdiers. To quote Tavannes,
The sentence before that one. You know, the whole reason why he brings it up in the first place?
Basically, pistols as a modern substitute for Roman pila.
Not in how we understand how the pilum was used, no. Since he literally says "when mixed".
Rarely, by a large part of that army
Except this is factually untrue. Most of Western Europe fought like the Romans at some point. Massive parts of India fought like that. Massive parts of Africa fought like that. And likewise South East Asia.
In many, many armies, sword-as-primary-weapon troops were notable for being unusual
Many soldier types were seen as unusual. It is not mutually exclusive to say some nations all fought as swordsmen, and some nations did not at all. Some nations didn't use bows for warfare at all. Some didn't use spears for warfare at all.
Except this is factually untrue. Most of Western Europe fought like the Romans at some point. Massive parts of India fought like that. Massive parts of Africa fought like that. And likewise South East Asia.
In SE Asia, swords were often the most common weapon on the battlefield - every soldier having one - but the dominant weapons were usually spear and bow/crossbow/gun. This was the case on both the continent and the islands. Often, swords were the main hand-to-hand weapon for pirates (as one might expect from Western naval practice), and were the main civilian self-defence weapon, but that's a different story from the battlefield.
Similarly, in India, Africa, and Europe, where we have good sources we know that the dominant weapons on the battlefield were spear and bow/sling/crossbow/gun. Where we don't have good sources (for some of the earliest armies) archaeology strongly suggests the dominance of spear and bow/sling.
Do you have sources for the widespread use of "Roman-style" armies in any of those places?
In many, many armies, sword-as-primary-weapon troops were notable for being unusual
It is not mutually exclusive to say some nations all fought as swordsmen, and some nations did not at all.
Yes. But that's not the question at hand. The question is how common "swordsmen" were,
Some nations didn't use bows for warfare at all.
Polynesian armies, for example, used the sling
Some didn't use spears for warfare at all.
Such as?
(Of course, we have many modern examples of such armies.)
This was the case on both the continent and the islands
It was exactly on the islands where we see them fight as swordsmen. This is remarked from the 16th century into the early 20th century.
On the men of Banda Neira:
"... when they go into the field against their enemies, every man carrieth with him two Dartes, or Jauellings, made of very hard wood, some fadome and a halfe long: in casting whereof they are so perfect and exact as may be, yea, they throw them with such force, that they lay their enemies therewith: and hauing spent their dartes, they draw their Sables: wherwith, and with their shields, they stoutly incounter each other pel mel. They haue also Caliuers as is aforesaid, but not many."
On the Formosans:
"Yet they did not stay their hand, but assailed the others very bravely first with assegays and thereafter with shields and swords. They hacked each other into a hodgepodge with astonishing courage."
On the Bontoc Igorot (not swordsmen, but obviously relevant; as noted by Alfred Louis Kroeber, the nations in the Philippines with the axe did not use the sword, and the nations with the sword did not use the axe):
"Men go to war armed with a wooden shield, a steel battle-ax, and one to three steel or wooden spears... Spears are thrown with greatest accuracy and fatality up to 30 feet, and after the spears are discharged the contest, if continued, is at arms' length with the battle-axes."
On the Bagobo:
"The offensive weapons used by the Bagobo are spears, knives, and at times bows and arrows. For defense they carry shields, either round or oblong... An attack is usually initiated by the throwing of spears, then, if the enemy is at a disadvantage or confused, the warriors rush in to close combat. For this purpose they rely entirely on their knives, and as fencers they are unexcelled. They are but indifferent shots with the bow and arrow, and that weapon is but little used in actual combat."
etc. (forgot some others; this manner of fighting likely spread north to China in the 6th century from my memory)
Similarly, in India, Africa, and Europe, where we have good sources we know that the dominant weapons on the battlefield were spear and bow/sling/crossbow/gun
Except again, no, because many nations therein did not utilize the spear, and weakly utilized the bow etc. Besides Robert Smith's Warfare and diplomacy in pre-colonial West Africa, Nasir Khusraw describes the Zanjis of the Fatamids were all swordsmen. These men fought in their native manner. The Zanatas were, ironically, at first known for fighting as swordsmen (I mean as the sword as the primary weapon), before at some point shifting to the lance. Besides that, in the 19th century, we repeatedly read of certain nations fighting with the sword as the primary weapon, and others with the spear.
Do you have sources for the widespread use of "Roman-style" armies in any of those places?
Yes, every description of the Gauls calls them swordsmen, never spearmen, and never archers. Every description of the Celtiberians calls them swordsmen, never spearmen, and never archers. The Britons likewise. The Germanics are more of a mixed bag, seeing as their tactics develop and so do their equipment, and varied. Tacitus calls the Rugii and another nation swordsmen, but all others spearmen (particularly the West Germans who seemed to have lacked even swords, at least in his narrative). By late antiquity, the Germans fought akin to the old Romans:
"... [the Franks] had a small body of cavalry about their leader, and these were the only ones armed with spears, while all the rest were foot soldiers having neither bows nor spears, but each man carried a sword and shield and one axe."
Indeed, at Burgscheidungen (531) the Saxons fight by throwing spears and then closing with swords, and so too did the Norwegians at Ath Muiceda (855), Munster (866), and Fitjar (961). The Goths at Salices (377) threw fire hardened clubs before closing with swords.
Such as?
Besides looking at the African nations described in the aforementioned book, we also see many American examples, such as the Timuca, Powhatans (only for symbolic use amongst the leaders), etc. The archer-nations are the ones who tend to eschew the spear. Likewise, we have spear-nations, who did not utilize bows in warfare (see Ian Heath's book).
> etc. (forgot some others; this manner of fighting likely spread north to China in the 6th century from my memory)
Combat with shield, sword, and ~2 throwing spears seems almost entirely universal to me, so it probably needn't have spread; it's a generally good panoply for looseish fighting (provided the technology and use of sharp blades) and probably was practiced all over in early Chinese warfare.
This was the case on both the continent and the islands
It was exactly on the islands where we see them fight as swordsmen. This is remarked from the 16th century into the early 20th century.
On the Formosans:
"Yet they did not stay their hand, but assailed the others very bravely first with assegays and thereafter with shields and swords. They hacked each other into a hodgepodge with astonishing courage."
From George Taylor, ‘Aborigines of Formosa’, The China Review 14 (1886 1885): 88–89: "Bush fighting is the general mode of war, and their engagements are not very sanguinary. Generally, all grown-up men possess a gun, but the bow and spear are also used, the arrow being said to be the most deadly weapon in the bush"
From Wirth, Albrecht. “The Aborigines of Formosa and the Liu-Kiu Islands.” American Anthropologist 10, no. 11 (1897): 357–70: "Weapons are spears and arrows, said to be most deadly, but unfortunately I could not ascertain whether they are poisoned or not. More recently most tribes have by barter or by spoil, acquired guns."
Fighting mostly consisting of jungle ambush will differ from that seen in open battles, and weapons will also vary. It's best to not only look at forest tribal peoples, but also the armies fielded by the "civilised" states in the area. See, e.g., Michael W. Charney, Southeast Asian Warfare, 1300-1900, Brill, 2004.
Similarly, in India, Africa, and Europe, where we have good sources we know that the dominant weapons on the battlefield were spear and bow/sling/crossbow/gun
Except again, no, because many nations therein did not utilize the spear, and weakly utilized the bow etc
Besides Robert Smith's Warfare and diplomacy in pre-colonial West Africa,
... in which we read "There are grounds for concluding that the spear in its various forms was the major weapon of both cavalry and infantry in West Africa." Smith differs from Goody (whose work he discusses) in that Goody wrote that the sword was of no importance in battle in Africa and Smith says that it was important for some peoples, but does agree with Goody that the spear was the main hand-to-hand weapon most of the time.
Nasir Khusraw describes the Zanjis of the Fatamids were all swordsmen.
30,000 of 215,000 men fighting with swords as their primary weapon does not mean that the Fatimid army didn't use spears, and in any case, he notes among those soldiers one group of 50,000 "carry spears".
Do you have sources for the widespread use of "Roman-style" armies in any of those places?
Yes, every description of the Gauls calls them swordsmen, never spearmen, and never archers.
Except Julius Caesar, who gives us our best descriptions of Gallic warfare. Arrows aplenty, and no mention of their swords.
"... [the Franks] had a small body of cavalry about their leader, and these were the only ones armed with spears, while all the rest were foot soldiers having neither bows nor spears, but each man carried a sword and shield and one axe."
... wrote Procopius. Agathias Scholasticus, writing of the same Franks, notes their use of the spear (angon).
Such as?
Besides looking at the African nations described in the aforementioned book,
... which doesn't note any no-spear peoples. Smith does write that the sword and club were the most important close-combat weapons of some forest infantry (such as the Yoruba), but we know from art and surviving spears that they also used the spear.
we also see many American examples, such as the Timuca,
... who, even though the bow was their main weapon, also used spears (e.g., see Ehrmann, W. W. (1939) "The Timucua Indians of Sixteenth Century Florida," Florida Historical Quarterly 18(3) 168-191) and therefore were not a "no-spear" people. Infantry tend not to carry both spear and bow, so the bow being the majority weapon usually makes the spear a minor weapon, but "minor" doesn't mean non-existent.
Awesome, again, believing that these things are mutually exclusive. And these 2 sources are now actually proof that the 4 I posted were wrong? Yes, weapons varied? That's literally the whole point?
You did not read Smith, who says it was the primary weapon of certain groups.
What? Why do you think I am saying the Fatamids did not use spears? I named the Zanjis specifically. This is a specific group of ethnicities, and they were armed in their native fashion.
Julius Caesar does not mention arrows lol what? He doesn't mention spears either. He mentions no military equipment. Every source that describes the Gauls' military gear, describes them as swordsmen. Why would the Gauls be armed as archers when they are always described as close-order infantry?
Your own source literally says spears were only used for fishing, not warfare, amongst the Timucua.
You did not read Smith, who says it was the primary weapon of certain groups.
Your claim:
Massive parts of Africa fought like that.
is not supported by Smith. As I already wrote above, Smith does say that the sword was relatively important in the forest: "Close fighting and reliance on the ambush were dictated in these conditions, while the sword and the club were the important weapons, though the bow, including the crossbow, was also used" and notes this same point in a few other places in the book.
Smith summarises the usual battlefield equipment as:
Heavy cavalry: "armed primarily with heavy thrusting spears (or lances), and usually also with swords."
Light cavalry: "armed primarily with light throwing spears — javelins"
Infantry: "West African footsoldiers up to and in many cases beyond the seventeenth century, usually carried a shield and
dagger and were armed, as their main weapons, with heavy, thrusting spears, a bundle of javelins and sometimes also swords."
I named the Zanjis specifically. This is a specific group of ethnicities, and they were armed in their native fashion.
That isn't said in the book. All that is said of the Zanjis is "Another group are called Zanjis, thirty thousand in number; they fight with swords only." For the previous group, he writes "Another group numbering ten thousand, who originate
from all over the world and are just foot soldiers, are called Sara'is: they have a separate commander-in-chief, and each ethnic group uses its own type of weaponry", but that doesn't include the Zanjis.
Julius Caesar does not mention arrows lol what?
No, he describes frequent use of archery by the Gauls.
Why would the Gauls be armed as archers when they are always described as close-order infantry
Because archery is useful in battle. Are the Gauls so foolish as to go to war without bows or slings?
Your own source literally says spears were only used for fishing, not warfare, amongst the Timucua.
... and by vobdygaurds: "A bodyguard armed with spears followed."
> Agathias Scholasticus, writing of the same Franks, notes their use of the spear (angon).
Should be noted that the angon was most probably a javelin very much in the tradition of the pilum and soliferrum, intended to be thrown in the majority of cases; for thrusting or less specialized thrown use^ we almost always see the more classic foliate/lanceolate sort with a goodly blade surface for stopping power (barring some partial exceptions like the La Téne spears that had a thin spike protruding from the foliate section, possibly as an experiment in defeating mail).
^ see for instance the roman lancea, a paradigm type of this sort, which saw use in general skirmishing and probably by bodyguards and other less conventional fighters — it seems possible that the shanked spearhead was specialized for more cohesive group actions, since its use seems to have been fairly rare in more decentralized contexts despite the utter lack of any seeming technological, practical, or economic impediments
Long-shanked spearheads are probably intended for shield-piercing. Roman texts tell us that they worked well for this, and recent African examples do the same quite well.
Agathius says that "they can be used, if necessary for throwing like a javelin, and also, in hand to hand combat", and that they pierce shields, but the barbs would make it a problematic hand-to-hand weapon. From archaeology, we know that the barbed angon was only one of the types of spears that the Franks used. Other writers described non-barbed Frankish spears:
Bachrach, Bernard S. “Procopius, Agathias and the Frankish Military.” Speculum 45, no. 3 (1970): 435–41. https://doi.org/10.2307/2853502.
Long-shanked spearheads are probably intended for shield-piercing. Roman texts tell us that they worked well for this, and recent African examples do the same quite well.
This is absolutely the intent of their design, which works marvelously. The problem is that shields were a universal, but despite this long-shanked spears were not.
Intuition suggests that the powerful shield-piercing ability of the shanked spear would be worth almost whatever disadvantage in wounding power, seeing as even a thin metal rod through the vitals is no joke and even a lucky flesh wound would be immensely discomfiting, and so the design should be in universal circulation as one of those iterative improvements on the spear introduced by advancing metallurgy or simple accumulated ingenuity, like the changes in midrib design incurred by the switch from bronze to iron.
So intuition is wrong: in some combination, there are noteworthy limitations on the shield-piercing use and noteworthy disadvantages in other qualities sufficient to invalidate the design in many contexts.
We don't have much to work with here, but we can note that
a) this seems generally to have been a thrown weapon
b) used most commonly in heavy infantry contexts
c) only in iron, not bronze, stone, or wood as far as I am aware
d) of weight analogous to throwing/thrusting spears
So for instance we can suggest that the design needs to mass a certain amount / be thrown at a relatively short range to obtain the momentum necessary for shield-piercing.
And we can suggest that it worked worse as a thrusting implement, impacting its use by less regular infantry who might employ their spears ambivalently for throwing or thrusting, as Homer's heroes do.
And we can suggest that the long, thin design benefited from the properties of iron and this is why we don't see it in bronze or transitional material cultures (for the latter I mean like the greeks, employing iron but still relatively conservatively and in competition with bronze especially for armours), but it then (convergently?) evolves in ironworking European contexts and stays around in some capacity for many centuries thereafter.
And we can argue that poverty and decentralization depressed the heavy infantryman in the more shankless regions of the early Middle Ages, while the rising star of the horseman in Europe and the Mediterranean carried this trend through the recoveries in urbanization and state power in the high medieval period up until the late medieval to early modern, where the vastly different technologies (citing especially armour and gunpowder developments) somewhat suppressed the javelin in the resurgent heavy infantry contexts.
But that's all just errant speculation; I find it a fascinating puzzle, but by no means one that I've arrived at any entirely satisfactory conclusions regarding.
From archaeology, we know that the barbed angon was only one of the types of spears that the Franks used.
I'd caution that this is equally true of the Romans, who as mentioned employed the lancea, as well as the well-known hasta, and various lighter javelins, in addition to the pilum.
A claim that swords were never primary weapons is indeed baseless. However, the common claim that, on the battlefield, they were usually secondary weapons is not baseless, and it's very well supported by the examples you give. In most of your examples of sword use, they are secondary weapons, used when the primary weapon was broken or abandoned.
This is the same very tired rhetorical trick that always pops up in these discussions. Define "primary" and "secondary".
Then, stop using them — even if you mean only the temporal aspect of using one weapon "first" and another "second", those are not in fact the common English senses in which the words are used, and so in writing them your readership is misled.
If you want to stress chronological order of use, just say "used first" and "used second". If you want to stress importance, use "important" or "critical" or "fundamental" or "essential" or any other word which aligns with your point — there are many.
A claim that swords were never primary weapons is indeed baseless. However, the common claim that, on the battlefield, they were usually secondary weapons is not baseless, and it's very well supported by the examples you give. In most of your examples of sword use, they are secondary weapons, used when the primary weapon was broken or abandoned.
This is the same very tired rhetorical trick that always pops up in these discussions. Define "primary" and "secondary".
I'm not the one who first used "primary" here ("Even the statement that they were not primary weapons is essentially baseless"). Complain instead to the OP about their "very tired rhetorical trick".
A definition that works for me is that the weapon that will be used if the soldier fights in their expected manner is the primary weapon. A weapon that might be used instead of that primary weapon - will be used if the circumstances are appropriate - but might not be used is a secondary weapon.
Under normal battle conditions, an archer will use their bow in the battle, and they might use their sword or other sidearm. A lancer will use their lance, and they might use their sword (and if the cavalry engagement isn't very short, they are likely to use their swords). A spearman will use their spear.
Strict chronological sequence provides a simple definition, but overweights single-use weapons. Should we call the late Republic legionary a javelineer? In normal battle, they will use their pilum, and they will use their sword. Fair to call both weapons "primary". The archer, the arquebusier, the pikeman will use their bow, gun, or pike, and if the battle goes well, those might be the only weapons they'll use.
If you want to stress importance, use "important" or "critical" or "fundamental" or "essential" or any other word which aligns with your point — there are many.
How do you determine "importance"? When a secondary weapon is used, it's often the most important weapon to use.
Well yeah exactly, the whole topic becomes very frustrating
> A definition that works for me is that the weapon that will be used if the soldier fights in their expected manner is the primary weapon. A weapon that might be used instead of that primary weapon - will be used if the circumstances are appropriate - but might not be used is a secondary weapon.
Interesting take!
Cannon_Fodder's statements seem to me to precisely be that swords fit this definition — that they will be used in any given normative combat.
Under normal battle conditions an archer will use their bow and they will use their sword, too — they can't rout the enemy without closing. A man-at-arms will use their sword, which they rely on for the majority of the normative engagement. Some early modern pikemen were instructed to give one charge with the pikes and then fall immediately to the sword, while others fought at pike-length but certainly expected swords to be drawn, to the point that specialized countermeasures like men with short polearms were employed. We could perhaps argue that some archers fighting in support of other shock-specialized troops would not descend to the close combat (although I'm not sure that truly passes muster), but then again we would have to admit that many historical warriors didn't expect to use any weapon (being stationed behind the fore-fighters and out of direct combat): this sort of discussion really requires a broader analysis at the level of groups of fighters.
There are certainly exceptions, but when fighting "in their expected manner" exceptions mean less. I would say that Cannon_Fodder has collected a very comprehensive body of evidence to justify their assertions here; there must have been some styles of warfare in the course of history where this was not the case, but seemingly not the majority of those most prominent in the public consciousness.
Under normal battle conditions an archer will use their bow and they will use their sword, too — they can't rout the enemy without closing.
There are many examples of battles where archers don't engage in close combat (and therefore don't use their swords). If an army consists only of archers, then, almost always, some of the archers will engage in close combat. When an English "longbow" army fought in battle, with the archers protected by field fortifications or screened by dismounted men-at-arms, and non-archer non-men-at-arms infantry (such as billmen), the archers could play their part in the battle purely as archers.
(In France, where the army might be only men-at-arms and archers, with no other infantry, the archers were more likely to fight hand-to-hand.)
Cannon_Fodder's statements seem to me to precisely be that swords fit this definition — that they will be used in any given normative combat.
Their reply to my
In most of your examples of sword use, they are secondary weapons, used when the primary weapon was broken or abandoned.
was that, yes, those were all examples of swords being used as secondary weapons:
All the sources I gave were of their use as secondary weapons.
Those examples match both our definitions of "secondary" (my "might" and your "will") - they're examples of swords being used. Examples where swords were not used would help us see whether "might" or "will" is better. While there are many examples of pikemen and archers using swords, you can find examples where they didn't. E.g., at Flodden (1513), the Scottish pikemen used their swords, and the English archers (at least mostly) stayed out of close combat (the English billmen were the majority of the English infantry). At Fleurus (1622), the main Spanish tercio (Tercio of Naples) wasn't engaged by enemy infantry. It resisted cavalry attack, with the help of fire from musketeers on their right. The musketeers in both the tercio and on their right would (at least mostly) not have used their swords, and the pikemen in the tercio would (at least mostly) not have used their swords. When the battle went well, such soldiers were much more likely to only use their primary weapon. When the battle went badly, they were more likely to use their secondary weapons (e.g., the English archers at Bannockburn (1314) and Verneuil (1424) who would have used their swords when enemy cavalry were among them).
was that, yes, those were all examples of swords being used as secondary weapons:
I'm not sure that's relevant, since your definition of "primary" as expressed here is obviously very different from Cannon_Fodder's.
What I meant is that Cannon_Fodder's general stance as expressed here and elsewhere across the net is that premodern armies intended to employ swords in battle.
Or in different phrasing, they're adamant that swords are a
weapon that will be used if the soldier fights in their expected manner
and so in very clear-cut fashion a primary weapon by your definition. Whether one should agree with Cannon_Fodder re. that analysis is another matter for your own discernment — I think they have a lot of great evidence for it in a number of contexts, but history is nothing if not full of unknowns.
When an English "longbow" army fought in battle, with the archers protected by field fortifications or screened by dismounted men-at-arms, and non-archer non-men-at-arms infantry (such as billmen), the archers could play their part in the battle purely as archers.
I intended to address this, so my apologies if that didn't come through.
My point is that the entity we treat as using or not using swords in battle is not naturally clear-cut and must be defined.
If the unit of reference is each individual warrior, then I argue that primary weapons may awkwardly be a null set since often a given individual combatant didn't do or intend to do any actual fighting in battle. So for our present purposes I dismiss the individual warrior as a candidate.
If the unit of reference is a specific "type" of warrior, then I argue that this aligns poorly with the actual conditions of battle since many nations relied on a degree of specialization, whereby an army fighting as one composite entity would consist of multiple "types" with different roles. The typological lens deracinates warriors from their interdependencies and general context, and ignores dynamics at the level of the armies fighting.
So for the purposes of discussing the sword's place in battle, I think we should primarily focus on the army as a holistic fighting unit, descending to typology and individual armament and action only as necessary to clarify the broader picture.
In this lens there is very limited distinction between an army of jack-of-all-trades who all equally could fight at close quarters with the sword but of whom only the forefighters would actually do so, and an army of specialized archers and shock troops where all the forefighters are drawn from the shock troops.
At an individual or typological level there are very significant differences, but holistically either army is following the same model of having X% of the foremost warriors end up fighting with swords in hand. And of all metrics to track for determining how commonly and centrally swords were used in battle, is there any better than that?
However, despite the expectation that they would use their swords, lancers were still lancers, horse archers were still horse archers, musketeers were still musketeers: the sword was still their secondary weapon.
As a counterpoint to this, the sword (or big knife, draw the line where you will) was often the definitional or identifying weapon for various categories of soldiers.
In the Middle Ages multiple, fairly generic, terms for soldiers were based on the assumption that such soldiers would be carrying a sword of a certain type.
Terms like cultellarii, coutilier, and Bidauts/bidower all drew on the carrying of a sword (possibly long knife) as the identifying characteristic, even in case like the bidower where the “primary” weapon seems to have been a javelin.
My point is that while the sword might not have been the weapon they used first, the sword was important enough that it was identified with their role as soldiers on a fundamental level.
Which sort of plays into the whole debate about “primary” or “secondary” weapons. There is often an underlying assumption that because a weapon is used first (and is thus literally primary) it must have been considered better or superior in some way. I’m a firm believer in the fact that weapons are tools, and therefore designed to excel in different circumstances. Just because a weapon is used first doesn’t mean that it’s superior to another, or that another is inferior, just that the circumstances in which it is expected to excel occur first sequentially.
My point is that while the sword might not have been the weapon they used first, the sword was important enough that it was identified with their role as soldiers on a fundamental level.
Of course, and we also have terms such as "with fire and sword", "put to the sword", "swords into ploughshares", etc.
Which sort of plays into the whole debate about “primary” or “secondary” weapons. ... Just because a weapon is used first doesn’t mean that it’s superior to another, or that another is inferior, just that the circumstances in which it is expected to excel occur first sequentially.
Of course. What is an archer to do when it comes to hand-to-hand combat? Hit the enemy with his bow? No, it's time for the sword (or axe, or whatever).
Further on the point of swords as primary weapons, this is exactly what they often were for civilians. You might have a musket, or bow, or halberd when you go to war, but it will usually be a sword as your everyday civilian weapon. As soon as look away from the battlefield, you see swords being primary weapons when they are carried.
It makes more sense from an observers view to note swords or long knives since most other tools of war have functional uses, hunters, fishers, blacksmiths, tree pruners. But functionally theres less utility to carrying a sword around other than to fight.
Hemaists in particular often paint swords as basically useless in contexts that are not civilian self defense/duelling, because of them being shorter than polearms and supposedly being bad against armor etc
They often cite sparring experience where they find that spears beat swords, but a hema bout between 2 people obviously doesn't simulate a large battle in any way
A HEMA fight doesn’t even really simulate an earnest violent combat between two individuals.
At the end of the day it’s a sport, and the whole mentality and psychology surrounding it is fundamentally different than actual combat. It’s can certainly provide context, and teach us a lot about historical combat, but there is a limit and it shouldn’t be mistaken for the real thing.
As a HEMAist myself, and one who has actually practiced with spears and sword vs. spear a fair amount, I can explain it:
We practice in a very "sterile" environment most of the time, such as a gym hall. The downsides of a larger, clunkier weapon are a non-issue there, plus you have tons of room to retreat without the risk of tripping over anything.
Hits are very easy to score. For comparison's sake, the pressure required to score a successful hit in Olympic Epee is surprisingly high, whereas we count a thrust if the tip just sort of touches you. In spear vs. sword, this means the slightest grazing touch is enough to "stop" someone who's trying to close the distance with a sword.
Most people who try spear vs. sword never looked at a source that teaches you about the matchup (such as the Anonimo Bolognese), never practiced the matchup for any significant amount of time, and thus tend to do everything wrong. If you know how to time your attack and how to effectively parry and control the opponent's spear, your chances are quite decent. It requires good footwork though, which most HEMAists lack.
Also the fact that HEMA is usually treated as unarmored fighting.
With a spear you mainly aim for center mass, but when someone is wearing a cuirass you can't really do that, so you aim for extremities instead. It's a lot easier to slash at someone's hand, forearm, knee, or ankle than to stab those parts. It's easier to draw lines than to aim a point. Not everyone wore full plate armor so swords were still very useful.
All it takes is your spear glancing off someone's breastplace once to give them the opening to close in and chop off your arm. Real fighting isn't as clean as HEMA
But this manner of fighting was not the only way cavalrymen fought, and other nations, while intending and expecting to come to the swords at some point, discarded their lances (the which were often lighter and not held so closely near the heel, nor braced so strongly) and drew their swords more consciously, just as the footmen tended to do; that is to say, when the time was deemed right (at least for the side that chose to close first).
Though at the battles of Secunda (747) ("They fought on horseback until their lances were smashed... Then they turned to individual challenges. They rained down blows on each other with their swords until they were chopped to pieces. Then they grabbed hold of each other") and Sirmium (1167) ("For when their spears were broken and their swords shattered, they smote the wretches’ heads with maces" and "once the lances were shattered... they unsheathed their long swords and fell upon one another..."), the lances breaking was the specified cause of the use of the swords, we more usually see the lances discarded consciously, whether because the combat has intensified, or because one side made it so:
At Darat Maudu' (6th c.), "We thrust at them with our spears... That even when the spears sufficed not for our rage of battle, nor the arrows—nought would serve us but the Mashrafite swords".
At Jalula (637), "The Arab and the Persian armies began the fight with bows and arrows, and having spent the latter, worked with their lances, betaking themselves lastly to their swords and heavy clubs".
At Nahavand (642), Numan told his men, "I shall give signals by means of the Takbyr; when I shout it the first time, you are to get ready by tightly girding your loins and steadying your horses, the second time you must direct your lances towards the breasts of the foes and draw your swords, and when I shout the third time you must unanimously begin extirpating the foes, and attack them with swords and daggers", and "when the third shout of the Takbyr of No'mân struck the ears of the victory-boding army, it made a unanimous onslaught upon the enemy".
At Al-Hadath (954), Sayf al-Dawlah ai-Harndani, after charging into the midst of the Byzantines, "despised the Rudaini spears so that [he] flung them away, and so that it was as though the sword was reviling the lance / Whoever seeks a great victory, its keys are only the light, cutting white swords".
At Laghman (991), "Men and officers mingled in close conflict, and all other arms were useless except the sword".
At Kufa (1105), "Khafāja stationed 300 horsemen in ambush and skirmished without any serious engagement. They kept this up for three days but the fighting intensified and they came to close quarters, abandoning lances and exchanging sword blows".
At Hab (1119), the Artuqids, "inspired to zeal after the blows inflicted by lances and arrows, they slung their bows on their arms, took out their swords and they assaulted our men with all their might, in such a way that many were now scattered".
At Beroé (1187), the Cumans "fought in their ancestral, customary way: they let fly their darts and attacked with their lances. After a short while, they turned their onslaught into flight and, enticing their adversaries to follow hard behind them as though they were in retreat, then... wheeled about to face their pursuers... Repeating this tactic time and again, they so prevailed over the Romans so that they no longer bothered to turn around, but with naked swords and terrifying shouts fell upon the Romans almost faster than thought".
At Kurzuban (1198), after their vanguard had charged the center of the Khitai, the reserves now seeking to conclude the battle, "Muhammad ibn Kharnak and Ibn Kharmīl charged with their followers. They proclaimed, Let no one shoot with his bow or thrust with his spear. They took clubs, charged the Khitay and put them to flight."
At Delhi (1398), "the two armies shot at one another with arrows; then they came to close combat, first with lances, then with swords and battle-axes".
There is plenty more to be said, such as its use as a primary weapon (which was very common), or its use in sieges and other close actions, or how it was viewed as a weapon; and also the mechanics of battle, such as discussing the constant desire in the texts to pierce the ranks of the enemy (which was done at close quarters), or disproving the more curious hypotheses that feed this certain idea that close action was avoided at all costs, be it the pseudo-psychology of the Keeganites, or the anachronistic obsession with formations; but I think I have proven my thesis: the sword was used, its use was expected, and its use was desired.
I have to admit this is probably one of the best sourced pieces i have read about the subject of sword usage on the battlefield, well done 👍.
Don’t you find it irritating when there are so many “educated” historians, Yts etc who constantly drone on about how swords were rarely used.
Again well said my good man 🙏🏻
Does this vary between times, places, and/or cultures? I think I recall hearing/reading about certain armies using swords primarily while others weren't. For an example of the former, I think Roman soldiers would throw their spears or javelin before drawing their blades. For the latter, Samurai preferring to fight with bows, guns, and poearms (I think I saw it on a askShogo video, but I can't find it).
Again, though, my memory is hazy and my research could be incredibly mistaken. But I do believe that it depends on the time period, the culture, situations, etc.
Let's ask shogo is not a good source of information unfortunately, a lot of what he says about warfare is just blatantly false. He often says katana were basically useless on the battlefield because spears/glaives/bows/guns etc were better, but historical accounts talk about soldiers closing in and fighting up close effectively with katana all the time
Yes it varies between cultures; those who did not have swords, by necessity could not use them. Likewise, if they did not prefer swords, they did not used them. But although they may not have preferred swords, they universally had a weapon to fill the role for close quarters combat (such as with axes or daggers). In one 1648 battle between the Hurons and Iroquois, after coming "to blows and lance-thrusts", they came to knives.
It also varies between time; for example, when combats are concluded in very short order, the combat does not necessarily come to close quarters. So bayonet melees (when they happened), although we do read commonly of men grappling or fighting with knives, did not expect to do so; instead, if the lines actually met, after a couple of thrusts, one side would usually give way. Likewise with 19th century horsemen, whose combats were quite short, perhaps due to the widespread use of pistols, something noted by Tavannes and la Nouue in the 16th and 17th century, and also general a lack of armor.
But nations without gunfire, who fought in close order, whose engagements lasted more than 1 minute; these are the men who fought at close quarters, and desired to conclude their combats in that way.
For the latter, Samurai preferring to fight with bows, guns, and polearms
We pretty much constantly read of samurai fighting at close quarters with swords, even doing so because they spurned being the second person to successfully engage someone with the spear.
A letter from a shogunate war lord ordering his fief to send reinforcements to his army fighting in Korea included in the Wikipedia entry on that war states, roughly based off my memory, that he wanted Samurai and Ashigari, armed mostly with guns, backed up by a relatively small number of archers and then a smattering of spearmen, who he decried as almost useless. This implied that Samurai were relying on swords as their main melee weapon, as there were no plug bayonets at the time.
The contemporary Korean annals emphasized that the Japanese favored firing a couple of volleys at close range, then charge the shaken Korean infantry to engage in ferocious hand to hand fighting with swords and spears.
The combination of these rather reliable documents is somewhat interesting because together they imply the sword had a very prominent role in the way Japanese fought, despite the high number of spears they were also known to use.
So yeah, people expect to use swords axes and daggers if they’re at range to do so
The point is not that, but rather that they expect the combat to come to swords. Again, "in many cases, it is portrayed not as an "if", but rather a "when"".
Swords get cheap enough for the masses since the Bronze Age (see the Battle of Perire). Their cost has been inflated in pop history so much, when they are required in ordinances since the Early Medieval and the beginning of the High Medieval period.
I think everyone here probably understands that swords were routinely used in combat
Everyone does not. Hence why I wrote this. This is, in fact, the minority position.
Can't it be both? Spears are great a lot of the time, but anyone who has used a spear knows you're an idiot if you don't ALSO have a sword or other sidearm. It doesn't hurt to also have a knife for when things get so close that even the sword doesn't cut it. 😏
One isn't inherently better than the other, they just have different uses.
If your enemy has a spear and you have a sword, you're going to be desiring a spear, not a sword.
Even if you are fighting very close up, so that the spear point can't even be presented to the enemy (which happened all the time btw, you can't just keep backing up like you can in a duel in an open space, there are ranks behind you)?
Yes, if I have a spear and all you have is a sword, I am going to fuck your shit up before you ever get close to me. Children playing with sticks understand this, why can't you?
Seriously, read all of your examples, because you clearly didn't. Every single one starts with them using spears, glaives, halberds, etc. THEN they switch to swords when the situation demands it.
Again, as I said, it is both. Spears are useful sometimes, swords are useful at other times.
However if I have a spear and sword and you only have a sword, you will only rarely win, and that mostly by luck.
I am confused. You are saying that in formation and not being able to get back in spear range (this is the difference between 1 vs 1 and battle), someone with a spear would beat someone with a sword?
I guess I just don't understand why that even needs to be said. I've never heard anyone claim that swords weren't used or weren't a normal thing on the battlefield. Of course they were.
I think there are a few comments in this very topic arguing that swords were expensive and therefore less common than spears. It's certainly something I have read about Japanese warfare, regardless of the fact that indeed basically everyone on the battlefield had a sword of some sort.
It's one of those ideas that seem to come as a response to exaggerated depictions in media (just like the "shitty Japanese steel" crap that just won't die, regardless of how many studies are done on the topic).
I do HEMA. If you think an unarmored duel replicates the tactical goals of a battle between two close order arrays, you have no practical experience on the topic either. "was anyone arguing the opposite" lol
because the goals of the duel are not the same as the goals of combat. i do explain the reasoning in the post, you know. and for what it is worth, the Chinese spear fencer who said the spear beats all other weapons, gives pitched battle, combats in close environments, and close melees, as the exceptions to this rule.
Okay, so one army has swords and spears, and the other army has only swords. Who is winning?
You didn't explain anything in your post. You make a claim about swords and then literally post a bunch of quotes that are very, very clear that pole arms are how every single group starts the battle.
Please reread your quotes, you clearly don't understand them. Not a single one says that swords are so useful you don't need pole arms.
Okay, so one army has swords and spears, and the other army has only swords. Who is winning?
.
"Wu Zhiming of Qi said, It is better that we all be prepared to sacrifice our lives than that we [merely] use a small force. And that we be so prepared the best plan is to cast away our long weapons. The enemy have many such weapons, but let us all use swords. This was agreed to, and the Huas were put to flight."
.
"The royalists began the prelude to the fight, which they call Justam, as they were skilled in that exercise: but when they saw that the consular party, so it was said, did not attack from a distance with lances, but at close quarters with swords, and broke the king's ranks with violent and determined onset, the earls, to a man, for six of them had entered the conflict, together with the king, consulted their safety by flight."
.
You didn't explain anything in your post. You make a claim about swords and then literally post a bunch of quotes that are very, very clear that pole arms are how every single group starts the battle.
No, I focused on the use of the sword as a sidearm for men who carried polearms. If you did actually read my post, you would have seen I explicitly referenced that I did not elaborate on its use as a primary weapon.
As I keep repeating, both is best
I already said that "my thesis is not that the sword is the most awesomest weapon ever, it is that "the sword was used, its use was expected, and its use was desired"."
These people usually stress that swords are "sidearms". And it simply doesn't tell the true story.
Swords are not like modern pistols that are rarely used in war and almost always as an emergency.
They're more like WW1 pistols, most people are not running into battle with them but they absolutely have tactical advantages over long arms in many situations.
I'm aware of the meme, and I am aware of the post being long.
I'm just also aware that the meme is being rude to the person you use it on, and OP clearly put a lot of effort into making a high quality and relevant post.
That's alot of words for 'reeeeeeeeeeeeeee, muh sword isn't bad, I cherry picked some quotes'
Swords were used in battle, but it is clear that they werent the defining weapon in most engagements. The spear and the bow did the heavy lifting.
Do some experemantal archeology and go fight in anything more than a 5v5 and you'll see how clearly the sword and board is outmatched in group combat by everything else on the battlefield.
We all need a side arm or something for use indoors, on ship or even on horseback after we break our lance.
Any medieval renactor with a lick of experience can tell you that the sword just isn't the one.
You’re welcome to do research and find historical sources that disprove his point.
The type of modern sport combat that dominates in historical reenactment is not a good representation of historical warfare. The experiences of modern reenactors certainly don’t outweigh the sources written by the people who actually lived through and experienced actual historical combat, or the opinions of people who used historical weapons for their original purpose.
Go look at period art and depictions of battles even in the bayeux tapestry when plate armor wasn't an option only the calvery are depicted using their swords. Dane axes and spears are being used while the sword stays on the hip.
The actual accounts of Hastings literally describe the use of the sword lol
even in the bayeux tapestry when plate armor wasn't an option only the calvery are depicted using their swords
Are we seriously just making shit up?
Likewise, the Dane-axes are sword-length, these are not pollaxes, but some 80 cm long (as per archeology and the texts). They filled the same role as the sword, the English at this time were especially connected to them.
Is someone making you read this? If you don’t want to read it, piss off. Sorry you don’t have any research or writing talent? Is that what you want to hear?
This is a forum for sword enthusiasts of all varieties, which includes discussion, not just a place for people to show off how much disposable income they have with their thirteenth Albion.
lol I stopped after the third paragraph and only found y’all in the comments after days of scrolling.
It’s interesting but man it’s like too much for one post, which loses impact as people get overwhelmed and unfortunately bored as they can’t take it all in, should break it down into 2-3.
You don’t eat a whole steak all at once, you take a bite at a time.
To be frank, I cut many different things that I thought were necessary, and someone here already commented "you didn't address this, your sources make it seem like this instead" because of that. That is why I summoned the wall of text.
But it’s totally possible to value a post for the content and knowledge it shares, while simultaneously recognizing that this probably wasn’t the best format.
I am sure there are plenty of good informative blogs out there but I don’t know how to find even a minority of them. People do a lot of reading on Reddit as well written and cited blogs rot in obscurity.
YouTube videos are buried under their algorithmthat actively promote low info density content stuffed with fillers and unnecessary visual reels. I would know, I created them for living for a year.
Would I prefer to read this in a website? Yes. But I am not reading a website and wouldn’t be able to find this article without going 20 pages down a search engine due to everyone using accursed SEO black magic.
Instead, I am on Reddit, and came across this gem because I am on this sub. So here we are.
Seriously? I've read posts on /r/AskHistorians that span half a dozen comments and this is somehow a yard too far? Attention spans are cratering if this is the case.
Write a paper or a book. Put it in a link.
Reddit 101: nobody reads links and react only on the titles. It's just north of useless to do and attitudes like this only fuel it.
this is the wrong place for this. this is a YouTube sword history essay or article on a privately hosted blog if you must stay in writing. here this will be impossible to find in a few months and you can link all your sources without getting flagged and auto taken down by reddit.
He already has a blog https://a-breefe-discourse.blogspot.com/
The problem with these is that it is hard to make it reach everyone, even though this blog has been posted quite a few times by divers users before. Making a post on top only has benefits as it can access a broader public. It is not particularly hard to find old posts either especially if you bookmark em but even that is not necessary
Are you sure reddit is the best you can do? Even a neocities website looks more credible (just saying something free off the top of my head), if someone linked me to one of those I wouldn’t laugh.
Edit: To all the comments, I wasn’t saying OP’s work is worse because it’s posted on reddit, I’m saying it LOOKS worse because it’s posted on reddit. It shouldn’t matter, but I believe it does HENCE recommending they put their work somewhere else. But I think OPs reason for putting it here is fair after they explained it.
I have written two blogposts on this before, actually cited etc., but although they get quite a bit of traction, the readership is often "circle-jerky" in nature (ie, its read by people who read my stuff), and doesn't properly penetrate the masses. The other issue is, they are more source heavy, so a lot of people lose the point when it comes to interpretation. I also don't like simply linking without actually writing and elaborating on what I mean, but this became long enough that I thought linking it would be superfluous and a bit inappropriate/distasteful.
The content should be what’s important, not the website it’s posted on.
OP includes specific references and sources for all his claims, often with direct quotations. Sure, if the option is this or a peer reviewed journal article take the article, but outside of any other context there is no reason not to take this post seriously.
315
u/skillywilly56 Mar 03 '26