>giant swords
Yes. Think of the as strange ass spears. And they were used in a trained formation. Front row had shield and sword. These guys were 2nd line, jabbing and swiping at the enemy over the sheid line.
>Front row had shield and sword. These guys were 2nd line, jabbing and swiping at the enemy over the sheid line.
this is wrong, shields had fallen out of fashion when these were being used. These guys, rodeleros, and halberdiers were part of pike and shot formations and their job was to get in front of their own pike formations to disrupt enemy pike formations so that their own pike formations could stab them with spears.
Why do people like you insist on just making shit up?
https://i.imgur.com/sbOm8li.jpg
Did people really use these giant swords in real combat?
Yes, but rarely. They're very good as banner guards or bodyguards, or really any situation in which one man may want to engage a large number of men who have short weapons and lack full armor. They fell out of use relatively quickly, and were outnumbered by halberds even at their height.
>And they were used in a trained formation. Front row had shield and sword. These guys were 2nd line, jabbing and swiping at the enemy over the sheid line.
Where is the recent influx if morons just making shit up coming from?
There is one who will argue for hours on the basis of his made up bullshit in every WWII thread.
Not even subtle stuff either.
>Where is the recent influx if morons just making shit up coming from?
Ukraine war tourists. They saw some maps on X (formerly Twitter) and fancy themselves military experts now.
Swords were never used in combat except as a sidearm. Swords hold symbolic power in art and literature due to their association with ritual power - as the dagger that would kill sacrificial animals - and for this reason we often see them in the hands of heroes, but the reality was that throughout history the spear was the primary weapon of all infantry. Swords were never relevant. Ever.
Stop spreading made up bullshit what the hell
what do you gain from this?
No, Gods used them on battlefields. Imagine some guy in plate armor just swing this fricking thing at you full blast and you're wearing shitty chain maille at best. He cuts your motherfricking stupid leg right off and you hit the ground crying. A horse stomps on your shoulder crushing your clavicle and collapsing a lung. A guy beside you gets decapitated and you're blinded by his neck blood. All you can do is lie there listening to screams and smashes until you're literally suffocated by a mound of bloody corpses falling on top of you over the next 10 minutes.
In 1361 there was a battle on Gotland in the Baltic Sea called the battle of Visby, professional/mercenary army vs rebelling farmers. One of the farmers had both of his legs cut off from underneath him with one slash from what was probably a two-handed sword of some sort.
>village blacksmith hasn't slept in a week to convert all those farm tools into spears >fricking landknecht shows up looking like an absolute flamboyant homosexual >get pelted by crossbowmen, half the village's son die on the spot >get rushed at by madmen with 8foot swords
Imagine having to face someone with an 8 foot sword as an emaciated farmer. Really puts a dampener on your rebellious spirit.
They weren't 8ft, stop being morons.
Swords were never used in combat except as a sidearm. Swords hold symbolic power in art and literature due to their association with ritual power - as the dagger that would kill sacrificial animals - and for this reason we often see them in the hands of heroes, but the reality was that throughout history the spear was the primary weapon of all infantry. Swords were never relevant. Ever.
Two-handed swords as you're imagining them did not exist in 1361, nor were they present at Visby. Reisläufer and Landsknecht popularized them in pike blocks well over 100+ years later. Stop making shit up moron
to add to this I'm absolutely tired of you pop-history plebbitors shitting up any historical discussion with made up shit. Asking dumb questions or having a rough but inaccurate idea of history is fine, that's its own thing. Baseding out and shitting fake historical facts out of your ass is moronic. You're like those kids that would make shit up about video games on the playground
Type XIIa dates from the mid 13th century, Grandes épées de guerre absolutely were used during the late crusades and were two-handers, though they were somehow short-lived. Still doesn't mean there was any at Visby or that you can know that a two-hander was used just by a wound.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Type XII dates from the 12th-13th centuries but is just the categorized architecture of the sword, XIIa is specifically 14th century and absolutely doesn't qualify as the implied greatsword(tm) or zweihander implied by the other poster. The 'Late Crusades' is also extremely vague considering they technically extend into the later 16th century
4 months ago
Anonymous
in addition there were cleavers in use during the 13th and 14th centuries but they don't really follow the same form or function of later pike-block swords
4 months ago
Anonymous
>absolutely doesn't qualify as the implied greatsword(tm) or zweihander implied by the other poster
This I can't disagree. By late crusades I meant 13th century then again you're right that it was vague.
Then again, you don't need a two-handed sword specifically to cut a leg in two, though it certainly helps. Cleavers and glaives would be perfectly able to so I too don't know where these hypothetical Visby greatswords would come from, though there are several examples that are contemporary of the battle.
In 1361 there was a battle on Gotland in the Baltic Sea called the battle of Visby, professional/mercenary army vs rebelling farmers. One of the farmers had both of his legs cut off from underneath him with one slash from what was probably a two-handed sword of some sort.
Some battlefields had remains on them that could attest these swordsmen were occasionally strong enough to slice through bone, severing the target's limb clean through.
2bh early firearms were kind of seen as a fad and weren't that effective
they took way longer to prep between shots than a bow or crossbow and were useless in wet/damp weather; even on dry days the reliability was dubious at best with matchlock.
they had a serious psychological impact though, because you couldn't see the projectile coming nor could you defeat it with any armor of the time
Interesting, I wonder how much this changed history. I ask because I'm listening to my life with the eskimo, and he talks about how heaps of eskimo tribes were trading their caribou skins and clothing for less efficient southern clothing just cause white people wore them and were a fad. even if they froze, pretty interesting psychology
The history is way more layered than that. In one of the most specific historical instances, it was actually a traveling tribe that 'sold' another tribes lands. Often, what it really was, was the Indians were negotiating for land access, which the white people reinterpreted into land ownership.
>Often, what it really was, was the Indians were negotiating for land access, which the white people reinterpreted into land ownership.
This is moronic cope. Often what it really was, is the natives didn't own it to begin with.
>they took way longer to prep between shots than a bow or crossbow and were useless in wet/damp weather; >because you couldn't see the projectile coming nor could you defeat it with any armor of the time
I believe there was a few englishmen who wanted to bring back some longbowmen even in the 1800s or the reasons you point out. What was the main advantage of firearms is that they effectively had no counter to them armor-wise, excluding "proofed" breastplates which were certainly not the norm for a variety of reasons.
They honestly might have had a point, as soldiers wore less and less armor the more prominent guns became on the battlefield. By integrating longbowmen who were at least partially countered by well armored knights (inb4 Agincourt), you could inflict pretty devastating casualties onto the lightly armored soldiers. Though I'm talking about flintlocks here, matchlocks were still effective as flintlocks for shooting through plate armor with exception of the proofed armor as mentioned before.
Wasn't a mix of bows and guns how the Native Americans operated? Certainly, they weren't without their tactical successes, but I wonder if the eventual extinction of the archer even among their ranks came from how badly they attritioned, even if their equipment was ostensibly easier for most tribes to procure than muskets.
Yeah. The Native Americans were like the Japanese -- they had cultural weapons, but the moment they got the taste of gunpowder and lead they became addicted, lmao.
No. They used bows when they couldn't get guns,but that's it. They're skirmishers, they naturally preferred the flst shooting weapon they could hold ready to shoot until a target exposed the self, and then shoot crouching or laying down in cover behind a tree over the weapon that couldn't do that.
No. The longbow crowd was a pack of FRICKING morons, they got called out for this hundreds of years before that. Longbows get utterly dominated by guns and crossbows in sieges and skirmishes, which are the vast majority of warfare, and offer no real advantage in a pitched battle unless the other side does something stupid and hands you the battle. Nobody but the English actually used them, and nobody tried very hard to adopt them. And not because they couldn't, either.
>they don’t do well in the open field or in skirmishes
They do, they also were used in naval warfare. Half of the reason the English army was effective as it was during the 100 Years War was the advantages of lots of mounted archers. Longbows punched through the lighter armor of footmen and repeated impacts disoriented and pummeled knights to the point of effective incapacitation. These archers were also effective hand to hand combatants. Like holy shit Black person, the longbow was effective until everyone was running around with partial plate armor.
Longbows did jack shit to knights unless given a moronic advantage in the form of wildly favorable terrain, and incredibly dum tactics by a foe who mostly ignores them.
This is very plainly demonstrated in numerous battles, with longbows utterly failing to stop french charges, the french continuously doing shit like attacking up hills, across mud, or into hedges, while literally ignoring the longbows to attack the English men at arms.
At Agincourt, a few hundred knights opened the action by riding into the English to clear the archers. Through the mud, and the stakes, head on, because the french decided to engage despite the terrain being too narrow for their army to deploy correctly.
A few hundred men vs 5000-7000 archers. Period accounts have them contemptuously throwing their arms open to give the archers clear shots. Most of them survived to be captured, including the man leading it, despite a ratio of anywhere from 30-120 arrows loosed per man. The infantry then engaged, ignored the bowmen, and let them pelt their flanks at close range with arrows. The English shot every arrow they had.
The archers had to resort to charging the french flanks, because, again, the bows weren't enough even under completely ideal conditions. Take away the advantages and they just get run the frick over.
>Muh navy
No other European naval power bothered. They used crossbows, because, again, you can operate it in cover. >Skirmishes
We literally have writings from English captains explaining everything I just told you. All other things being equal, crossbowmen will shoot first in a skirmish, because they can walk about ready to shoot, and can then get into cover and only expose their head/arms shoulders to shoot. They can also sit and watch where they know you are and shoot you when you pop up. Archers can't. Same for sieges.
The English clung to the longbow, but literally nobody else bothered aside from a very half assed attempt by the french.
>Longbows punched through the lighter armor of footmen and repeated impacts disoriented and pummeled kni...ACK!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Patay
it's a bit of stretch to call a weapon a fad when it never left military service, continuously evolved, and eventually replaced all other forms of weaponry.
they're a lot lighter than they appear and the huge grip gives you lots of leverage. you can swing it like a comically large sword or spread your hands and use it more like a spear.
They did, but not anymore. Maybe they will come back if you create some kind of power armor that can stop any small arms fire while making you really fast and agile.
Yes but no. They weren't used how you see in games or movies. They basically were just a mixture of a sword and spear in one. The manuals and treatises show that they were typically used as a part of a formation. Protecting or guarding their friendlies or an important target. The supposed use of them "sweeping" enemy pikes or spears out of the way is questionable. I imagine the average pikeman would see a greatsword user coming from a mile away, and simply retract the spear or move it out of the way when the greatsword dude swung towards him. NGL Seeing people swing them around and create room looks really cool though. I've heard it was good for defending against multiple attackers.
>I imagine the average pikeman would see a greatsword user coming from a mile away, and simply retract the spear or move it out of the way
yes but that is counterproductive because pikemen are in formation and the doppelsoldner is actively trying to get past the ends of the pikes themselves so he can hit the pikemen with a sword and break up their formation.
the only thing that comes to mind is the green standard army in the qing military. They fielded zhan ma daos, big ass two handed chopper swords/kind of polearm swords. That were designed for chopping down horses and mounted cavalry. They were used as a heavy infantry force and used tactically. They didn't just throw them into the initial charge to get mowed down by arrows and mounted troops. Instead the qing would usually attack with cavalry or arrow volleys and when the enemy was responding to it they'd flank with the heavy two handed sword infantry to deal huge decisive damage to the enemies' mounted troops while their mobility and cohesion was jostled. Then when the enemy would rally, the swordsman would fall back and mounted forces or spear men would take their place. The green standard army was mostly spear man, polearms, cavalry, and archery. But the two handed "horse cutting sword" heavy infantry had a specialized role especially in a military meta where horse mounted warfare was the standard.
I could be wrong because I haven't done enough research and chinese military history is really nuanced complicated and often intentionally recorded incorrectly. But I think the tang dynasty also used large numbers of two handed swordsmen to combat northern, what would be mongols in a few hundred years, mounted cavalry attacks.
Swords were never used in combat except as a sidearm. Swords hold symbolic power in art and literature due to their association with ritual power - as the dagger that would kill sacrificial animals - and for this reason we often see them in the hands of heroes, but the reality was that throughout history the spear was the primary weapon of all infantry. Swords were never relevant. Ever.
>Roman Empire >joke
Yes. The empire did nothing but feast on the corpse of the republic. Even its military successes were simply because it inherited the republic's institutions and traditions. When the wealth, traditions and institutions eventually withered to nothing, the empire fell.
I didn’t ask the question and your answer didn’t address swords being the primary weapon of Roman soldiers. You just rambled about their political system.
reading the absolute nonsense being peddled in this thread, by about 75% of the posts, I cant help think that /k/ really does know almost nothing about history, and almost nothing about weapons, combat, warfare, tactics, or strategy.
>In real history swords were basically ceremonial weapons.
swords were carried on the battlefield
and training manuals on how to effectively use them existed
>Actual fighters used maces or spears.
they did use spears, in combination with their swords
but the flanged mace we see as the definitive the mace wasnt widespread in western europe until the 1100s, well after the sword had established itself as a widespread arm
I don't know where this bullshit myth came from
Theres a reason every battlefield archeological site is absolutely littered with swords, and theres hundreds(at least) of human remains with giant sword wounds that will attest to their battlefield usage
No I've been hearing it everywhere for years. I guess it probably came from people finding out swords are overrepresented in entertainment, and since npc minds can only think in black and white they immediately too this to the extreme and are claiming less battlefield use means zero
>I guess it probably came from people finding out swords are overrepresented in entertainment
its the monty python effect
they had a huge interest in history, so they knew that fairy tales and arthurian tales and such made the olden days too glamorous
so they made life of brian and holy grail with the nastier bits like bad hygeine, disease, and crap everywhere to derive comedy
exaggerated for comedy, they knew this, but it has led to a worldwide shift in perception that anyone from the past is a disgusting slob
ignoring of course, that history has both its clean and dirty sides and that medieval people did want to be clean if they could help it
and while bathing did actually go out of fashion, they still washed their hands and face using things called wash bowls
A lot of "The past was an awful place of filth and suffering" meme actually derives from Mark Twain getting pissy about how popular "Ivanhoe" was with slave owners.
"A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" was written specifically to denigrate the image of the past that was presented in Ivanhoe, because Twain was pissy at plantation owners who loved the imagery of Ivanhoe.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>written specifically to denigrate the image of the past that was presented in Ivanhoe
I really enjoyed how he presented the captive knights being paraded around the meadhall and being made to stand there with gaping festering wounds as the victors partied like they were red Indians back from a raiding party
My biggest pet peeve is the meme of >hurr if you got a small cut it’d probably get infected and you’d die
If that was remotely true humans would’ve gone extinct long before the Middle Ages. Also people surviving battle wounds was certainly a thing.
I've seen a lot of 'sword wasn't the primary battlefield weapon in most ancient/medieval armies', which is true, but 'just a ceremonial piece' is a moronic troll attempt.
I love military history and i like coming to /k/ from time to time to correct misconceptions and such but even I am not even going to bother this clusterfrick thread.
If it hasn't already been explained by another autist.
Atleast one of the main uses of a big long bastard or two handed sword was in a spear-like fashion.
Range is its most obvious advantage, and horses while fast, dont have a lot of lateral agility or movement.
Of course you have to contend with lances and other measures but maybe they werent compatible with the field or circumstance or context, and in that niche it emerges.
Atleast it one demonstration, its leaned back up against the shoulder with the bulk of the weight above your center of mass, and then you charge or lunge forward, pushing it off the shoulder and using its weight to help with a downward slash, or more forward thrust into a charging man/horse.
With a marginally smaller or lighter twohander, at the expense of a lot of energy, lateral swings or even spins could mmmmaybe force an area of control keep back several hesitating men, pretty speculative and maybe more an attempt at validating more decorative performative swordsmanship.
They also just look really cool and make you look cool for carrying them.
I think any sort of consistent recorded success against multiple opponents should be met with skepticism though.
Seems more like a desperate defensive or flight tactic.
No one said anything about a guy cutting up a bunch of people like in a Berserk anime. It's AREA DENIAL that's being mentioned. Meaning that it would be really hard for people to close in on a guy swinging a very long sword around, it's a lot easier for people to close in on a guy swinging a spear around because only the tip of the spear is dangerous. Or a short sword because they can easily get within their own stabbing distance with their similarly sized weapons. These big swords were typically twice as long as average swords, axes, and clubs and made the margin and error that much smaller for whoever wanted to time a swing and come in with an attack of their own. Remember, there weren't really hospitals back then or actual antibiotics. A cut, especially a deep one, could lead to your death later due to infection or complications, so very few people were going to risk pushing in on a guy doing figure eight swings with that blade. It was a niche weapon mostly used during a specific era, but when it worked, it worked well. Like the other anon said, there's plenty of documentation if common sense isn't working for you. Not to mention that it also gave you a spear like advantage over people with much shorter weaponry. So even stabbing with it was very useful.
btw, but if you’re a big guy hired to protect a carriage traveling through the country you take a great sword. Then when six bandits with single swords try to rob it, you start spinning around in circles with it and the bandits nope out of there, because it’s not worth trying to take you out.
lots of case studies to point to.
1) germans had longswordsmen using this sort of shit, as a special category of infantry responsible for cutting the heads off the enemies spears, pikes, and polearms with this kind of a sword, and the units doing this had such high fatality rates that they had unique uniform permissions among all the germanic armies in the holy roman empire for this.
2) "dao" the word in chinese, meaning "knife" or "sword", is the second half of the particle "pudao" or "big knife" or "horse cutter" or "chopping spear" or however you want to think of it. Part of the tradition here is that "a family sword" is a sword in peace, but then assembled into a longer polearm in times of war.
3) the japanese version of this includes extremely large swords that are effectively half polearm, like the daikatana, that fill this kind of role
4) the cheap version of this is combat axes, and a dane axe or a polish war axe are very comparable in use, if more broadly usable elsewhere also
You had more leverage than with a spear, so youd pay a guy double pay to go in front and smack away spears to create a temporary opening in an enemy formation for others to exploit.
ive heard that in medieval times size differences among people were more pronounced than today. nobility was notably taller and almost as tall as modern humans whereas the common folk where midgets when compared to todays standard.
average heights were about 1 inch shorter. Yes, nobility probably were taller on average, due to better nutrition. but the medieval lower classes' diet was not nearly as bad as you would think.
The main era when people were significantly shorter was in fact the industrial revolution, where people who were born and grew up in the early expanding cities were not receiving a decent nutrition - particularly fresh fruit and veg, and that resulted in a significant reduction in average heights over the modern standards, and a whole host of childhood illnesses like rickets, which were caused by dietary malnutrition.
because there was no central heating, and small doorways let less heat out.
and in castles, etc, a small doorway means you have to lean down to go through - perfect to have your head smacked with a mace as you enter, and cant defend yourself.
Sounds like bullshit.
I'm gonna need someone with a phd to say the same thing before I accept that. It is hard to believe that medieval architects were that incompetent.
yeah
>giant swords
Yes. Think of the as strange ass spears. And they were used in a trained formation. Front row had shield and sword. These guys were 2nd line, jabbing and swiping at the enemy over the sheid line.
>Front row had shield and sword. These guys were 2nd line, jabbing and swiping at the enemy over the sheid line.
this is wrong, shields had fallen out of fashion when these were being used. These guys, rodeleros, and halberdiers were part of pike and shot formations and their job was to get in front of their own pike formations to disrupt enemy pike formations so that their own pike formations could stab them with spears.
Why do people like you insist on just making shit up?
Yes, but rarely. They're very good as banner guards or bodyguards, or really any situation in which one man may want to engage a large number of men who have short weapons and lack full armor. They fell out of use relatively quickly, and were outnumbered by halberds even at their height.
>And they were used in a trained formation. Front row had shield and sword. These guys were 2nd line, jabbing and swiping at the enemy over the sheid line.
Where is the recent influx if morons just making shit up coming from?
There is one who will argue for hours on the basis of his made up bullshit in every WWII thread.
Not even subtle stuff either.
between that guy and the "le landsknecht cut a guy's legs off at Visby" I don't know who gets the moron crown
>Where is the recent influx if morons just making shit up coming from?
Ukraine war tourists. They saw some maps on X (formerly Twitter) and fancy themselves military experts now.
>Where is the recent influx if morons just making shit up coming from
original sources brah
anon..i say this out of genuine concern, get your eyes checked out. There are no shields anywhere in those pics, those are banners.
Stop spreading made up bullshit what the hell
what do you gain from this?
No, Gods used them on battlefields. Imagine some guy in plate armor just swing this fricking thing at you full blast and you're wearing shitty chain maille at best. He cuts your motherfricking stupid leg right off and you hit the ground crying. A horse stomps on your shoulder crushing your clavicle and collapsing a lung. A guy beside you gets decapitated and you're blinded by his neck blood. All you can do is lie there listening to screams and smashes until you're literally suffocated by a mound of bloody corpses falling on top of you over the next 10 minutes.
People were the victims.
In 1361 there was a battle on Gotland in the Baltic Sea called the battle of Visby, professional/mercenary army vs rebelling farmers. One of the farmers had both of his legs cut off from underneath him with one slash from what was probably a two-handed sword of some sort.
lmao imagine being a merc in the 14th century and you're getting paid a bag of literal gold to chop up emaciated farmers with an 8 foot sword
holy frick
Imagine having to face someone with an 8 foot sword as an emaciated farmer. Really puts a dampener on your rebellious spirit.
>village blacksmith hasn't slept in a week to convert all those farm tools into spears
>fricking landknecht shows up looking like an absolute flamboyant homosexual
>get pelted by crossbowmen, half the village's son die on the spot
>get rushed at by madmen with 8foot swords
>moron thinks landsknecht were present at Visby
go back to playing For Honor please
They weren't 8ft, stop being morons.
Wrong
me when i make things up
What?
Two-handed swords as you're imagining them did not exist in 1361, nor were they present at Visby. Reisläufer and Landsknecht popularized them in pike blocks well over 100+ years later. Stop making shit up moron
to add to this I'm absolutely tired of you pop-history plebbitors shitting up any historical discussion with made up shit. Asking dumb questions or having a rough but inaccurate idea of history is fine, that's its own thing. Baseding out and shitting fake historical facts out of your ass is moronic. You're like those kids that would make shit up about video games on the playground
Type XIIa dates from the mid 13th century, Grandes épées de guerre absolutely were used during the late crusades and were two-handers, though they were somehow short-lived. Still doesn't mean there was any at Visby or that you can know that a two-hander was used just by a wound.
Type XII dates from the 12th-13th centuries but is just the categorized architecture of the sword, XIIa is specifically 14th century and absolutely doesn't qualify as the implied greatsword(tm) or zweihander implied by the other poster. The 'Late Crusades' is also extremely vague considering they technically extend into the later 16th century
in addition there were cleavers in use during the 13th and 14th centuries but they don't really follow the same form or function of later pike-block swords
>absolutely doesn't qualify as the implied greatsword(tm) or zweihander implied by the other poster
This I can't disagree. By late crusades I meant 13th century then again you're right that it was vague.
Then again, you don't need a two-handed sword specifically to cut a leg in two, though it certainly helps. Cleavers and glaives would be perfectly able to so I too don't know where these hypothetical Visby greatswords would come from, though there are several examples that are contemporary of the battle.
Some battlefields had remains on them that could attest these swordsmen were occasionally strong enough to slice through bone, severing the target's limb clean through.
Did people use certain weapons cause they were fads, even though something else would be better for performance?
2bh early firearms were kind of seen as a fad and weren't that effective
they took way longer to prep between shots than a bow or crossbow and were useless in wet/damp weather; even on dry days the reliability was dubious at best with matchlock.
they had a serious psychological impact though, because you couldn't see the projectile coming nor could you defeat it with any armor of the time
Interesting, I wonder how much this changed history. I ask because I'm listening to my life with the eskimo, and he talks about how heaps of eskimo tribes were trading their caribou skins and clothing for less efficient southern clothing just cause white people wore them and were a fad. even if they froze, pretty interesting psychology
yeah injuns were pretty dumb, I think they traded the island of Manhattan for a few bottles of whisky too
Probably still would.
The history is way more layered than that. In one of the most specific historical instances, it was actually a traveling tribe that 'sold' another tribes lands. Often, what it really was, was the Indians were negotiating for land access, which the white people reinterpreted into land ownership.
>Often, what it really was, was the Indians were negotiating for land access, which the white people reinterpreted into land ownership.
This is moronic cope. Often what it really was, is the natives didn't own it to begin with.
>they took way longer to prep between shots than a bow or crossbow and were useless in wet/damp weather;
>because you couldn't see the projectile coming nor could you defeat it with any armor of the time
I believe there was a few englishmen who wanted to bring back some longbowmen even in the 1800s or the reasons you point out. What was the main advantage of firearms is that they effectively had no counter to them armor-wise, excluding "proofed" breastplates which were certainly not the norm for a variety of reasons.
They honestly might have had a point, as soldiers wore less and less armor the more prominent guns became on the battlefield. By integrating longbowmen who were at least partially countered by well armored knights (inb4 Agincourt), you could inflict pretty devastating casualties onto the lightly armored soldiers. Though I'm talking about flintlocks here, matchlocks were still effective as flintlocks for shooting through plate armor with exception of the proofed armor as mentioned before.
Wasn't a mix of bows and guns how the Native Americans operated? Certainly, they weren't without their tactical successes, but I wonder if the eventual extinction of the archer even among their ranks came from how badly they attritioned, even if their equipment was ostensibly easier for most tribes to procure than muskets.
Yeah. The Native Americans were like the Japanese -- they had cultural weapons, but the moment they got the taste of gunpowder and lead they became addicted, lmao.
No. They used bows when they couldn't get guns,but that's it. They're skirmishers, they naturally preferred the flst shooting weapon they could hold ready to shoot until a target exposed the self, and then shoot crouching or laying down in cover behind a tree over the weapon that couldn't do that.
No. The longbow crowd was a pack of FRICKING morons, they got called out for this hundreds of years before that. Longbows get utterly dominated by guns and crossbows in sieges and skirmishes, which are the vast majority of warfare, and offer no real advantage in a pitched battle unless the other side does something stupid and hands you the battle. Nobody but the English actually used them, and nobody tried very hard to adopt them. And not because they couldn't, either.
>they don’t do well in the open field or in skirmishes
They do, they also were used in naval warfare. Half of the reason the English army was effective as it was during the 100 Years War was the advantages of lots of mounted archers. Longbows punched through the lighter armor of footmen and repeated impacts disoriented and pummeled knights to the point of effective incapacitation. These archers were also effective hand to hand combatants. Like holy shit Black person, the longbow was effective until everyone was running around with partial plate armor.
Longbows did jack shit to knights unless given a moronic advantage in the form of wildly favorable terrain, and incredibly dum tactics by a foe who mostly ignores them.
This is very plainly demonstrated in numerous battles, with longbows utterly failing to stop french charges, the french continuously doing shit like attacking up hills, across mud, or into hedges, while literally ignoring the longbows to attack the English men at arms.
At Agincourt, a few hundred knights opened the action by riding into the English to clear the archers. Through the mud, and the stakes, head on, because the french decided to engage despite the terrain being too narrow for their army to deploy correctly.
A few hundred men vs 5000-7000 archers. Period accounts have them contemptuously throwing their arms open to give the archers clear shots. Most of them survived to be captured, including the man leading it, despite a ratio of anywhere from 30-120 arrows loosed per man. The infantry then engaged, ignored the bowmen, and let them pelt their flanks at close range with arrows. The English shot every arrow they had.
The archers had to resort to charging the french flanks, because, again, the bows weren't enough even under completely ideal conditions. Take away the advantages and they just get run the frick over.
>Muh navy
No other European naval power bothered. They used crossbows, because, again, you can operate it in cover.
>Skirmishes
We literally have writings from English captains explaining everything I just told you. All other things being equal, crossbowmen will shoot first in a skirmish, because they can walk about ready to shoot, and can then get into cover and only expose their head/arms shoulders to shoot. They can also sit and watch where they know you are and shoot you when you pop up. Archers can't. Same for sieges.
The English clung to the longbow, but literally nobody else bothered aside from a very half assed attempt by the french.
>Longbows punched through the lighter armor of footmen and repeated impacts disoriented and pummeled kni...ACK!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Patay
it's a bit of stretch to call a weapon a fad when it never left military service, continuously evolved, and eventually replaced all other forms of weaponry.
Absolutely, same with uniforms.
Are they fighting for the woman and the black dress?
No, swords were never real
Just a bunch of bullshit fantasy writers made up
they're a lot lighter than they appear and the huge grip gives you lots of leverage. you can swing it like a comically large sword or spread your hands and use it more like a spear.
would
its unlikely but not implausible
They did, but not anymore. Maybe they will come back if you create some kind of power armor that can stop any small arms fire while making you really fast and agile.
Yes but no. They weren't used how you see in games or movies. They basically were just a mixture of a sword and spear in one. The manuals and treatises show that they were typically used as a part of a formation. Protecting or guarding their friendlies or an important target. The supposed use of them "sweeping" enemy pikes or spears out of the way is questionable. I imagine the average pikeman would see a greatsword user coming from a mile away, and simply retract the spear or move it out of the way when the greatsword dude swung towards him. NGL Seeing people swing them around and create room looks really cool though. I've heard it was good for defending against multiple attackers.
>I imagine the average pikeman would see a greatsword user coming from a mile away, and simply retract the spear or move it out of the way
yes but that is counterproductive because pikemen are in formation and the doppelsoldner is actively trying to get past the ends of the pikes themselves so he can hit the pikemen with a sword and break up their formation.
You withdraw it and thrust. Slipping the pint of your weapon away from a beat and then stabbing the guy is very easy
Why not? They dont weigh anything, you have played too much dark souls if you think swinging 2 handed sword is slow and hard
Yes. Doppelsoldner typically use it against Pike infantry.
They were used by bodyguards, or in situations where one person would fight multiple opponents.
Great video that demonstrates how a massive sword is handled:
?si=kDUBhmH2xd5ZDPl_
the only thing that comes to mind is the green standard army in the qing military. They fielded zhan ma daos, big ass two handed chopper swords/kind of polearm swords. That were designed for chopping down horses and mounted cavalry. They were used as a heavy infantry force and used tactically. They didn't just throw them into the initial charge to get mowed down by arrows and mounted troops. Instead the qing would usually attack with cavalry or arrow volleys and when the enemy was responding to it they'd flank with the heavy two handed sword infantry to deal huge decisive damage to the enemies' mounted troops while their mobility and cohesion was jostled. Then when the enemy would rally, the swordsman would fall back and mounted forces or spear men would take their place. The green standard army was mostly spear man, polearms, cavalry, and archery. But the two handed "horse cutting sword" heavy infantry had a specialized role especially in a military meta where horse mounted warfare was the standard.
I could be wrong because I haven't done enough research and chinese military history is really nuanced complicated and often intentionally recorded incorrectly. But I think the tang dynasty also used large numbers of two handed swordsmen to combat northern, what would be mongols in a few hundred years, mounted cavalry attacks.
Neat stuff. Really a world unto itself, Chinese history.
https://hroarr.com/article/the-use-of-the-german-battle-sword-in-the-late-16th-and-early-17th-century/
Swords were never used in combat except as a sidearm. Swords hold symbolic power in art and literature due to their association with ritual power - as the dagger that would kill sacrificial animals - and for this reason we often see them in the hands of heroes, but the reality was that throughout history the spear was the primary weapon of all infantry. Swords were never relevant. Ever.
Roman Empire: Am I a joke to you?
>Roman Empire
>joke
Yes. The empire did nothing but feast on the corpse of the republic. Even its military successes were simply because it inherited the republic's institutions and traditions. When the wealth, traditions and institutions eventually withered to nothing, the empire fell.
weapons?
You asked the question. Don't get mad and plead that the answer is off topic. Also:
>Even its military successes...
I didn’t ask the question and your answer didn’t address swords being the primary weapon of Roman soldiers. You just rambled about their political system.
The Roman Republic also used the Gladius extensively, you're argument fails it'self.
Redditor.
>breaking into pike blocks
>zoning weapon in prestige body guard units (same for larger axes, e.g. Varangian Guard, Stamford Bridge rearguard Chad)
reading the absolute nonsense being peddled in this thread, by about 75% of the posts, I cant help think that /k/ really does know almost nothing about history, and almost nothing about weapons, combat, warfare, tactics, or strategy.
MFW reading this nonsense:
/k/ is a pack of illiterate morons, and has only grown worse over time.
depressingly, you're probably right.
and I can't see it getting any better.
No. In real history swords were basically ceremonial weapons.
Actual fighters used maces or spears.
>In real history swords were basically ceremonial weapons.
swords were carried on the battlefield
and training manuals on how to effectively use them existed
>Actual fighters used maces or spears.
they did use spears, in combination with their swords
but the flanged mace we see as the definitive the mace wasnt widespread in western europe until the 1100s, well after the sword had established itself as a widespread arm
I don't know where this bullshit myth came from
Theres a reason every battlefield archeological site is absolutely littered with swords, and theres hundreds(at least) of human remains with giant sword wounds that will attest to their battlefield usage
I doubt it's really a myth, more likely just one moronic homosexuals epic trole attempt
No I've been hearing it everywhere for years. I guess it probably came from people finding out swords are overrepresented in entertainment, and since npc minds can only think in black and white they immediately too this to the extreme and are claiming less battlefield use means zero
>I guess it probably came from people finding out swords are overrepresented in entertainment
its the monty python effect
they had a huge interest in history, so they knew that fairy tales and arthurian tales and such made the olden days too glamorous
so they made life of brian and holy grail with the nastier bits like bad hygeine, disease, and crap everywhere to derive comedy
exaggerated for comedy, they knew this, but it has led to a worldwide shift in perception that anyone from the past is a disgusting slob
ignoring of course, that history has both its clean and dirty sides and that medieval people did want to be clean if they could help it
and while bathing did actually go out of fashion, they still washed their hands and face using things called wash bowls
A lot of "The past was an awful place of filth and suffering" meme actually derives from Mark Twain getting pissy about how popular "Ivanhoe" was with slave owners.
"A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" was written specifically to denigrate the image of the past that was presented in Ivanhoe, because Twain was pissy at plantation owners who loved the imagery of Ivanhoe.
>written specifically to denigrate the image of the past that was presented in Ivanhoe
I really enjoyed how he presented the captive knights being paraded around the meadhall and being made to stand there with gaping festering wounds as the victors partied like they were red Indians back from a raiding party
My biggest pet peeve is the meme of
>hurr if you got a small cut it’d probably get infected and you’d die
If that was remotely true humans would’ve gone extinct long before the Middle Ages. Also people surviving battle wounds was certainly a thing.
I've seen a lot of 'sword wasn't the primary battlefield weapon in most ancient/medieval armies', which is true, but 'just a ceremonial piece' is a moronic troll attempt.
No, swords are made-up things. All battles in the history of mankind have been fought with guns, as god intended.
Yeah but probably more like spears. Slashing with something so heavy isn't viable.
it's not that heavy
I love military history and i like coming to /k/ from time to time to correct misconceptions and such but even I am not even going to bother this clusterfrick thread.
If it hasn't already been explained by another autist.
Atleast one of the main uses of a big long bastard or two handed sword was in a spear-like fashion.
Range is its most obvious advantage, and horses while fast, dont have a lot of lateral agility or movement.
Of course you have to contend with lances and other measures but maybe they werent compatible with the field or circumstance or context, and in that niche it emerges.
Atleast it one demonstration, its leaned back up against the shoulder with the bulk of the weight above your center of mass, and then you charge or lunge forward, pushing it off the shoulder and using its weight to help with a downward slash, or more forward thrust into a charging man/horse.
With a marginally smaller or lighter twohander, at the expense of a lot of energy, lateral swings or even spins could mmmmaybe force an area of control keep back several hesitating men, pretty speculative and maybe more an attempt at validating more decorative performative swordsmanship.
They also just look really cool and make you look cool for carrying them.
>lateral swings or even spins could mmmmaybe force an area of control
It’s very well documented they were used for exactly this.
I think any sort of consistent recorded success against multiple opponents should be met with skepticism though.
Seems more like a desperate defensive or flight tactic.
No one said anything about a guy cutting up a bunch of people like in a Berserk anime. It's AREA DENIAL that's being mentioned. Meaning that it would be really hard for people to close in on a guy swinging a very long sword around, it's a lot easier for people to close in on a guy swinging a spear around because only the tip of the spear is dangerous. Or a short sword because they can easily get within their own stabbing distance with their similarly sized weapons. These big swords were typically twice as long as average swords, axes, and clubs and made the margin and error that much smaller for whoever wanted to time a swing and come in with an attack of their own. Remember, there weren't really hospitals back then or actual antibiotics. A cut, especially a deep one, could lead to your death later due to infection or complications, so very few people were going to risk pushing in on a guy doing figure eight swings with that blade. It was a niche weapon mostly used during a specific era, but when it worked, it worked well. Like the other anon said, there's plenty of documentation if common sense isn't working for you. Not to mention that it also gave you a spear like advantage over people with much shorter weaponry. So even stabbing with it was very useful.
i aint reading all that shit especially with a response in poor faith
btw, but if you’re a big guy hired to protect a carriage traveling through the country you take a great sword. Then when six bandits with single swords try to rob it, you start spinning around in circles with it and the bandits nope out of there, because it’s not worth trying to take you out.
nta not btw
ducking auto correct
lots of case studies to point to.
1) germans had longswordsmen using this sort of shit, as a special category of infantry responsible for cutting the heads off the enemies spears, pikes, and polearms with this kind of a sword, and the units doing this had such high fatality rates that they had unique uniform permissions among all the germanic armies in the holy roman empire for this.
2) "dao" the word in chinese, meaning "knife" or "sword", is the second half of the particle "pudao" or "big knife" or "horse cutter" or "chopping spear" or however you want to think of it. Part of the tradition here is that "a family sword" is a sword in peace, but then assembled into a longer polearm in times of war.
3) the japanese version of this includes extremely large swords that are effectively half polearm, like the daikatana, that fill this kind of role
4) the cheap version of this is combat axes, and a dane axe or a polish war axe are very comparable in use, if more broadly usable elsewhere also
You had more leverage than with a spear, so youd pay a guy double pay to go in front and smack away spears to create a temporary opening in an enemy formation for others to exploit.
>Did people really use these giant swords in real combat?
Some Do...
ive heard that in medieval times size differences among people were more pronounced than today. nobility was notably taller and almost as tall as modern humans whereas the common folk where midgets when compared to todays standard.
not particularly accurate.
average heights were about 1 inch shorter. Yes, nobility probably were taller on average, due to better nutrition. but the medieval lower classes' diet was not nearly as bad as you would think.
The main era when people were significantly shorter was in fact the industrial revolution, where people who were born and grew up in the early expanding cities were not receiving a decent nutrition - particularly fresh fruit and veg, and that resulted in a significant reduction in average heights over the modern standards, and a whole host of childhood illnesses like rickets, which were caused by dietary malnutrition.
then why are doorways from back then all 5" tall? did they just enjoy squeezing through door ways for no particular reason?
because there was no central heating, and small doorways let less heat out.
and in castles, etc, a small doorway means you have to lean down to go through - perfect to have your head smacked with a mace as you enter, and cant defend yourself.
Sounds like bullshit.
I'm gonna need someone with a phd to say the same thing before I accept that. It is hard to believe that medieval architects were that incompetent.
At least by the napoleonic area, most grenadier units required soldiers to be over six foot, so it couldn’t have been too uncommon.
Giant swords were the single most fun I've ever had with any weapon or martial art style.
It is a travesty that war no longer allows for them.