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