The real advantage of undulating blades !

[Sal Bertucci]

The only thing I have time to say is that these blades are NOT serrated. And I think your logic is flawed.

Unfortunately I have to go to work now, but if no one else has commented by the time I get back I will elaborate.

[Sal Bertucci]

I had some off time at work. Not trying to be a jerk in these responses. Sorry if it came out a bit harsh.

during the era when these where popular, troops had less armour.

As far as I understand this is false. Full suites of armor may have decreased, but individual troops would have been well armored and have more armor in comparison to earlier or later years. I'm willing to be corrected on this.

To illustrate the concept in my head: image you have a group of skittles/ mannequins (something hard that can catch a point), and trust into that group with a pointy blade it could stick in a skittle. A more rounded tip would instead deflect. The damage would be from the blade sliding in between the skittles. It would be cutting damage but more a draw cut type of damage. A 'skittle' could be a piece of armour, or bone.

Stabbing a person to the point that you will be unable to rmove the blade is at best an amateur mistake (which is not what we're talking about here) and at worst a myth. No skilled warrior will purposely disarm himself in such a manor, though there is a reason many carried sidearms. Also, any damage you could possibly do by sliding the blade in between opponents (skittles) will be minimal at best and leave you open to attack from the relativly uninjured persons you are fighting. Another point. While you would want to get inside the range of the pike you don't want to get too close to anyone with a two-hander (THer), b/c they will also have sidearms that are probably shorter than THer to get inside your range.

What I'm thinking is that the two-hander is pushed into the guts and you keep pushing, turning the blade to cut you way out or line then up like shish kebabs .

This is flawed martial thinking.

If does make the two-hander a bit of one shot wonder - but no more than a pike.

I have yet to see a successful weapon that was a "one shot wonder". The pike most certainly was NOT. It was an extremely successful weapon that had both advantages and disadvantages.

I'm out of time, but will be back later.

[Philip Sibbering]

I had some off time at work. Not trying to be a jerk in these responses. Sorry if it came out a bit harsh.

Fire away, I want to hear what you have to say! A bit of straight talk never hurt anyone, well not me anyway

I have many misconceptions which I aim to correct.

during the era when these where popular, troops had less armour.

As far as I understand this is false. Full suites of armor may have decreased, but individual troops would have been well armored and have more armor in comparison to earlier or later years. I'm willing to be corrected on this.

Um, it was in context - i.e. vs Pikemen. I know some pikemen have armour, but some parts where unarmoured. I've not see ref to full plate armour pikemen, so any ref would be great.

To illustrate the concept in my head: image you have a group of skittles/ mannequins (something hard that can catch a point), and trust into that group with a pointy blade it could stick in a skittle. A more rounded tip would instead deflect. The damage would be from the blade sliding in between the skittles. It would be cutting damage but more a draw cut type of damage. A 'skittle' could be a piece of armour, or bone.

Stabbing a person to the point that you will be unable to rmove the blade is at best an amateur mistake (which is not what we're talking about here) and at worst a myth. No skilled warrior will purposely disarm himself in such a manor, though there is a reason many carried sidearms.

That's kinda my point - if you see what I mean?

Within the scenario of pushing into a pike formation, not wanting to go back, and getting into the meat.

Also, any damage you could possibly do by sliding the blade in between opponents (skittles) will be minimal at best and leave you open to attack from the relativly uninjured persons you are fighting.

I'm also thinking of going sideways - thrust the blade into the formation, if it hits or if it doesn't no matter, as you are going to then push to the side and use the sword like a lever. To make a hole in the formation, as I get the impression that the whole idea when using a two-hander against a pike formation.

It's the same concept as pushing a pike to one side, moving sideways to make a hole.

Once the sword is inbetween the bodies, or even stuck in a couple, push sideways, towards the men to the side (I assume for a right hand man to the left would be best?)

I'm probably not explaining this very well, as my terminology is a limited.

Another point. While you would want to get inside the range of the pike you don't want to get too close to anyone with a two-hander (THer), b/c they will also have sidearms that are probably shorter than THer to get inside your range.

This is what I'm talking about. A two-hander going into a pike formation, and the change over to a shorter weapon.

What I'm thinking is that the two-hander is pushed into the guts and you keep pushing, turning the blade to cut you way out or line then up like shish kebabs .

This is flawed martial thinking.

Fair enough.

Before I write off the idea - I didn't me turn as in twist (about the axis) I meant turn as in using it as a lever (that may not make it any more correct - I want to be sure we are on the same page)

- I'm trying to understand how they are using it. It seems very restrictive to use such a long weapon against pike, I can see how they move in, but I'm unsure of the changeover - it seems to me that they would want to use the two-hander to make some space and damage, slide in from the bind: then draw their secondary.

If does make the two-hander a bit of one shot wonder - but no more than a pike.

I have yet to see a successful weapon that was a "one shot wonder". The pike most certainly was NOT. It was an extremely successful weapon that had both advantages and disadvantages.

Lance? (yeah I'm being playful - well I hope that's how it comes over )

By 'one shot wonder' I mean that once in close (within the pike formation) that they would have to change to a shorter weapon. It's not different from pikemen changing to a shorter weapon. A poor use of word on my part, I thought it humorous, I'm still adjusting to the community.

I (really do) appreciate you correcting me, and I hope I can bounce more ideas off you as I learn. I like to ask a lot of questions, throw out concepts as they form in my head, then tweak with corrections from my peers.

Now we've got past my ideas, and it seems they are not correct, and you know what you are talking about, how do they use two handers when they close in to pike? What techniques are they using as they get towards the base of the pike and within range of the enemy?

Philip

[Greg Coffman]

In a pike block, most people would be unarmored. The veteran, higher paid fighters would often be wearing some, but not as much as a mounted knight. The Swiss were known for going about unarmored which made them vary quick on the battlefield and on the march. Here are some pics:






It wouldn't work to try to lever people out of the way with a dopplehander. People really aren't in that close together. And if you are close enough to use the dopplehander, or halberd for that matter, against people, then you have already broken up the front of the pike block. The hard part is getting past the points of the forest of pikes pointing in your direction. A dopplehander is more nimble than a pike when using the foregrip past the crossguard because it is shorter and possible lighter. So it is easier to bind, rebind, and press forward. Of course you have to push or knock multiple pikes offline. That takes a lot of work, and yet you are still not close enough to threaten the enemy. But you may just open up holes in the enemies line of pike points, you may be able to create just enough openings or moments for your own pikes to thrust home. The way you really open up holes in an enemy formation is to drop people. If you can start doing that, working with other dopplehanders, halberds, and pikes, then you might get a big enough opening to charge forward actually into the opposing formation.

Once you do that, you still have to fight against halberds, other dopplehanders, longswords, katzbalgers, messers, and daggers. No time to push people aside. If you are not making attacks and threatening opponents then you are getting cut down yourself. This is nasty, close-in fighting. A dopplehander is still not a close fighting weapon. Sometimes you will be too close to use the blade, way too close to use the point. You may need to hit somebody in the teeth with the cross guard. You may need to let go with one hand and draw a dagger. You may need to take a big step back and hope your buddies aren't too close behind you. And don't slip on the blood-slick grass.

This was a brutal fight, not a spectator sport. War is hell. That's hard to keep in perspective sometimes when we get all excited about studying this.

[Sal Bertucci]

Well, I'm back.

I'm glad you took my points so well. I do apologize though as I was a bit crotchety this morning.

So I'd like to continue where I was without repeating anything Greg said.

As I mentioned earlier these blades are not serrated, they're just "wavy". It should also be noted that not all flambergs have the same design. And the ones pictured earlier are on the extreme of their spectrum. Therefore if the theory was correct it should also account for what is the maximum frequency that gives the most benefits, etc.

[Joshua Welsh]

This is a very interesting discussion!

My impression has bas always been that the undulations provided bite. Not exactly like serrations, as I doubt they were intended to aid in slicing. As we know these weapons saw use against pike and polearm formations (Landsknechts). Not that this was the only application, but I think it's likely that many were designed with this scenario in mind. Hewing through a wooden shaft is not as easy as one might think, especially if it is unsteady (held by a man). A chop through a stable hardwood shaft is difficult enough, but much harder if it gives upon impact.

Our ancestors knew this, of course. They also knew what happens when that polearm remains intact after impact, it will be slid down the sword in an attack at the body. The sword will literally guide a strike straight into you if you let it. I know this from experience in freeplay vs. halberds and staffs. But what if they had difficulty sliding down your blade? Why not add a wave to lock them into the point of impact? This also gives you the advantage of having great control of their weapon, allowing you to push and pull it where you want to clear yourself. The undulations would function as a sort of catch, and allow the weapon to grab and control the staff, not unlike hooking and pulling with an poleaxe or halberd.

This, to me, also explains why one would go to such lengths and expense to create what amounts to a specialized polearm. It has an advantage in that it's entire length can bind and stiffle attacks from any staff weapon with unrivaled power.

Once again, this is my personal hypothesis, and I have no evidence to confirm it. I would absolutely love to get my hands on an accurate undulated dopplehander and test cut with it though! It would be an easy task to confirm or refute this idea with a good replica and a few staffs.


Joshua Welsh
ARMA Quad Cities

[Torrey Jones]

Ive always been incredibly fascinated by zweihanders and such so I eagerly read through this thread. There is quite a bit of physics thrown back and forth, equations, talk of aerodynamics etc etc. This struck me as not being able to see the forest for the trees so to speak so I decided to take a step back and remember the old adage "the simplest answer is usually the best". Believe it or not my epiphany came from a LARP event I went to. Usually LARP is to real combat what a ballerina is to a mosh pit. However something I remembered from this was the counter to people who use spears (which is most) when you have two lines of them pressed together. You grab the spear and pull them out of line. I know from staff fighting as a youngster that if someone gets ahold of your polearm your essentially screwed. Now a zweihander does function by ere of its size similar in many ways to a pole arm and this includes that distinct drawback. Grab the sword blade and all that deliciously sexy cutting power is useless. Rapiers also sometimes had an undulating blade pattern. Something Ive seen repeatedly in rapier fighting is grabbing your opponents blade to gain control of it and keep the point off-line. So here is my theory. Is an undulating blade harder to hold onto than a straight one? I decided Id make a test model to try it out. One straight ruler and one that I cut and sanded to have the wavy pattern but I made sure to keep the same thickness. Is it harder to hold onto? ABSOLUTELY. Call me limp wristed but I couldnt get a firm grip even with gloves on the uneven surface. If a wavy blade can allow you to more easily yank your blade out of an opponents grasp than I can see why it would be put on the swords that most needed it due to that having been one of their most exploited weaknesses. I really hope this helped and cant help but hope Ive made at least one person slap their forehead in a "eureka" moment.

[Sal Bertucci]

Interesting idea. Now we just need some beta testing!

[bogdan neagu]

Maybe a letter to the "Mythbusters"?
They seems to have all sort of equipment and ideas. And this kind of dilemma might also be of some interest to them.

[Sal Bertucci]

Myth busters is hardly scientific.

[David Karl Shearin]

I have wondered if the wavy blade allows more penetration (much like an arrow in flight wobbles to give it more penetration) and easier withdrawal from an opponent's body (the same affect as the arrow only in reverse).

I would love to have an organized event where a group of us could purchase several pigs for testing on, then have a cookout for our families. [yum]

[Corey Roberts]

Based on people I know having done test-thrusting with rapiers on meat, I have seen in video and had it told to me that there is almost no effort whatsoever required to either penetrate flesh, nor withdraw the weapon, thus having something that "makes penetrating and withdrawing easier" seems pointless when the things already go in like a really hot sharp awl, in semi-soft butter.

[David Karl Shearin]

Based on people I know having done test-thrusting with rapiers on meat, I have seen in video and had it told to me that there is almost no effort whatsoever required to either penetrate flesh, nor withdraw the weapon, thus having something that "makes penetrating and withdrawing easier" seems pointless when the things already go in like a really hot sharp awl, in semi-soft butter.

Right, but do you think that it is possible that the unique design of a flamberge's edge could give it the same or similar penetrating and withdrawing power as a rapier while still being a large sword?

[Roy Robinson Stewart]

I'm still in favour of my original thesis.