Historical usefulness of swordsmen

[Amon_Zeth]

I don't see how swordsmen could be that useful in armies. Anything that swordsmen can do, cavalry can do better, i.e. chase down enemies and flank them when exposed. Pikes are nigh impermeable with proper flank support. Archers, being lighter burdened, can just run back until they're safely behind lines. What's the use of swordsmen, then?

[Rayaleh]

Well, imo, and I did say IMO.....

I would think that once the melee's started, and the charges are over, Swordsmen should be abled to mess up most cavalrys. (*Duck against cavalryman slash, cut the horse, kill the dude who has just falled). And they can mess up spearmen and even pikemen (I think there were even Spanish units with swords and bucklers that use to duck, roll, and then get passed the pikes/spears or whatever, and then do immense damage).....They're relatively fast.

I wouldn't base my army on them though, more like reinforcements/or ambushes (in some occasions), or let them in the melee once it is started they'd do good damage....Basically, shock troops, not regulars.




But don't trust me, I'm very new.

[Watchman]

Swordsmen seem to have been something of dedicated attack infantry in most armies that used them in bulk, though frankly the topic is pretty wide and far-reaching. For example the post-Marian Roman infantry was almost entirely swordsmen, albeit with throwing spears, and they could take on nearly anyone. On the other hand less organized, bring-your-own-stuff armies like Medieval ones or Celts or, well, a whole lot of others fought with what the individual warriors could afford and the degree and quality of equipement was often the prime disticntion between troops.

Swords are on the whole comparatively expensive weapons, and troops who fought primarily with them could be expected to be at the very least better trained than the basic levy spearmen and often also better armored. That alone made swordsmen better shock troops, whereas the job of the spearmen tended to be forming a fairly static shieldwall and anchoring the battle-line. (This lack of mobility resulted mostly from the necessity of close formation and the general lack of unit-level drill.)

Swords are by all accounts good all-rounder weapons - they're fast, comparatively powerful, and while they're fairly bad at certain jobs (like against heavy armor - axes and maces are much better against that) they can in skilled hands be expected to do at least reasonably well against almost any kind of opponent.

Excpet perhaps heavy cavalry. Swordsmen need a comparatively loose formation to operate efficiently, and infantry caught in loose is dead meat against shock cavalry. But then even less disciplined troops could in a pinch pull into a tight mass bristling with sharp things - that's more or less what the Celts did, and it generally kept enemy cavalry from attacking them from the front if they weren't already wavering. On the other hand looser order makes troops more mobile and they can better exploit gaps in enemy lines and turn flanks.

Swordsmen also seem to have excelled in difficult terrain, castle assaults and the like where cavalry is at a disadvantage (or just dismounts to fight as heavy infantry, commonly as what might be termed "swordsmen") and solid formations weren't an option - that's where the Spanish got their sword-and-buckler men from. Much of the Iberian peninsula is broken or mountainous country and the battles fought there tended to be raids, skirmishes and sieges.

Swords seem to also have been the backup weapon of choice even for troops whose primary function wasn't close combat, such as archers (think Janissaries for one), assuming of course they could afford one. This likely owes a great deal to the weapons' sheer versatility and the fact that of all one-handed melee weapons they may well be the most convenient to carry around - axes and maces can be tucked into the belt or hung from it, but they can't be sheathed as easily as swords.

[Nergal]

it's also useful to remember that while a pike is a pike is a pike, a sword is not always a sword ;) The difference in a two handed scottish claymore (spelling and possible historical innacuracies aside) and a roman gladius are fairly substantive. I will briefly ramble on thusly:

Two primary attributes concern the discussion of a sword: it's length, and whether it has been designed as a thrusting weapon. When looking at the position swords occupied in an army, it's important to understand both the tactics in use at the time, and the armor of the expected opposition.

The roman gladius is a fairly short sword compared to much later swords, or even contemporary weapons from neighboring peoples (celts and the like). From horseback, it would be at a disadvantage due to its lack of length and balance, and it's focus on thrusting means that for a good blow the wielder must be fairly close to the foe. Are these design flaws? Certainly not; they are decisions made with respect to what is expected of the sword in battle.
It's shape and properties were defied by it's intended use, and it's use defined by the role of a swordsman against the expected foe.

The roman swordsman is expected to close with and defeat the enemy. The enemy in this case is almost always understood to be either a loose formation of barbarians, armed with long weapons but not too much armor, or a phalanx from one of the post-alexandrian successor states. In either case, the amount of armor physically possessed by the enemy usually consisted of leather (hard or soft), chain armor of varying quality, and a large shield. In both cases it was in the best interest of a roman swordsman to stay close to his fellows; both denying the maneuverability of the celtic swordsman, and by force of masses and his own armor pushing past the outer pikelines of the phalanx. In close masses the ability to dodge a blow is almost nonexistant, so good armor is important - but more armor is more weight you have to lug around, leading to less endurance on the march and in the field. Italy in summer has a similar climate to my home in Mississippi; I know from personal experience that wandering around in anything more than heavy chain for more than a few hours is uncomfortable at best. With this in mind, it was important to focus on the shield (tactically evolving it's shape based on local enemies weapons and armor choices; wood was plentiful and even the best shield was thoroughly trashed by the end of a good battle) and on the ability of the individual soldier to block/parry incoming blows. A thin sword was out of the question for this reason - no one wants a broken sword in combat. Longer blades are prohibited due to the close formation used by the roman legion and the neccessity of a very quick reaction time - a battle not being a hollywood cinematic series of duels, but a close messy affair when roman tactics were used properly.

What you ended up with is a short, thick sword designed for thrusting through the enemy armor of the time (thrust being preferable to slash against both chain and leather, as well as being more likely to produce a killing blow and one of the few motions available given the limited room provided by the roman line of combat) used by an armored infantryman with a large shield. The sword was used both for offense and defence (this ablility and the shorter, more wieldy length giving sword preference over spear for this task) at close quarters.

What the romans wanted was something to defeat both gaulish skirmishers and the phalanx, and the solution they arrived at was the roman legionaire armed with gladius and shield and medium armor, marching in a specific formation and fighting at a preferred distance from an enemy who was lightly armored and fighting with a certain set of tactics. ;)

To ask whether a swordsman was useful in an army depends on all of the above criteria - look instead at what the swordsman was equipped with and trained for, and whether or not he was actually fighting what he was designed for, and you'll get a better understanding of his usefulness.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

The gallogladh were feared and respected throughout the middle ages(even before their defeat at kinsale in 1601), feared swordsmen(and ax men) their swords claimh mhor used by the gallowglass and well established by the year 1254.

The gallowglass reached their pinnacle during the various wars that wreaked Ireland against the English during the 16th century. The English learned to fear them describing them as “picked and select men of great and mighty bodies. The greatest force of the battle connecteth in them, choosing rather to die than to yield.”

The high esteem in which these warriors were held in Ireland and Scotland is evident from relief carvings of them on tombstones and churches that once belonged to great chieftains.

The pike was there to hold the cavalry while the individual swordsman or various pole arm was there to cut them down. The two handed sword could easily decapitate a horse and were there to clear a path through the enemy infantry and having warriors with that power swinging there near four foot swords, screaming in Gaelic would be enough to send the bravest running to their mothers.

[econ21]

I don't think swordsman were much use and hence they were not much used, with the one incredibly important exception of the Roman legionnary.

This topic was a pet beef of mine about the historical accuracy of MTW. By my reading, the whole class of swordsman was largely ahistorical. Yes, there were some units distinctively armed with swords - Landsknecht (sp?) two-handed swords; Spanish sword and buckler men etc - but they were largely at the end or after of the MTW period. I suspect most medieval warriors on foot would have a mixture of weapons, including many swords, but the primary weapons would be spears or polearms. The sword would be a secondary weapon for the better off fighters. The whole sword vs spear distinction in MTW seems fictious. (I also suspect Byzantine infantry and Almohad militia did not use their sword as the primary weapon in that period.)

The reasons for the prevalence of the spear, later evolving into the pike and the polearm, as the primary weapon of non-missile infantry are partly cost, partly anti-cav benefits and partly because I suspect in close order combat even against swords, the spear is a better weapon. It has reach; when thrust two hands, has penetration; plus it can be used in more confined circumstances. I think the fact that in musket period, armies adopted the bayonet rather than the sword for melee is further evidence of the superiority of the spear over the sword.

The interesting thing is the major exception or contradiction to all this - the Roman legionnary. This troop type did rely on the sword and obviously did very well. It seems to stand out from most other ancient units, eg hoplites, which primarily used the spear or pike. I'd be very interested to learn why they were successful and yet why such comparable units fell out of fashion? I suspect the increased importance of heavy cavalry explains the latter. Maybe Nergal has already explained the former?

[CBR]

Yes you wont find many troops that were armed with swords only. If there were any they were normally outnumbered by the spear/pikemen and polearms.

The Roman Legionary is of course an interesting exception but he was also not alone. The Scutari were equipped in a similar way.

Such troop types were used in an era where cavalry was not as numerous as we see in the Middleages so I think that one reason why the lack of spears were not seen as a disadvantage.

They also had javelins so they could shower the enemy with missiles before an attack or force the enemy to counterattack and become disordered. The use of multiple lines to act as reserves against a disordered enemy is an important reason for the equipment and tactics of the Roman army.

So IMO its not just having a sword that made them "special" but the added missile capability was important too. The first line could act as semi skirmishers against the standard heavy spearmen who had no missiles.

The Romans were quite succesful but their use of swords did give them problems as we see in the few encounters against the Macedonia style phalanx. And the increased use of Heavy cavalry would also have forced the Romans to use more compact defensive formations on a regular basis. Bows also meant skirmishing tactics changed so in the end the "Roman" style lost most of its importance.

The all-rounder Roman soldier were not as good as the combined use of specialized troops types like archers and spearmen (or pikemen) supported by heavy cavalry. And IMO that is also reflected in the changes that started in 3rd century AD with the Romans going back to spears again as such a weapon is more suited for close formation (phalanx) warfare.

I also think it explains why the shield design went from the square Scutum to more oval and even round shields, as they are better for shieldwalls while the square shield is best for maximum individual protection. But not sure about that one ~:)


CBR

[fenir]

I think this is an interesting discussion, but i think we are all forgetting some points on combat at the times.


An example. of several things,
First from the early, you have the large undeveloped mass of land in these times, most areas were heavliy forested or lots of unbroken ground. Hence the Phalanx not being so effective in most areas, hence battle ground was mostly determined by both sides before battle was joined, (in the old city states of Greece).
Therefore cavalry is not very effective in this area.
But like someone pointed out, there is a place for swordsman. Becaue they are mobile, they can get in behind the phalanx which is largely static, and then cut them down.
The classic example is the development of the Roman legionarie and the Legion itself.
Legionaires were armed (pre Marius Julius) with a short-ish stabbing spear, and a sword, (not sure if the gladius had arrived yet, or was it's eariler model). Now the short spear could also be thrown, so doubled as a javelin.
The best example of this is the battle of Cynoscephale ~197BC
Roughly 26,000 Romans, Faced 26,000 Macedons.
The Macedons where Phalanx Greeks, and the Romans, in a rough Loose and standard formations. (mainly because it was broken ground on the side of a small hill).

The macedons stood 16 deep, shield upon shield.
When a certian famous Roman General saw this, (Plutarch) He wrote, " The formidable appearance of a front thus bristling with arms", "he was sezied with amazement and alarm".

Now what happened.
The loose roman formation attacked, and were thrown back by the phalanx. While the Right flank of the Romans moved to head off macedon reinforcements leading several war elephants in this assult against the macedons.
However from the top of a small ridge, the Roman Tribune looked back and saw his men hard pressed. The Phalanx was pressing hard against the Roman left flank.
So he turned with a small force to attack the macedon rear, What happened was now famous history.
8000 Macedons died and only 700 romans. It was a rout.
Because the phalanx could not turn to face the enemy, carrying 21 foot spears and the very heavy shields they could not meet the new threat.
Hence the effectiveness of a swordsman.
But the romans, never had a problem with the Phalanx. It was the Phalanx had a problem with the Romans. The romans didn't play fair as the Greeks saw it. After this it became standard practise to flank the phalanx.
Hence that Rome Dominated the Greeks in such a extremely short period of time. They crossed over the Adratic to do battle with the Macedons, and with in a few years had total control over the Hellenes.
Roman tactics and mobilty being the deciding factor. they could fight anywhere, on any ground. The Hellenes couldn't. The Phalanx is a flat ground static unit. And the Romans didn't give them time to change.

Case for cavalry.
The first point is, cavalry is expensive. Very expensive!(relatively speaking).
To best show this, think of main battle tanks today. Not many countries even today in a period when we can easily build them, (regardless of effectiveness, or quality) have them, or have many of them.
The same holds true in the Medieval and High Roman times.

Also there is no stirup until between 2nd Century AD to 6th Century AD roughly. So providing stability in the saddle in a charge. Which is after all the main weapon of heavy cavalry, shock and destruction. Hence no real heavy cavalry until way after this date.
This is one of the reasons why light cavalry was so predominate in the period before stirups.


A light cavalry man, is best suited to running down fleeing enemy, or catching them from behind. Horse archers don't need stirups but they still had to get quite close to be effective to armoured troops.
The only time a cavalry unit went in from the front, was heavy cavalry. And only in certian situations.

But in the Roman age, till about the battle of Adrianopole, 378AD roughly. I don't think a cavalry army had ever beaten a infantry army in Eurpoe, that i remember.
There are several ideas as to why this happened.

1. The Large settled areas that the Roman empire help to create, and made safe, farming areas. Hence allowed the development of the horse farmers, and it's lower cost, therefore it's availablility became more accessible. Also settled lots of people into areas.

2. Large distances around the Empire made horses very helpful and valuable.

3. With the larger amount of horses available, they became more common in use, therefore more people had the skills needed for horsemanship, and therefore combat.

4. Another note, Heavy Cavalry, is only heavy relative to it's time period.
Heavy cavalry in the 7th century AD, is not heavy cavalry in the 11th century AD.

The swordsman itself came and went in fashion terms. Up until the end of the Roman empire period, the swordsman was king in europe. Further East light horse was most effective, large distances, and few people allowed this.
However, some historians put this influx of horse armies down to the very reasons of fuedalism. The aligning of oneself to a more powerful person for the sake of defence. Here the swordsman was king, as he was truely trained. Like someone here pointd out, spearman were mainly levies.
In this period the sowrdsman became it's ultimate outcome, the Knight. He was mounted then later given a spear, then a lance.
The later period or high medieval period saw the first trained polearmed troops( in relatively large numbers), the Billman. From here the halberier. But in the late medieval and late part of the high medieval period, the Swordsman came back to dominate the battlefield in the role of "man at arms". Heavily armoured, they would survive a charge by cavalry because of there padding and armour. In fact many stories of this survive in the English and French wars. And the Italian and HRE. But swordsman finally moved on in the gothic period again to polearmed heavy infantry. They didn't make a true comeback until about the 16th to 17th century, but was short lived, as the flintlock came to dominate.
The constant of the swordsman remains in naval combat at close quarters up until the late 1800's. By then the sword was called a cutlass. very much like a gladius actually. Shortish in nature and used for slash and stab.

But before this, the Legionaire was king.
Why? Because they way the Romans used them.
Now most people simply say the Legionaires where disciplined, and thats why they won.
Most here know that is only 1 small reason. there is the
1. Training

2. Leadership

3. Armour

4. Weapons

5. Discipline

6. and the most important above all else is Tactical prowess. That is, they where trained to complete certian moves in battle. To answer to calls from trumpets. Hence the maniple change over in combat. The spliting of cohorts et cetera...

The idea of the legion, or cohort, was a killing machine that could go all day if need be. The three areas of attack for a legionaire, throat, groin, Solarplex.
Slashing was not something that was very helpful, they stabbed their opponents to death.
They actually trained with wooden swords filled with lead, so when using the gladius, it was very light in the hand, and very fast.
And as each front line got tired, they changed the line. and fresh troops took the place of the tired troops. All done on the sounds of trumpets. It's called the maniple, (spelling).
If a legionaire fell in line, another took up his place. and then changed with the maniple change when called for that line.
It today still remains the most effecient and effctive killing machine in history.
IMHO, I still consider the Gladius the most deadly of all swords. Because of the way it was used and the tactics employed in it's use.

The Role of Spear v Sword.
In most of history the Spear was the weapon of the levy, (generally). The Sword the weapon of trained.
In practise, a spear will only win if it can keep the sword at bay. But once in close, the sword has the advantage. Spears by nature, like someone already pointed out, are effective only enmasse. and are certianly not as mobile or effective as a swordsman to a change in situation.
A spearman cannot pary effectively with a shield and spear in close combat. You either have two hands on the spear for hand to hand, or you have a shield and spear for anti cavalry work. That is probably why the shield was dropped later in history, and more armour was added.
Whereas, a swordman can parry and return. individual the swordsman is certianly the more dangerous.
Tactically, the swordsman is also more effective.

The Late Roman period of Byzantine, is a classic example of a sword dominated army. though they did carry short heavy spears/javelins.
If facing Infantry, they would throw them first, then close to a hand to hand. When facing cavalry, they became a pointy wall.
However they did have proper polearmed troops, (spears/sarrisa) on the flanks usually to protect troops fighting from a cavalry assult on the flanks.
But most cavalry is negated by the opposition cavalry. Only being used to exploit a tactical situation when and if it appears. Otherwise they move to counter each others movements.
The exception being heavy cavalry which in itself can create that situation. many examples of this. After which both light/medium cavalry would charge in and exploit the chaos, and back up and allow time to re-oraganised heavy cavalry, / continue the chaos.
Also, usually followed closely in by light infantry, (fast moving, hard hitting), to exlpoit the chaos allowing the light/medium cavalry to reoraganise, then followed by heavy infantry to with hold any counter measure and finally smash the lines of the enemy.
After which Light and medium Cavalry exploit it all.

But above all this, it depends upon the period, and the place, as to what use and how they where used.

Oh well just some thoughts,

fenir

[econ21]

Interesting account, Fenir, where I disagree is with equating swordsmen with dismounted Medieval men-at-arms. This is what MTW does. I don't deny that in the game these are supposed to be superior troops (probably dismounted) to levy spearmen. However, I do quibble over regarding them as primarily sword equipped. Sure, they would nearly all have swords but I doubt they would be their weapon of choice when acting en masse on foot. Early in the period, I suspect they would rely on the lance - later on polearms (as dismounted Chivarlic knights have in MTW). For example, Keegan's Face of Battle book says one reason the English men-at-arms may have beaten the French at Agincourt was that the latter cut their lances shorter. (I am not saying this was a significant reason, just that it is evidence they were not primarily "swordsmen").

Which is better spear or sword in an infantry engagement, I don't know but I suspect that medieval men-at-arms, like mounted lancers, might have been able to get the best of both worlds - using the long point initially and then switching to a secondary weapon as required. In game terms, this would give men-at-arms the same anti-cav property as the vanilla (levy?) spears but better attack and defence. There are quite a few examples of English dismounted men-at-arms holding off cav with their lances etc, early and later in the period.

[CBR]

Some comments:


But like someone pointed out, there is a place for swordsman. Becaue they are mobile, they can get in behind the phalanx which is largely static, and then cut them down.

Any spearmen can do that as well. Using swords doesnt give them any special advantage regarding movement.


Legionaires were armed (pre Marius Julius) with a short-ish stabbing spear, and a sword, (not sure if the gladius had arrived yet, or was it's eariler model). Now the short spear could also be thrown, so doubled as a javelin.

The main difference was the removal of the spear armed Triarii. The Hastati and Princepes already used the Gladius/Pilum combo and had done so for IIRC more than 100 years before the Marian reforms. The early Legion was all spearmen and later Hastati and then Princepes went over to sword/javelin. The Marian reforms removed the last spearmen as well as going over to cohorts instead of maniples although cohorts might have been used before the reforms.


When a certian famous Roman General saw this, (Plutarch) He wrote, " The formidable appearance of a front thus bristling with arms", "he was sezied with amazement and alarm".

That is actually Plutarch describing the Battle of Pydna 168 BC ~:) He writes about Aemilius Paulus: "he was seized with amazement and alarm; nothing he had ever seen before had been equal to it; and in aftertimes he frequently used to speak both of the sight and of his own sensations."


So he turned with a small force to attack the macedon rear, What happened was now famous history. 8000 Macedons died and only 700 romans. It was a rout.

A Roman tribune saw how the left wing was under hard pressure and ordered 20 maniples to march behind the Macedonians. Its actually very likely that these 20 maniples were Triarii (spearmen) as we are told that most of the Romans were pursuing (meaning the Hastati supported by the Princepes) and we know how the Romans used the 3 line system with the Triarii acting as reserves.


Because the phalanx could not turn to face the enemy, carrying 21 foot spears and the very heavy shields they could not meet the new threat.

The Macedonians used long Sarissas but definitely not heavy shields. They were phalangites, not hoplites. Their long weapon as well as compact battle formation would have given them problems when turning, but the biggest problem was they used one line only and that line was engaged. You wont find many armies that can handle attacks from the rear.

The Macedonia style phalanx was afterall still a variant of the older Greek phalanx system. They still opererated with only one main line so they had no reserves. The Romans on the other hand used a much more flexible system with 3 lines as standard. That is also what Polybius is focusing on when he describes the differences between the two systems and why the Romans were so good.

Polybius writes:

"For the Romans do not make their line equal in force to the enemy and expose all the legions to a frontal attack by the phalanx, but part of their forces remain in reserve and the rest engaged the enemy. Afterwards whether the phalanx drives back by its charge the force opposed to it or is repulsed by this force, its own peculiar formation is broken up. For either in following up a retreating foe or in flying before an attacking foe, they leave behind the other parts of their own army, upon which the enemy's reserve have room enough in the space formerly held by the phalanx to attack no longer in front but appearing by a lateral movement on the flank and rear of
the phalanx."

Had the Romans used one line only, then the tribune couldnt have sent in some maniples to hit the Macedonian rear as all toops would have been engaged and pursuing. It would have been very difficult to stop and turn any units if they were not in reserve.

It was more a question of tactics and formation that gave the Romans their advantage than the use of swords, and as I described above it was most likely the Roman spearmen that did the maneuver and not the swordsmen.

On cavalry:


Also there is no stirup until between 2nd Century AD to 6th Century AD roughly. So providing stability in the saddle in a charge. Which is after all the main weapon of heavy cavalry, shock and destruction. Hence no real heavy cavalry until way after this date.
This is one of the reasons why light cavalry was so predominate in the period before stirups.

Stirrups would improve on the cavalry but the Cataphracts were definitely heavy cavalry. They had no missile weapons but used long two-handed spears as well as lots of armour, they really couldnt get much heavier than that.

Strong centralized governments that could rely on conscript armies could get a lot of cheap infantry. The expensive cavalry was always limited in numbers and its only in the Middleages where the feudal system and knights meant that cavalry was dominant. Large infantry armies of welltrained and equipped city militias did cause problems for the knights as the Flemish militia proved at Courtrai in 1302.


But in the Roman age, till about the battle of Adrianopole, 378AD roughly. I don't think a cavalry army had ever beaten a infantry army in Eurpoe, that i remember

And actually not a very good example as the Gothic cavalry came in on the flanks and rear of a surprised, badly led Roman army that was already engaged with the Gothic infantry defending their camp.



But in the late medieval and late part of the high medieval period, the Swordsman came back to dominate the battlefield in the role of "man at arms". Heavily armoured, they would survive a charge by cavalry because of there padding and armour

All men-at-arms had swords but they primarily used lances and poleaxes when fighting dismounted. Armour doesnt help much against a cavalry charge. To stand firm and not run when facing such a charge as well as having good weapons to either kill or persuade cavalry not to charge in are the most important elements.

Knights did dismount through most of the middleages but it was used a lot in the 14th-early 15th century. It became the standard English tactic in the HYW and that had something to do with the English always being outnumbered so they kept their defensive position and let the French do the attacking.

Both Austrian and Italian knights dismounted to attack the Swiss (using mainly lances to counter the Swiss Halberds) at Sempach 1386 and Arbedo 1422.

The pike became the dominant infantry weapon in the late 15th century. Sword and buckler men and halberdiers were used too, as well as some two-handed swordsmen but they were really only counted as support units that operated on the flanks when the pikeblocks engaged.

Some spanish sword and bucklers had succes versus a disordered Swiss unit in one battle but IIRC got mauled in two others.


CBR

[fenir]

simon appleton
Hello simon, I think you miss understood me in my previous post.
I wasn't equating a swordsmen with dismounted Medieval men-at-arms, I was more showing a rough development line.
I tend to agree more with your line of thinking, Swordsman in general where not just armed with a sword. In many/most cases they were armed with another weapon.
The Sword was in many cases still their primary weapon, but depending upon the situation, they used and where trained to use different weapons.

I still think that swordsman are far better tactically speaking than Spearman. But agree, swordsman were more often seen with more than one weapon.

But please take the above with a view to a rough line of development, rather than what happened.


[b]CBR]/b]
Just going point by point here CBR, more to make clear my ideas.

Point 1.
Yes this is true, a spearman can also get in behind a phalanx and cut it down. But what I wanted to point out, was that swords would have been the best option. they are after all far better close combat weapons in the Roman republic time period imo.
the Gladius/Pilum didn't exist as we know it until about100BC. It was a Short stabbing throwing pointy thing, like a heavy javelin.

Point 2. Yes i agree, and know what the marian reforms did. But at this point I remember the Gladius/Short throwing/stabbing spear combo, had been formed, (the Pilum not arriving until the marius reforms ~100BC). and this is what i was basing this on.
From what I have read, and evidence by historians, the Cohort system is thought to have already existed before the marian reforms, I do tend to agree that it did also, mainly from battle accounts.

The Maniple system, i was thinking of is the changing of line, which happened with the Cohort system. my mistake I think for mixing the two with out thinking. I can't remember now if they had line change before hand, will have to check also.
If I remember correctly, Maniple is two 80man Centuria, and 3 maniples is one Cohort.

Point 3. thats just simply put, an OOPS. I was sure Plutarch wrote that about Cynoscephale ~197BC, I will check that, as I remember it as Cynoscephale. Thank you for pointing it out.
Mental note, don't trust brain today.

Point 4. Here's were it gets a bit sticky.
There are several problems with this, and this kind of accounts by different interpreters.
Now if the Romans were pursuing, where they in good order, or hap hazzard. And if they where pursuing, then it would be post flanking, not pre flanking, as this would mean a rout had already happened.


Anyway i am outa time, Missus is moaning at me, I gotta get to bed.

Night all

fenir

[CBR]

The Pilum was in use as far back as the Pyrrhic Wars. The Gladius might first have been introduced by Scipio in the second Punic War but they used other types of shortswords before that.

In the Pyrrhic Wars it seems like the Hastati was the only line that used swords and pila but at one point in the mid 3rd century BC the Principes started using it too so only the Triarii were spearmen.

I got this translation of Polybius:

"Most of the Romans followed up these fugitives and continued to put
them to the sword: but one of the tribunes with them, taking not more than twenty maniples and judging on the spur of the moment what ought to be done, contributed much to the total victory. For noticing that the Macedonians under Philip had advanced a long way in front of the rest, and were by their weight forcing back the Roman left, he quitted those on the right, who were now clearly victorious, and wheeling his force in the direction of the scene of combat and thus getting behind the Macedonians, he fell upon them in the rear."
(18.26)

Now there might be something that has been badly translated but:

Its my understanding that the first and second line (Hastati and Principes) worked closely together and both became engaged pretty quick. Of course the elephants supporting the Romans combined with the Macedonian wing still deploying might have produced a so quick rout that the Hastati only would been involved in any serious fighting.

It could also have been the 20 leftmost maniples (closest to the other wing fighting so 10 maniples each of Principes and Triarii.

But IMO it doesnt matter that much if it was swordsmen or spearmen doing it. Both would have been equal in speed and maneuverability and any attack on the rear of an enemy formation (especially if already engaged) would have been devastating regardless of what weapon used.


CBR

[Pellinor]

I tend to agree more with your line of thinking, Swordsman in general where not just armed with a sword. In many/most cases they were armed with another weapon.
The Sword was in many cases still their primary weapon, but depending upon the situation, they used and where trained to use different weapons.


I think there is a distinction to be made between the importance of a sword to a man at arms as a) a symbol of his position, and b) as a battlefield weapon. The sword may be the sine qua non of a knight, but that doesn’t mean he used it as a primary weapon.

The sword is a good weapon against an unarmoured opponent, but it is not as good as many other weapons against armour. Apart from having to try to thrust past the armour, you also have the worry of blunting, nicking or even breaking what is a relatively fragile and potentially expensive weapon. Spears, bills, poll-axes, halberd, maces and so forth are better for that sort of thing, more robust, and cheaper. I think that the sword was common on the battlefield thourghout most of history, but as a secondary backup weapon to be used only where the primary one has been dropped.

To take the dismounted man at arms, I'd expect a poll-axe or a mace-and-shield to be the weapons of choice. Sword is more for hacking unarmoured peasants up in the rout, or for a dramatic one-on-one contest between the lines before the main feature.

Cheers,

Pell.R.

[DemonArchangel]

CBR, you are correct, the tribue took 20 maniples of triarii and flanked the macedonians.

[Oleander Ardens]

Hm interesting debate...

In any case the pilum can be tracked back into the third century BC (Umbria) while similar weapons were already in use during the fifth century BC in northern Italy.

Seems that the Hallstatt type warrior and the italic warrior shared their preference of two spears/javelins which later evolved into the pilum...

Many warriors of the Alps and in the north and southb used axes as back-up weapon, until all but the Raetians ceased to use them..

All in all the spear is a great cheap and versatile weapon, that's why almost nobody went without it, or only in exchange of missile weapons...

OA

[Red Harvest]

I got this translation of Polybius:

"Most of the Romans followed up these fugitives and continued to put
them to the sword: but one of the tribunes with them, taking not more than twenty maniples and judging on the spur of the moment what ought to be done, contributed much to the total victory. For noticing that the Macedonians under Philip had advanced a long way in front of the rest, and were by their weight forcing back the Roman left, he quitted those on the right, who were now clearly victorious, and wheeling his force in the direction of the scene of combat and thus getting behind the Macedonians, he fell upon them in the rear."
(18.26)

Now there might be something that has been badly translated but:

Its my understanding that the first and second line (Hastati and Principes) worked closely together and both became engaged pretty quick. Of course the elephants supporting the Romans combined with the Macedonian wing still deploying might have produced a so quick rout that the Hastati only would been involved in any serious fighting.

It could also have been the 20 leftmost maniples (closest to the other wing fighting so 10 maniples each of Principes and Triarii.

But IMO it doesnt matter that much if it was swordsmen or spearmen doing it. Both would have been equal in speed and maneuverability and any attack on the rear of an enemy formation (especially if already engaged) would have been devastating regardless of what weapon used.


CBR


Yep, there is alot of misconception about Cynoscephalae. It showed the strength of the Roman *system* with its flexibility (and built in reserve of triarii that were used to execute this move.) However, whether the Macedonians had been phalanx infantry or not, being pressed in both front and rear would have been catastrophic. To phalanx unit it was certainly more so. From what I've read, the slaughter came when the phalangites attempted to surrender by lifting their spears...

The number and size of maniples discussed implies triarii did the attack (and were likely the unengaged force available for such action.)

Looking at this another way: the Macedonians were defeating one wing head-to-head. That wing was rescued by the other Roman wing since the Macedonians could not get formed up in time on the other wing. Despite what Fenir said, the Romans definitely had a problem with the phalanx as a unit. (And Hannibal's Carthaginian phalanx units suffered few casualties against the Romans, while his Iberian/Gaul swordsmen took heavy losses and actually ruptured at Trebbia. From what I read the phalanx units were winning at Zama even...until the Numidian cav returned.)

The advantage the Romans had was the flexibility and maneouverability of their *system.* The system could defeat the phalanx based army...however it didn't always do so.

[DemonArchangel]

Well Red Harvest
Hannibal was a genius.
and secondly, Hannibal had excellent cavalry, which he used to basically force the romans onto the pikes head on.

[Red Harvest]

Well Red Harvest
Hannibal was a genius.
and secondly, Hannibal had excellent cavalry, which he used to basically force the romans onto the pikes head on.

Not at Zama he didn't, he had a serious cav disadvantage, yet fought the Roman infantry to a standstill with his own infantry. His outnumbered cav were driven off and the returning Roman cav struck his now undefended rear. He was facing another military genius that day so we can't blame the standstill to poor Roman generalship.

And Hannibal often used his phalanx units on the flanks...yes, to flank the more mobile Roman heavy infantry. Turns some of the generally accepted suppositions about swords vs. phalanx on their ear.

The one thing that is clear about the battles of the 2nd Punic war from Spain to Italy to Zama is that the army with the stronger (and better) cav force usually won. Properly deployed, the phalanx vs. sword infantry was a sort of draw...waiting for the cav battle to decide the affair.

[Watchman]

Well, here's something to think about - dedicated swordsmen obviously had their place on the battlefields of old, judging by the simple fact they were used (let's not get too caught up with "sword" here; the Roman Legions were quite unusual in that their "sidearms" weren't of the take-your-pick-come-as-you-were kind, and in most forces there would be a very bewildering array of melee weaponry in use by any and all troops). And quite a bit, too. Rarely alone, though - they'd have been sitting ducks for cavalry, as one learns in MTW - but they seem to have acted as the "sword" of the infantry arm complimenting the "shield" of the more static and defensively oriented spearmen.

Being more offensive doesn't really require more than a looser formation for maneuverability and a more aggressive mindset, but one usually gets the impression the swordsmen tended to be at least somewhat more skilled than their spear-carrying brethren (who fought primarily on formation and nerves).

"Barbarian" armies (including Vikings) naturally tended to be swarming with warriors swinging any weapon they could use and afford and happened to like, but of the bunch the sword was usually the most prestigious one and likely the most versatile. More "civilized" armies had their uses for them too, if only because cavalry tends to be ungodly expensive to raise and maintain and has some limitations infantrymen do not.

Here's one example. Apparently historians are still butting heads over just what the heck were the troops in Alexander's army referred to as hypaspists - the name literally means something akin to "shield-bearer", but there was another group specifically mentioned taking care of that so it's unlikely that was their job. One theory geas so that they were looser-order heavy infantry who supported the phalanxes and exploited any gaps they created, ond likely also took care of any fighting that had to be done in broken terrain.

The Chinese are known to have wielded specifically sword-armed units for close combat, and the late Qing "tiger-man" anticavalry skirmishers carried swords, shields and grappling hooks.

The term "brigand", nowadays meaning bandit, comes to us from as far back as the Hundred Years' War - when it referred to a type of mercenary medium swordsman (mercenaries had a bad habit of turning to banditry when they couldn't find employement...).

I'm sure more could be dug up, but given the fact that contemporary accounts tend to be unreliable (and focused on the exploits of any aristocracy present, usually fighting as cavalry...), contemporary armies very diversely equipped and the fact such swordsmen were more of support than line infantry that's going to take an amount of detective work...

[CBR]

I dont think there is any evidence of Hannibal having troops that were armed with Sarissa (Macedonia style phalanx)

His African spearmen were most likely plain spearmen that, I guess, could use close order formations like the Greek hoplite phalanx.

Its stated that after his early victories these soldiers took Roman equipment but what precisely that means is not certain. It could be the armour and perhaps shields only or that they went over to fight in Roman style with sword and javelin.

That they were slowly winning at Zama before the cavalry came back could might as well be a matter of numbers, experience and/or fatigue as a good part of Scipios army had been involved in defeating the first two of Hannibal's lines.

At Trebbia it was the Gauls and Spaniards that was in his center and took the full impact of the Roman center desperately trying to cut a way through. And I wouldnt class the Gauls to be of same quality as his veteran African foot.

CBR

[CBR]

Here is a translation of a Norwegian text: http://www.deremilitari.org/RESOURCES/SOURCES/kingsmirror.htm

An interesting quote:

You must also be specially careful, when in the battle line, never to throw your spear, unless you have two, for in battle array on land one spear is more effective than two swords.

Its a text from the 13th century but that is still very close to Viking infantry warfare in close formation using shieldwalls.

There are some paintings and carvings of the Flemish militia armies and IIRC you either see only spears and godendags or just few swordsmen in the back of the units. While the Swiss seemed to favor halberds and pikes only. The Italian city militias were mostly armed with spears and crossbows too. AFAIK most of the commoners that used swords as their primary melee weapon where considered light infantry (and some armed with javelins) Skirmishing, siege work and support were their role.


On Hypaspist:


One theory geas so that they were looser-order heavy infantry who supported the phalanxes and exploited any gaps they created, ond likely also took care of any fighting that had to be done in broken terrain.

Yes there are some that believe that Hypaspist were armed differently than the rest of the heavy infantry but there is not that much evidence that suggests they were different except being the elite infantry.

The ordinary infantry did quick marches and were sometimes used with javelins instead of sarissa (especially for sieges) as the Hypaspists also did.

The normal position for Hypaspists was the right wing of the phalanx, as elite units did in other armies too, so that doesnt say anything about their equipment


CBR

[Red Harvest]

I dont think there is any evidence of Hannibal having troops that were armed with Sarissa (Macedonia style phalanx)

His African spearmen were most likely plain spearmen that, I guess, could use close order formations like the Greek hoplite phalanx.

Its stated that after his early victories these soldiers took Roman equipment but what precisely that means is not certain. It could be the armour and perhaps shields only or that they went over to fight in Roman style with sword and javelin.

That they were slowly winning at Zama before the cavalry came back could might as well be a matter of numbers, experience and/or fatigue as a good part of Scipios army had been involved in defeating the first two of Hannibal's lines.

At Trebbia it was the Gauls and Spaniards that was in his center and took the full impact of the Roman center desperately trying to cut a way through. And I wouldnt class the Gauls to be of same quality as his veteran African foot.

CBR

I've not seen anything that details from contemporary sources what size spears his Africans had or if they fought in true phalanx. I would imagine they had spears of some length to use a phalanx style formation. (The Great Battles of Hannibal showed them as phalanx units as well.) I would not have expected them to be Macedonian style sarissa or double depth or anything like that.

I don't doubt they took Roman gear, especially the mercs and allies. I would expect the Africans to be well equipped, but they still had to replace broken/lost gear with something. If you were to find a better helmet or piece of armour, etc. I would think you would take it. Policing the field and collecting gear is an important source of supply for an invader (or victor.)

Yep, know what you mean about Trebbia. By putting the Gauls/Iberians in the center they had to fight though. If he had put them elsewhere he might have seen a wing collapse allowing his Africans to be flanked (since the cavarly were sent forward to harrass the flanks and rear of the Romans.)

An ironic thing about Zama is that Hannibal held his veterans in the rear as a reserve sort of like the triarii. His mercs and untested newer african units absorbed the early blows and were forced out to the sides. His deployment used weaker units in a sort of Roman style layering. So Hannibal's infantry were beating the Romans at their own game.

[Mr Frost]

On the theory that swords were only secondary weapons to thrusting spears : [disclaimer : I am refering here to hyperthetical Medieval warriors ; if you are a European Soldier whom is between 500 and 1000 years old then you may be offended] what brand of moron would spend more money on a backup weapon that was supposedly less efficient than his primary weapon instead of on more armour and a cheap handaxe ?
Note : Men at Arms type troops in Medieval Europe were not filthy rich in general ; they had to stretch their budget to equip themselves , as did a supprising number of knights {buying a horse that was actually fit for war would have been about equal to buying an 18 wheeler big rig today , bloody expensive} so they wouldn't have bought a weapon that wasn't very useful but cost an arm and a leg !
Most soldiers like the idea of actually surviving the battles they fight .

The biggest threat on a Medieval battlefeild wasn't some dirty peasant with a pitchfork he didn't even know how to use effectivly in combat {really , who the hell is going to get the training from given his lords did not want him to know how to fight lest he start thinking about refusing to remain his lords' property . Peasants were just there to add bulk and get in the way of the enemy so the real fighters could have time to maneuver etc} but rather from other Men at arms and full knights , so they wouldn't have bought swords merely to kill peasants given a hand axe would deal with those untrained , no moral having and badly equipted fodder types more effectivly for far less cost and the money saved better spent on better armour ! They must have been far more useful than a {much cheaper} hand axe or mace .

Again , many knights could only just afford to maintain the most basic "knightly" kit , but they made dammed sure it included a sword : swords must have been bloody useful and versitile to spend so much money on them even to the point of forgoing better armour , which many did .

Edit : cleaned up a few bits that didn't quite make sense and added disclaimer for humourous effect . I was tired .

[CBR]

Swords were not very expensive. If a men-at-arm could afford full armour as well as 1-2 warhorses plus riding horses then a standard good quality sword would be nothing.

The typical swords/falchions used by militia would be cheaper too.

And no one has said swords were crap. Especially for cavalry a sword is a versatile weapon. The poor infantry was only expected to have a shield and a spear while higher income classes were expected to have armour and a sword too.

But the typical cost of a sword would not prevent people to get one if they already had the money for some of the more expensive equipment.


CBR

[Watchman]

Depends on the infantry, of course. No medieval commander with the slightest amount of sense expected the poorly armed and unmotivated peasant levies to be worth nigh anything on the battlefield - they might be helpful as support troops if they got involved in melees between actual soldiers, especially in cavalry vs. cavalry fights, but that's about it.

AFAIK they were mostly taken along as workforce. Medieval campaigns were even more marching around and pillaging the countryside than many other periods', and pitched battles were actually pretty rare - a widly succesful commander might go for most of his career without fighting a single one (for example before Hastings Duke William had fought about exactly one set-piece battle, and even that one's a bit debatable, all the while having fought and won several major conflicts), and cheap labor was very useful in that sort of thing.

Any infantry that could be assumed to at the very least hold the line would have been at the very least halfway trained and semi-decently equipped feudal levies, urban militias or lower ranks of the warrior class such as serjeants, in short at least semi-professional troops. Professionals, often mercenaries, were recruited whenever they were available and the finances allowed.

As a side note, at least cutting swords tended to be mostly used against "soft" (ie. lightly armored) targets whereas the more cumbersome axes with their better armor-piercing ability were used more against armored targets, but of course individual warriors ha dtheir own preferences. That's not to say cutting swords were useless against armor, far from it - they performed decently against anything short of coat-of-plates or similar semisolid metal armor - they just weren't the best weapons against it.

Their all-around usefulness generally made up for it, though. In any case when armor evolved so did the swords used against it, at least in Europe becoming stiffer and sharply pointed cut-and-thrust blades well suited to getting into the weaker joints of heavier armor and, with sufficient lick, skill ansd strenght, sometimes able to pierce even plate on a solid thrust.

[Mr Frost]

Swords were not very expensive. If a men-at-arm could afford full armour as well as 1-2 warhorses plus riding horses then a standard good quality sword would be nothing.

The typical swords/falchions used by militia would be cheaper too.

And no one has said swords were crap. Especially for cavalry a sword is a versatile weapon. The poor infantry was only expected to have a shield and a spear while higher income classes were expected to have armour and a sword too.

But the typical cost of a sword would not prevent people to get one if they already had the money for some of the more expensive equipment.


CBR



To your first point : not neccessarily . Have you ever tried running a small buisness , or been involved with people whom do closely enough to know how they are coping financially . Most have to do without many things they could use in that buisness that might cost "next to nothing" compared to what they have invested simply because it too such effort to get there in the first place {and stay afloat financially} .
For many {and assuming they are the smart ones , even they can go under} Their investment is sizeable , but they must balk at purchases of a tiny fraction of such unless it can actually improve their situation sufficiently to pay for itself in a timely enough manner and there isn't a cheaper alternative ; and even then they might have to do without .
I think a lot of knights lived closer to the wire than most would credit , atleast for much of the Medieval period .

The Warhorse and armour are items a mounted knight cannot do without {the horse being a no brainer I realise given he is mounted and Elephants were more than expensive in Northern France :p} .
A lance is quite cheap {only the head is metal , and the forging process seems very much simpler than for a good sword} and also esential , but the sword would need to be more than merely a status symbol given a good one {not a work of art mind you , just a good one} could cost more than a coat of scales {reproduction armour today is so much more expensive compared to reproduction swords as unions and labour/wage laws prevent the "sweat-shop" production methods that were available to Medieval armourers to do the "fiddly" work of making mail and scale armours . However , a sword cannot benifit from such methods without turning out cheap and quite inferior} and certainly could be the difference in cost between say a coat of scales with and a full suit of mail including mail mittens and such perhaps with an iron breastplate to wear underneath it {common at one point} with likely enough left to buy a mace .
But he instead makes sure he has the sword . Must be mighty useful that sword . He nearly bankrupts himself {it happened to knights , there are documentations of knightly families losing their status and becoming commoner freemen as they couldn't keep up the cost of equiping for war as full knights} buying the warhorse {not all owned several at once , and a poor knights' sword could easily cost more than his palfry [riding horse]} and armour {and sculpted effigy of his lords' bum so he could practise kissing it : them were cruel times you know ;p} and suchlike then he is only going to purchace a handweapon that offers serious value for money .
If he skimps on armour , his chances of survival in battle are diminished far more than if he takes a slightly less effective weapon .


The thread topic , however was about the likelyhood of actual swordsmen like MTWs' Men at Arms .
{Yes , I went off tangent with the knights - I meant to use them to make a single point , but the point took some making ;p}

I do believe they existed {those whom used good swords , not cheap "homebrand archers backup" cheap ones} , though I think they were usually mixed into other units .

Swordfighting is more difficult to master than spearfighting as to execute most attacks with a sword one must create a far bigger opening in ones' guard than with a spear , and those attacks are "telegraphed" far more obviously {though it doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce the spearman will opt for a thrusting attack , try predicting where he will thrust in time to make a difference} .
You are far more vunerale swinging a sword than thrusting a spear , and it takes longer {from when you begin the strike and the opening in your guard is there for most of that time} for the blow to connect {assuming it does} and thus effect the target {which is very likely trying to kill you} .
However , a good sword delivers far more impact , and is more likely to incapacitate the foe {even if only temporary , it usually means you will win that fight} . It also delivers attacks from far more quaters than a spear and for most Medieval swords can thrust like a spear {more option again} yet is also harder to break if used properly {it is all steel whereas the spear is mostly wood} .
Such weapons {compared to a typical standard , spear in this case} always attract soldiers whom chose to specialise in them . Consider a larger calibre bolt action rifle in this age of the small calibre fully automatic rifle . It is more accurate , shoots further and hits harder and is easier to maintain {simpler mechanism} but harder to master {rate of fire makes a big difference} for the comparative disadvantage of lightness , ammunition capacity {including how much the soldier can carry} and rate of fire which makes it easier to be effective with . Specialists still use bolt action rifles -U.S. Marines for one- {these days soldiers have far less say in what gets used , but the long term forces that drive those decisions are the same} and to good effect : snipers .
By that I believe there were pure swordsmen Men at Arms {the difference in effect of a sword and a spear is less than a bolt action rifle and fully auto assault rifle , though I'd bet the spearmen had wished it wasn't ;p} given the weapon has specific advantages over spears {the most common weapon} and yet requires greater portion of ones' attention to learn to use properly thus would likely attract those more likely to learn the skills as fully as they can {some might think it odd , but most people never learn as much about their profession as they might ; that is why armies must force their troops to train harder , even in war . Left to their own devices , most soldiers would "goof off" all day even if they knew they would have to use their combat skills soon . Only a few in each unit would train themselves hard . There might have been comparativly more of the latter types back then -the evolutionary penalty for lazyness , stupidity or goofing off at bad moments was often death- but they still would have been the minority} .

I havn't explained it properly , but it's the best I can do at the moment .
I do agree there were infantry that used both {ie , a good spear , lesser quality sword and decent armour} but I am sure there were pure swordsmen {who let the spearment take care of situations where spears were most effective} though they were likely often mixed into groups of spearmen {if only because there would be more spearmen than swordsmen} .
Perhaps like Byzantine infantry being Spear {with swords and/or hand axes and often darts} in the front and archers in the rear which maneuvered and deployed as one unit but more informal and haphazard most likely .

There are scources one could get an impression from {of the troop types} such as contemporary tapistries , paintings , inventory lists {probably on the rare side though} and the rare books writen at the time on combat matters . However , it would take some heafty research and require developing a tallent for deducing when a source is portraying plain reality , or a gussied up version that looks or reads better . Also , what sort of sword can be hard to decern ; A shord sword called a Catgut was popular with Swiss {German and Italian also I think} Pikemen and Halbardiers for example , but it might just be refered to as a sword in a text or look biger than it was in a painting let alone garner what quality depicted sword was {was it really fit to serve as a primary weapon against armoured foes ?} . Bugger of a task that one .

We won't really know unless someone invents a time machine , so all conjecture is probably useful .

[CBR]

Any mounted warrior would need a secondary weapon as his lance could break and/or for when the fighting became too close for a lance. We know they could use either swords, axes or maces. A shorter weapon would be essential, so any man-at-arm would of course have at least one.

Lots of commoner melee infantry and missile units would have some kind of secondary weapon too (sword and buckler used by longbow/crossbowmen is one example)

Ancient time Hoplites or Phalangites would have swords too although it wasnt their primary weapon, especially for the pike armed phalangites.

And why only mention spears as the only weapon a swordsmen would face. Halberds and poleaxes where widely used weapons before the pike became the dominant infantry weapon. The poleaxe was a popular weapon for men-at-arms in the 14th-15th century. They were versatile weapons that could be used both for cut and thrust attacks with longer reach than a sword as well as being better for piercing armor.

Some 14th century depictions show men-at-arms used a variety of weapons when fighting dismounted and some would be using swords and others lances and polearms all in one mixed group. And use of lances dismounted are mentioned many times. I already gave examples of Swiss and Flemish armies.

The Maciejowski Bible from about mid 13th century has lots of pictures (some can be found here: http://www.keesn.nl/mac/mac_en.htm )


CBR

[Kraxis]

I know this is sidestebbing a bit, but since we have turned this into a "Swords: Effective or not" discussion I must add this piece of info.

The Katana and Tachi, those are quite possibly the most venerated swords in history. Both by their makers and foreigners. Of course they weren't the best, as the best is always those suited to the situation, so it is obvious that they were the best for what the Japanese intended them to.
They were so good actually that a cult grew around them and the Samurai's soul was thought to be in his sword. This can be traced back quite far, to around the time when the swords had an edge on the backside as well (the first curved tachis had the first 6 or so inches edged on both sides). So we are looking at a culture where the sword is almost a deity (in some cases it was actually).
And yet, no samurai thought that his katana or tachi was his primary weapon, that was his yari, naginata or bow. In fact the bow was so important that it was even used in duels, and kills made by the bow was considered more honourable than by the sword, and yet the sword was the Samurai's most precious equipment.
Yaris and naginatas were also used in duels (where any sensible man would think a sword was better), why? Because they apparently were superior to the sword.

This goes to show that even the most swordloving society knew that other weapons were clearly superior, in their own areas, while the sword was the great backup, the one that could always be depended on, the one that would fit any case. And it is that which makes the sword great.
It also shows that a society can be very focussed on visuals and 'what makes a man honourable'. The sword could actually be that important to honour. And even if the warrior is not equipped with the best of armour because he had to have a sword he still faced good chances on the battlefield as few battles were utter massacres. Most often he wouldn't even have engaged an enemy before it was over. Thus the showcase sword becomes important.

An axe or a mace have a much harder time facing shields, the axe can actually get stuck quite easily, the mace is rebuffed but the sword can if lucky cleave even good shields (the axe is stuck in the middle because it is too small to hit the edge of the shield).

So if a warrior goes onto the field with a sword he knows he has the best backup available after he has used his primary weapon.

[lonewolf371]

This was posted a long time ago I'm not sure if anyone noted it but fenir I believe you mentioned that the invention of the stirrup helped the original advent of heavy cavalry. If you look around I believe you will find that this has been disproven by multiple people, it is actually very feasible to get an effective charge without a stirrup, the stirrup was actually supposed to help horse archery much more, as it allowed the rider to balance himself better while shooting.

The Companion Cavalry of Alexander, regarded by some as the best cavalry of all time, would have operated without the stirrup and they still proved remarkably effective.

As to an explanation to why barbarians began using cavalry extensively around the end of the roman period, I'm afraid I can't give you a sure answer. One would be the invention of the saddle (though I'm not sure when this was) in addition to the Roman Empire disentigrating from within, the legionairries that faced the Goths at Adrianople were far different from the ones centuries earlier and would have been much poorer in quality.

On topic: Swordsmen most certainly would have been useful in many situations, but the reason for their lack of use is more likely due to practicality than anything else. Why did inaccurate, dangerous and impotent guns replace the bow at such an early time period? With the gun it was much easier to use it to get effectiveness out of un-trained peasant levies than to train bowmen. Men could be armed with it more easily and still be effective, because you would have more men to shoot something at the enemy. With a spear, it is far easier to point and say "Point your spear that way" than to actually have to train someone for weeks in the use and finesse of a sword. To have a swordsman in your army costed money, and when it comes to money most people tend to get real stingy.

Another reason, and probably the more important one, is a tight well-trained unit would be much more effective than a unit of swordsmen.
[Skip if you don't want to be bored to death]
Obviously, the legion is an exception, but the legion was something born out of need. All areas around Greece had prior to Alexander the Great used armies which were light and quick. The staple of these armies, would often be the elite, the heavy cavalry or infantry. The Greeks first destroyed these armies on their own turf, destroying them in confined areas where mobility was of no use and then Alexander went off and destroyed them on battlefields where mobility could be used, but with one of the greatest armies of all time. As a result the areas around Greece adopted the phalanx, but they could not support it properly, as Alexander the Great did. The men trained for the phalanx were not as well trained, the cavalry wasn't as skilled or experienced, and the generals were not as skilled.

The Roman legion was developed to take advantage of this, even barbarians in Gaul and Germany used tightly packed units of spearmen with little or no outside support. The legion was much more flexible than the phalanx and could take a much better advantage of any terrain and out-flank, out-maneuver, and out-perform anything any nation outside Rome put up against it, provided it was led by an able general. Adrianople is an example of a slow but slow return to the armies of Alexander the Great, a massive unit of spearmen supported by heavy cavalry. While the knights of the Middle Ages might not have been as skilled as Alexander's Companions, the new armor of the age and the sheer mass of all their equipment made up for it on the battleground.

Thanks to those of you who read my rant, most of it is philosphical, you can make your points and try to correct if you will...

[Watchman]

I think the Romans went from hoplite spear-wall tactics to swords and javelins A) because they met some folks who used the latter combination to good effect, and if something the Romans were keen copycats of good ideas B) the hoplite lines failed them miserably against the Celts and the Samnites.

So they adapted.

Anyway, as for why "offensive" infantry (often sword-armed) was used so much whereas cavalrymen could do many of the same jobs better, 1) there are things infantry can do cavalry simply cannot and, more importantly, 2) heavy cavalry are frightfully expensive buggers in most circumstances. They require some serious and specialized training and a whole infrastructure more or less specifically to furnish them with suitable mounts; this was even the case with the otherwise horse-affluent steppe nomads, who used special breeds of horses for their armored cavalry. And let's not even touch the logistical issues of the fodder-consuming beasts on campaigns.

Trained attack infantry, whatever their armament, are way cheaper, available in larger numbers, work far better in lousy terrain and among other things aren't as flighty as horsemen - cavalry by necessity operate in comparatively loose order and are comparatively bad at maintaining formation and unit cohesion. Cavalry combat is inherently fluid and freewheeling. And even though heavy cavalry are usually elite troops who won't rout lightly, once they do it tends to become nigh impossible to rally them - they're pretty good at running away really fast...

They also have the nasty tendency to get carried away in pursuit if and when they break an enemy formation and can be very difficult to recall and regroup, which is less of an issue with infantry.

[DemonArchangel]

Lonewarrior, the saddle was seen on a roman frieze showing a dead celtic warrior sometime during the republican era.

I think the saddle itself was invented on the steppe, but i'm not sure.

[SwordsMaster]

Well, I think swords were the primary use against pikes. Because they could get BETWEEN the pikes and shafts and do enormous damage in close combat (A 20 foot pike isnt all that useful if the guy is 3 feet away and you are in tight formation...) and they could exploit little gaps in pike formations much more easily than cavalry and-or other pike infantry.

The spanish Tercios used pikes and swords. I can give you links to pictures if you want, to stop the attacking swordsmen and occasional cavalrymen that could break thru the pikes. The arquebusiers all wore swords, and fought as swordsmen after firing the 2-3 shots they could before the enemy closed in.

[Watchman]

The primary weapon to fight pikes was other pikes. Lots of them. What you used to support the pikes during the push varied - the Spanish had their sword-and-buckler men, a legacy from the fast-paced skirmishing warfare and extensive siege operations they'd done against the Moors in the mountainous southern Iberia during the later phases of the Reconquista, and undoubtly used the same mix of halberds and greatswords for "heavy close support" as their Swiss and German colleagues.

It's not like the Renaissance and Early Modern pikemen didn't carry swords of their own, but the reason the Spanish swordsmen were such a murder for the Swiss was really pretty simple - superior armor and training. The Swiss usually went with only light armor, in order to keep the formation fairly fast-moving, and pikemen naturally didn't carry shields. In comparision the Spanish swordsmen might well wear up to three-quarter plate armor, had shields (steel bucklers, usually), and were on the whole rather better trained for face-to-face close combat.

[lonewolf371]

Lonewarrior, the saddle was seen on a roman frieze showing a dead celtic warrior sometime during the republican era.

I think the saddle itself was invented on the steppe, but i'm not sure.

Heh, I can be honest here and say I know almost nothing about horses. After the saddle, the only other invention I can think of that might have had an effect on mounted warfare was simply a slow adaption process over time. BTW, I think you're confusing me with the real Lonewarrior, I'm lonewolf.


I think the Romans went from hoplite spear-wall tactics to swords and javelins A) because they met some folks who used the latter combination to good effect, and if something the Romans were keen copycats of good ideas B) the hoplite lines failed them miserably against the Celts and the Samnites.

While areas around Rome might have used swords and javelins the difference in HOW they were used is the key aspect. Even if the tribes around Rome used the one-two javelin-sword tactic they did not use it in the fashion and level organization demonstrated in the Roman Legions, which is why none of those tribes became a dominant military power. I'm pretty sure at least some barbarian tribes used phalanxes, in fact I believe Caesar faced one in his first major battle in Gaul while fighting the Helvetii.

[Watchman]

The Romans copied their signature short sword from the Iberian Celts, God only knows where they learned the sword-and-javelins combo from. But as far as I know it wasn't their Latin neighbors, who at the time were fighting with shields, spears and swords just like themselves.

I've read they copied the manipular deployement system from the Samnites, on the perfectly sensible grounds of using their foes' own techniques to beat them. The flexible maniples worked far better than the hoplite shieldwall in the Samnites' highland haunts.

Just to point out, but if Caesar or any other semi-contemporary Roman author saw a classic shield-wall of the sort that stayed in use right until the end of Middle Ages and had to call it by some term, odds are he'd call it a phalanx. That was quite possibly the closest descriptor for the tactic they were familiar with, and certainly it'd communicate to idea to their audience.

None of which means what they saw and described had much anything to do with the proper pike phalanx... The hoplite shieldwall maybe, but then the hoplite tactic wasn't fundamentally too different from what you'd see for example at Hastings, 1066 AD.

[Kraxis]

Red Harvest and I have discussed the whole Triplex Acies in his thread about the early roman troops. And indeed it involved the Samnites.

Remember that the Romans didn't just come out of the phalanx with the perfect manipular legion, it changed and adapted and conformed until it was best at what the Romans it to be best at. But it doesn't change the fact that the Romans had copied it.

[DemonArchangel]

I suspect the saddle was invented on the steppe anyway, probably by samartians, as it really helps keep your ass in the saddle upon impact by cataphract.

[Kraxis]

I suspect the saddle was invented on the steppe anyway, probably by samartians, as it really helps keep your ass in the saddle upon impact by cataphract.

In that case I wouldn't be very concerned about keeping my ass in the saddle, rather I would be concerned about surviving, those cataphracts hits pretty hard. ~;)

[DemonArchangel]

No, if you fall off your horse, you'll be killed by footsoldiers on the ground.

[Kraxis]

You didn't see my little poke at you.
The way you wrote your post made it look like the daddle made sure you could sit in it after having been hit by a cataphract, not the other way around (you being the catapract),

[DemonArchangel]

oh
damn.

[Watchman]

Dunno about the "four-horned" saddle, but I've gotten the impression the Romans learned it from somewhere East. Whether from the steppe folks or the Persians I don't know, but most horse-related inventions seem to have sprung from the high plains.

On the other hand, AFAIK the Macedonians of Alexander's time did not know of nor use the thing, yet their heavy spear-toting shock cavalry seems to have worked right fine... I guess you just need to grip the horse pretty tightly with your legs.

[Kraxis]

Actually it seems the Romans and Macedonians learned about the horned saddle from celts. The Greeks even have a few stelas where it shows mounted (or falling) celts with the saddle.
Now that doesn't mean the Celts had invented the saddle, they could just as easily have learned from others.

[Colovion]

Actually it seems the Romans and Macedonians learned about the horned saddle from celts. The Greeks even have a few stelas where it shows mounted (or falling) celts with the saddle.
Now that doesn't mean the Celts had invented the saddle, they could just as easily have learned from others.

a little history on Saddles (http://www.saddlezone.com/html-top/saddle_history.htm)


Historically horses were ridden bareback, or with only a blanket over their back. Riders throughout the centuries hunted, fought in wars and traveled great distances all while riding bareback. Some claim a tribe called the Sarmatians who lived by the Black Sea first invented the saddle in 365 AD, as well as the metal stirrup and spurs.

But in all probability, I'd say that their knowledge came from further East towards China.

[Kraxis]

That saddle can only be the high saddle, you know the one where the back and front is high to recieve the push from connecting a lance during a charge.

I know for sure that the Romans had the horned saddle way earlier than that, and since there weren't any free celts by then, how could the Greeks encounter any?

[DemonArchangel]

Samartians? Spurs?
Crock of Manure anyone?