Historical Precedent for .225 Longswords

[Julius Augustus]

Hi guys, I'm been wondering about the longswords a lot lately. They are almost twice as effective as similar units wielding shortswords. Somehow, that doesn't seem quite right. Longswords had good reach, yes, as well as good swinging power, but they also had the unfortunate tendency to be very unwieldly in a close melee. Which, as we all know, is what happens in EB.

Longswords are not very useful when your foe gets past the point of your sword. In a close melee, you don't have a wide range of movement, making it hard to do the powerful swings that a longsword is best at. A shortsword, however, is less effective in a one on one fight, but quite effective in a jammed up fight, as it does not require a wide range of movement.

Which brings us to my question. Why are longswords so lethal compared to the shortsword?
Any help is appreciated.

[Flavius_Belisarius]

Because this is a game. Its kind a impossible to make weapons and tactics so exactly historical accurate with modding. I dont think that it is possible to mod it so, that longswords are only good in one and one figth, but bad in figthing a tigth formation.

[-Praetor-]

Hi guys, I'm been wondering about the longswords a lot lately. They are almost twice as effective as similar units wielding shortswords. Somehow, that doesn't seem quite right. Longswords had good reach, yes, as well as good swinging power, but they also had the unfortunate tendency to be very unwieldly in a close melee. Which, as we all know, is what happens in EB.

Longswords are not very useful when your foe gets past the point of your sword. In a close melee, you don't have a wide range of movement, making it hard to do the powerful swings that a longsword is best at. A shortsword, however, is less effective in a one on one fight, but quite effective in a jammed up fight, as it does not require a wide range of movement.

Which brings us to my question. Why are longswords so lethal compared to the shortsword?
Any help is appreciated.

Because a hit from a shortsword is less probably of perforating a mail vest, dent a helmet or breaking several bones on the target with one hit.

A well placed and powerful longsword swing will probably collapse your shield, split your armour and break some bones in you, no matter how much you try to protect yourself with your equipment. The inherent power of a longsword owed to its momentum potential is augmented by the fact that most of the soldiers wielding a longsword did so because they earned their sword with skill and past prowress, which makes a longswordsmen more skilled than a short swordsmen. The fact of swords being a symbol of status is seen on germanic warfare, and in the celtic world too.

Regrettably, we can't represent the loss of effectiveness of swordsmanship in packed environments. We would be delighted if we could diminish the effectiveness of swordsmen in enclosed spaces, but we have hardcoded limitations.

[Watchman]

More or less what they said. Though it's worth remembering that shortswords give a bonus to the unit's base attack value (representing their greater agility and "handiness") and longswords don't; in other words, the shorties "hit" more often but each "hit" is less likely to be effectively incapaciating, and vice versa. Long slashing blades can do some awful things to human body, the relevant parts of which would here be the somewhat disturbing ease at which such weapons destroy limbs and the like...

Also worth noting that while long swords aren't really *optimal* for close-in fighting, if the user knows his business they work quite well enough there too. How else could such consummate shieldwall users as the Vikings have used every longsword they could get, for example ?

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

It's important to notice in this aspect, that the proliferation of mail from the Ancient Age on was mainly due to one of the nastier effects of a good blade, and that is the capacity to chop through your limbs like an axe cutting a tree. The danger of infection, and the perspective of the loss of an entire limb, were thus prevented - it was certainly better to have a couple of broken bones than a severed head, arm or leg, and broken bones have been shown to regenerate with time.

Of course the best armor is not getting hit, which involves dodging and shields first.

[Watchman]

...although we may note mail sleeves were pretty rare. (Though I seem to recall reading once there was some technical reason for that - something along the lines of the armourers not yet having figured out how to make the shoulder join properly.) Arms aren't very easy to hit in combat AFAIK - typically one of them wields the shield and is largely inaccessible behind it, the other waves a weapon at you and is largely inaccessible behind *that* - and from what I've read of it most would aim for the other guy's legs intead.
Which said, on the whole lower leg defences seem to have been relatively unusual too. Mobility issues, I'd guess - strapping metal to your shins is going to weigh your step down something fierce, if you see what I mean.

[mountaingoat]

also, the end of the long blade was not the only part that was used as a weapon.

[Olaf The Great]

I know that the idea with viking longswords was to hit the enemies shoulders REALLY hard, the sword didn't even have to be very sharp at all, just heavy enough to break bones and incapacitate the foe so you could stab them.

[Mikhail Mengsk]

Their lethality shows its higher killing potential, so i think it's good as it is.

It could be a good idea to lower their attack value, that determine how often they will hit. This would represent that a longsword is much more difficoult to use in a close melee. But as Watchman said, if shortswords already have an attack bonus, i think there's notingh to change. ;-)

[Julius Augustus]

Thank you guys, I did not know that there was a shortsword attack bonus. I was also not aware that longswords could break your bones through your armor. I thought only axes, falcatas, etc. could do that. In any case, as all of the fighting(Or nearly all of it, anyway.) in EB is close quarters formation fighting, I may give a further +1 attack bonus to shortswords, as they excell in these situations. I find that the +1 bonus already in place is ineffective, for instance, the Galatian Kluddolon guys have only one more attack than comparable longsword units like the Botroas. The approximately 9% advantage in attack power the Kluddolon have does not come close to rivalling the much, much higher lethality of the longsword. I believe that the longsword should be more effective than the shortsword, just not so humungously so. Again, thanks for the help.

[Watchman]

I know that the idea with viking longswords was to hit the enemies shoulders REALLY hard, the sword didn't even have to be very sharp at all, just heavy enough to break bones and incapacitate the foe so you could stab them.

Eh, not really. "Dark Ages" period longswords in Europe (incl. the stuff the Vikings used - which were more often than not imports from continental Europe anyway) were actually by and large startlingly light things; often barely a kilogram in total. This was because armour wasn't terribly common around the time (and of relatively modest coverage when encountered, most of the time), and sheer speed and agility was thus preferred over raw cutting power. (And if you wanted that kind of chopping power, you could always grab an axe.) The increasing proliferation of armour during the Middle Ages duly resulted in design changes towards in part larger, heavier "mail-killer" blade forms, as did the general preference for longer cavalry swords that accompanied the increasing importance of heavy cavalry as the offensive arm.

I was also not aware that longswords could break your bones through your armor. I thought only axes, falcatas, etc. could do that.

*Anything* that develops a lot of impact energy and focuses it on a relatively narrow area can do that. Straight slashing swords aren't quite as good at generating this result as some other blade types (nevermind now tip-heavy "mass" weapons like axes, maces etc.), but a solid strike from one can nevertheless cause quite a bit of damage through many types of armour. A very focused deep bruise is functionally little different from an open gash, after all, doubly so as far as any bone unlucky enough to be in the way is concerned.

I find that the +1 bonus already in place is ineffective, for instance, the Galatian Kluddolon guys have only one more attack than comparable longsword units like the Botroas.

;39
type             galatian infantry kluddolon
dictionary       galatian_infantry_kluddolon       ; Galatikoi Kluddolon
-----
stat_pri         6, 6, javelin, 47.3, 3, thrown, simple, piercing, spear, 10 ,1
stat_pri_attr    prec, thrown
stat_sec         12, 6, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, slashing, sword, 0 ,0.1
stat_sec_attr    no

;77
type             celtic infantry botroas
dictionary       celtic_infantry_botroas      ; Botroas
-----
stat_pri         5, 8, javelin, 45, 2, thrown, simple, piercing, spear, 10 ,1
stat_pri_attr    prec, thrown
stat_sec         10, 8, no, 0, 0, melee, blade, slashing, sword, 0 ,0.225
stat_sec_attr    no

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

The issue of mail sleeves is certainly interesting. Another apparent puzzle is the presence of extra mailed shoulder pads in Ancient mail but not in Medieval hauberks... How? And when did mail sleeves start appearing in any meaningful fashion?

[Julius Augustus]

Gah, I guess I got the stats wrong. I checked over the EDU, and upon further investigation, you are right about the Botroas.

[MeinPanzer]

The issue of mail sleeves is certainly interesting. Another apparent puzzle is the presence of extra mailed shoulder pads in Ancient mail but not in Medieval hauberks... How? And when did mail sleeves start appearing in any meaningful fashion?

The mail yokes of ancient mail cuirasses were simply imitations of the earlier yokes of organic cuirasses. They did serve a purpose in providing extra protection for the shoulders, but there was almost certainly an element of fashion to their use as well.

[Watchman]

The Medieval guys may also have achieved much the same effect by using substantial extra padding under the mail at the shoulders, too. IIRC, the occasionally reviving shoulder pad fashion is actually a vestigial remnant of just that kind of system...

[antisocialmunky]

You could conjecture that it did help against penetrative, heavily parabolic missiles that make it over the shield since it has to penetrate 2 intead of one layer of mail.

Still going to mess you up seriously but hey.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Nah, anything that has to go through several layers of plywood, depending on the quality of the shield, will not penetrate mail. Most likely it will bounce off, or at worst case get stuck in the padding or inflict a minor puncture wound, but you would need a damn powerful bow for that, like a composite bow.

[Macilrille]

Eh, not really. "Dark Ages" period longswords in Europe (incl. the stuff the Vikings used - which were more often than not imports from continental Europe anyway) were actually by and large startlingly light things; often barely a kilogram in total. This was because armour wasn't terribly common around the time (and of relatively modest coverage when encountered, most of the time), and sheer speed and agility was thus preferred over raw cutting power. (And if you wanted that kind of chopping power, you could always grab an axe.) The increasing proliferation of armour during the Middle Ages duly resulted in design changes towards in part larger, heavier "mail-killer" blade forms, as did the general preference for longer cavalry swords that accompanied the increasing importance of heavy cavalry as the offensive arm.
*Anything* that develops a lot of impact energy and focuses it on a relatively narrow area can do that. Straight slashing swords aren't quite as good at generating this result as some other blade types (nevermind now tip-heavy "mass" weapons like axes, maces etc.), but a solid strike from one can nevertheless cause quite a bit of damage through many types of armour. A very focused deep bruise is functionally little different from an open gash, after all, doubly so as far as any bone unlucky enough to be in the way is concerned.

;39
type             galatian infantry kluddolon
dictionary       galatian_infantry_kluddolon       ; Galatikoi Kluddolon
-----
stat_pri         6, 6, javelin, 47.3, 3, thrown, simple, piercing, spear, 10 ,1
stat_pri_attr    prec, thrown
stat_sec         12, 6, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, slashing, sword, 0 ,0.1
stat_sec_attr    no

;77
type             celtic infantry botroas
dictionary       celtic_infantry_botroas      ; Botroas
-----
stat_pri         5, 8, javelin, 45, 2, thrown, simple, piercing, spear, 10 ,1
stat_pri_attr    prec, thrown
stat_sec         10, 8, no, 0, 0, melee, blade, slashing, sword, 0 ,0.225
stat_sec_attr    no

Watchman has it right, Olaf is basicaly passing on myth. My own Viking sword is considered in the heavy end of the medium weight range at its 1350 Gr., and with such swords it is easy to cut of limbs. Notice the emphasis on cut as hacking is for axes, cutting for swords- there is a reason they have a long cutting edge; to use it for maximum cutting power.
I made numerous posts about the technique a few months ago, try a Forum Search.

[antisocialmunky]

Nah, anything that has to go through several layers of plywood, depending on the quality of the shield, will not penetrate mail. Most likely it will bounce off, or at worst case get stuck in the padding or inflict a minor puncture wound, but you would need a damn powerful bow for that, like a composite bow.

I was talking about stuff that goes over the shield, not stuff that goes through shields.

[-Praetor-]

*Anything* that develops a lot of impact energy and focuses it on a relatively narrow area can do that. Straight slashing swords aren't quite as good at generating this result as some other blade types (nevermind now tip-heavy "mass" weapons like axes, maces etc.), but a solid strike from one can nevertheless cause quite a bit of damage through many types of armour. A very focused deep bruise is functionally little different from an open gash, after all, doubly so as far as any bone unlucky enough to be in the way is concerned.

As watchman said, anything that has lots of momentum and delivers it on a relatively small area, has the power of cutting materials that on normal conditions would protect the soldier. That's why celtic charges were registered as very powerful in the ancient world.

Take for instance this animation made loooooooooooooong time ago by someone in our team. (Regrettably, the guy that made this dissapeared without any trace, and never delivered the animation).



The gaesatae builds up momentum during the charge and then slashes on a diagonal stroke, with a potency well able to smash shields, split a helmet, or go through a shoulder pad and break your clavicle. Not to mention the effect of this hit on an unarmoured opponent... which might well able to rip a man apart from your clavicle until your sternum-breastbone, to say the least.

Hits like these are what give the longswords better lethality stats than shortswords.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Hey, cool anim there. Sad not to see it in EB.

[Azathoth]

The first one deeply amuses me for some reason.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Will it be in EB2 though?

[Azathoth]

The guy who made it isn't on the team, so no. Maybe a similar one will be.

I still can't get over the first animation....

[Olaf The Great]

As watchman said, anything that has lots of momentum and delivers it on a relatively small area, has the power of cutting materials that on normal conditions would protect the soldier. That's why celtic charges were registered as very powerful in the ancient world.

Take for instance this animation made loooooooooooooong time ago by someone in our team. (Regrettably, the guy that made this dissapeared without any trace, and never delivered the animation).



The gaesatae builds up momentum during the charge and then slashes on a diagonal stroke, with a potency well able to smash shields, split a helmet, or go through a shoulder pad and break your clavicle. Not to mention the effect of this hit on an unarmoured opponent... which might well able to rip a man apart from your clavicle until your sternum-breastbone, to say the least.

Hits like these are what give the longswords better lethality stats than shortswords.

I assume the "swinging arm to build up momentum" animation is what the description of the Calawre is trying to explain?

Seems pretty badass, shame it wasn't included.

[antisocialmunky]

He just said it wasn't delivered. Someone else could make it. It doesn't look all that hard TBH. It would also look pretty ridiculous if oyu had a whole unit of them doing that. Would look better in a rabble formation otherwise it might look a little gruesome and comical.

*FOR ONE NIGHT ONLY - PRESENTING THE TRAVELLING GALLIC SYNCHRONIZED SWORD SWINGERS!"

[Azathoth]

Well, like I said, a similar one.

They should give all units that animation, even spearmen, cavalry, and elephants. It would be epic.

[-Praetor-]

He just said it wasn't delivered. Someone else could make it. It doesn't look all that hard TBH. It would also look pretty ridiculous if oyu had a whole unit of them doing that. Would look better in a rabble formation otherwise it might look a little gruesome and comical.

*FOR ONE NIGHT ONLY - PRESENTING THE TRAVELLING GALLIC SYNCHRONIZED SWORD SWINGERS!"

Julius Caesar didn't find it as amusing as you have during the numerous defeats he suffered on the siege of Gergovia, and when an entire cohort was annihilated by a single celtic charge by Ambiorix, "The natives at once raised their customary cry, and yelling and screaming, charged down upon our army and broke through our ranks..."

The point I'm trying to make is that you may ridicule this technique all you want... but it worked.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

I WANT IT IN EB2, NOW .

[Celtic_Punk]

for sure.