Best combat sword?

[Ken]

While I nodded nearly napping on the couch last night, I half watched
a show on History or Discovery (or maybe Fox) on the development of
the European sword. The producer had fencers practice and fight
(blunted adges or wood) with swords starting with the Roman gladius
and ending with the fifteenth century broadsword.

He made the assertion that this latter was the best combat sword ever
made.

Is this generally conceded?

Maybe it is the best against an armored (full plate) opponent?

One with a shield?

Maybe it is not the best?

Are long military sabers better against unarmored opponents?

Why did pirates generally use a short saber with a back edge? Unlike
members of military units, they could choose any weapon they wanted.

If handguns were not an option, and modern steels were available, What
blade would provide the best defense and offense?

It is my understanding that many of the post-musket military swords of
various nations were more for show or status than actual use.


Ken
(to reply via email
remove "zz" from address)

[William Black]

"Ken" <cprstn54zz@att.net> wrote in message
news:idqlhv812jdm012avfhiv3lohl55nu6nga@4ax.com...
> While I nodded nearly napping on the couch last night, I half watched
> a show on History or Discovery (or maybe Fox) on the development of
> the European sword. The producer had fencers practice and fight
> (blunted adges or wood) with swords starting with the Roman gladius
> and ending with the fifteenth century broadsword.
>
> He made the assertion that this latter was the best combat sword ever
> made.
>
> Is this generally conceded?

Nope.

> Maybe it is the best against an armored (full plate) opponent?

Nope. Against a fully plate armoured opponent you really needed a big
two-handed can opener, usually called a 'Bill'.

> Why did pirates generally use a short saber with a back edge? Unlike
> members of military units, they could choose any weapon they wanted.

The cutlass is a highly specialised weapon optimised for combat at close
quarters at sea.

> If handguns were not an option, and modern steels were available, What
> blade would provide the best defense and offense?

Depends on circumstances, anything from a short sword to a late model
British Heavy cavalry sabre.

> It is my understanding that many of the post-musket military swords of
> various nations were more for show or status than actual use.

Cavalry swords are designed for use. Infantry officers swords/hangars are
also designed for use. General officers' dress swords are not generally
designed for service use...

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

[Chris Zakes]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 19:27:31 GMT, Ken <cprstn54zz@att.net> wrote:

>While I nodded nearly napping on the couch last night, I half watched
>a show on History or Discovery (or maybe Fox) on the development of
>the European sword. The producer had fencers practice and fight
>(blunted adges or wood) with swords starting with the Roman gladius
>and ending with the fifteenth century broadsword.
>
>He made the assertion that this latter was the best combat sword ever
>made.
>
>Is this generally conceded?

Probably not. Ultimately, it depends a lot more on the skill of the
fighter than on the particular blade being used.

>Maybe it is the best against an armored (full plate) opponent?

No. Against full plate you want some kind of mass weapon: a mace, a
war hammer, maybe an axe, or as William Black suggested, some sort of
pole arm.

The other option would be a rigid thrusting weapon such as a lance or
an estoc.

>One with a shield?

Irrelevant. Shields were pretty common throughout the time period in
question. (Just out of curiosity, did the folks in the TV show use
shields in their fights?)

This is another area where skill supersedes equipment. Joe Blow who
learned to use a shield from watching old movies (i.e. shield =
counterweight when swinging the sword) is almost certain to lose
against someone who actually uses their shield for defense and
offense.

>Maybe it is not the best?

See above.


>Are long military sabers better against unarmored opponents?

As I understand it (and it's *not* an area I'm particularly
knowledgable about) a curved blade such as a cavalry saber, scimitar,
etc. is the best shape for slicing up an unarmored opponent. On the
other paw, they're not as efficient for point work (depending on how
much curve the blade has.)


>Why did pirates generally use a short saber with a back edge? Unlike
>members of military units, they could choose any weapon they wanted.

Probably because a shorter blade is better for close-quarters work. I
expect a blade similar to a Roman shortsword would have worked well,
too.


>If handguns were not an option, and modern steels were available, What
>blade would provide the best defense and offense?

That depends *far* more on training in than equipment. I could
probably make a reasonable showing with rapier & dagger, but I know
next to nothing about, say, a cavalry saber or a katana. Using one of
those against a skilled opponent would mean I'd lose in short order.


>It is my understanding that many of the post-musket military swords of
>various nations were more for show or status than actual use.

Yes and no. Guns *did* supersede swords, but swords were still used
for quite a long time. IIRC, some Polish troops faced the Blitzkrieg
using sabers from horseback.

-Chris Zakes
Texas

Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull in all kinds
of directions. It's the only way to make progress.

-Havelock Vetinari in "The Truth" by Terry Pratchett

[Bryan J. Maloney]

I thought the best combat sword was a double rank of matchlock and pike.

[Bryan J. Maloney]

Zebee Johnstone <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote in
news:slrnbhlvl8.25i.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au:

> And what did they call a "15thC broadsword"? How long? How wide?
> Point or no?

Something like a long-ish Oakeshott Type XV, if I remember my Oakeshott
typology correctly.

[Bryan J. Maloney]

Chris Zakes <moondrgn@austin.rr.com> wrote in
news:bo0mhv4tvn5d49fdijd3bvq5u5jq1f4qa6@4ax.com:


> Irrelevant. Shields were pretty common throughout the time period in
> question. (Just out of curiosity, did the folks in the TV show use
> shields in their fights?)

They did, and not very well. Of course, these guys had solid weeks to
"perfect" their technique...

[Wolf]

> > Maybe it is the best against an armored (full plate) opponent?
>
> Unlikely. Spears or mass weapons like maces and pollaxes are the go
> against plate. The spear for the joints and the mass weapon to bend the
> plate and the bod inside.

One of the principle purposes of armor was to protect against mass weapons.
Indeed, that's almost the originating goal behind helmets. The defense
against missile weapons was a later bonus.

[The knight's helmet is almost the perfect anti-concussion design]
-Bill

[Mark C. Orton]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 19:27:31 GMT, Ken <cprstn54zz@att.net> wrote:

> Why did pirates generally use a short saber with a back edge? Unlike
> members of military units, they could choose any weapon they wanted.

I believe they actually used cutlasses, which had a wider blade than a
sabre, and as far as I know did not have a back edge.

They couldn't choose any weapon they wanted; they could choose any
weapon that was available. 15th century broadswords were not
generally available in the 18th century.

I can think of several reasons why they'd use cutlasses:

1. They were available. There would be a steady supply looted from
victims' ships to replace the ones that broke.

2. Having a short blade, they were suitable for use at close
quarters.

3. Having a short blade, they would not throw you off balance when
the ship pitched unexpectedly.

4. An unskilled person could use one fairly effectively in some
situations - attacking an opponent from behind, attacking an opponent
whose pistol has just misfired, attacking an opponent whose attention
is focused somewhere else, etc. (Pirates were typically not trained
fencers.)

5. Cutlasses can deliver severe wounds, thus eliminating the
opponents faster.

-Mark-

[Ken]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 20:38:01 +0000 (UTC), "William Black"
>> Why did pirates generally use a short saber with a back edge? Unlike
>> members of military units, they could choose any weapon they wanted.
>
>The cutlass is a highly specialised weapon optimised for combat at close
>quarters at sea.

Is there any difference between a cutlass and a saber, except for
around 6" of blade length?

It would appear that these two weapons became the ultimate combat
blades, at least in the West. Your choice would depend on the
generally expected amount of room for maneuver. Correct?



Ken
(to reply via email
remove "zz" from address)

[William Black]

"Ken" <cprstn54zz@att.net> wrote in message
news:84mnhv4chr9kr9chg63c1uhnrmcr1rv63j@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 20:38:01 +0000 (UTC), "William Black"
> >> Why did pirates generally use a short saber with a back edge? Unlike
> >> members of military units, they could choose any weapon they wanted.
> >
> >The cutlass is a highly specialised weapon optimised for combat at close
> >quarters at sea.
>
> Is there any difference between a cutlass and a saber, except for
> around 6" of blade length?

A cutlass has a deeper and thicker blade. It can be used to chop away
broken rigging and ropes. I doubt a cavalry sabre would last long doing
that.

A cutlass is a very heavy weapon, I'd hate to have to carry one through a
battle of longer than a couple of hours.

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

[William Black]

"Zebee Johnstone" <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote in message
news:slrnbhlvpl.25i.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au...
> In rec.sport.fencing on Sun, 20 Jul 2003 20:38:01 +0000 (UTC)
> William Black <black_william@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Nope. Against a fully plate armoured opponent you really needed a big
> > two-handed can opener, usually called a 'Bill'.
>
> I think you mis-spelt "pollaxe"
>
> The bill didn't open the can, it pulled it off the horse and when it was
> on the ground, you put a knife through the eyeslits.

If you look at an 'English bill' (Oakeshott, European Weapons and Armour,
Lutterworth Press 1980, Page 54, Fig 11, Item B) you'll see it has a
spike on the back to punch through plate armour.

The pole axe, originally pollaxe (I know better than someone who shot a
spelling flame at you) poll being Scots for 'head', has 'noble' overtones
and may not have been as widespread. As late as the sixteen fourties men
being armed for the English Civil War were being equipped with 'horrible old
brown bills' (Stewart Reid, Gunpowder Triumphant, can't find my copy but
probably 'Caliver Press' around 1987)

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

[William Black]

"Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> wrote in message
news:eASSa.1001$sI.51831@nasal.pacific.net.au...
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> > In rec.sport.fencing on Sun, 20 Jul 2003 20:38:01 +0000 (UTC)
> > William Black <black_william@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Nope. Against a fully plate armoured opponent you really needed a big
> >>two-handed can opener, usually called a 'Bill'.
> >
> >
> > I think you mis-spelt "pollaxe"
> >
> Zebee, I _know_ you mis-spelt "pole-axe".

Oh no he didn't.

It's from the Scots 'poll' meaning 'head'.

He's wrong, but he spelled it right...

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

[Dirk Goldgar]

"William Black" <black_william@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bfh8bm$3ca$4@sparta.btinternet.com
> "Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> wrote in message
> news:eASSa.1001$sI.51831@nasal.pacific.net.au...
>> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>> In rec.sport.fencing on Sun, 20 Jul 2003 20:38:01 +0000 (UTC)
>>> William Black <black_william@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope. Against a fully plate armoured opponent you really needed a
>>>> big two-handed can opener, usually called a 'Bill'.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think you mis-spelt "pollaxe"
>>>
>> Zebee, I _know_ you mis-spelt "pole-axe".
>
> Oh no he didn't.
>
> It's from the Scots 'poll' meaning 'head'.
>
> He's wrong, but he spelled it right...

Right or wrong, he's still a she.

--

Dirk Goldgar

(to reply via e-mail, remove NOSPAM from address)

[wreckferret]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 19:27:31 GMT, dixit Ken <cprstn54zz@att.net>:

>While I nodded nearly napping on the couch last night, I half watched
>a show on History or Discovery (or maybe Fox) on the development of
>the European sword. The producer had fencers practice and fight
>(blunted adges or wood) with swords starting with the Roman gladius
>and ending with the fifteenth century broadsword.

>He made the assertion that this latter was the best combat sword ever
>made.

Utter tripe. I'd agree with the old wit, Reinhardt. To paraphrase: the
rapier represents the best of the western world, a properly balanced
katana, for the orient, perhaps. Neither are much good for the other's
task. Both are intrinsically hopeless against plate mail (see Zebee's
elucidation).

I must say movements derived from budo are beautiful...

>Ken

How apposite your name...

--
wreckferret ICQ#163264
UK-based Epéeist/Sabreur Make spammers pay... use CruelMail!

[Jay and Diane Rudin]

"Ken" asked:

> While I nodded nearly napping on the couch last night, I half watched
> a show on History or Discovery (or maybe Fox) on the development of
> the European sword. The producer had fencers practice and fight
> (blunted adges or wood) with swords starting with the Roman gladius
> and ending with the fifteenth century broadsword.
>
> He made the assertion that this latter was the best combat sword ever
> made.
>
> Is this generally conceded?

A few basic principles:

1. A lighter sword is superior for wearing into court or around the city,
when one wishes to be armed, but usually doesn't plan to fight.

2. Slashing is necessary on horse. If you stab an opponent, the sword will
still be in him until you pull it back. This is embarassing if you've
ridden by.

3. Slashing is near-useless against armor. Thrusting is only marginally
better. Pound him.

4. A longer weapon is advantageous in a line of fighters. It is
disadvantageous in close quarters.

5. There is no one thing that can be said about a cutlass, because there is
no one weapon called a cutlass. (Ditto rapier, epee, saber, etc.)

There's more, but it all leads to the same, totally unsurprising answer:

There is no one best combat sword, because there is no one combat scenario.

Jay Rudin

[Amy & Joseph Kormann]

Ken wrote:

>While I nodded nearly napping on the couch last night, I half watched
>a show on History or Discovery (or maybe Fox) on the development of
>the European sword. The producer had fencers practice and fight
>(blunted adges or wood) with swords starting with the Roman gladius
>and ending with the fifteenth century broadsword.
>
>He made the assertion that this latter was the best combat sword ever
>made.
>
>
I'd have to use the old statement that the best weapon to use is the
best weapon you are able to use. I've been using a foil / epee for so
long now, I'd forget as to what the edge of the blade is for. The
non-combat skills (distance and timing) would have more to do with the
usefulness of the weapon than the mechanics of the weapons itself, IMHO.
As an example, in the movie "Rob Roy" (yes, it's a movie, but it
illustrates the point) there's a scene where Rob Roy and The Fop are in
combat / dueling. The Fop was effective with his distance, timing and
general thrusting with the (?) rapier. Once Rob Roy controlled the
distance and timing by grabbing The Fop's blade, it took one hefty swing
to cleave The Fop and end the duel. The weapon wasn't the deciding
factor, it was the advantage Rob Roy took in changing the conditions of
the duel.

<donning flame suit>

-Joseph

--
Amy and Joseph Kormann

[William Marshal]

"Jay and Diane Rudin" <rudin@ev1.net> wrote


> 2. Slashing is necessary on horse. If you stab an opponent, the sword will
> still be in him until you pull it back. This is embarassing if you've
> ridden by.


I think I'd have to be dubious about this one. A cut can stick in bone
or between ribs as easily as a thrust, if not more so. And if piercing
in this manner were so disadvantageous in a cavalry weapon I don't
think that the lance would have been the primary arm for so many
centuries. And concerning the sword specifically, many later
19th-century armies adopted a straight-bladed sabre and trained
troopers to 'give point' rather than to slash. So I don't believe the
edge-vs.-point issue is quite so, er, clear cut, pardon the pun...

[Ken]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 20:59:46 -0400, Amy & Joseph Kormann
<ajkormann@monmouth.com> wrote:
>Once Rob Roy controlled the
>distance and timing by grabbing The Fop's blade, it took one hefty swing
>to cleave The Fop and end the duel

I have heard it said that most rapiers do/did not even have sharpened
edges. This would make it unsuitable for combat where an opponent
might just grab the blade. Or had a small shield.

In any event, today we have very supple stainless steel gloves (as are
used by oyster shuckers). This would make blade grabbing an
effective defense, especially if coated with rubber or silicone pads
(like are on fish gloves). Perhaps poking blades for combat (if they
were ever used) have been obsoleted by technology? A spear or pike
has the same characteristic.

Maybe The Fop should have a stiletto in his other hand to discourage
rapier blade grabbing?

Ken
(to reply via email
remove "zz" from address)

[Zebee Johnstone]

In rec.sport.fencing on 24 Jul 2003 00:49:39 -0700
William Marshal <trebuchet30303@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I think I'd have to be dubious about this one. A cut can stick in bone
> or between ribs as easily as a thrust, if not more so. And if piercing
> in this manner were so disadvantageous in a cavalry weapon I don't

The problem as I understand it is that you are going past the target,
and a straight thrust as advocated by say Patton was worse than the
slash.

A cut coming down and past with a curved blade is, I think, unlikely to
stick.

> think that the lance would have been the primary arm for so many
> centuries. And concerning the sword specifically, many later

The lance is used differently. It's not a sword and not used like one.


> 19th-century armies adopted a straight-bladed sabre and trained
> troopers to 'give point' rather than to slash. So I don't believe the
> edge-vs.-point issue is quite so, er, clear cut, pardon the pun...

Late 19thC armies used guns a hell of a lot more than steel, and I
believe that most of the "give point" bods were theorists - Patton
again, who had done a lot of strip fencing and had done no practical
fighting from horseback. Cavalry were scouts and pistol/carbine users
by that stage.

Burton, I think, says stuff about how it was clear that people who wrote
the drill manuals had little clue...


Zebee

[Zebee Johnstone]

In rec.sport.fencing on Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:49:25 GMT
Ken <cprstn54zz@att.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 20:59:46 -0400, Amy & Joseph Kormann
><ajkormann@monmouth.com> wrote:
>>Once Rob Roy controlled the
>>distance and timing by grabbing The Fop's blade, it took one hefty swing
>>to cleave The Fop and end the duel
>
> I have heard it said that most rapiers do/did not even have sharpened
> edges. This would make it unsuitable for combat where an opponent
> might just grab the blade. Or had a small shield.

That's a very controversial question. I believe that most swords
1500-1650 were sharp on edge and at least 1/3 of the back edge.

The manuals talk about reverse cuts, you won't be doing that with a
blunt edge!

>
> In any event, today we have very supple stainless steel gloves (as are
> used by oyster shuckers). This would make blade grabbing an
> effective defense, especially if coated with rubber or silicone pads
> (like are on fish gloves). Perhaps poking blades for combat (if they
> were ever used) have been obsoleted by technology? A spear or pike
> has the same characteristic.

Blades were grabbed and parried with leather gloves, see Saviolo.

Zebee