Ask me about swords.

[skip.knox]

Storming was nearly always a losing proposition. Storming a city was rather easier than storming a castle, but both were difficult. Easier and more common was to starve them out or negotiate or otherwise persuade the defenders to give up.

But storming did happen. The best descriptions I've read come from the Crusades, most especially from Villehardouin for the Fourth, Joinville for the Seventh, and a variety of sources for the First. Ladders were used, and it was bloody. Also key were towers, used mainly to sweep the walls, but if you could get close enough you could run a board out and get onto the walls that way. I almost said use a ramp to the ramparts, but you'll notice that I did not. <grin>

By far the best tactic was mining. Basically open up a new door. Worked well at Ascalon. Also at Helm's Deep.

 

[Aldarion]

I think this was mostly a numbers thing. Just tried to overwhelm them with numbers.

But, you would likely have armor, and you could carry a shield and sword and still do it.

I suspect the most common method was shield over back, sword dangling from side, and drawn as you go close to the top, or sword in hand and you just managed it.

The discussion (and Skip's comments) did raise a completely different question for me. How did people actually scale walls when attempting to storm a castle? Running up a lader waving a weapon of some kind feels like a losing proposition. Send up a guy holding a shield over his head?

Generally speaking, they didn't.

"Running up the ladder and scaling the wall" thing was done in a rather appropriately named "hasty assault" - whose intention was to overwhelm defenders before they could prepare. Another situation where it may have been done is when the defenders simply didn't have enough men to defend the entire length of the wall, so attacker could count on getting people onto an undefended section of the wall.

But if hasty assault failed (and it usually did), then solution was mostly to just settle in for the siege and starve the enemies out.

And shield would in fact be carried in the arm, not on the back:

Shield on the back served no purpose, as main threat to people climbing the ladders (beyond ladder itself being pushed away or destroyed) were objects such as stones thrown from the top of the wall. So it was generally held overhead as much as possible.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

I found this to be both fascinating and incredibly useful in writing our last book. Infiltration of towns and castles at siege were often accomplished by agents killing or bribing their way inside. No ladder or shields needed.

https://www.amazon.com/Special-Operations-Chivalry-1100-1550-Warfare/dp/1843834529/

 

[pmmg]

I found this to be both fascinating and incredibly useful in writing our last book. Infiltration of towns and castles at siege were often accomplished by agents killing or bribing their way inside. No ladder or shields needed.

https://www.amazon.com/Special-Operations-Chivalry-1100-1550-Warfare/dp/1843834529/

With friends like these…

 

[Malik]

Some misconceptions here.

Swords aren’t really any better against armour than spears. Spears are probably more effective against most types of armour compared to most types of swords. The piercing ability of a spear is far greater than a sword due to the force that can be put through a spear (or pike) compared to a sword.

Swords can’t cut through plate, have a hard time cutting through chain and can be turned by boiled leather. A spear thrust will push through chain and leather pretty reliably. Plate requires an axe, mace, hammer etc to smash through or a realistically a dagger to fit between weak spots it’s one kind of special anti plate weapon to penetrate.

As to the range issue:
This looks s where spears have a serious advantage. Massive. Go and try it out with a friend with fake weapons . The person with the spear wins 8 times out of ten, even with armour or shields. The guy with the spear can just keep stepping back or circling around the guy with the sword. Te guy with the sword can’t just charge forward as fast as possible because he has to be wary of the spear. ‘Passing the spear’ is hard.

It’s easy to say that the sword just has to slip inside the range of the spear to dominate the fight, it’s waaaaay harder to actually do that. It is very hard to close on an opponent who has a reach advantage unless they are cornered. In a scenario where a spearman is supported by comrades also armed with spears, it is even harder for a swordsman to close the distance.

If a swordsman does get past the spear tip , the spearman probably drops his spear and draws another weapon.

I was looking for another post and just saw this. I kinda hate to necro it, but it kinda needs to be necroed.

Almost every part of this post is incorrect. I don't know if I have the time or the bourbon to take it all apart.

The biggest part of this post that leads to its incorrectness (incorrectivity?) is that it's true (-ish) if you have no formal weapons training. The thing is, nobody in their right mind goes into a life or death fight with no training. Knights and soldiers were the professional athletes of their day.

This looks s where spears have a serious advantage. Massive. Go and try it out with a friend with fake weapons . The person with the spear wins 8 times out of ten, even with armour or shields. The guy with the spear can just keep stepping back or circling around the guy with the sword. Te guy with the sword can’t just charge forward as fast as possible because he has to be wary of the spear.

If you're doing this "with a friend," this happens because the person with the sword hasn't been trained how to pass the guard on a spear. If your spearman is just stepping back or circling, they're eventually going to run out of room, which is where you want them--this is what you should be trying to accomplish every time you force them to step back or circle. You defeat a spearman by systematically removing their options.

‘Passing the spear’ is hard.

It is not hard, if you know how. Fiore has a whole skill set on this--his first six plays in Abrazare (a manual on lethal wrestling for 14th-Century knights--throws, joint locks, leg sweeps, disabling and crippling maneuvers--what my sparring partner calls "Judo for Psychopaths"), and the close plays in Fiore di Battaglia are all designed to defeat longer weapons from inside.

If a swordsman does get past the spear tip , the spearman probably drops his spear and draws another weapon.

This is not turn-based combat. Passing to the inside takes a quarter of a second, if that. Blink and you're dead. There is no time to draw another weapon if someone's inside your guard; you disengage and make space, fight inside, or die trying. Edged weapons control space, and therefore control time. If you drop yours, the person who still has theirs is in control of both the space and the time in the fight. Then, unless you're really, really good, you're screwed.

TLDR: There is no superior weapon. Only superior skill. Keep skill in your calculations of weapon vs. weapon.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Hey, heading a bit off topic, but... Have you ever had the chance to peruse any translations of halberd fighting books? My memory isn't what it used to be—or maybe it is, I don't recall—but I seem to remember someone who knows way more than me mentioning how, in the period of full plate, treatises dealing with one-on-one halberd dueling were discovered, can opener fighting, heh heh. I haven't started looking for one yet, but I'm curious to look at one if a translation exists and if you know of it. It seems like Meyer had some halberd in his fencing book.

Ha! I just found a 2023 translation of his fencing book, but still curious if you've seen anything else. My memory still suggests books dedicated to halberd alone.

I was looking for another post and just saw this. I kinda hate to necro it, but it kinda needs to be necroed.

Almost every part of this post is incorrect. I don't know if I have the time or the bourbon to take it all apart.

The biggest part of this post that leads to its incorrectness (incorrectivity?) is that it's true (-ish) if you have no formal weapons training. The thing is, nobody in their right mind goes into a life or death fight with no training. Knights and soldiers were the professional athletes of their day.



If you're doing this "with a friend," this happens because the person with the sword hasn't been trained how to pass the guard on a spear. If your spearman is just stepping back or circling, they're eventually going to run out of room, which is where you want them--this is what you should be trying to accomplish every time you force them to step back or circle. You defeat a spearman by systematically removing their options.



It is not hard, if you know how. Fiore has a whole skill set on this--his first six plays in Abrazare (a manual on lethal wrestling for 14th-Century knights--throws, joint locks, leg sweeps, disabling and crippling maneuvers--what my sparring partner calls "Judo for Psychopaths"), and the close plays in Fiore di Battaglia are all designed to defeat longer weapons from inside.



This is not turn-based combat. Passing to the inside takes a quarter of a second, if that. Blink and you're dead. There is no time to draw another weapon if someone's inside your guard; you disengage and make space, fight inside, or die trying. Edged weapons control space, and therefore control time. If you drop yours, the person who still has theirs is in control of both the space and the time in the fight. Then, unless you're really, really good, you're screwed.

TLDR: There is no superior weapon. Only superior skill. Keep skill in your calculations of weapon vs. weapon.

 

[Malik]

Hey, heading a bit off topic, but... Have you ever had the chance to peruse any translations of halberd fighting books? My memory isn't what it used to be—or maybe it is, I don't recall—but I seem to remember someone who knows way more than me mentioning how, in the period of full plate, treatises dealing with one-on-one halberd dueling were discovered, can opener fighting, heh heh. I haven't started looking for one yet, but I'm curious to look at one if a translation exists and if you know of it. It seems like Meyer had some halberd in his fencing book.

Ha! I just found a 2023 translation of his fencing book, but still curious if you've seen anything else. My memory still suggests books dedicated to halberd alone.

I haven't. I've never used them in my worldbuilding, so I've just kind of bleeped over halberds.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Yeah, I'm wanting to bring in a culture that is more into halberds, and while I've done some staff fighting back when young, that's gotta be different than bladed and hooked nastiness. I picked up Meyer's book that has some polearms, so it might suffice.

I haven't. I've never used them in my worldbuilding, so I've just kind of bleeped over halberds.

 

[Gray-Hand]

I was looking for another post and just saw this. I kinda hate to necro it, but it kinda needs to be necroed.

Almost every part of this post is incorrect. I don't know if I have the time or the bourbon to take it all apart.

The biggest part of this post that leads to its incorrectness (incorrectivity?) is that it's true (-ish) if you have no formal weapons training. The thing is, nobody in their right mind goes into a life or death fight with no training. Knights and soldiers were the professional athletes of their day.



If you're doing this "with a friend," this happens because the person with the sword hasn't been trained how to pass the guard on a spear. If your spearman is just stepping back or circling, they're eventually going to run out of room, which is where you want them--this is what you should be trying to accomplish every time you force them to step back or circle. You defeat a spearman by systematically removing their options.



It is not hard, if you know how. Fiore has a whole skill set on this--his first six plays in Abrazare (a manual on lethal wrestling for 14th-Century knights--throws, joint locks, leg sweeps, disabling and crippling maneuvers--what my sparring partner calls "Judo for Psychopaths"), and the close plays in Fiore di Battaglia are all designed to defeat longer weapons from inside.



This is not turn-based combat. Passing to the inside takes a quarter of a second, if that. Blink and you're dead. There is no time to draw another weapon if someone's inside your guard; you disengage and make space, fight inside, or die trying. Edged weapons control space, and therefore control time. If you drop yours, the person who still has theirs is in control of both the space and the time in the fight. Then, unless you're really, really good, you're screwed.

TLDR: There is no superior weapon. Only superior skill. Keep skill in your calculations of weapon vs. weapon.

Those counterpoints are very persuasive. Many of them reinforce the idea that a spear is a more effective weapon than a sword.

Starting with your TLDR:
1. There is no superior weapon. I don't think anyone would agree that some weapons are generally more effective other types of weapons. Most people would agree that a person armed with a baseball bat is more of a threat than if they were armed with some knuckledusters.
2. Keep skill in your calculation of weapon versus weapon. That is not the point of the discusssion. The conversation isn't about weather a 35 year old french knight from 1300 would be able to defeat a 15 year old peasant with a spear. Its about the effectiveness of weapons.

3. The biggest part of this post that leads to its incorrectness (incorrectivity?) is that it's true (-ish) if you have no formal weapons training. The thing is, nobody in their right mind goes into a life or death fight with no training. Knights and soldiers were the professional athletes of their day.

The fact that a spear is the more effective weapon for untrained people is already a very strong argument for the spear being the better weapon - ease of use is a good quality for a weapon to have. Modifying a weapon so that it is easier to use makes that weapon a better weapon.
I agree with the second sentence, but it doesn't detract from the argument that a spear is a generally superior weapon to a sword because obviously throughout history, many, many thousands if not millions of people have ended up being forced into life or death fights without significant training.
I agree with the third sentence - knights were obviously elite, and could be expected to have a high level of skill in using a sword, but the discussion isn't about whether a knights versus peasants - it's spears versus swords.

4. If you're doing this "with a friend," this happens because the person with the sword hasn't been trained how to pass the guard on a spear. If your spearman is just stepping back or circling, they're eventually going to run out of room, which is where you want them--this is what you should be trying to accomplish every time you force them to step back or circle. You defeat a spearman by systematically removing their options.

Being trained to pass the guard of a spear and successfully doing so are two different things. The more skilled the spearman, the better they will be at keeping an opponent at distance. It is easier for a spearman to keep a swordsman at distance than it is for a swordsman to pass the guard of a spear. For a swordsman to be able to do that reliably, they would probably have to be more skilled than the spearman. There are many, many videos on the internet of HEMA fights between people with swords and spears and the spears win the overwhelming majority of the time. Its pretty well accepted in HEMA circles that its hard for a person with a sword to defeat a person with a spear. And generally speaking, the HEMA crowd are more skilled with swords than they are with spears, which is an indication that the spear is simply a more effective weapon.

5. It is not hard, if you know how. Fiore has a whole skill set on this--his first six plays in Abrazare (a manual on lethal wrestling for 14th-Century knights--throws, joint locks, leg sweeps, disabling and crippling maneuvers--what my sparring partner calls "Judo for Psychopaths"), and the close plays in Fiore di Battaglia are all designed to defeat longer weapons from inside.

Just because its in a manual doesn't mean its effective. Every self defence martial art teaches people how to disarm an opponent armed with a knife, but even highly skilled practitioners are still likely to come off second best in a real life scenario. Even the best unarmed techniques are probably a loser to an armed opponent. Secondly - if the best way for a swordsman to counter a spear is to use unarmed combat techniques, that pretty much concedes that a sword isn't effective against a spear.

6. This is not turn-based combat. Passing to the inside takes a quarter of a second, if that. Blink and you're dead. There is no time to draw another weapon if someone's inside your guard; you disengage and make space, fight inside, or die trying. Edged weapons control space, and therefore control time. If you drop yours, the person who still has theirs is in control of both the space and the time in the fight. Then, unless you're really, really good, you're screwed.

This kind of misses the context of the original comment. The preceding sentence in the original comment referred to the spearman being with comrades. It's pretty well understood that spearmen who fought in formation throughout history started out battles using their spears and would switch to shorter single handed weapons (seaxe, xiphos etc) when they came shield to shield with their opponents. I agree that in a one on one fight, attempting to draw a second weapon when the swordsman is already inside the spearman's guard is probably going to end badly for the spearman.

 

[Devor]

5. It is not hard, if you know how. Fiore has a whole skill set on this--his first six plays in Abrazare (a manual on lethal wrestling for 14th-Century knights--throws, joint locks, leg sweeps, disabling and crippling maneuvers--what my sparring partner calls "Judo for Psychopaths"), and the close plays in Fiore di Battaglia are all designed to defeat longer weapons from inside.

Just because its in a manual doesn't mean its effective. Every self defence martial art teaches people how to disarm an opponent armed with a knife, but even highly skilled practitioners are still likely to come off second best in a real life scenario. Even the best unarmed techniques are probably a loser to an armed opponent. Secondly - if the best way for a swordsman to counter a spear is to use unarmed combat techniques, that pretty much concedes that a sword isn't effective against a spear.

^ I just wanted to respond to this because I was looking at a few of those moves recently. And, uhh, this is how people fought. You punch, you kick, you grab your opponents weapon with your bare hand, you push the damn thing aside and slide your weapon in. There was an illustration where you hold your sword up to swing it down - but it's a feint - with the real attack being a kick to the chest, while the sword in that position serves to protect your upper body. That physicality of a real fight is something that's easy to miss. You can't dismiss a swords technique because it involves a kick or a push or a grab of the weapon or a leg sweep. That's all part of the fighting style.

 

[Aldarion]

^ I just wanted to respond to this because I was looking at a few of those moves recently. And, uhh, this is how people fought. You punch, you kick, you grab your opponents weapon with your bare hand, you push the damn thing aside and slide your weapon in. There was an illustration where you hold your sword up to swing it down - but it's a feint - with the real attack being a kick to the chest, while the sword in that position serves to protect your upper body. That physicality of a real fight is something that's easy to miss. You can't dismiss a swords technique because it involves a kick or a push or a grab of the weapon or a leg sweep. That's all part of the fighting style.

True, but the point being made was that just because it can be done, doesn't mean it is typically effective.

Unarmed martial arts teach techniques on how to deal with opponent with a knife... but that doesn't change the fact that the best idea is to run away from any such confrontation.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

True, but the point being made was that just because it can be done, doesn't mean it is typically effective.

Unarmed martial arts teach techniques on how to deal with opponent with a knife... but that doesn't change the fact that the best idea is to run away from any such confrontation.

Yes, the best way to encourage a long, healthy life is to avoid confrontation, but confrontation usually doesn't wait around to be stymied by the smart and the quick on their feet, only to fall on the slow. Sometimes it's coming specifically for you, and you have to make a choice: fight or die. Not knowing when violence wants to punch our tickets, it's prudent to be ready. And sometimes what's at stake isn't your life, but something precious, and you must make a stand. So, fighting manuals and lessons and asking questions here where we have the advantage of being able to talk to those who've gone down this road already and are willing to show us the way.

 

[Malik]

^ I just wanted to respond to this because I was looking at a few of those moves recently. And, uhh, this is how people fought. You punch, you kick, you grab your opponents weapon with your bare hand, you push the damn thing aside and slide your weapon in. There was an illustration where you hold your sword up to swing it down - but it's a feint - with the real attack being a kick to the chest, while the sword in that position serves to protect your upper body. That physicality of a real fight is something that's easy to miss. You can't dismiss a swords technique because it involves a kick or a push or a grab of the weapon or a leg sweep. That's all part of the fighting style.

"If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, you deserve to lose."
-- Jarrod Torrealday in Dragon's Trail

 

[Mad Swede]

"If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, you deserve to lose."
-- Jarrod Torrealday in Dragon's Trail

Or, to quote USMC Drill Instructor Joe Fricks: "Always cheat, always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose."

 

[A. E. Lowan]

Or, to quote USMC Drill Instructor Joe Fricks: "Always cheat, always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose."

My favorite, and words I live by : If you can't dazzle them with dexterity, baffle them with b@llshit. ~Robert Heinlein

And my mom's, which I'm starting to take on test drives since I'm turning 49 for the second time this year: Age and treachery will always triumph over youth and skill.

My mom, everybody!

 

[Devor]

True, but the point being made was that just because it can be done, doesn't mean it is typically effective.

Unarmed martial arts teach techniques on how to deal with opponent with a knife... but that doesn't change the fact that the best idea is to run away from any such confrontation.

But these aren't unarmed fighting techniques. These techniques are part of fighting with a sword.

 

[skip.knox]

One aspect of sword technique I've not seen mentioned is this: it's a literary tool. A great many works have used training sequences as a way to provide insight into a character, or build out the world, or even just introduce some drama. It doesn't much matter whether it's real-world effective (unless the story is about real-world), it's about the insight or the building or the drama.

So, on that score, any and all manuals, illustrations, and anecdotes are good grist for the writerly mill.

 

[Aldarion]

But these aren't unarmed fighting techniques. These techniques are part of fighting with a sword.

I know, and I wasn't talking about that. What I meant is, just because there exist techniques to counter spear while using a sword does not mean a swordsman can expect to win against a spearman most of the time.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

I know, and I wasn't talking about that. What I meant is, just because there exist techniques to counter spear while using a sword does not mean a swordsman can expect to win against a spearman most of the time.

Which does raise a good point, ala you can't bring a knife to a gun fight, and we explore this a bit. I now have to share this because half of our readers think it's hot. They're demented, I know, and we love every single one.

 

[Mad Swede]

One aspect of sword technique I've not seen mentioned is this: it's a literary tool. A great many works have used training sequences as a way to provide insight into a character, or build out the world, or even just introduce some drama. It doesn't much matter whether it's real-world effective (unless the story is about real-world), it's about the insight or the building or the drama.

So, on that score, any and all manuals, illustrations, and anecdotes are good grist for the writerly mill.

They are indeed, but when you write that fight scene you need to think about the setting as a whole, and the run-up to the fight. Weather, the time of day, the ground beneath your feet, the things around you, how tired you are, these all make a huge difference. From my own experience what you do on the training ground is useful but it ain't nothing like that when you pull the trigger for real.