So I've read that it's influence from steppe warriors that brought curved swords to the middle east (and India). So what did their swords look like before that?
Did curved swords completely replace straight ones? If they did, why?
 |
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
Moderators: Webmaster, Stacy Clifford
I think it was mostly for cavalry. I have said in other posts, most cavalry tactics involved constant movement with hitting and retreating as apposed to charge and press like what Western Europe mostly relied on. You aren't going to be "fighting and fencing" where a strait, double edged sword with more angles of attack would come in handy. You're using your horse to maneuver and "dog fight" like fighter jets do. That goes in to what John said, you want the sword that is going to do the most damage in a swipe.Thanks,
do you know why curved swords became popular though? Was it really because of cavalry or was there something with the curvature that suited the fighting of the times?
I don't think there's any evidence to support this distinction. The texts that we do have about medieval European methods of horseback fighting clearly indicated that the men-at-arms preferred to ride past and attack on the pass rather than stopping or slowing down to engage in a protracted exchange except when they had no other choice. Note that the quintessential weapon of the medieval mounted man-at-arms was the lance--a weapon best used when there's enough space to ride past the enemy so that the wielder could maintain the horse's speed rather than slowing down to prevent collision.I think it was mostly for cavalry. I have said in other posts, most cavalry tactics involved constant movement with hitting and retreating as apposed to charge and press like what Western Europe mostly relied on. You aren't going to be "fighting and fencing" where a strait, double edged sword with more angles of attack would come in handy. You're using your horse to maneuver and "dog fight" like fighter jets do.
It was Xenophon--an ancient Greek soldier--and the sword he recommended for the cavalry was a "makhaira." The only thing we know for certain about this sword is that it was more cutting-oriented than the xiphos, but we don't really know it's shape--and even if it's not just a straight xiphos with a longer blade and/or more point-forward balance, it's more likely to be a blade with a concave curve like the modern Nepalese kukri rather than a convex-curved cavalry sabre as we know it.I read in a wikipedia (where good information goes to die) an article about how a Greek tactician and maybe philosopher recommended big curved/bellied chopping swords for cavalry the reason above. I don't care for wikipedia as a source, but I didn't check the source for the source.
I don't think there's any evidence to support this distinction. The texts that we do have about medieval European methods of horseback fighting clearly indicated that the men-at-arms preferred to ride past and attack on the pass rather than stopping or slowing down to engage in a protracted exchange except when they had no other choice. Note that the quintessential weapon of the medieval mounted man-at-arms was the lance--a weapon best used when there's enough space to ride past the enemy so that the wielder could maintain the horse's speed rather than slowing down to prevent collision.
Thank you, but you missed my point. I was trying to say how a chopping oriented weapon was proffered.It was Xenophon--an ancient Greek soldier--and the sword he recommended for the cavalry was a "makhaira." The only thing we know for certain about this sword is that it was more cutting-oriented than the xiphos, but we don't really know it's shape--and even if it's not just a straight xiphos with a longer blade and/or more point-forward balance, it's more likely to be a blade with a concave curve like the modern Nepalese kukri rather than a convex-curved cavalry sabre as we know it.
Not really. Outflanking actions were all over the place in real medieval European battles. Light cavalry actions were also a very common assignment for men-at-arms, and indeed they may have spent more time stripped down to "light cavalry" gear, raiding and scouting around the countryside, than lining up in full armour and barding for the straightforward charges stereotypically associated with them.They still might have attacked on the pass and proffered it if they could, but they seem to train direct charges where Eastern cavalries seemed more about light cavalries and trying more to outflank.
Not really. If two lines of cavalrymen ride at each other and both have the nerve to maintain their speed rather than slowing down to a halt, they'd naturally open up lanes to thread through each other's formations and ride clear through to the other side. The actual engagement is restricted to the brief amount of time that the two sides were actually threading past each other, and the results are usually determined by which side manages to rally and reform itself once it has ridden clear through. There's no shortage of primary accounts mentioning knights (probably along with their small troops/retinues) riding clear through to the rear of the enemy line and then rallying to charge through straight back to their own side of the battlefield.In something like a joust where it is one on one, you can pass but they made charges in lines at large sections at the enemy and I would imagine it would be very hard to pass in those situations.
This is mostly romantic nostalgia, longing for the "good old times" that never existed. Simple but effective manoeuvres like envelopments and feigned flights were very common in medieval cavalry warfare right from the start. Granted, they didn't happen all the time, but they did often enough to give the lie to the notion that medieval European knighthood were unsophisticated brutes who knew nothing except how to ride straight ahead.I remember reading a quote from a knight in the late 16th century in the book, "The Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe", lamenting how both light and heavy cavalry have come look the same in those times. He goes on to say how big and strong a heavy cavalry horse should be as apposed to fast and how they should not be running around but going strait and direct at the enemy.
But "Eastern cavalry" covers a far greater variety of types! There weren't only the light horse archers of the steppes or Moorish mounted javelineers, but also hard chargers like Arab lancers and Persian/Byzantine cataphracts.Overall, knightly heavy cavalry come across as far more direct tactically then eastern cavalry as a whole
By one author. And not as a primary weapon--his cavalrymen were primarily armed with throwing spears that could also be thrust in a pinch.Thank you, but you missed my point. I was trying to say how a chopping oriented weapon was proffered.
Not really. Outflanking actions were all over the place in real medieval European battles. Light cavalry actions were also a very common assignment for men-at-arms, and indeed they may have spent more time stripped down to "light cavalry" gear, raiding and scouting around the countryside, than lining up in full armour and barding for the straightforward charges stereotypically associated with them.
Not really. If two lines of cavalrymen ride at each other and both have the nerve to maintain their speed rather than slowing down to a halt, they'd naturally open up lanes to thread through each other's formations and ride clear through to the other side. The actual engagement is restricted to the brief amount of time that the two sides were actually threading past each other, and the results are usually determined by which side manages to rally and reform itself once it has ridden clear through. There's no shortage of primary accounts mentioning knights (probably along with their small troops/retinues) riding clear through to the rear of the enemy line and then rallying to charge through straight back to their own side of the battlefield.
I apologize if I sounded like they could only charge in and wouldn't do some crafty maneuvering or outflanking.This is mostly romantic nostalgia, longing for the "good old times" that never existed. Simple but effective manoeuvres like envelopments and feigned flights were very common in medieval cavalry warfare right from the start. Granted, they didn't happen all the time, but they did often enough to give the lie to the notion that medieval European knighthood were unsophisticated brutes who knew nothing except how to ride straight ahead.
They still didn't rely on chargers like Western Europe did. Western Europe put a high value on a large charging horse. They didn't have the same amount of vast rolling plains like much of the rest of the world. Some Western countries had more of them then others, but there are more forests and mountain ranges. Many other parts of the world that invaded didn't do so well once they got deeper in. They all put more in to light cavalry and they usually outnumbered the Europeans. Best example I can think of are the Franks beating the Moores at Poiters. The Franks were infantry as apposed to heavy cavalry based, but they still beat the Moorish cavalry which by European standards be on the lighter side overall. The invaders that seemed to do well were Eastern Europeans who used heavy cavalry charges like the Goths and Lombards. On the reverse of that, in second crusade the Arab archers played 'Keep Away' with the Europeans on the desert plains with light, fast horses.But "Eastern cavalry" covers a far greater variety of types! There weren't only the light horse archers of the steppes or Moorish mounted javelineers, but also hard chargers like Arab lancers and Persian/Byzantine cataphracts.
It is still an important opinion and the sword wasn't the main weapon of charging men-at-arms. It goes along with worst case scenario. You're in the press and you are fighting somebody face to face. Lance is probably broken and even if it isn't, if you're close with an enemy a sword with two edges gives more angles of attack.By one author. And not as a primary weapon--his cavalrymen were primarily armed with throwing spears that could also be thrust in a pinch.
Part of the reason curved swords weren't necessarily as popular was armor. Forgot about that. I think I read that the estoc was pretty popular for cavalry. No edge, just a nice point to get through mail and in between plates.It's worth noting that curved swords weren't really that popular among Renaissance European light cavalry. Venetian stradiots used it, sure, and Hungarian hussars. But the latter also carried long straight swords--indeed, one curved and one straight sword was the traditional armament load of the light hussar (the Hungarian variety as opposed to the Polish husaria, although even the Poles sometimes carried the two-sword combination too) for quite a long while. Meanwhile, other more "traditionally" Western forms of light cavalry such as Spanish jinetes, demi-lancers, and German reiters went on carrying long straight swords, often fairly slender and tapered ones with an obvious thrusting focus (although their blades were usually still broad enough for effective cuts as well).
It depends. If it was Bayard, le chevalier sans peur et reproche, I can't help suspecting a dose of irony since one of his celebrated exploits was the lightning raid (in classic light cavalry fashion) that captured almost all of the opposing army's top leaders. If it was Baldassare Castiglione, he was more a courtier than a soldier so we need to treat his romanticism with a handful of salt.Sir Puffypants might be immagining things to an extent, but there is still some truth to what he is saying.
Oh they did! The Persians' Nisean horses were quite large for their time. So were the horses raised for the heavy cavalry forces of certain Central Asian city-states (such as Samarkand). More importantly, it was a common rule that city-states and tribes that had both light and heavy cavalry tended to beat tribes and cities that could only afford light cavalry.They still didn't rely on chargers like Western Europe did.But "Eastern cavalry" covers a far greater variety of types! There weren't only the light horse archers of the steppes or Moorish mounted javelineers, but also hard chargers like Arab lancers and Persian/Byzantine cataphracts.
Tours-Poitiers may be the worst possible example you could pick since the cavalry the Franks faced wasn't Moorish but Arab, and the Arabs of this era were hard-charging lancers (particularly after they conquered Syria and Egypt, which gave them the resources to obtain more armour for their frontline units). The Franks in this battle were praised for their ability to resist the terrible Arab charges "like a wall of ice," and it's unlikely that the Franks would have made much of it if they had been facing Moorish javelin cavalry.Best example I can think of are the Franks beating the Moores at Poiters. The Franks were infantry as apposed to heavy cavalry based, but they still beat the Moorish cavalry which by European standards be on the lighter side overall.
That was (mostly) the Turks. And even Turks were quite happy to charge European infantry to stifle their crossbows' effect while another detachment engaged the European knights. They had some seriously heavy cavalry, too, including Caucasian vassals and allies (some of whom contributed cataphract lancers on occasion).On the reverse of that, in second crusade the Arab archers played 'Keep Away' with the Europeans on the desert plains with light, fast horses.
Which could be provided with a false edge on a single-edged sword, even a curved one. And heavily curved swords open up their own unique attack possibilities too, including flipping the false edge or the point around a static parry (also possible with a straight sword but the curve makes it easier) and parries that glide smoothly into a thrust against the opponent's back (again, also possible but rather awkward and slow with a straight blade).worst case scenario. You're in the press and you are fighting somebody face to face. Lance is probably broken and even if it isn't, if you're close with an enemy a sword with two edges gives more angles of attack.
The correlation between light cavalry and sabres in Europe was never that clean and simple. Apart from hussars and uhlans and other types derived from Eastern European examples, there were other light cavalry units that carried the traditions of older Western European units (Light Dragoons, chevaux-légeres, etc.) and the latter type often retained straight blades or used less deeply curved sabres well into the 19th century--and note that straight swords returned to light cavalry use in countries where the cut vs. thrust debate was won by proponents of the thrust.Sabers were popular for cavalry all across the world as noted and the more popular light cavalry became in Europe, so did sabers.
I apologize, big mistake. I was told by a teacher a long time ago something a little different. Thought I have read that was the case in later years. I might have been confusing it with other wars. You are right about the heavy use of lancers by the Moores. I apologize to ARMA, the entire martial arts community, modern day France, Morocco, and any and all possible descendent's of said battle. Not the Moors themselves. Later on the Berbers and Moors had some lancers, albeit not particularly heavy ones, but the hard-charging lancers we're talking about in the context of Charles Martel's opponents at Tours-Poitiers were Arabs. As in conquerors who travelled and spread over several generations from the Middle East, across North Africa, and up into Spain and southern France. Not native Moors as such (although they also had Moorish/Berber troops in their armies, mostly as infantry and light cavalry).On the Franks vs Moores:
Don't! Go read up on Central Asian cities like Samarkand, Bukhara, and Khwarizm. Most of them were part of one Persian/Iranian empire or another at one point of time or another, but not all the time. There were long stretches of time when they were independent city-states that developed their own military customs and institutions, though they obviously still borrowed a great deal from both the Persians on one side and Steppe nomads on the other.On the Persians, I read of lancers and horse archers. Never read of a city state specializing in one or the other. For the sake of argument, I'll take your word for it.
Well, static blocks (regardless of edge alignment) is generally the most common response by an untrained fencer (a Buffel/buffalo in the Liechtenauer style's terminology) to an incoming cut. If not, why would all swordsmanship systems that I know of teach how to get around such blocks with one technique or another? Curved blades are especially useful for this since they can reach more easily around the block with a thrust or a false-edge cut. Straight blades can do the same, too, but generally require more angulation on the wrist to reach the target behind the block. Look at current interpretations of the Sturzhau (which is generally performed with a straight blade) and compare it with the interpretation of a reconstructed Polish sabre technique in this document.The edge on edge parry advantages, I hold the ARMA position that static edge on edge was not widely taught in Europe until the mid 1600s and for swords with edge, mostly a cavalry thing, and considering the slow pull away from heavy lancers, I think helps my argument. As for if they were teaching static parries prior or how good it was, it is a road to nowhere that has been debated many times on this forum.
Return to “Research and Training Discussion”
Users browsing this forum: Amazon [Bot], Google [Bot] and 167 guests
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
