middle age swords

[robberbaron]

I think I will have to get my sword out tonight and weigh it. I'm sure it is less than 2lb with a blade length of at least 3' (granted, it is modern spring steel, rather than authentic early 'middle age' steel).

I was always much better with a spear but it doesn't require the same amount of exhaustive training that a sword does.

 

[hong]

I think I will have to get my sword out tonight and weigh it. I'm sure it is less than 2lb with a blade length of at least 3'

Braggart.

 

[robberbaron]

Ahem

 

[RFisher]

OK, I think I've been able to sort out some swords from the late middle ages (1300-1500)

Arming Sword: one-handed, equally good at slashing as it is at piercing
Cut and Thrust: one-handed, better at piercing than slashing
Estoc: can be used one- or two-handed, piercing only (although I guess it could be used as a club), low damage but has armour penetration
Falchion - one-handed, slashing/chopping sword
Longsword - can be used one- or two- handed, equally good at slashing as it is at piercing
War Sword - two-handed, better at slashing than piercing

So, does this look good to everyone? (It does to me, but what do I know.)

 

[pawsplay]

Sorry paw.

A few years ago we checked a medieval greatsword in an Italian museum. 1,5 kg with 1,60m length. These greatswords have been used pretty much like quarterstaffs... if you ever fought someone who knew how to use them, you'll never joke about them anymore.

My own bastard sword for practising with 1.5mm edge (that means it's lots too heavy) weights 1.3kg. A real bastard sword is hardly above 1.1 kg. Like a real katana would be.

Um, aren't those the figures I just gave? 1.3kg is about three pounds. Six or seven pounds would be for an oversized sword, such as a bearing sword or some of the heavier, more exotic blades. Did you misread my figures as kilos?

Edit: Another word about these 40 kg of armor. Yeah. Sounds like a lot till you had a guy wearing these suits making flipups and running after you. He won't do that for a long time sure... but fighting him is NOT fun. Try it and you'll believe me, I've always been a light armored fighter. And trust me, I like longbows. Keeps the tin cans out of reach.

45 pounds, not 40kg. Sculpted armor, for a big man, might be fifty or sixty. In general, however, plate armor is lighter, not heavier than mail, which runs about forty five to fifty pounds for 16 gauge wire mail, four in one.

I have fought in armor, both mail and combination mail and plate.

 

[robberbaron]

My fairly basic chain shirt weighs 20lb (short sleeves, hip length) so I'd say an authentic-style shirt made from 'proper' metal would be around 25lb (a la PHB) as it would have at least twice as many links as mine but they would be finer.

Never worn plate but friends have and I think 40-45lb sounds about right.

 

[dougmander]

As far as swords being the 'typical weapon' of a fighting man, the mace was much more often the preferred 'side arm' with the spear, pike and other pole arms being the typical main infantry weapon. To this day, the regimental sergeant major of the 3rd infantry (US) in ceremony carries an infantry spear circa 1770 (yes even during the age of 'real' firearms, the infantry carried spears.) The only troops that carried swords other than knights, who received a metric butt ton of training on how to use them and not skewer themselves, their horse of their comrades I might add, was the archer, the next step in the 'military chain' of training, freedmen that were professional soldiers in support that needed a weapon to pull and use to defend themselves if the enemy closed to within melee, often they too carried maces or even a lowly club, but the long dagger or 'short sword' (a modified and updated gladius) was the 'official' weapon of the Medieval artillerist.

This gives the impression that 18th century infantry carried spears. That's simply not true. In some armies of that era, sergeants carried a short pike or "oxtongue" as a ceremonial weapon, but units of pikes had disappeared in the late 1600s as the plug bayonet and then the ring bayonet came into use.

I beg to differ with you on one point: there was no "'military chain' of training" in the medieval period. Professional soldiers simply did not exist, and there was certainly no professional officer class capable of training units of men. The economy of medieval Europe could not support standing armies -- there simply wasn't enough surplus food to sustain large numbers of non-productive adults for more than a few months during the summer fighting season. The entire idea of a professional military is anachronistic to this era. Archers were drawn from the yeomanry -- their "training" consisted of mandatory archery practice on Sunday afternoons, after church. The freedmen you describe only fought for a season, then returned to their farms. They typically wore a leather or brigantine jack, and fought with an assortment of polearms, because their primary role was to keep the cavalry off the archers. Their sidearms were an idiosyncratic collection of whatever they could lay their hands on.

Reading contemporary accounts of medieval battles like Agincourt (1415), it's clear that infantry used a wide variety of weapons, with not much regard for class or rank. The English infantry finished off the dying French knights with "swords, axes, and other weapons" according to an eyewitness. Another account notes that archers used "swords, hatchets, mallets, axes, falcon beaks, and other weapons to good effect." Contemporary illustrations support this idea, with soldiers of all types carrying swords, lances, and polearms.

 

[dougmander]

So, does this look good to everyone? (It does to me, but what do I know.)

I like this list. The falchion shows up in quite a few contemporary illustrations -- I have a feeling it's the most under-represented of these weapons in fiction, film, and gaming. Maybe we can write d20 stats for these swords?

 

[Darklone]

Um, aren't those the figures I just gave? 1.3kg is about three pounds. Six or seven pounds would be for an oversized sword, such as a bearing sword or some of the heavier, more exotic blades. Did you misread my figures as kilos?

Yeah, I exaggerated a bit but I still think your numbers are too high. You said 3.5 -7 pounds per sword. The broadsword I mentioned had less than 2 pounds and my overweight bastard sword (slightly more than 1.2m) is still below your 3.5 pounds.

Some greatswords might weigh a bit more though... but it's hard to tell in this regard which greatswords have been used for tournaments and which ones for war. And that Italian greatsword with 1.5 kg was longer than 1.6m, so far from being a small greatsword.

Some years ago I was surprised to find out how light real weapons have been... but that explained why rapiers never came up en masse as long as real armor was used... bastard swords aren't slower but longer

45 pounds, not 40kg. Sculpted armor, for a big man, might be fifty or sixty. In general, however, plate armor is lighter, not heavier than mail, which runs about forty five to fifty pounds for 16 gauge wire mail, four in one.

I have fought in armor, both mail and combination mail and plate.

45 pounds sounds good for a good armor, the 40 kg was the outfit I wore when I rolled down the stairs of a watchtower Made an awful lot of noise and was a lot of fun!

 

[Darth Shoju]

Pretty much exactly.

I always find it interesting that Katana fanboys are always into comparing European mass produced swords to the specially commissioned works of Japanese master swordsmiths. The vast majority of period Japanese swords were no better than thier European counterparts, because it was too expensive to produce 10000 swords by the standards you'd use for a high ranking samurii's sword.

I'm reminded of how much scorn was heaped on the surviving Western melee martial arts by devotees of Eastern martial arts, until the two were actually used in something like an open contact competition. You don't hear that so much any more, after the practicioners of ancient martial arts all got thier butts kicked and the only eastern martial arts traditions left standing were the ones that were most modern and most influenced by contact with the West (shoot fighting, for example). If you want to idolize actual skilled and useful Eastern martial arts, and not peasants wishfully thinking they could defend themselves against armored swordsman, then look to the Mongols. That's some serious martial art. Kung Fu? Not so much.

Let me be as damning as I can be and get it out of the way. The general continuing emphasis in the far east on unarmed combat techniques, improvised weapons, melee combat techniques is a product not of thier superior skill in these areas, but how much longer it took in the far east to develop sophisticated notions of individual and civil rights, coordinated unit tactics, military professionalism, and firearms technology. The West, in Greece, had 'Karate' back in 400 BC. They just largely abandoned it as obselete technology, and tended to retain it only in a sport form - and generally then only if it was easily adapted to something that wasn't so much a blood sport.

I don't think you can discount martial-arts from any region in favour of another. If you look at modern MMA, it is generally a synthesis of greco-roman wrestling, jiu-jitsu (particularly Brazilian style) and various types of striking (classic boxing, "dirty" boxing and muay-thai boxing). However, it depends largely upon the practitioner. There are examples of fighters that rely heavily on one or two martial-arts and do well (many that are pure wrestlers, a few judo fighters, sambo, etc). Still, MMA competitions aren't necessarily a perfect litmus test as established rules often hinder many of the more brutal martial-arts while favouring others (such as wrestling or boxing). Bruce Lee (considered by some to be the father of MMA) started out studying Wing Chun kung-fu, but incorporated western fencing and wrestling techniques. Jeet kune do is about defying convention and pre-set forms and adapting to the situation; it is inclusive rather than exclusive.

IMO, eastern martial-arts became watered-down when they became an alternative to soccer for the children of suburban North America. With the need to judge which students were better than others and provide some sense of accomplishment or perception of value came the introduction of belts by colour. Martial-arts like karate, tae kwan do and kung-fu became demonstration sports rather than fighting systems. Originally (and in some cases, currently) many of the eastern arts taught weapons fighting as well as unarmed fighting and I don't think it is ever considered preferable to fight an armed opponent unarmed. As far as a "...continuing emphasis in the far east on unarmed combat techniques, improvised weapons, melee combat techniques...", I'd say that is a trend worldwide rather than just in the east and is far more practical than you make it sound. Combat systems are developed to assist the individual when they are in the desperate situation of being unarmed. They are developed and used by police and military forces all over the world to compliment their weapons training (Israeli Krav-maga being a good example) and can certainly be adapted for a private citizen's self-defense. While eastern societal and cultural aspects can certainly be credited with the proliferation of martial-arts in those regions, it does little to diminish their effectiveness when they are applied properly.

To sum up, fighting systems are developed based on need and vary greatly by their intended function. Most can be effective when used properly and it is difficult to claim any one system as superior. Ultimately, it depends largely upon the practitioner, the skills and physique of their opponent and the circumstances of the fight. Any "west vs east" comparison is largely nonsense as far as I'm concerned.