And once again, that is nothing more than a myth. A sword requires a lot more training to use well in combat, it has less reach and it's more expensive and harder to craft. The spear, in contrast, is very easy to use, very long and very cheap. So it makes sense to equip the majority of soldiers with spears. But spears also have drawbacks. They are practically unusable indoors. It is very easy for the enemy to push aside the tip of your spear, even more-so with the round Viking shields. Shorter spears, like those used during that age, were also commonly thrown. You need a backup weapon. And the swords is an excellent sidearm. It is small and slim enough to wear on your side, while still allowing it to be used. A sword (or axe) is a great weapon to use alongside a center-gripped round shield. In fact, a center-gripped shield is rather bad if you're just going to use it with a spear. It easily pivots around the hand if it receives a thrust near the edges, which is a quick way to get yourself or the guy next to you stabbed. If you're actually using the shield proactively like with a sword or axe, it can be used in a similar manner to sword & buckler. A little example in this video if the timestamp 3:06 works:
https://youtu.be/oQo7FjxjHSg?t=186
The whole video is pretty interesting too. It shows a lot of the sword & shield's strong point: binding with the opponent. That's the whole advantage with this type of shield.
I'm not denying that the sword was also a symbol of status, but it definitely was a lot more than just that.
A sword was considered at most your sidearm for the most of the Middle Ages. Though generalities rarely hold up over an entire continent over a near 1,000 year period, the vast majority of cultures and soldiers from your regular peasant levy to the knight wouldn't have been using their sword in war. Maybe in duels, sure, but not in war. In battle, a knight would use his sword only as a last resort. Most medieval armors would be utterly immune to a sword and would require the user to jab through (if fighting plate, in which case gg no re give up) they'd have to jab through the visor or pray to got they get a 1 in a million jab through the chainmail links, assuming their chain is shit.
If fighting something like a gambeson or chainmail... well you're still fucked, because the sword can't slash through either and it probably won't be able to stab without a lot of effort, effort you won't be getting assuming your opponent knows you're there.
There's simply too many weapons that are so much better than a sword that it never saw much use in medieval warfare.
that vid was rebuffed
This is a pre-Viking sword... it predates the Middle Ages my dude. The post above yours explicitly describes main-line use of swords by pagan and Viking fighters. The armors and fighting techniques you're discussing didn't exist when this sword was made.
The further back the time period then the more accurate what I said is. In the viking age, they would be using spears because they are extremely cheaper for use, the only periods where swords start becoming actually relevant is Rome with the gladius and then the late Middle Ages where swords basically started becoming spears.
It's King Arthur sending a message. He's coming to save Britain in it's darkest hour.
About the later Middle Ages knight's weaponry: A knight's last resort was his dagger, not his sword. The sword was a viable alternative to his primary weapon, the lance. In a battle, a knight would likely lose his lance. Frequently knights could get back to the rear lines, where he would be handed a new lance. In France, I believe, it was considered shameful to come back with an intact lance after a skirmish. The knight needs a good weapon to both attack and defend himself after he has broken his lance. That is the sword. A perfectly fine weapon if the user is experienced with it. The only reason why the lance was preferred is because of it's reach, and the 14th century invention of the arrêt de cuirasse, or lance rest. When the lance is couched underneath the armpit, this secures, "arrests" , the lance firmly to the user, considerably increasing the force of the impact. This turned the lance from a light cavalry weapon to a heavy shock cavalry one-hit wonder.
About the armour: A sword works perfectly fine against armour. As armour becomes more common, the geometry of sword blades changes. The Oakeshott Typology is used to define medieval swords by their blade type.
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/211377/10e770c1-b68e-4fa4-9e7c-91dbc4f8c4ad/image.png
This is generally in chronological order, with the Type X blade being a late Viking sword. Have a good look at the blade shape. The earlier swords have a massive blade, but a very round point. They are somewhat poor thrusters and don't simply thrust through mail. They are still very good cutting blades, and I wouldn't trust iron mail to save my arm from a cut by these choppers. As time progresses, the blades become slimmer with a more acute point. The type XV appeared around 1300, as a response to the increasing amount of plate armour. These blades are optimized for thrusting, with a very acute point. If it just splits one or two mail rings, the point could pass about 10cm into the body. The type XV is thrusting oriented, but with a sharp and stiff blade, it could still cut effectively. The later type XVIIIb and Danish XVIIIe were also very well designed for thrusting. These were generally a bit longer with a longer grip as well. This aids in thrusting. These two blades were very stiff, which helps in putting your body behind a thrust. With a longer handle, and a massive blade on the XVIIIe, these were also good cutters as well. The XVIII is from the 15th century, when armour was almost perfected. Full plate armour was common. Think of this type of armour:
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/211377/e545e4bc-289d-44c9-95f2-dcce4dc0f0f0/image.png
Completely invulnerable to arrows and bolts. A spear, or even a lance, won't even scratch the armour. In fact, nothing except for a bullet will put a scratch on this. But swords and daggers can be used to target the weak spots, like the elbow and armpits. Swords could also be used in various other ways to fight against armour. I highly recommend watching this video just to get an idea:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTB1dDVyROs
weren't swords still mostly sidearms and status of symbols? it's a versatile weapon that can be carried around easily but polearms were still the main weapon for knights and stuffs iirc
My mom's an archeologist working in the area it was found, and her boss has been getting calls from all over the world constantly ever since this story got out.
They were a valuable sidearm that was carried everywhere. Having one in your daily life, and needing it, meant you were an important person.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
