6 ms·

Sure. The problem is that swords don't have much effect on an armoured opponent. There are three types of attacks you can do with a sword: slashing, stabbing an

Sure. The problem is that swords don't have much effect on an armoured opponent. There are three types of attacks you can do with a sword: slashing, stabbing and cutting. Against a gambeson (jacked made of 20+ layes of linen stitched together) stabbing works, slashing is hard and cutting mostly doesn't work. Now add a layer of maille over the gambeson. Cutting doesn't work at all anymore, slashing probably only bruises you or breaks some bones and stabbing only works with narrow and sharp-tipped swords. Replace the maille with steel plates and you're pretty much invulnerable to swords, except at the joints, eyeslits, etc). So, sending out a group armed with swords on the battlefield isn't going to do much. You want warhammers with backspikes that can pierce steel plate and crush bone, halberds that can hit so hard it crushes anything underneath armour, long pikes to keep the enemy at a distance, bows to pierce maille. The best weapon on the battlefield is actually mass. Get a group large enough close together and trample your opponents. That's how most battles were won. In viking and early medieval times you would use large shields and short spears, create a shield wall and run over your opponent. Later on heavy cavalry appeared who could easily run over them. Cavalry dominated until the English started using the longbow en masse to kill the mounts of the cavalry. Swiss pikemen started using 6+ meter long pikes in tight bock formations. These pikes were so long that cavalry could be stopped dead before they reached the pikemen in a charge. It's like a wooden cumple zone. That pretty much spelled the end of heavy cavalry. Then soldiers started using halberds to get in between the pikes and crush pike blocks. Swords were often carried on the battlefield but usually as a backup weapon, not as the primary weapon. Their cross shape granted them a lot of symbolic meaning in those religious times, but there are much better weapons available if you want to win large battles.

gadders 12y ago
>Swiss pikemen started using 6+ meter long pikes in tight bock formations. This sounds a bit like a Greek Hoplite Phalanx.
- aidenn0 12y ago
  The weakness of the phalanx is that you can be outflanked; it's really hard to turn a long pike to address an opponent not in front of you. I would imagine that having cavalry to protect your flanks would make it a lot more effective.
  - Sander_Marechal 12y ago
    The swiss didn't ise a classic wide phalanx formation but a more densely packed square formation. Their pikes would stand out in all directions as a sort of hedgehog. Only the corners would be a weaker point. The flanks and rear would be well covered by pikes.
    - Tuna-Fish 12y ago
      The pikes would generally stand only in one direction at once, and their drills had diagonal forms, so the corners would not be a weak point. When people think pikemen, they think of very static formations, with little mobility. This is true of a lot of historical pike units, but the Swiss pikemen are the opposite of it. They drilled as small companies of ~100 men, and they were so successful because they made mobility as an unit into an art. A swiss pike block was drilled to change facing in seconds, and they liked to charge pikes levelled at near running speed. Many a condottiere got their last surprise when they were at the last stretch of their charge against an exposed flank or rear of a swiss block, and suddenly all the pikes rise, everyone turns, all the pikes come down again, and the swiss start charging the would-be attackers like madmen.
henrikschroder 12y ago
I think the most important insight about medieval warfare is that it too was a constant arms-race, it was not some sort of static period with knights and swords that magically disappeared one day to be replaced with musketeers and riflemen. There are so many weird myths and ideas, and it's always nice to see people who know what they're talking about. :)
- kbenson 12y ago
  I've read a few accounts and seen a few programs about how the word bulletproof came about, which also illustrates this period of change. It was a title given to (plate?) armor to protect the wearers against bullets (I'm not sure to what effect). For that even to be a thing means that suits of armor and guns were on the same battlefield.
  - mcguire 12y ago
    > I'm not sure to what effect Early blackpowder was of poor quality, as were the handgonnes, and round balls are ballistically inefficient (and the actual projectiles were usually worse). So, probably pretty well, until you got too close. P.S. The primary effect that I keep seeing mentioned is that they make a really loud noise and scare the crap out of everyone. P.P.S As far as I can tell, the use of armor declines as the momentum of the projectiles (and number of firearms) goes up. Accuracy was the last attribute that was important on the battlefield. (Except for individual rate of fire.)
    - pluma 12y ago
      I'd imagine that facing a row of soldiers aiming things that go "boom" at you must have been an extremely effective way to break morale no matter how inaccurate the projectiles are. Besides, all that hot lead had to go somewhere. Maybe you wouldn't be hit by the guy in front of you, but you'd still risk getting hit by the one behind him or the ones next to him. Arrows may have been more precise, but at least you could see where they were going.
  - craigching 12y ago
voidlogic 12y ago
>The problem is that swords don't have much effect on an armored opponent. A sword may not be an ideal weapon against an armored opponent, but half-swording with one is still very effective...
jrells 12y ago
While I'm sure your knowledge is aggregated over many sources, are there any particularly excellent sources (books, documentaries, etc) on the history of military tactics?
vacri 12y ago
What is the difference between 'cutting' and 'slashing' as you refer to them? It seems they would be the same to me.
- svachalek 12y ago
  Based on the description of effects I believe "cutting" would be a sliding motion meant to leave a long, shallow cut while "slashing" would be more of a chopping motion with the blade side.
  - Sander_Marechal 12y ago
    Yes, that's exactly what I meant.

gadders 12y ago

>Swiss pikemen started using 6+ meter long pikes in tight bock formations. This sounds a bit like a Greek Hoplite Phalanx.

aidenn0 12y ago
The weakness of the phalanx is that you can be outflanked; it's really hard to turn a long pike to address an opponent not in front of you. I would imagine that having cavalry to protect your flanks would make it a lot more effective.
- Sander_Marechal 12y ago
  The swiss didn't ise a classic wide phalanx formation but a more densely packed square formation. Their pikes would stand out in all directions as a sort of hedgehog. Only the corners would be a weaker point. The flanks and rear would be well covered by pikes.
  - Tuna-Fish 12y ago
    The pikes would generally stand only in one direction at once, and their drills had diagonal forms, so the corners would not be a weak point. When people think pikemen, they think of very static formations, with little mobility. This is true of a lot of historical pike units, but the Swiss pikemen are the opposite of it. They drilled as small companies of ~100 men, and they were so successful because they made mobility as an unit into an art. A swiss pike block was drilled to change facing in seconds, and they liked to charge pikes levelled at near running speed. Many a condottiere got their last surprise when they were at the last stretch of their charge against an exposed flank or rear of a swiss block, and suddenly all the pikes rise, everyone turns, all the pikes come down again, and the swiss start charging the would-be attackers like madmen.

henrikschroder 12y ago

I think the most important insight about medieval warfare is that it too was a constant arms-race, it was not some sort of static period with knights and swords that magically disappeared one day to be replaced with musketeers and riflemen. There are so many weird myths and ideas, and it's always nice to see people who know what they're talking about. :)

kbenson 12y ago
I've read a few accounts and seen a few programs about how the word bulletproof came about, which also illustrates this period of change. It was a title given to (plate?) armor to protect the wearers against bullets (I'm not sure to what effect). For that even to be a thing means that suits of armor and guns were on the same battlefield.
- mcguire 12y ago
  > I'm not sure to what effect Early blackpowder was of poor quality, as were the handgonnes, and round balls are ballistically inefficient (and the actual projectiles were usually worse). So, probably pretty well, until you got too close. P.S. The primary effect that I keep seeing mentioned is that they make a really loud noise and scare the crap out of everyone. P.P.S As far as I can tell, the use of armor declines as the momentum of the projectiles (and number of firearms) goes up. Accuracy was the last attribute that was important on the battlefield. (Except for individual rate of fire.)
  - pluma 12y ago
    I'd imagine that facing a row of soldiers aiming things that go "boom" at you must have been an extremely effective way to break morale no matter how inaccurate the projectiles are. Besides, all that hot lead had to go somewhere. Maybe you wouldn't be hit by the guy in front of you, but you'd still risk getting hit by the one behind him or the ones next to him. Arrows may have been more precise, but at least you could see where they were going.
- craigching 12y ago

voidlogic 12y ago

>The problem is that swords don't have much effect on an armored opponent. A sword may not be an ideal weapon against an armored opponent, but half-swording with one is still very effective...

jrells 12y ago

While I'm sure your knowledge is aggregated over many sources, are there any particularly excellent sources (books, documentaries, etc) on the history of military tactics?

vacri 12y ago

What is the difference between 'cutting' and 'slashing' as you refer to them? It seems they would be the same to me.

svachalek 12y ago
Based on the description of effects I believe "cutting" would be a sliding motion meant to leave a long, shallow cut while "slashing" would be more of a chopping motion with the blade side.
- Sander_Marechal 12y ago
  Yes, that's exactly what I meant.