Hitting people with swords and stuff looks fun

[Patrick]

I am not sure if I should like it or not.
But its wild and a workout for sure.
Looks like someone played "Mount and Blade" for too long.

[GrahamB]

Polish guys, eh?

[Tesshu]

Thrusting is not allowed because the sword tip may glide off the plate into the joint areas or towards the neck where it will cause major damage. And if you consider that it will answer your question about the efficency of swords in battle. They were not "iron clubs". Usually you would need a strong blade for defending and a good sword tip for attacking.
The hacking action you often see in movies or in the video above is just part of the game. The kill would be about piercing the weak parts of the armour. That is one reason lances were quite famous for the first line on a battlefield. When they come - pierce the armour.

Okay, throwing someone down with whatever means needed will provide a chance to pierce.
Battering someones helmet with a mace is a good way to, er, end a fight. Imagine being in this helmet: You sweat and don't see much. Breathing is hard, you're full of adrenaline and suddenly your head is crushed by your own helmet which you cannot get off because the metal carves into your bone. Just because someone rode by and battered you with a mace.

[AllanF]

That is awesome!

AS far as i remember most historians are in agreement that most deaths on the battle field (in the first instance) were a result of two armies running head long into each other and the the subsequent pile up. Those in the front getting trampled by those in the back.

As an aside the idea that knights had to get levered/winched into their horses was as a result of Hollywood! Can't remember the name of the movie but even at the time the director was told by historians that knights could easily climb onto their horse unaided (indeed the armor weights less than a modern soldier's full kit) bu the director insisted on it for effect.

Also i'm, like many others, astonished that there are no serious injuries, some of those hits with the halbers looked pretty full on.

[Ba-men]

Ba-men:

Interesting points, thanks.

Why are thrusts disallowed? I'd imagine on plate armour, even a very solid thrust would either veer off the plate's curves or, at worst, just dent it...?

BTW if Steve and I are right - ie taking the opponent down then finishing him off with a dagger into the joints of the armour, and as he notes, many of the French knights killed in the H2H melee at Agincourt were killed on the ground - then taking a chap off his feet would be a classic way to get a kill. For that reason, "judo in armour" - ie getting to close range, than dropping your man, would be a critical and probably historically realistic tactic, no?

You mention that a battering weapon - maces and (I would classify it as one, at least) polearms would be "one stout blow and you are done." Certainly, some chronicles support this: Richard III';s personal bodyguard was literally cut in half by a pole arm that sliced through his armour in the final moments at Bosworth Field. But the guys here are banging away at each other with big, battering weapons with few or no apparent ill effects.

I suspect that we (they) are still missing some critical elements of "real" medieval swordplay. We know from chronicles, collections and illustrations that the sword was a widely used weapon, so presumably highly effective, even in the era of plate armour - yet as seen here, swords seem pretty ineffective.

Puncture risks are the reason why thrusting is not allowed. (in this league) the weapon's in use are soft steel and have literally no edge... basically a flat bar of steel. Of Note: Medieval weapons were case hardened to a rockwell somewhere in the high 50's. (56-59) They had the art of tempering down to a science! Plate armor was close to spring steel in strength (which is a modern process) how the process was to achieving this "quasi spring steel" without modern forges we can only guess at. (It's like glass and concrete... after the fall of Rome we lost the technology, only to discover it again.) Weapons with a tampered hardens in the high rockwell 50's will cut through chain or plate mail or simply crush it. Thing to factor in was the weapons most employed during the later middle ages (era of plate) were based off of two designs .... crushing or puncturing i.e pole axes, mace..hammer etc... They were VERY effective!

On H2H

Something of note...
Actual accounts of Agincourt have little or no grappling being mentioned. In the front lines it was all weapons based.. Henry VI lined up his men at arms in a line 2-4 ranks deep across a wet soggy field that was freshly sowed for the winter. (it rained the night before) The English maintained this line throughout the battle (cycling fresh bodies in as the men at arms on the front line got tired...no grappling there...) eye witness accounts have both sides packed like sardines, using long weapons against each other, (i.e pole axes etc) The French unable to maneuver due to the on coming press from the rear ranks where sitting ducks to the English who had room to maneuver. Accounts literally have the French pushing the front ranks to the death.. the French dead piled up to the point it made it hard to attack the English. On the flanks the English archers had a field day... having run out of arrows in the first few minuets of the battle, they took off one or both of their shoes and went bare foot in the mud.. so they could easily out maneuver the heavenly armored French. Accounts have the archers using pole axes or retrieved arrows at point blank range on slow moving or stuck French knights. (again little or no accounts of grappling...) Why grapple when they could run up and attack an opponent mired up to his knees in mud then run back out of range. Or walk up to him and shoot him point blank with a long bow. Although there had to be some grappling... but not as much as one would think.

Medieval Tactics were based off maintaining formation ala unit cohesion. If it broke.... death! If the man to your left or right (who was protecting your flank) went down your ass was swinging in the breeze. Breaking formation and grappling with an opponent would run counter to this.. there also was a guy standing behind that man too ready to dispatch death... Breaking away from a shield wall usually resulted in death. Sure grappling happened... sure they were trained in it. A lot of us who have been doing this stuff for a long time are of the opinion that a lot of the historical manuals depicting grappling was for "one on one" use only... (duels or tournaments and last case scenarios ) During the battle of Crecy... Dirks (ala daggers) were a great way of saving the integrity of the armor... that's why they were employed. The armor was going to be sold or used again...it was seen as treasure ala booty! Why damage it unnecessarily... the opponent was already critically wounded or trapped under a horse (or trampled ) etc...

[Steve James]

Well, the medieval knights we're probably talking about were all rich and very wealthy. A suit of armor would cost the equivalent of a Ferrari today. Not to mention, every knight had to have a retinue. He couldn't even put his armor on by himself, and certainly couldn't take care of his horses: i.e., his battle horses (think Clydesdales) and his supply train. The result was that there weren't thousands of armored knights engaged in scrimmages. Royalty generally faced royalty; knights faced knights. At Agincourt, the field was muddy; the English used archers from long range first, then the lowly peasant-soldiers ran through the field and annihilated the knights whose horses were hampered, and who could not dismount to fight. Or, rather, if they were unhorsed, they were doomed. Usually, they'd have been ransomed. This time the English apparently combed the battlefield looking for knights and then "wounding them in the thigh." Um, by "thigh" they meant the joint at the groin (doesn't really matter whether the target was femoral artery or testicles. Anything in the general area would be fatal in those days).

I'm not sure that European swords or the period needed to be razor sharp, and they certainly wouldn't have stayed that way for long in battles like the one in the vid. Actually, chain mail works very well against thrusts, and "bulletproof" was first used to describe armor. But, I think taking the thrusting out is better for eye safety. And, who knows how truly authentic the armor in these contests are. It's like swords; they may look the same, but not be as effective. Otoh, I think if they used the maces and other weapons they had at their disposal.

[Ba-men]

Good pics Steve... in the right hands most of these weapons would have open a knight like a can opener!

By the time of Agincourt Swords were pretty much out dated. If they were in use they were as very much as shown (or a varity of..)


or

Ewart Oakeshott (probably the foremost expert on Medieval swords wrote some great books. He designated the sword type XV it had no edge and a chisel point for Ice picking techniques at the opponent (usually used with one hand on the blade, one hand on the hilt (hilt also served as a mace when striking with the pommel) Side note: I see a lot of similarities between this technique/way and how I was taught how to use my nian dao close in. (i.e. Corps a Corps)

Thing to remember is that real medieval weapons were close to "case hardened" a term used denote the strength of a modern day hammer. The shared through mail and crushed plate (Very few "battle ready" swords on the market are the rockwell hardness that actual medieval weapons were. (in fact I know of none... the only ones I know of are hand made...) Here is a vid where one sword out of three or four comes close to being case harden and to the guy testing is surprised starts around 2:08




What is interesting is by the time of the War of Roses.. most armies in England were highly equipped not all had plate... but most wore Brigandine. Before this The Hundred years war and the numerous wars in Northern Spain produce abundant "Free Companies" that were professional and well equipped...

[Andy_S]

Tesshu:

RE: Thrusts sliding off armour into chinks
Ah, that makes sense.

Ba-men:

Thanks for detailed responses.

It sounds to me like the sword, when employed against plate armour, was primarily a stabbing, not a cutting weapon, which makes me wonder about the use of the very large, hand-and-a-half or two-handed broadswords. I'd imagine (?) the only place a slash would have a chance of a disabling strike would be the (unarmoured) back of the knee. It would (again, I assume?) not be realistic for a swing to target the chink between the gorget and the helmet or the inside of the elbow. Perhaps it is for these reasons, that the swords from the age of plate had little in the way of sharp edge, and much in the way of sharp point, compared to, say, a katana, which you would not want to pick up by the blade even if you were wearing thick padded gauntlets.

But are you suggesting, regarding case hardening, that a well-made sword could CUT through plate armouur...? I remember an article in FAI in the 1980s in which a renowned Japanese sword master (and a giant of a man) tried, in a series of tests, to cut through a Japanese helm with a katana: Even though the helm was set down before him (ie it was not fighting back!) and he could take his time and take a damned big swing, the best he achieved was a slight chip.

Two points that strike me about all this:
(1) These guys were really conditioned (They could afford to be: All knights did was train, hunt, fight and court chicks). Even so, I wonder how long it would have been before, due to the exhaustion, shock and claustrophobia, guys just had to raise their visors or even removed their helms - leaving them open to a severe fucking beaning.

(2) Just as it is pretty difficult in unarmed combat today to score a KO (though it does happen), in medieval battle, to get a stand-up, clean kill would have been the exception rather than the rule: Most H2H battle would have been really brutal gangster fights/slogging matches in which the aim was to concuss the opponent, drive him to his knees and then capture him for ransom or finish him off in the mud. (And some warriors survived even that last case: Bertrand de Guesclin, a French hero of the 100 Years War, was known as "The Frog" due to the facial disfigurement he suffered, when his visor was smashed into his face by a mace at Agincourt.)

Very interesting clips and posts.

[Ba-men]

Ba-men:

But are you suggesting, regarding case hardening, that a well-made sword could CUT through plate armouur...? I remember an article in FAI in the 1980s in which a renowned Japanese sword master (and a giant of a man) tried, in a series of tests, to cut through a Japanese helm with a katana: Even though the helm was set down before him (ie it was not fighting back!) and he could take his time and take a damned big swing, the best he achieved was a slight chip.

Two points that strike me about all this:
(1) These guys were really conditioned (They could afford to be: All knights did was train, hunt, fight and court chicks). Even so, I wonder how long it would have been before, due to the exhaustion, shock and claustrophobia, guys just had to raise their visors or even removed their helms - leaving them open to a severe fucking beaning.

I believe your correct. I put up the vid "only" to show that a sword with a real temper can and will cut chain mail. There just isn't enough mass on the end of a two handed sword or single handed type XV to cut or crush a helm. As you noted the percussion value is all one would get. In reality the sword was used like a giant Ice pick... against plate its the only way it is effective. On a line "In melee" one probably stood in support of a pole arm and guarded his flanks. Or used a different weapon. Many famous professional soldiers were depicted with weapons like a Bec de corbin etc...

Which brings up the Katana... giving the conclusions that we are drawing here and now... its been my belief that with the chisel point of a katana, In melee, (when they ran out of arrows lol) Samurai used the weapon in a similar fashion.... and only with the on set of the Tokugawa period (no armor in use ) did cutting techniques come to the fore... However...all that said... the falchion seems to be all over the place in depictions of war in the late middle ages, yet few example survived. Depicted in many painting are armored foes hacking at each other in mass. The falchion had the cutting power as well as crushing power. Experts in Medieval warfare theorize that the reason why so few actual effective medieval weapons survive intact today is because they were used and abused then discarded to be melted down into something else. Kinda makes sense.. weapons with little actual value are the one that get hung up on the wall.. lol.

Then pike formations would become the main battle tactic and the two handed sword changed again to a broad blade (still a support weapon) Probably used the same way a Miao Dao was used in the Ming Dynasty where there too warfare with spear/pike formations dominated the field. (just guessing at this last part.... )

[Teazer]

This looks like the Battle of the Nations system, done in Poland. There are similar groups training this in eg the USA as well
http://usaknights.org/
There are definite rules and restrictions such as no thrusts, weight limits for certain types of weapons, and certain parts of the body that cannot be attacked.

WRT Sword vs full plate armour, some options are -
control their weapon, enter grappling range, throw them to the ground and finish with a stab to a less protected area,
stomp or strike the metal near a joint to limit mobility,
go to half-sword and use it like a can opener against joints
reverse the sword and hit them on the head with the hilt as a stunning blow.

Out of these, half-swording seemed to be pretty common.
trying to cut plate with a sword is much more likely to end up with a ruined sword. You'd have to be pretty desperate to try that rather than the more common techniques.

[Steve James]

I think that the degree of armoring was so varied that it's hard to say definitively what swords could or could not do. There probably weren't hoards of fully armored knights (some of whom would have been nobles who were not professional knights anyway, but who would have had the highest quality armor), but there could be many combatants with lower quality or less effective armor. I'm not sure anyone knows how many people wore mail shirts, for ex. The best examples would take hundred of man hours (to make the tiny links required for any protection from thrusts); but, it would take far less time to make one with larger links that would offer protection from cuts and slashes. Everyone would want some type of protection, though. Otoh, since not everyone could get it, it's very likely that limbs were lopped off and thrusts against some opponents would work fine.

Btw, what do ya'll think of the weapons used on the Bayeux tapestry?

[Ba-men]

There is a lot pictured in the Bayeux tapestry

Most of the reenactment groups I participate in we attempt to be living museums...we delve deep into this history, techniques, customs etc.. of this era. Without getting into a history lesson... Obviously the dominate weapons on the battle field was the spear and axe with the sword or single hand axe being the "close in" weapons. Interesting to note: Maces or metal studded clubs are also seen in the tapestry. I love the the Saxon Housecarl's (actually a Unit with a Danish heritage) very effective at using two handed axes The European bow (a bow of medium height) and crossbow was employed too.

As far as we know warfare tactics involved shield walls and spears with blocks of units/formations charging strategically. Archers played a role too in breaking up formations.
It's now known that weapon tempering as well as overall metallurgy of the time ... smelting, casting etc.. was able to produce serious quality weapons and jewelry. The various mail in use at the time wasn't impervious to weapons. Yet, Armor was pretty effective. Actually...from my understanding/experience, the padded gambeson, tightly packed with horse hair is what provided the main defense against all weapons. (besides the helm) The elite just covered their gambeson with either leather, ring mail,banded mail, splint mail, scale mail or chain mail...etc for added protection. In the most vital areas, the gambeson could have been over 2 inches think. (the shoulders, chest etc...)

Somehow in the early 1000's the Normans got the brilliant idea of wrapping/strapping the saddle on a horse in a certain way so that they could run into an opponent with the combined weight of rider and horse and "lance" them with a spear ( without the saddle and the rider being thrown off.... hence the lance charge was born. )

[Steve James]

Somehow in the early 1000's the Normans got the brilliant idea of wrapping/strapping the saddle on a horse in a certain way so that they could run into an opponent with the combined weight of rider and horse and "lance" them with a spear ( without the saddle and the rider being thrown off.... hence the lance charge was born. )

Perhaps from the addition/invention of a lance rest? http://www.ageofarmour.com/images/milantop.jpg
Just an idea. You've got way more knowledge about the development of medieval battle tactics or the development of armor than I do.

[Teazer]

Thing to remember is that real medieval weapons were close to "case hardened" a term used denote the strength of a modern day hammer. The shared through mail and crushed plate (Very few "battle ready" swords on the market are the rockwell hardness that actual medieval weapons were. (in fact I know of none... the only ones I know of are hand made...) Here is a vid where one sword out of three or four comes close to being case harden and to the guy testing is surprised starts around 2:08
[url][/url]

Isn't the better cutting ability shown here more likely to be just a case of the sword being better sharpened out of the box than the others? There were definitely different methods of steel manufacture centuries ago, but have you a reason why current technology would be worse? I suspect all three swords in the video have reasonably similar heat treatment processes used.

[Ba-men]

Cool pic .. The lace rest came much much later... (late late 1400's ) special note: That particular helm's eye slits (notice the up turn) is designed where you only could see your opponent by leaning forward in the saddle... (it made you do so... so you would brace for the shock) all frog face helms of this period and later are of this type. (jousting helms )

A lot of knowledge of medieval tactics comes from all the reenactment I do... either SCA, Battle of Nations type or a "combo of them both". I've spent a lot of time with armor on, swinging something at someone..20+ years (and getting hit or knocked down myself lol..) I wish My taijiquan was as good as my heavy fencing is... used to be a long time ago.. not now.. lol.