Wall Combat

[Phalanx300]

Indeed, that is very true. Actually, I believe that during the timeframe of EB the spear would be a better weapon in general. Cheap to make, easy to replace and very effective when used by a professional. But I believe a good quality longsword would win over a spear any day. Probably the reason why the majority of knights fought with longswords. Maybe I'm mistaken here, but I'm pretty sure spears were outdated during that time (Medieval Period).

I read information on zwaardvechten.nl, its a Dutch site, its about this sword fighting school which has read old medieval fighting manuscripts and are teaching Medieval combat, probably going to join it in the future.

However I read that a spear was superior, a longsword expert had to proove himself in one on one combat with a spear expert to proove his worth, as a spear needs a smaller survace to make a deadly kill.

Really interesting site, they also have alot on youtube, just search AMEK, Academie voor Middeleeuwse Europese Krijgskunsten.

Many people sadly don't know that European Martial Arts do exist, they usually think its an eastern thing.

[Watchman]

Interesting thread: http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewto...ighlight=kopis

A lot of those guys are talking right out of their arses, I know that much. It takes until page 4 for someone to actually remember that the Greeks pretty much wholesale picked the machaira/kopis style of sword from the Persians... and nobody apparently recognises a Thraco-Dacian "sica".
How very impressive.
Nevermind that everyone fails with the wood-and-stone "imitation sword" - apparently nobody's actually read Oakeshott's Archaeology of Weapons, which not only mentions the damn thing but posits a perfectly credible theory to explain that weird thing. (I last read the damn book like a decade ago, may have misplaced it somewhere in the meantime, and *still* remember that one...)

Also, the weight of a weapon isn't all that important regarding its "terminal effects", AFAIK; the key thing is how the weight is distributed and how the damn thing is designed to transfer its energy to the target.
Or, put this way, a rapier typically weighs about the same as your typical Medieval "knightly" sword... but it hardly needs to be observed that the cutting characteristics of the two are completely different.

On a similar vein, for the same total weight swords and axes have *very* different effects, particularly in regards to armour...

And far as I know the forward-curvers are very definitely from the "choppy" end of sword designs, irrespective of their overall weight. The design very definitely concentrates its energy at a fairly narrow part of the blade, and moreover the curve would rather appear to "trap" the target if you see what I mean.
And what's the whole definition of armour-piercing ? Focusing the impact energy.

And BTW, why should the Luso have chosen an "AP, low lethality" weapon in an area of the world were heavy armors were not exactly common?

Why are so many Chinese martial arts so big on heavy "cleaver" swords, such as the short "butterfly swords" and several varieties of the dao, quite in spite of being mostly concerned with fighting wholly unarmoured opponents ? Or the Nepalese and their kukris ? Because "mucho choppy" blades do a real number on flesh and, indeed AFAIK, are noted for their propensity for flat out amputating bits off people. That for their weight they're also quite good for dealing with all kinds of obstacles more stubborn than fragile flesh, such as wood or armour, is just a bonus.

But, obviously, the buggers needed to be modeled in some sensible fashion that didn't make them super-weapons - after all, if they'd been good for *everything* everyone'd have used the damn things and they'd never have gone out of use like they historically did.

[Celtic_Punk]

I always did wonder why they used the Northern Broadsword... It's clunkiness seems so out of place in China. I thought It might have been a very slight Celtic influence when I heard about the mummified Celt in China. (plus they've found old Celtic goods showing trade between the two very different worlds.

[Watchman]

I always did wonder why they used the Northern Broadsword... It's clunkiness seems so out of place in China.

...the what ?

[Aper]

A lot of those guys are talking right out of their arses, I know that much. It takes until page 4 for someone to actually remember that the Greeks pretty much wholesale picked the machaira/kopis style of sword from the Persians... and nobody apparently recognises a Thraco-Dacian "sica".
How very impressive.

Can you please stop treating people like shit? It seems to be your usual attitude in the latest discussions you got involved

But, obviously, the buggers needed to be modeled in some sensible fashion that didn't make them super-weapons - after all, if they'd been good for *everything* everyone'd have used the damn things and they'd never have gone out of use like they historically did.

I didn't need an explanation of the obvious about the effectivness of chopping swords vs unarmored opponents, thanks anyway. I was questioning the choices of the EB developers about the attributes of the kopis-style swords in game, but you are right saying the overpowered AP attribute have to be balanced in some way

About the design and use of the machaira, thanks again for enlightening me about the fact a rapier and a longsword are different, but my question was: a design intended to cleave the meat of an opponent is so much effective vs armors too? I have some doubts about this, the simple fact the force is concentrated toward the point doesn't make a kopis automatically work well like an axe against protections IMO. As the loading screen of Calawre says, the longsword could be very effective vs armors and shields, and the gladius hispanicus too was quite famed for its performance against protections... IMHO no sword should get the AP, it's simply too much unbalancing, as pointed out by the ridicolously low lethality of the kopis in game, that makes it quite underpowered vs unarmored or lightly armored foes in comparison to the longsword

And what exactly make you think the kopis-machaira came from persia? To me it seems simply the universal design of meat cleavers, and hardly anyone can say it came from anywhere in particular

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Anyway, what do you men saying the wood is "inherently rigid"? it seems a nonsense to me...

A sword blade is flexible and bends temporarily on impact, if you have ever seen a live sword in action. The wood doesn't do that, so that means it's far more prone to getting shattered or break due to its rigidity, much like glass.

Besides, I'm still waiting for Watchman's evidence that Knights used spears in a large scale engagement. With so many better weapons like Poleaxes, Halberds or Longswords, it is questionable why would they choose a spear at all. There's a reason it went out of fashion on the battlefield after a period, clearly.

[Aper]

A sword blade is flexible and bends temporarily on impact, if you have ever seen a live sword in action. The wood doesn't do that, so that means it's far more prone to getting shattered or break due to its rigidity, much like glass.

I have indeed seen swords in action, after years of training in western martial arts. And I can say swords that on impact bend more than a little are crap swords. The capability to absorb impact doesn't mean a great, evident bending, I hope you know.
And... are... you... comparing... the behaviour of wood to... GLASS???? WTF??? Have you ever seen a piece of wood, or trained with a staff/spear?? Sorry man, but anyone who know woods a little can confirm this is plain BS.

Besides, I'm still waiting for Watchman's evidence that Knights used spears in a large scale engagement. With so many better weapons like Poleaxes, Halberds or Longswords, it is questionable why would they choose a spear at all. There's a reason it went out of fashion on the battlefield after a period, clearly.

Spear (on feet) was indeed one of the most important knightly weapons. Sometimes they favoured it more than poleaxes, at least in duels. For what it can mean to our current discussion, even Sengoku ("civil war" era) samurai considered the spear their primary weapon on the battlefield. As you already pointed out, often knights were intermixed with common soldiers on the battleline and probably they used the same weapon of their comrades, likely a spear. No one prevented them to switch to the longsword when it was necessary. About what weapon is the better anyway, really none can give a final answer... they simply had different techniques, the tactical situation and the attitudes of the individual warrior can make a great difference: spear is the better long range thruster of the weapons you citated, and this can be more than enough to achieve a decisive superiority in a fight.

[Watchman]

Can you please stop treating people like shit? It seems to be your usual attitude in the latest discussions you got involved

That's because I find persistent people who have no idea what they're talking about (yet go about making statements with certainty) to be very tedious and annoying.

I didn't need an explanation of the obvious about the effectivness of chopping swords vs unarmored opponents, thanks anyway. I was questioning the choices of the EB developers about the attributes of the kopis-style swords in game, but you are right saying the overpowered AP attribute have to be balanced in some way

About the design and use of the machaira, thanks again for enlightening me about the fact a rapier and a longsword are different, but my question was: a design intended to cleave the meat of an opponent is so much effective vs armors too? I have some doubts about this, the simple fact the force is concentrated toward the point doesn't make a kopis automatically work well like an axe against protections IMO.

"Cleaver" type blades, designed for chopping and shearing cuts, are more or less per definition designed to focus their impact power at the tip. And focused impact energy is pretty much the end-all be-all of anti-armour effectiveness - even if the protection itself isn't structurally breached, focused blunt trauma may still well get through to make the distinction somewhat academic - deep internal bleeding, mauled flesh and broken bones don't differ overmuch from a honest-to-God open wound, no ?

As the loading screen of Calawre says, the longsword could be very effective vs armors and shields, and the gladius hispanicus too was quite famed for its performance against protections...

TBH far as I know that loading screen is talking poppycock there. AFAIK Celtic longswords aren't terribly large or heavy by for example Medieval standards; typically barely a kilogram in weight or so, and usually topping out at around 80cm lenght or so. Compared to some Medieval designs, especially the big "mail-killers", they're positively whippy and puny. (For the sake of comparision, the few weights I've seen given for falcata/kopis type swords suggest the average weight was about the same as that of the Celtic longswords...)
This is indeed a sword design philosophy that AFAIK lasted uninterrupted until the beginning of the Middle Ages proper (around 1000s AD); where such swords were popular, most of the opposition was nominally armoured at best and even the elites had only too many uncovered bits to slash at (notably the limbs) - a relatively light, quick sword served well in the circumstances.
The increasing proliferation of armour during the Middle Ages duly directly led to designs better suited to dealing with armour, whether through "brute-force" increased cutting power or, later increasingly, the thrust (something that, as often enough repeated, the spear also did well, but obviously spears are problematic as sidearms...).

The thrust is also what short blades like the glaadius rely on to defeat armour.

IMHO no sword should get the AP, it's simply too much unbalancing, as pointed out by the ridicolously low lethality of the kopis in game, that makes it quite underpowered vs unarmored or lightly armored foes in comparison to the longsword

*shrug* And the longsword eventually DID replace both the recurve chopper and the short sword as the military sword par excellence. It's really just that at the time their availability was limited, on account of technical difficulties and high cost.

And what exactly make you think the kopis-machaira came from persia? To me it seems simply the universal design of meat cleavers, and hardly anyone can say it came from anywhere in particular

Well there would be the legacy of the ancient sickle-sword, once ubiquitous in the Near East, for one. (The Central European tradition the Greeks came from was much more into straight double-edged "leaf-shaped" swords of medium size; the xiphos was AFAIK pretty much a direct continuation of a widely popular Late Bronze Age form - random specimen of which have been found even in Scandinavia.) For another, by what I've read of it the kopis/machaira type swords only start appearing in Greek sources around the time the Persians - avid users of the type - reach western Asia Minor...

[Aper]

That's because I find persistent people who have no idea what they're talking about (yet go about making statements with certainty) to be very tedious and annoying.

This certainly don't give you the right to be an a**hole.
It's sad you can't control your manners because your posts are almost always informative and pleasant to read.
Sorry for the OT, back on topic now

BTW can you provide me some sources to deepen my knowledge of ancient and medieval melee weapons types? Something like that you said about the evolution of longswords from celts to middle-ages...

[Watchman]

With so many better weapons like Poleaxes, Halberds or Longswords, it is questionable why would they choose a spear at all. There's a reason it went out of fashion on the battlefield after a period, clearly.

The spear, in some form, *never* went out of use - what do you think the bayonet for all intents and purposes is ? And the pike is nothing more than a scaled-up spear.

As for the weapons listed, please do note that the lot only developed towards the latter part of the High Middle Ages (mid-late 1300s and thereabout) - I'm assuming that by "longsword" you mean the hand-and-half or two-handed late type here.
And the whole lot very noticeably has a pointy bit (AKA spearhead) on top, which from what I've read was the part that saw the most use - on a similar vein, the point was the offensive bit of choice in the late-period longswords...

Stabby is good, no two ways about it. AFAIK it was at one point popular to stick a small spearhead atop one-handed battleaxes too, since versatility is always good. (Them books tend to show this kind of weapon specifically in the hands of knights...) The later pollaxe/halberd is arguably a scaled-up descendant of that pattern...

[Watchman]

BTW can you provide me some sources to deepen my knowledge of ancient and medieval melee weapons types? Something like that you said about the evolution of longswords from celts to middle-ages...

One that I can link out of hand is the myArmoury.com site - in particular, the Features and Reviews sections. The latter helpfully usually discusses the historical background of the item in question.
'Course, most of the stuff there is Medieval or later, but there's a review of at least two repro La Tene blades and one Migration Period example, plus several Viking and other late Migration Period examples and several of the "Roman" gladius.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

And... are... you... comparing... the behaviour of wood to... GLASS???? WTF??? Have you ever seen a piece of wood, or trained with a staff/spear?? Sorry man, but anyone who know woods a little can confirm this is plain BS.

Actually it's plain physics blimey. The reason the sword is flexible is because the metal will be less likely to be distorted permanently or break during action, which was a very important thing to consider in the heat of battle. What happens is that the wood, being rigid, will be more prone to break with stronger impacts.

This is really a very basic thing you know? Broken lances, spears et all. I used glass merely as a rough comparison, because being rigid, it is also prone to breaking more easily.

Spear (on feet) was indeed one of the most important knightly weapons. Sometimes they favoured it more than poleaxes, at least in duels. For what it can mean to our current discussion, even Sengoku ("civil war" era) samurai considered the spear their primary weapon on the battlefield. As you already pointed out, often knights were intermixed with common soldiers on the battleline and probably they used the same weapon of their comrades, likely a spear. No one prevented them to switch to the longsword when it was necessary. About what weapon is the better anyway, really none can give a final answer... they simply had different techniques, the tactical situation and the attitudes of the individual warrior can make a great difference: spear is the better long range thruster of the weapons you citated, and this can be more than enough to achieve a decisive superiority in a fight.

Watchman's SNIP

A pointy thing does not a spear make. A polearm does not a spear make, although all spears are per definition "polearms". Back to the Poleaxe... it was as much as an "Axe", "Hammer" as it was "Pike". We're arguing semantics here: instead of talking down these differences as being "spears", I would like to see a "spear" per excellence, as it was seemingly proposed here. By this I mean something similar to the dori in EB terms, not some random pole.

[Watchman]

You definitions are *much* too strict. A pollaxe or halberd is, for all intents and purposes, a spear mated with a two-handed axe; a two-in-one combo. If you don't need one hand free for a shield or somesuch, carrying one of those is pretty obviously more sensible than either of the "parent" weapons which don't have quite the same all-around functionality. (But as noted, these "all in one" designs were a relatively late developement, at least in Europe.)

Doesn't change the fact that the top spike, functionally in no way different from a simple spear, was pretty much the single most used part of those weapons; the sharp butt-spike was quite commonly used to stab with too. "Hooking" a shield, weapon or limb aside, the axe, hammer and pick bits were mainly employed as "finishers" on foes first more or less first disabled with less spectacular and risky attacks with the spear-tip - not that that one didn't commonly enough get used to put paid to even heavily armoured opponents...


As for breakage, eh. Wood and glass are in NO way compatible; indeed, it is iron (or rather high-carbon steel) that is far more similar. Crystalline molecular structure and whatnot, something you most certainly don't get in wood. Steel of high carbon content OTOH is *very* similar to glass; very hard, but brittle - many items made out of it may well break from nothing more than being carelessly dropped onto hard floor, and indeed high-carbon steel even "rings" much like glass when struck...

Wooden shafts snapped because there simply is only so much lateral stress a wooden pole of a given thickness can survive before something gives. And not only were weapon shafts pretty much by default tapered towards the tip for reasons of balance and weight distribution, but also the material (type of wood) was normally *not* the toughest kind available - that would've usually been much too heavy. Rather the type with the best weight-strength ratio was preferred.

Note, incidentally, that one rarely if ever hears of wooden axe and mace shafts breaking unless actively damaged by enemy weapons...

As far as swords go, yes, cutting swords do flex laterally. Pretty much a necessity for dealing with the stress of the impact with the target, and also for its part assists in effective cut (as the blade "rebounds" into the target at the end of its movement arc). Here is IIRC a pretty good study on the subject (reading the whole article is highly recommended). There's a number of other "recommended reading" articles on the site, such as this one.

Thrusting swords, OTOH (and by extension, all primarily thrusting weapons), want to be rigid, so that the impact energy is applied to the target in as linear a fashion as possible. The structural requirements of which are why swords optimal for the cut suck for the thrust, and vice versa.

[Aper]

This is really a very basic thing you know? Broken lances, spears et all. I used glass merely as a rough comparison, because being rigid, it is also prone to breaking more easily.

The problem is exactly that woods, and especially woods used for polearms, were not rigid or prone to break easily at all. Different woods have very different characteristics, and the best of them are quite amazing in their performances in combat. OTOH, an ill-manufactered metal alloy can be much more fragile, as Watchman already said.

"Cleaver" type blades, designed for chopping and shearing cuts, are more or less per definition designed to focus their impact power at the tip. And focused impact energy is pretty much the end-all be-all of anti-armour effectiveness - even if the protection itself isn't structurally breached, focused blunt trauma may still well get through to make the distinction somewhat academic - deep internal bleeding, mauled flesh and broken bones don't differ overmuch from a honest-to-God open wound, no ?
AFAIK Celtic longswords aren't terribly large or heavy by for example Medieval standards; typically barely a kilogram in weight or so, and usually topping out at around 80cm lenght or so. Compared to some Medieval designs, especially the big "mail-killers", they're positively whippy and puny. (For the sake of comparision, the few weights I've seen given for falcata/kopis type swords suggest the average weight was about the same as that of the Celtic longswords... And the longsword eventually DID replace both the recurve chopper and the short sword as the military sword par excellence. It's really just that at the time their availability was limited, on account of technical difficulties and high cost.

As you said, sword designed to cut flesh (celtic longsword and falcata) are relatively light and flexibile, when weapons good at mauling armors (medieval longsword and axes) are relatively rigid and heavy. This difference made me doubt the effectiveness of the kopis-style in causing bashing damage through protections, in comparison to other swords: obviously the kopis could damage tissues under armor, but how much more than other swords? After all, leaf-shaped weapons like xiphos and mainz gladius are basically 2-edged kopis no? So they should have an effect on the body of the enemy quite similar, but in game they have completely different mechanics, that seems strange to me. This made me think maybe it was better to ged rid of the AP and raising the lethality of the falcata and similars; if, as you said, lethality represent the cleaving & maiming power of a weapon, they should have a very high value, maybe even higher than longswords; but the only way to balance this change should be to remove the armor piercing attribute, that IMHO should be not so wrong, for the reasons I explained: but more than anything, I just think AP is an unbalancing attribute that should be limited as much as possible... look at the lances for example: many EBers (me too) report that even with a delay of 160 to 200, AP lances are deadly in melee: sure, they have a very high lethality, but it's primarily AP that give them a good chance to hit, despite their low attack.

However, AFAIK (but I'm confident you'll agree) single edged cleaving sword never went out of fashion, and with the single possible exception of the late roman army the longsword was in middle-ages too a rare and expensive weapon; common folks usually carried blades that often was more big knives than swords, like the Messer of the Talhoffer, again AFAIK. So IMO is quite uncorrect to say that longsword "replaced" the recurve chopper: they remained weapons for different social "targets", as they were in ancient times.

About the origin of the greek kopis, I was more inclined to think it was simply an adaptation of everyday all purpouse, "working" blades, like the modern machete, or butcher's knives for example, adopted in the army for its simple and brutal effectiveness.

As far as swords go, yes, cutting swords do flex laterally

Sure, but the question is: how much bending you and Cristopher are speaking about? It's an important point to clear because people have often silly beliefs about this.

A pointy thing does not a spear make. A polearm does not a spear make, although all spears are per definition "polearms". Back to the Poleaxe... it was as much as an "Axe", "Hammer" as it was "Pike". We're arguing semantics here: instead of talking down these differences as being "spears", I would like to see a "spear" per excellence, as it was seemingly proposed here. By this I mean something similar to the dori in EB terms, not some random pole.

I was exactly meaning something like the greek Dory (or japanese yari) when I wrote the "spear" word.
Your skepticism don't change the fact the simple "pole + short metal point" weapon type was one of the most popular throughout history in all the world and among all social classes. The favourite? maybe not, but indeed one of the most utilized.

EDIT
@ kekailoa: I'm sure you will be welcome! EB is much better than school regarding ancient military history, no doubt about this

[kekailoa]

Geez, there are a lot of smart people on this board.

Sorry for the OT, but I think I'll ask questions here when I have questions in college rather than search the internet and library.

[A Very Super Market]

Well, EB is a historical mod, requiring historians, and they don't really stray from the EB forums.

[Maion Maroneios]

I'm sorry guys, but seeing all those debates I feel like we're derailing a bit. We're still talking about EB's time period, why is there a constant mentioning of Medieval weaponry? The latter was much superior to most of what would be made during the 3rd Century BC, so I don't believe the analogy is very sound.

If you ask me, you should really compare a shortsword (like a xiphos or gladius) with a dory of you want to debate about the superiority of a spear over a sword. That's because, AFAIK, the vast majority of armed men during EB's time used shortswords or spears. Longswords, again AFAIK, were difficult to produce and belonged only to certain (Celtic) nobles. If we stick to the timeframe and the two aforementioned weapons, I dare to say that a skillfull spearfighter would win over a skillfull swordfighter any day. Again, note this is my oppinion.

Maion

[Aper]

I'm sorry guys, but seeing all those debates I feel like we're derailing a bit.

True.

If we stick to the timeframe and the two aforementioned weapons, I dare to say that a skillfull spearfighter would win over a skillfull swordfighter any day. Again, note this is my opinion.

Probable, but it is really not a matter of "who is the strongest??" (that is childish), but about actual understanding the properties, the strenghts, the weaknesses, the techniques, the history and so on of the various weapons. Probably too much debate and not enough evidences, I guess

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

If we stick to the timeframe and the two aforementioned weapons, I dare to say that a skillfull spearfighter would win over a skillfull swordfighter any day. Again, note this is my oppinion.

If that's true then why so many Celtic and Hellenic elites carried longswords instead of spears? And why did every hoplite carry a sidearm? You presume too much.

[Aper]

We are wasting time discussing nonsense like "who would win" in so vague terms. Almost like discussing about the gender of angels.
And I can't understand why people don't grab the concept "any weapon have his own strenght and weaknesses, that a skilled warrior can exploit to win the day" or "warriors carried multiple weapons because no weapon is inherently better than the others".
Common sense sometimes helps.

[Maion Maroneios]

If that's true then why so many Celtic and Hellenic elites carried longswords instead of spears? And why did every hoplite carry a sidearm? You presume too much.

I said, it's my oppinion. See my post about spear vs sword with some Physics invlolved. You'll understand what I mean. Plus, a good longsword as I said numerous times before, would beat an ordinary spear any day. Read what I'm writing first. We're not talking about exceptions, or at least we shouldn't.

Maion

[Watchman]

If that's true then why so many Celtic and Hellenic elites carried longswords instead of spears?

Most carried *both*, you know...

And why did every hoplite carry a sidearm? You presume too much.

Due to the oft enough already mentioned problems spears have at close quarters, and so as to not be left with just their bare hands to keep them warm if and when the shaft broke ?

Jeez. Don't make us repeat junk that's been discussed a billion times already.

We're still talking about EB's time period, why is there a constant mentioning of Medieval weaponry? The latter was much superior to most of what would be made during the 3rd Century BC, so I don't believe the analogy is very sound.

Actually, other than a fair bit of refinement in the manufacturing process there was very little functional change in sword designs between the early La Tene Celts and about 11th century AD...

And, moreover and much more relevantly, the two behave very much the same tactically.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

We are wasting time discussing nonsense like "who would win" in so vague terms. Almost like discussing about the gender of angels.
And I can't understand why people don't grab the concept "any weapon have his own strenght and weaknesses, that a skilled warrior can exploit to win the day" or "warriors carried multiple weapons because no weapon is inherently better than the others".
Common sense sometimes helps.

I know it. I am just being defiant , since the sword is my favourite weapon, closely followed by the Knightly lance.

[Maion Maroneios]

Well, personal favour over a certain weapon doesn't mean it's better you know. That's actually a bit childish, no offense intented. I, for example, am a spear fan but aknowledge the superiority of a wall crafted longsword.

Maion