I can tell you that the skill needed to properly wield any weapon in one-on-one combat is far greater than the skill needed to wield any weapon in a line with hundreds or thousands of other people next to you.
Also, take a look at the Landesknecht - a group of mercenary pikemen formed in Germany whose main weapons were the Pike and Shortsword, with a backup Rondel. Furthermore, for the entirety of the Medieval period knights carried three weapons at least - Spear, Sword, and Dagger.
Don’t forget, too, about Judicial duels and not just “You insult my honor sir” duels. Judicial duels were fought with just about any weapon, and people would be given rough training in about a month (Unless they were trained from childhood) in the art of combat. Longswords, pikes, daggers, spears, sword and buckler, all of these weapons and more could be used in a judicial duel - the rapier just happened to become fashionable through the Renaissance.
For anybody interested in using a Rapier, read this.
Late Neolithic Danish flintknappers made some flint swords imitating Southern bronze weapons before the much more suitable metal became generally available.
Then there are the long, edged slashing weapons of various primitive folks, made from hard wood (ie. the murrawirri of Australia). Not all swords are made of metal.
The Roman gladius (which is just Latin for “sword”) reflected the style of Roman combat. Basically prtected behind their shields in a phalanx and thrusting at anything that came near it.
The rapier was more of a civilian dress sword used for self defense and duels. Eventually it was replaced by the shorter “small sword”.
Well, not an actual phalanx, but otherwise yes. And there’s a famous speech by someone whose name I’ve temporarily forgotten which outlines why the Roman stabbing method is superior - three inches into the vitals will kill a man, while a slash may bounce off bone or whatever even if it isn’t blocked. It certainly helps if you have a nice big tower shield, a helmet, armoured shoulders and chest and your buddies protecting your flanks, of course.
I would also like to reiterate and clarify some misconceptions posted earlier in this thread.
1: Rapiers had edges and were indeed swords. If you’re interested, please read this article on “What is a real sword?”
2: Longswords, arming swords, falchions, scimitars, Messers, Grosse Messers and Kriegs Messers were all fairly light and well-balanced for their purpose. When you see someone who is trained in how to wield a longsword you see just how truly agile and deadly the weapon is. Video evidence of this statement is here.
3: The myth that longswords are heavy and unbalanced and ungainly comes from modern sport fencers thinking that a longsword is heavy and ungainly because it doesn’t feel like a foil.
If you mean about the debate on slashing vs thrusting cavalry swords in the British army I could probably find something. But if you mean the actual sword, here is a good article about the 1908 pattern cavalry blade. It was meant to be a thrust weapon (note the fact that the blade isn’t curved at all), and there are a whole different set of tactics to employ the weapon that differ from those used with a curved blade.
The Brits seemed to go back and forth on this issue several times, going from pure thrusting swords to slashing swords to those that would (theoretically) do both (poorly IMHO). In general I think most other nations used saber type cavalry swords (the US did), as this seemed to be the preferable tactic by most countries.
You mean “lances”? I think rapiers are too short to be effective lances.
Isn’t the point of a cavalry cutlass that it’s much easier for a mounted soldier to slash than thrust with much less of a risk of your weapon getting stuck in your enemy like a kabob.
OK, thanks for that. The criticism section covers pretty much what my thoughts are: A thrusting weapon on horseback has a very, very good chance of being very, very effective…once.
Indeed. And I have to keep in mind that this was the nation that came up with ‘Infantry’ and ‘Cruiser’ tanks in WW2 when nobody else was. Didn’t work out so well. On the other hand, they pretty much invented tanks in the previous war, so…
No worries. From what I understand of the debate (slashing vs thrusting cavalry swords), there were merits on both sides. And, supposedly, that 1908 Pattern Cavalry Trooper’s Sword was supposedly the ultimate cavalry sword of all times (you could, btw, slash with it too, though it was meant to be used as a thrust sword at the gallop).
Naw…it would depend on how good a horseman you were, I think. I’ve seen Brit practice manuals and cavalry sword drills, and you could definitely use it more than once. You can look it up, but essentially the tactic was to ride with the sword in front of you and pointed down at the enemy (who would, most likely, be fleeing…these were heavy cavalry tactics to be used in the face of a broken enemy after all). You ride down the enemy at a full gallop, use the sword like a short lance, and then allow the momentum of the horse to drag the blade free (mind, you need to be using a sword wrist strap for this). It, supposedly, takes less effort and puts the rider in less danger than standard slashing tactics in the same tactical environment.
Personally, I favor a curved blade myself. But then again, personally I prefer some kind of stand off weapon when I’m on horse back.
Yeah, not all of the Brit innovations were exactly successful. Still…a hell of a lot of them were. Most of our own military, especially our Navy, derives a lot of our tactics and systems from the Brits. I think in this case it’s moot…by the time they were really adopting a thrusting type sword (and btw, for light cavalry they still used a curve saber type sword), swords were pretty much obsolete. Then again, swords were sort of obsolete for quite a while even before that, so there you go.
