Things you have discover that nobody else seems aware of

[MyUserName]

Back then a fair few sword edges were blunt, thus swords were used as an impact & thrusting weapon (there was a whole style of fighting based on the two handed sword being used in this manner) swing a big lump of metal at someone (even in plate) & you can knock them down & stab them through the eye slits

Blunt or sharp slashes make no difference to maille or plate. Butchers use maille gloves for the same reason. I have tried cutting myself through maille with a stanley knife and achieved nothing.

I am not sure what you mean by impact weapon (I am guessing you mean impact as in crushing?) but towards the 15c swords gave up on hacking and slashing and became pretty much purely thrusting weapons. However, on the battlefield swords royally suck and you would normally be nailed by a pole arm whilst you were several feet out of range, no one in a line armed only with a sword lasts long. A small exception is the 2 handed sword which can cause a mighty whack and falchions which, at least, have an effect through plate.

Personally I have never been hit hard enough by a sword to put me down and I have had people hit me as hard as they could. Although I have been hit my a pole arm so hard it creased in my knee armour which prevented my leg from straightening, a hard sword hit then might have knocked me over!

(chivalric sword fights are a renaissance myth, the medieval ages were grim, bloody & downright nasty)

Chivalric fighting existed but it was very different to way the Victorians have painted it, essentially it was a way of turning fighting into, basically, an extreme sport for the rich. There are examples of knights being taken down by peasants and 'enemy' knights coming to aid them and driving the peasants away/killing them.

[EternalOptimist]

swords dont suck on the battlefield, you only have to look at the success of the romans with their short thrusting swords to appreciate that.
And the idea that the pole arm has an advantage over the sword is easily debunked by looking at the weapons system that replaced the phalangite weapons system. The pike was overturned by the gladius.

Weapons systems are like rock paper scissors. One type will overcome another. Chariots overcome by cavalry overcome by phalanxes overcome by legionaries overcome by cavalry ....etc

The longbow weapons system was a breakthrough, because of the range and the power. You seem to think that they were only deployed against the armoured knight. Not so. The armoured knight had a large retinue , or backup of archers, men at arms, knights on foot, crossbowmen etc.
The Longbows might get a rare hit on a fully armoured knight, but they were like machine-guns against the other poor sods.
And the horses.
The Romans faced fully armoured men and full armoured horses - cataphractii. The longbow faced fully armoured knights , with frontally armoured horses. The horses were the weak spot

One last thing. Playing laser quest does not give anyone an insight into real modern infantry combat.
Playing with a breast plate and a blunt sword and a guy with a bamboo bow and arrow is not the same as slugging through the mud at Agincourt facing a hail of arrows from the mighty English and Welsh longbowmen.

the longbow was a true military system. dont nock it.

[MyUserName]

swords dont suck on the battlefield, you only have to look at the success of the romans with their short thrusting swords to appreciate that.
And the idea that the pole arm has an advantage over the sword is easily debunked by looking at the weapons system that replaced the phalangite weapons system. The pike was overturned by the gladius.

Weapons systems are like rock paper scissors. One type will overcome another. Chariots overcome by cavalry overcome by phalanxes overcome by legionaries overcome by cavalry ....etc

The longbow weapons system was a breakthrough, because of the range and the power. You seem to think that they were only deployed against the armoured knight. Not so. The armoured knight had a large retinue , or backup of archers, men at arms, knights on foot, crossbowmen etc.
The Longbows might get a rare hit on a fully armoured knight, but they were like machine-guns against the other poor sods.
And the horses.
The Romans faced fully armoured men and full armoured horses - cataphractii. The longbow faced fully armoured knights , with frontally armoured horses. The horses were the weak spot

One last thing. Playing laser quest does not give anyone an insight into real modern infantry combat.
Playing with a breast plate and a blunt sword and a guy with a bamboo bow and arrow is not the same as slugging through the mud at Agincourt facing a hail of arrows from the mighty English and Welsh longbowmen.

the longbow was a true military system. dont nock it.

My mistake, I thought that after over a decade travelling the country giving talks and demonstration of medieval combat (specialising in European 15c) as well as training and teaching medieval combat (along the way attending various courses about western martial arts and winning the odd tournament) I might have a bit of an insight into it (especially with the research I have done an the 3 full bookshelves of books, many of the primary sources, I have acquired doing it).

Clearly I was mistaken, I will return all of the money I was paid by various historic sights and Kettering museum and email the Scottish historian who used pictures of my in his book about bannockburn (not my era but I ha a go) because he considered me to have the most accurate kit on site.

I apologise for my delusions of competency.

Ps sorry for any spelling issues, I am wrestling with my iPhone to write this!!!

[d000hg]

Ooh, look at her.

[Moscow Mule]

I do know that people who re-enact c15 battles are short tempered.

[EternalOptimist]

My mistake, I thought that after over a decade travelling the country giving talks and demonstration of medieval combat (specialising in European 15c) as well as training and teaching medieval combat (along the way attending various courses about western martial arts and winning the odd tournament) I might have a bit of an insight into it (especially with the research I have done an the 3 full bookshelves of books, many of the primary sources, I have acquired doing it).

Clearly I was mistaken, I will return all of the money I was paid by various historic sights and Kettering museum and email the Scottish historian who used pictures of my in his book about bannockburn (not my era but I ha a go) because he considered me to have the most accurate kit on site.

I apologise for my delusions of competency.

Ps sorry for any spelling issues, I am wrestling with my iPhone to write this!!!

dont apologise. being an expert in laser quest is a skill. being an expert in 15c reenactment is a skill. And I am sure that both provide some insight. But only a fool would try to transmute that insight into actual experience or knowledge, and I am sure you would not try to do so.

let me know when you can reconcile your 'swords suck' statement with the fact that the romans conquered most of the known world (including the cataphractii) with those silly little swords

[MyUserName]

let me know when you can reconcile your 'swords suck' statement with the fact that the romans conquered most of the known world (including the cataphractii) with those silly little swords

Hmm sorry if I snapper earlier, I am going on very little sleep due to two sick kids.

Well the point you are missing here (I am assuming it is not a wind up) is that the gladius was a small component of the roman war machine.

They ruled because they had a full blown organised military system, they were soldiers rather than just warriors with a discipline organised strategy and strict discipline. This was unusual at that time.

The gladius was not the primary weapon as the pilum was used first and the real weapon of success was the organised maniple system.

If you want more detail, try 'why the west has won' and 'guns germs and steel'.

Think how many armies fielded their main mass of troops with a sword as their primary weapon?

[TimberWolf]

I wonder if the compound bow was thought of in the days of the English Longbow:



And rejected in favour of big muscles and the longbow, or if they could do nothing remotely similar with the materials they had available.

Compound bow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[realityhack]

If you want more detail, try 'why the west has won' and 'guns germs and steel'.

That is an excellent book.

[EternalOptimist]

Hmm sorry if I snapper earlier, I am going on very little sleep due to two sick kids.

Well the point you are missing here (I am assuming it is not a wind up) is that the gladius was a small component of the roman war machine.

They ruled because they had a full blown organised military system, they were soldiers rather than just warriors with a discipline organised strategy and strict discipline. This was unusual at that time.

The gladius was not the primary weapon as the pilum was used first and the real weapon of success was the organised maniple system.

If you want more detail, try 'why the west has won' and 'guns germs and steel'.

Think how many armies fielded their main mass of troops with a sword as their primary weapon?

Again, dont apologise.

The gladius WAS the prime weapon, you information is faulty.
The legionary carried two pila, a shield and a gladius, plus a wooden stake for making a camp.

The pila were what we would call heavy throwing spears. In other words, they were not thrusting spears (like the egyptians or early greeks would have used), they were not anti-cavalry spears, like Alexanders greek spearmen, persian spearmen, or roman auxileries would have used

they had one sole purpose. that purpose was to be hurled, at about 40 feet, in the course of a charge, in order to disorganise the enemy.

On occasion they were hurled defensively, to break up an enemy attack, but that was the exception.

So, they were hurled, not thrusted. therefore they were not the primary weapon. The primary Roman hand to hand weapon was the short sword. And the Romans fought more battles than any other army

you make a distinction between warriors and soldiers.
you make a distinction between organised and un organised troops.
you also make a distinction between disciplined and non disciplined troops.
you mention the difference between armies and other battles.


These are false distinctions that you have thrown in, after your first assertions, in order to prove that you were right all along.

What you really meant was that

'between self taught warriors, who are not organised into large formations, or used to the discipline of organised close-formation groups, who operate in very small numbers and without any danger of actually suffereing any harm,
the sword sucks'

and I might find myself agreeing with that