I've been thinking. Which is always a danger.

I have often heard it said that the sword was never that important a battlefield weapon, compared with lances, pikes, etc.

This may be true for many, or even most battles. But is it perhaps a little over-stated?

After all, for the Romans the sword seemed to be weapon no' 1.

Ditto for the Spanish and their sword and buckler-men in the 16th century.

And I suspect the sword played a similar role amongst many of the soldiers of the late medieval Italian wars(?)

And also one does not have to think hard to come up with cavalry units where the sword was more important than any other weapon.

Often the 'initial' weapon is said to coincide with the 'principle' one. A lance is said to be more important than a sword, yet is it fair to say that the lance was usually used once and the sword several times In which case the sword is still very important indeed? Makes some sense to me. In a similar fashion the Romans would use the Pilum first, but do most of their dirty work with the sword.

Any thoughts?

Yes, I'd say it's probably true of certain cases, but, in general, polearms are

1 - cheaper

2 - more deadly, especially when used en masse.

I'm guessing polearms would gain even more prevalence as medieval armour progressed in effectiveness, as, whereas a sword cut would be unlikely to seriously wound the knight, not to say reach him in the first place, a good voulge could probably lead to a Maciejowsky-style cleaving-in-two.

Also, swords were used as a symbol of status as they are a far more individual weapon; this is not true, of course, of the roman gladius and spatha, which were designed for specific uses in formarion (the first for a loose manipular formation, the second for a phalanx-like shieldwall). Nevertheless, a band of men presenting a bristling row of polearm-points is more likely to stick together.

The problem, though, I'd say, is that a man with a sword doesn't stand much of a chance against a man with a polearm. The man with the polearm can not only thrust, but strike with the shaft, cut with the head; he has greater reach, greater mass...

A sword on its own certainly has a problem dealing with pollarms en masse and to a lesser extent one on one. I would, however, suspect that shields change things. However, I noted before that Africans armed with a shield and Assegai had some trouble getting past the bayonet. I found a quote from an African to this effect, though perhaps this was not always the case?. It is also interesting that the Highlanders didn't do better with sword and targe against the same formations. Perhaps this has something to do with the small size of their shields - perhaps a better size for fencing one to one - and a relatively broken charge? After all, the Spanish seemed to manage it against pikes, though a pike is a good deal more cumbersome than a rifle and bayonet. I read somewhere that lightly armed swordsmen could wreak havoc by running amongst horsemen (presumably after the charge had been checked) in those numerous Italian civil wars of the late middle ages.

Just my thoughts, anyway.

Cheers,

Joseph

The bayonet is severely overrated; it's inferior to a pike, no matter what, although it's still effective. It was found it was the best compromise to have standard soldiers who were both musketeers and pikemen, than to dilude their forces with X% pike and Y% shot.

I believe, first and foremost, that a very important factor is organization and formation. No matter how good a soldier is, when he's alone, or his formation's broken, he's cooked.

For instance, there's an everlasting debate on the Gallic wars: some non-fencing academics saw the light all of a sudden, and came up with the following shennanigan: "Well, the dumb Gaul raised his sword well high above his head, uncovered his abdomen (one wonders why he had a shield...) and therefore, the clever roman went zip, and popped him open like a fish." One has to have but a slight knowledge of armed combat and of large-scale tactics to see the vacuity of this reasoning; a battle is not a series of single combats. The Celts lost because they had no capacity to relay orders effectively, to manoeuver to counter threats such as flankings, they could not reinforce their weak spots, and therefore, on the long run, their line wavered and broke.

What's that got to do? Well, except for in the Roman case and some others, swords tend to be far more individually-oriented weapons. Unless part of a shieldwall, a man will have less of a hard time co-ordinating his efforts with a polearm (keep that thing pointed towards the enemy) than with a sword (cut down people).

That's why, for instance, the scottish highlanders were defeated; it wasn't just the weapon, it was the organization. What can (relatively) isolated men, reaching the enemy lines during a charge, do against an unbroken wall of bayonets? A man in a polearm formation has no flanks nor rear; he has only his front to worry about. His buddies protect his flanks, and he protects them. A man in a broken formation may be stabbed from the front, side or rear.

I assume that for a charge to be successful against, for instance, a pike square, the said square should be a bit broken, for instance, by terrain. Crossing a patch of trees, rocky ground, &c., can disrupt the frontage of the square, making it vulnerable to a well-timed attack.

But it would be wrong to think a pike is a useless weapon; it's basically a great staff with a steel point. Pike-play has its intricacies, and I'd wager a man armed with one could easily take on three swordsmen.

Hi Michael,

It is all beginng to makes some sense. I am guessing that with the advent of firearms an enemy armed with hand to hand weapons feels obliged to close the distance as quickly as possible - and in the event breaks formation. There are examples of soldiers with shorter arms defeating longer weapons, however these examples tend to be from situations where shield formations would have been easier to maintain. I recall one statement from a native african explaining the development of the Assegai. Apparently the chief arranged a battle between a group armed with the shorter weapon and another with the conventional spear, with the explicit purpose of deciding which armament was more effective. The short Assegai was thereafter adopted. It always struck me as odd therefore that the logic did not always continue against the bayonet. But a desperate, broken charge may have been the order of the day, rather than the close formations presumably used in the Chieftan's test.

As an aside, I have often heard people talk of the superiority of polarms both en masse and in single combat. There seems to be too much of a consensus on this issue for me not to assume some sound basis in reality. Interestingly, however, when I was part of a medieval society (not SCA) some years ago, we frequently engaged in mixed weapon bouts - usually two handed sword against sword and target, but we experimented with spear a little as well. Contrary to what was 'supposed' to happen, the sword usually gave as good as it got, and not infrequently moreso. I still remember my first bout of single sword against spear - after grabbing his haft and cutting him on the arm some five times in a row, and receiving one poke in return, my opponent in rather bad temper threw away his spear in annoyance. I can only assume, if everyone's (including Silver's) words on this issue are correct, we must have been using the spear pretty badly!

ps. Interestingly, two weeks after this bout, I saw a Japanese martial arts exhibit including shinai against naginata. It was an easy victory for the longer weapon. However, I noted no attempt to adjust the fencing style of the 'katana' to suit the circumstances. I remember wanting to dash out from my seat and grab the shinai off its user to show him how its done. Not that I can say that I wouldn't have still been creamed, however.

Hi Joseph,

the spear-bout can be easily analyzed thuswise: did the fellow with the spear only poke? If so, he was wrong. A spear is as much a point as it is a staff, and a sharp blow to the side of the head will certainly dissuade a man from coming too near. I'd say that in order to be effective, the spearman should be an experienced staff-player, as well as skilled with his point.

The problem of course is that, in a friendly bout, the concussive force of a swung spear is such that it could often result in injury, and should probably not be used freely.

As for what you say about the zulus, it seems very sound to me. It would seem very difficult for the zulu warriors to manoeuver correctly and to slowly advance in a shieldwall formation under the strain of withering rifle-fire, therefore breaking the shieldwall and ultimately weakening themselves as a whole. It's sort of a lose-lose situation -- if you maintain the formation and advance slowly, you'll be anihilated by rapid fire. If you break formation and advance quickly, you'll be at a disadvantage in close combat...

p.s.: On the assegai, I seem to recall that experiment. Apparently, the assegai's greatest asset was its broad, versatile blade, which would have given it good strength, leverage and lethality. It seems they would have gripped it quite near the broad blade, therefore turning it into a sword-spear of sorts. In the tests, apparently, shaka's technique involved striking aside the foe's shield with one's own shield edge, and taking advantage of the opening to deliver a thrust onto the unprotected left flank.

Hi Michael,

Yes, striking with the spear was allowed, though it was probably not capitalized on as well as it should have been. He was new to this kind of fight as well. I have also done some rapier vs. quaterstaff where reasonably powerful blows were allowed. Admittedly, safety concerns do not favor polarms, although I have experimented by asking the staff wielder to swing powerful attacks in a controlled test, much like Tom and the longsword. The butt of the spear was certainly used, though once the swordsman is in close enough to make the butt viable the sword generally has the advantage, except for the element of surprise. It is easy when you are only thinking about dashing in close to forget about the other end. Rapier vs. staff is particularly fun as the reach of a seven foot pole wielded with two hands is generally only a *touch* more than a four foot rapier blade wielded with one. If the rapier man is too enthusiastic he can actually dash into a range where the butt actually becomes the better weapon for infighting, so the control of distance requires much more subtlety.

Arms and hands are good targets for the swordsman, but the real danger for the polarm is that the haft can be grabbed. Without this, the advantage would probably always be with the pollarm. I don't like the idea of left hand daggers against a staff for this reason. It is possible to brace the left hand against the shaft which does much to take the bite out of a solid swing, as long as you connect with the forte of your sword a fraction before. I once even took a french foil up against a staff, in a controlled experiment, and found if I strike the staff such that the blow strikes the foil guard and brace with the left hand it is possible even with that weapon to parry suprisingly solid strikes. It loosened the hilt of the foil somewhat! I subsequently did some controlled bouting where the foil did better thatyou would expect. Of course if it was a heavy hailberd struck with full intent it may not have worked, but then I would try not to be standing there!

I'll try and recall what Swetnam says about this kind of fight. Though he does use a left hand dagger as well.

The thing about a sword was that it was a very personal weapon. The weapon you wore every waking moment, not the one you bore (but only when you expected a fight). Polearms were useful, but it was the sword that was considered the symbol of the knight, samurai, and gentleman.

You see the same effect with firearms...a rifle may be more effective than a pistol, but it the pistol that people get really emotional about. Some of the debates between advocates of the 1911 and the advocates of newer designs approach the intensity of the Thirty Years War.

Hi Joseph,

A great topic, although I'd take exception with a few of your points.

Rome is really the anomaly of the Western world, with the focus on heavy infantry using swords and shields. But really, Roman warfare is about combined arms. Those same men made good use of the pilum, and Roman armies made heavy use of artillery, archers and skirmishers.

While it is true that the Spanish sword and buckler men were a specific battlefield force, they were part of combined arms, which were dominated in the late 15th and 16th century by pikemen and crossbowmen. For example, one roll from 1490 shows the army of Andalucia as being 42% pike, 33% crossbows, 7% guns and the rest were pioneers. In the same period, the main infantry force under direct royal control was a third pike, a third crossbows and arquebusier and one third Aragonese sword and buckler men. The cavalry were all lancers. When you look at the army size in total, that makes less than 1/5 of the royal army sword and buckler men, less then that when you add in the armies of Andalucia and elsewhere. The dominant arms are the lance, pike and crossbow.

The tercios of the 16th century began replacing the sword and buckler men with crossbows and pikes in almost even numbers, and then as we move into the 17th c, the pike itself begins to lose out to the musket. So in the late Renaissance, the dominant arms are pike, crossbow and gun, with the sword even less represented.

So when we look at the dominance of the spear in the armies of ancient Greece, amongst the Norse and Anglo Saxons, in the medieval world (both as the spear and lance and then later the pike), and on into the Renaissance, I think the sword clearly had its place, but in most cases it was not as the dominant weapon on the field, even when one type of unit made heavy use of it.

Hi Greg!

Thanks for your reply.

Certainly combined arms is always the way to go. I don't think any one weapon (before guns) could clearly be said to be dominant. Thinking about the Romans, it is true that the javelin with its ingenious barbed head in combination with the sword must have been no small part of their winning strategy. Thanks for providing the proportions of the Spanish combined arms. No argument here. It is also not a surprise that as guns developed the shield became less of a defense, and a man with a pike and a sword at his belt is obviously better prepared to face any enemy unit than a man with a sword and no shield. (It is interesting that the long pike in combination with the shield, such as used by Alexander, was never revived - I find this a little odd, but this is another question). I am only against the notion that the sword was in all times and for all units a secondary implement. This does seem to me to be taking things a bit far. I'd be curious in finding out a little more about the sword and shield as used in the numerous Italian wars of the middle ages. I could be wrong but I get the distinct impression that the sword and shield was a more common battlefield combination there than elsewhere in Europe.

I should add that in the Afghan wars of the 19th Century the sword and shield were the most common hand to hand armaments of the various Afghan and Indian forces - more common by far than pollarms. It was not used in the same ways as the Romans, of course.

Cheers,

Joseph