Printable View
Swords with forward swept blades like the kopis and falcata seem to have been fairly widespread in Europe or at least the Mediterranean in antiquity, but they don't seem to have survived into the Dark Ages/Mediaeval period.
Anyone know the reasons why such designs faded out?
I'm not sure about specific reasons, but the kopis and falcata are not that effective in my opinion. The Romans themselves knew it, and they employed short thrusting and slashing gladius, which is basically superior to any other sword in the world when correctly utilized. The slashing technique of sword attack has quite a bit of disadvantages, such as slashing was and is never as effective as a clean, strong thrust. Only the largest swords were effective in this mode of attack. Few types of armour can withstand a thrust on the other hand. The slashing motion is also difficult in the crowded heat of battle, and it exposes your body to a counter-stroke as you move the shield aside to slash. The Romans knew this, and so they used the gladius, instructing the legionaries to use their large, rectangular scutum to cover themselves as much as possible and attack in brief clean thrusts to the side of their shield. All this time their body was unexposed.
However, I doubt the idiots during the Dark, Feudal and High Medieval periods knew all that...
No disrespect but:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
-My hands are also the deadliest weapons on earth when utilized correctly...
-Dark, Feudal and High mediaval soldiers/knights would love to prove u wrong, but ur lucky they ain't around anymore.
Ok enough screwing around:
I don't know my history that well to give you specific reasons why their use (as well as pikes, aspis shield, etc) became less prevelant. However I can tell you that the later Roman Empire, in areas that were properly "Romanized" (Iberia and Gaul bacame so later in the empire) no one was allowed to keep their own weapons. And the roman military basically "monopolized" weapons, thus whatever they produced (gladius, hasta sword, oval shields, etc) was what used. So more traditional, yet effective weapons, were no longer widely used and subsecuently lost.
Also those "idiot" mediaval people developed some pretty sick weapons to deal with what they faced on the field:
http://therionarms.com/armor/polearm2.jpg
That is a steaming pile of horse manure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
To begin with the Gladius was a point heavy weapon which was known for being a brutal cutting blade. The Greeks were so horrified by it they demanded it be banned. The Roman response was, "Well you would say that, you lost." The Gladius is a cut-and-thrust weapon, not a pure stabbing blade, if it were it would taper to a point, rather than having a broad blade.
As far as the Gladius being, "basically superior to any other sword in the world", lets have some fact's about the basic infantryman's weapon.
1. Point heavy to the extent that effort is required to prevent the point of the blade dipping.
2. Heavy, on the bad side of 1KG, often closer to 1.5 and only the narrower Pompeii pattern regularly drops below that weight.
3. Low quality, particually from the late Republic onwards, one sword examined showed base incompetance in the forging which resulted in the sword edge being ground to the point that the outer layer of low-carbon steel was removed and the edge formed of uncarbonised iron.
4. Generally speaking the pattern of later Gladii is inferior, the swords become broader towards the point, have a broader point and lose their leaf shape. Personally I would say that this simpler design was a result of mass production and poor materials as an attempt to reduce breakage/maintain an edge on bad steel.
As an armour piecing weapon the Gladius is underwhelming, though its stout, broad point do give you some hope of forcing mail links without damaging the weapon a narrower point would do a better job.
The Gladius is a brutally simple weapon and relatively easy to use because it is a short sword, but the advantage the Romans had was in their drilling and the uniformity of their gear. They excelled at being uniformly average, which is a wonderful thing in an army, it means you have no very weak points.
I never said it was purely a stabbing sword. I am not such an idiot. However, the legionaries were trained to mainly thrust and stab, as it was much more effective.Quote:
To begin with the Gladius was a point heavy weapon which was known for being a brutal cutting blade. The Greeks were so horrified by it they demanded it be banned. The Roman response was, "Well you would say that, you lost." The Gladius is a cut-and-thrust weapon, not a pure stabbing blade, if it were it would taper to a point, rather than having a broad blade.
I also said that is was the best sword when properly utilized, and the Romans did know how to properly utilize it, unlike numerous other people. Gladius was the best in the sense that when employed by the Roman legionary, it was superior to other swords. It is true that the Romans probably never used steel for making their swords, which does mean that the gladius was not of great quality. However, I never claimed it was. The technique the Romans used was clearly superior, and the legionaries had extensive training, unlike most of their opponents. That is why I said it was the best in its time. If not, then give me an example of a more effective sword. Think about what you read carefully before proceeding to slander.
care to support this completely subjective, if not grandiose statement with some empirical data?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
he spoke against your argument and you should not speak as if you're an expert if you're afraid to have someone speak against your argument, or you could attempt to word it in such a manner that there is no possible objective attack- which was not the case here... i agree with Phillipus. You forgot to mention that the Romans DID NOT in fact invent the weapon and DID in fact borrow the technology like many other 'superior Roman' tactics and technology. If it weren't for the need to adapt to prowess of the Italic tribes early on, Rome would still be fighting quite different and quite outdated. Without a decent reason to adapt, there is little technology innovation...
:laugh4::laugh4::2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoSpartan
no offense, but those weapons seem a bit crude and don't look very effective. what I mean is that they look like they would get easily stuck in an opponent.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoSpartan
about the gladius...yes the gladius when combined with the training, organization, uniformity, and tactics employed by the legions was nearly invincible and helped Rome defeat many of its enemies etc. the thrusting techinque was particurly devasting against lightly armoured barbarians. the romans knew that even a stab wound a few inches deep could kill a man. but to say that the gladius is superior to any other sword in the world is merely just an opinion and doesn't mean it is a correct statement. to say that it was the best sword in the world at the time is a better statement, but even that is debateable. the simple fact that the Romans eventually prefered the Spatha and other longswords over the gladius is a sign that it wasn't the best sword of all time, which is bascially the point here.
To be fair I did pour scorn upon Paulus but to be perfectly honest his basic thesis that the Gladius was best because the Romans used it is horrifically flawed. It's like saying the Doru spear is best because the Greeks used it to fight off hordes of Persians, not to mention Thrakians and other "barbarians".
I would further argue that the main advantages the Romans had were lots of men and a lack of total incompetance. Prior to the Marian reforms, at which pointevery legionary became a state-equipped mercenary with gear at the upper end of what most other civilisations use to equip their warriors, Roman victories were engineered as much by their enemies as their generals.
Yeah, Pontius Pilate, they do look a bit crude, but for their function, they were effective. Those weapons were initially designed for footmen of uncertain quality and training to use against mounted, plate-armored opponents. Truth is, any weapon that uses piercing as its damage vector will probably stick when faced with plate armor, and crushing/bludgeoning weapons, unless one is trained in their use and has undergone physical conditioning, are often too slow to allow the type of troops that used these polearms to effectively strike a mounted knight with a solid enough blow to do damage. These polearms were brutally effective against mounted knights because of the various projections and hooks that allowed the user to pull a knight off his horse and strike with the blade facing any direction. The user did not have to worry about turning the blade to get a hit, or in the case of bludgeoning weapons, keep momentum going in order to do damage.
Oh, and those Halbards are very complex and deadly weapons, not at all crude. They're very sophisticated can-openers which you use to extract a knight from his tin suit.
Even if they're ugly... I bet you wouldn't like to be in front of one.
And now to the gladius thing... I also bealive that they chose it cause
1-It was cheap and easy to make.
2-Any "idiot" can cover and then stab, no need to get good with the sword
Rome won a lot of wars just by sheer man power (ask Hannibal, or Pyrros (sp?))
Yep AFAIK it's the swiss army knife of choice for the medieval foot soldier... For instance that hook can help you prevent enemies from escaping, dismount mounted oponents..., the spike at the side then will pierce even the best plate armour (at least if you keep your halbard assortment up to date) and the tip is no less effective than a sarissa. Combine this with more mobile support troops and you have a very effective anti-armour force which can readily adapt itself when faced with light infantry, spearmen or even archers. Plus: halbards can actually be used to good effect (if you're skilled with the weapon anyways) in the dark.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
One good solid hit with any end of the halbard and you'll probably not live to tell the tale.
You missed the axeblade below the hook, that think would take a man's head, or arm, or whatever, clean off.
Pretty sure the weapons NS proved a piccie of are known as "bills", a weaponised gardening (specifically, hedge-trimming IIRC) tool that was something of an English specialty. Although remarkably similar hook-bladed polearms were used by the Italians and Ottomans, and the notoriously bewildering (and obscurely named) array of High and Late Medieval European polearms had no shortage of diverse designs which in various forms provided the same functionality. Give or take a few; staff-weapons could get awful specialised.
Main reasons for the general move towards powerful two-handed weaponry from around the 1300s onwards were on one hand their general versatility and effectiveness against cavalry, and the increasing ubiquitousness of good body armour among even common soldiery which on one hand rendered shields increasingly superfluous and on the other plain necessitated ramping up the raw destructive power employed to bust through.
Anyway, back to the falcata-kopis thingies. I was under the impression they were somewhat tricky to make and thus comparatively expensive for blades of their size? In any case, they didn't really fit into the Roman tactical system and as that pretty much dominated the entire Mediterranean military scene for centuries it is not surprising the concave blades fell by the wayside. Conversely the Romans' remaining troublesome neighbours - chiefly the diverse barbarians of Central Europe and the Iranians to the east - went for long straight two-edged blades instead, which the Romans eventually adopted too. Down the road you then had the assorted late Migration Period and Medieval single-edged choppers with a straight blade and flared edge, which AFAIK provided cleaving performance comparable to the falcata/kopis type while being structurally rather simpler and, hence, cheaper. (The first Medieval falchions may have been modified meat cleavers used by militiamen...)
As already mentioned, the "falcata style" sword was used through the Dark Age, into the Middle Age and on to near-modern times. (Falcata > Falchion > Sabers)
The Bill, more properly "billhook" is a concave cleaver which we use for stripping trees/hedging etc. They come in a variety of styles, some have the back spike but generally the farming implement is purely a hook-and-blade affair, with a short handle.
A quick search turns us this: http://pilgrim.ceredigion.gov.uk/ind...articleid=1564. As you can see they come in a variety of styles, unique to regions of England and Wales, and have short handles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MerlinusCDXX
(here I will use the term halberd to speak about all 6 foot kind of hast weapons)
They look crude, but the martial art associated with it isn't. An halberd is a fancy, close-quarter weapon used against armored infantry. See: http://www.thearma.org/spotlight/lejeudelahache.htm
Essentially, a halberd is an advanced battle axe with swiss knife functions.
You mean the pike. The pike is an anti-cavalry weapon. There as much difference between the tactical use of a halberd and a pike than between a recoiless rifle and an assault rifle. It's not because they used a wooden pole for the pike and the halberd that the weapons are all used in the same way.Quote:
Originally Posted by MerlinusCDXX
The halberd/bill-hook/bec-de-corbin/polaxe blade was not use to pierce through the plate, but through the visor or armpits when the guy in face was down. See:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqiS...eature=related
Oh and by the way, the halberd fighting style was developped to beat sword-and-shield-style. A marian legionnary would have been slaughtered by a burgundian halberdier.
For those who are interested, this shows the basic fighting techniques of this crude weapon used byhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTVC...x=0&playnext=1Quote:
Originally Posted by MerlinusCDXX
that halberdiers will dead first if they face TRUE SPQR legionaries. They will become pilum cushions:laugh4:Quote:
Oh and by the way, the halberd fighting style was developped to beat sword-and-shield-style. A marian legionnary would have been slaughtered by a burgundian halberdier.
Dismounted medieval knights didn't use any precursor missile weapons, as they think missile fight was "unchivalrous", so it was their obvious weakness if they face any skilled 2 handed weapons user, which in turns the 2 handed and without shields will easily pawned with crossbows...
Actually, dismounted knights often used Halbards themselves, this precluded the use of thrown weapons but in general knights were known to employvery varried fighting styles, making use of everything from twin shortswords to crossbows. As far as vulnerability to pila goes, early knights carried shields and later knights had armour which might well have been pilum proof. For the Romans facing halbadiers would be like facing armoured falxmen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cute Wolf
Like noble falxmen in XGM?Quote:
For the Romans facing halbadiers would be like facing armoured falxmen.
Remind me about these vanilla ninjas (Arcanii)Quote:
Actually, dismounted knights often used Halbards themselves, this precluded the use of thrown weapons but in general knights were known to employvery varried fighting styles, making use of everything from twin shortswords...
Pilum stuck to their shields, making it useless, and at least the pilum will hamper the enemy's movement, and disorganize their formations, which the romans are expert to exploit...Quote:
early knights carried shields and later knights had armour which might well have been pilum proof
They are still pilum cushions...:smash:
once again, as with Aemilius Paulus' previous statement this is debateable and just an opinion. there is really no sure way to know who would win in a fight. the two fighting styles were utilized in different time periods nearly a thousand years apart. weapons and fighting styles used centuries ago wouldn't exactly stand up to weapons today would they? I'm just trying to say people shouldn't throw around opinions like they are facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by dominique
I don' think so, Norman knights in particular are pound-for-pound better than Roman legionaries, bigger, more highly skilled and better equipped. The Normans were also diciplined, unlike many later Knights. If the pila stick in the knights shields they can discard their shields and use their axes or spears. Hardly a forgone conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cute Wolf
Well, sicilian norman knights, in M2TW are capable to charge without orders... I don't know if they are disciplined... but ...
are they carrying 5 weapons (lance, sword, axe, spear, halberd, with shield) in the same time?Quote:
discard their shields and use their axes or spears. Hardly a forgone conclusion.
To compare the roman legions to the medieval pikemen... why? The roman legionaries were good at facing infantry in general but their weapons and equipment were not designed for facing heavy cavalry; we all know what happent at Carrhae and in other confrontations against well organised cavalry forces such as the parthians or against sarmatians or huns in later periods. The late roman empire, especially in the East, adopted some of these new tactics and equipment. The equites catafractari and clibanari, the later tagmata regiments, et caetera were elite cavalry inspired from the east and their main purpose was to face the new threat of well organised heavy cavalry. Why? Because the legionaries were the best infantry out there, but they were not perfect. They also hired the foederati, barbarian "mercenaries" who used their own tactics and also other kind of auxillia.
After the fall of the WRE the new germanic conquerors imposed their way of life based mainly on the new gentilic order. There we have the Early Middle Ages and the feudal relations born from the mixture of the old ways with the new ways. Warfare changed along with that and the new feudal overlords in Europe adopted new millitary tactics in which the cavalry was much more importand then before. Weapons changed also. Pikes were needed. At Nicopolis, the turks administrated a crushing defeat to the Western Army, using pikes like those Neo Spartan posted above. They used the hook to get them off the horses. As far as I know the ottomans were the first that did this, but not much later, these weapons were adopted by the Italians in Lombardia and by the Swiss pikemen who defeated both the austrians and the french using the schiltron (a formation wich was older anyway - as far as I know the korean spearmen that the huns brought along with them used the schiltron... I might be wrong though).
Both the swiss pikemen, italian foot soldiers or burgundian halbardiers (or the Janissary in the Ottoman Empire) were considered some of the best infantry forces in Europe during the High Middle Ages. Monarchs were hiring these mercenary infantry to stand against the opponent's heavy cavalry and later, but as the weapons developed (from simple spears, to pikes, to billhooks and poleaxes and later halberds, whatever) they began to be used against infantry also. It was said that a halberd in the hands of a swiss peasand was a deadly wapon. And there we go: these kind of weapons spread in Europe through the Middle Ages from a paradoxal need to confront that wich was imported and perfected centuries before from the same need – to confront heavy cavalry. Romans adopted the catafractari from the partians. Through time the later conquerors perfected them resulting in the western heavy cavalry – a deadly weapon. Then again the westerners imported a new weapon from the east when at Nicopolis sultan Bayezid gave them a bloodbath. Not only because of the hooks used to get them off horses but they were proven quite efficient. History is sometimes paradoxal.
Regarding the legionaries vs dismounted armored knights… why would they dismount anyway? AFAIK that’s like deliberately giving an advantage to the enemy.
Legionaries vs pikemen is more like legionaires vs phalanx to me. A different kind of phalanx maybe. Who knows what might have happent? Well the romans did defeat Phillip V at Cynoscephalae and Perseus, and also Antiochus III at Magnesia but that’s quite different. In the 1st place because those armies were very different from their medieval counterparts, and in the 2nd place because face to face, legionaries vs phalanx were proven ineffective at Cynoscephalae. Pillum or not it was that tribune’s decisive maneuver that won the battle with romans attacking the macedonians from the rear.
Legionares vs swiss halberdiers I say it’s like… comparing a T34 with a modern tank. T34 was the best tank of his time not because it was the strongest armour, but because it was cheap, easy to produce and in less time then the german heavy tanks. Also it had a good engine and was highly versatile. But comared to a M1 Abrams… what’s the point?
Anyway sorry for the bad spelling and Happy Holidays to everyone. :2thumbsup:
P.S The name of the thread was " Why did falcata style weapons disappear?" :smash: I guess it was obsolete at the time.
I'm by no means a specialist, but I think that falcata and similar weapons demanded better and more extensive training than Roman gladius. The main question is - whether falcata was used by the "elite" units or was it a common weapon in Thracian armies? If it was an elite weapon than the answer is simple.
The Roman strategy was based on simplification and uniformity of the army. As opposed to many other ancient nations the Roman legion was a relatively uniform unit. Most soldiers had similar equipment and similar training. That was one of the most important inventions of the Romans. The army was no more a mix of few "champions" or elite units and a large mass of militia with poor equipment and even worse training. When Roman general was leading his men he knew what he can expect from them, what they can and can not do. The result of this uniform army structure was the unification of the weaponry and training, so the choice was made in favor of cheaper, easier to use, but effective gladius and not an expensive difficult to handle falcata.
M2TW? So what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cute Wolf
At Hastings in 1066 the Norman cavalry performed several abortive charges and help draw away sections of Fyrd. They were a diciplined fighting force, and no, they weren't carrying five weapons. General a knight would carry spear (lance is not really appropriate here), sword and shield but some used Norse axes when dismounted.
wow, that is possibly the most hypothetical statement i've read in a long time! :applause: KOREANS amidst the Huns?!!? Believe it or not, Hsiung-Nu does not equal Huns (even if that shatters the Classical myth of 'no new peoples')... even inclusion of Proto-Turks would not sound too far-fetched, but Koreans as we know them!? might as well throw in some Japanese... i'm glad that we're still trying to hold to the idea that dumb barbarians couldn't possibly know something and had to have it given to them by advanced civilizations - that is so wonderful and enlightenedQuote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Burakuku
the schiltron is not so advanced that it was some Eastern-specific innovation. similarly, the West did not invent the shield-wall, believe it or not.
__________________
Emperor Burakuku, I actually think your other points are quite valid, esp. concerning the T-34 tank which was awesome, but wasn't the 'best.'
btw ...the last remaining pagantribe russian anno 1200 used the falcata(some sort of)also.Quote:
Originally Posted by ironanvil1
And the billmen actually use the same striking technique.There weapon was inspired by the falcata...they added there weapons so(spearlike)...that they would work properly...when a cav is charging them. and armour of course...in there time armour piercing was a bless.
@Blitzkrieg: I don't know why I can't quote. Maybe it has something to do with the new Holidays theme... What I meant by T34 being the best tank of it's time... overall I meant. A Panzer VI vs a T34, we all know who would have won in a 1 vs 1, but T34s we're much cheaper and numerous because of this. In the end they won the war, didn't they? Ayway we're getting away from the point.
About the schiltron I know that some argue that it's coming from the "shield wall" in english, something about the scottish wars for independance, others say it's viking but I read in a book about the 100 years war the while invaded by the habsburgs, the swiss used some similar formation, some kind of square or a circle to protect from the austrian calv attacks. And they also defeated the next french invasion in the same way. So i thought it might have been used at the same time in different places.
About Xiongnu I don't know much so I will shut up. I meant the mongol invasions in the 12th century, not the hun, big big mistake, i know. They invaded Korea in the same period and I read somewhere that they brought korean mercenaries. Anyway that's no valid info, it's just something I've read somewhere.
P.S We all know that Konigstiger was the best tank in WW2...
The Billhook is not inspired by the falceta. The Falceta is a curved versions of typical Indo-European leafblade, the billhook is a pruning knife on the end of a pole.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aurgelmir
Burakuku, Blitz was saying that the schiltron is a shieldcircle, it's litterally a shieldwall bent back on it's self. Anyone who is surrounded will invent that, similarilly with the square pike formation, used to great effect by the Greeks.
long time no see Burakuku!:yes:
anyways: didn't the falcata or Kopis influence the Kukri, or is it a coincidence? just wondering on these weapons:book:
Ah, now that's right on the money. It would in fact almost be correct to say that the Kukri is a falceta. http://www.random-abstract.com/kukri/
So there you go, it didn't die out.
It was the continuing existence of the kukri as a useful multi-purpose weapon/tool that made me wonder about the disappearance of similar weapons from Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
burakuku, I was saying I agreed on the tanks, but OT, back to the point...
12th Century, well that certainly makes it sit better in my stomach, sorry to jump on that but I am wary of Hsiung Nu == Huns based on research I've done and how often Greco-Romans thinking everybody must fit into their box... :bow: the thing with the Habsburgs sounds spot on (no expert there myself), I am not very fond of the 'shield-wall' etymology of schiltrom concerning Anglo-Saxon language, so that sounds much more likely
Something is wrong with me these days. I'm in a too much of a hurry like the rest of the planet I guess. About the Hsiung Nu I take your word for it. About the swiss pikemen it goes like this. Leopold I the duke of Austria and head of the hause of Habsburg somehow thaught it would be a good ideea to enlarge his domains on the expense of the poor swiss peasants. And in 1315 at Morgarten they thought him some manners. It said that they used this formation protecting themselves from all sides somhow. Now I'm gonna watch the thread and shut my mouth.
P.S And I meant 13th not 12th century - the mongol invasion. In the second half. Something's wrong with me, maybe it's the Holidays :no:
yeah....i didn't mean falcate lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I meant the scythe like weapons
srry about that
Scythes are agricultural tools for mowing down grass and whatnot for fodder (sickles were favoured for cutting grain, as there was less wastage that way). They suck pretty utterly as combat weapons, both the overall design and the blade characteristics being manifestly ill-suited for use on human bodies.
There's a bunch of good reasons why transverse blades on real weapons were invariably rather short and stout...
Er... no. You're thinking of some of the latter battles on open field, where the pikemen of the lowland cantons were already involved. (In one it was found out the hard way the halberd was too short to fully counter the lance in open terrain, requiring the hard pressed halberdiers to be rescued by the pikemen once they'd dealt with their opponents; thereafter the halberds were integrated into the pike squares as a reserve force for close assault.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Burakuku
Anyway, AFAIK falcata-type blades effectively went extinct in Europe and neighbouring areas by the first centuries AD if not earlier already. Or at least I've never ever heard of such being used anymore. There were *straight* single-edged swords around of course - 's good for cut-oriented designs - and eventually the true sabre evolved on the Pontic steppe around what, 7th century or so, but that's a very different beast in just about every respect that counts. And then you had the Medieval falchion, but again, that's basically a straight single-edger. The only really similar blade type I can think of is the Early Modern Ottoman yatagan (yataghan, w/e...), which might have been derived from an isolated surviving kopis tradition. (For what it's worth the Wiki article mentions a connection to the region of Luristan in the Zagros mountains; mountain areas often acted as kinds of "time capsules" that preserved in relative isolation old traditions and customs long since extinct elsewhere, so that's reasonably credible IMHO.)
Around the last decades of the 19th century some European armies copied that design for sword-bayonets, for what it's worth.