What did non curved middle eastern swords look like?

[Andy Lee Chaisiri]

So I've read that it's influence from steppe warriors that brought curved swords to the middle east (and India). So what did their swords look like before that?

Did curved swords completely replace straight ones? If they did, why?

[TAEHAN KIM]

http://webzoom.freewebs.com/idris/Trip1%20063.jpg
http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/8875/resim0173wj.jpg

I forgot almost every things, but i think these are Early Arabic Swords for some roble men.

[Andy Lee Chaisiri]

Thanks,

do you know why curved swords became popular though? Was it really because of cavalry or was there something with the curvature that suited the fighting of the times?

[John Partika]

Curved swords became popular for many reasons at many different times. Mechanically speaking, though, a curved blade will generally cut very well because a smaller portion of the blade impacts at a single interval of time, meaning that it imparts a natural slicing motion into the cut that doesn't require an extra motion on the part of the wielder. A straight-bladed sword can cut perfectly well, and slice too, but generally not all in one motion because a much larger section of the blade is meeting the target in that same time interval.

[Kevin Reicks]

Thanks,

do you know why curved swords became popular though? Was it really because of cavalry or was there something with the curvature that suited the fighting of the times?

I think it was mostly for cavalry. I have said in other posts, most cavalry tactics involved constant movement with hitting and retreating as apposed to charge and press like what Western Europe mostly relied on. You aren't going to be "fighting and fencing" where a strait, double edged sword with more angles of attack would come in handy. You're using your horse to maneuver and "dog fight" like fighter jets do. That goes in to what John said, you want the sword that is going to do the most damage in a swipe.

I read in a wikipedia (where good information goes to die) an article about how a Greek tactician and maybe philosopher recommended big curved/bellied chopping swords for cavalry the reason above. I don't care for wikipedia as a source, but I didn't check the source for the source. If I find it again, I'll post it. In the Renaissance as light cavalry slowly became more popular, they started to use more curved swords too.


PS: There are some people, usually katana fans, that like to espouse that curved swords are by nature superior and Europeans used them because they were finally making decent steel compared to the rest of the world. As from the discussion above, that is entirely hogwash.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

I think it was mostly for cavalry. I have said in other posts, most cavalry tactics involved constant movement with hitting and retreating as apposed to charge and press like what Western Europe mostly relied on. You aren't going to be "fighting and fencing" where a strait, double edged sword with more angles of attack would come in handy. You're using your horse to maneuver and "dog fight" like fighter jets do.

I don't think there's any evidence to support this distinction. The texts that we do have about medieval European methods of horseback fighting clearly indicated that the men-at-arms preferred to ride past and attack on the pass rather than stopping or slowing down to engage in a protracted exchange except when they had no other choice. Note that the quintessential weapon of the medieval mounted man-at-arms was the lance--a weapon best used when there's enough space to ride past the enemy so that the wielder could maintain the horse's speed rather than slowing down to prevent collision.

I read in a wikipedia (where good information goes to die) an article about how a Greek tactician and maybe philosopher recommended big curved/bellied chopping swords for cavalry the reason above. I don't care for wikipedia as a source, but I didn't check the source for the source.

It was Xenophon--an ancient Greek soldier--and the sword he recommended for the cavalry was a "makhaira." The only thing we know for certain about this sword is that it was more cutting-oriented than the xiphos, but we don't really know it's shape--and even if it's not just a straight xiphos with a longer blade and/or more point-forward balance, it's more likely to be a blade with a concave curve like the modern Nepalese kukri rather than a convex-curved cavalry sabre as we know it.

At the end of the day, we don't know why the curved sword became much more popular after the 15th/16th century or so in the Near and Middle East. The change is generally correlated with the Ottoman conquest of the disunited Muslim principalities in the area, so it could simply be a matter of the conqueror's fashion being adopted by the conquered peoples (in a similar way to the adoption of European "firangi" blades in India). Or there could have been some genuine practical reason. We don't know since no one has really done enough research into contemporary Arabic or Turkish sources that may shed light upon the reasons behind the change, and it's possible that we may never know if no such source has survived to the present with the kind of information we need.


As for examples of straight-bladed swords from the medieval Middle East, this thread has a (rather large) number of good examples:

http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=17520

[Kevin Reicks]

I don't think there's any evidence to support this distinction. The texts that we do have about medieval European methods of horseback fighting clearly indicated that the men-at-arms preferred to ride past and attack on the pass rather than stopping or slowing down to engage in a protracted exchange except when they had no other choice. Note that the quintessential weapon of the medieval mounted man-at-arms was the lance--a weapon best used when there's enough space to ride past the enemy so that the wielder could maintain the horse's speed rather than slowing down to prevent collision.

They still might have attacked on the pass and proffered it if they could, but they seem to train direct charges where Eastern cavalries seemed more about light cavalries and trying more to outflank. In something like a joust where it is one on one, you can pass but they made charges in lines at large sections at the enemy and I would imagine it would be very hard to pass in those situations. I remember reading a quote from a knight in the late 16th century in the book, "The Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe", lamenting how both light and heavy cavalry have come look the same in those times. He goes on to say how big and strong a heavy cavalry horse should be as apposed to fast and how they should not be running around but going strait and direct at the enemy. Overall, knightly heavy cavalry come across as far more direct tactically then eastern cavalry as a whole and in those situations, the press is far more common where a strait double edged sword would come in handy.

It was Xenophon--an ancient Greek soldier--and the sword he recommended for the cavalry was a "makhaira." The only thing we know for certain about this sword is that it was more cutting-oriented than the xiphos, but we don't really know it's shape--and even if it's not just a straight xiphos with a longer blade and/or more point-forward balance, it's more likely to be a blade with a concave curve like the modern Nepalese kukri rather than a convex-curved cavalry sabre as we know it.

Thank you, but you missed my point. I was trying to say how a chopping oriented weapon was proffered.

[Kevin Reicks]

Oh, almost forgot. This is just what I have read and what I have gathered and the best that I can understand and I reserve the right to be wrong.

[Andy Lee Chaisiri]

I figure a straight blade is overall better for thrusting, but is there any advantage a straight edged blade would have with chopping that a curved edge wouldn't?

[LafayetteCCurtis]

They still might have attacked on the pass and proffered it if they could, but they seem to train direct charges where Eastern cavalries seemed more about light cavalries and trying more to outflank.

Not really. Outflanking actions were all over the place in real medieval European battles. Light cavalry actions were also a very common assignment for men-at-arms, and indeed they may have spent more time stripped down to "light cavalry" gear, raiding and scouting around the countryside, than lining up in full armour and barding for the straightforward charges stereotypically associated with them.

In something like a joust where it is one on one, you can pass but they made charges in lines at large sections at the enemy and I would imagine it would be very hard to pass in those situations.

Not really. If two lines of cavalrymen ride at each other and both have the nerve to maintain their speed rather than slowing down to a halt, they'd naturally open up lanes to thread through each other's formations and ride clear through to the other side. The actual engagement is restricted to the brief amount of time that the two sides were actually threading past each other, and the results are usually determined by which side manages to rally and reform itself once it has ridden clear through. There's no shortage of primary accounts mentioning knights (probably along with their small troops/retinues) riding clear through to the rear of the enemy line and then rallying to charge through straight back to their own side of the battlefield.

I remember reading a quote from a knight in the late 16th century in the book, "The Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe", lamenting how both light and heavy cavalry have come look the same in those times. He goes on to say how big and strong a heavy cavalry horse should be as apposed to fast and how they should not be running around but going strait and direct at the enemy.

This is mostly romantic nostalgia, longing for the "good old times" that never existed. Simple but effective manoeuvres like envelopments and feigned flights were very common in medieval cavalry warfare right from the start. Granted, they didn't happen all the time, but they did often enough to give the lie to the notion that medieval European knighthood were unsophisticated brutes who knew nothing except how to ride straight ahead.

Overall, knightly heavy cavalry come across as far more direct tactically then eastern cavalry as a whole

But "Eastern cavalry" covers a far greater variety of types! There weren't only the light horse archers of the steppes or Moorish mounted javelineers, but also hard chargers like Arab lancers and Persian/Byzantine cataphracts.

Thank you, but you missed my point. I was trying to say how a chopping oriented weapon was proffered.

By one author. And not as a primary weapon--his cavalrymen were primarily armed with throwing spears that could also be thrust in a pinch.

It's worth noting that curved swords weren't really that popular among Renaissance European light cavalry. Venetian stradiots used it, sure, and Hungarian hussars. But the latter also carried long straight swords--indeed, one curved and one straight sword was the traditional armament load of the light hussar (the Hungarian variety as opposed to the Polish husaria, although even the Poles sometimes carried the two-sword combination too) for quite a long while. Meanwhile, other more "traditionally" Western forms of light cavalry such as Spanish jinetes, demi-lancers, and German reiters went on carrying long straight swords, often fairly slender and tapered ones with an obvious thrusting focus (although their blades were usually still broad enough for effective cuts as well).

[Kevin Reicks]

Not really. Outflanking actions were all over the place in real medieval European battles. Light cavalry actions were also a very common assignment for men-at-arms, and indeed they may have spent more time stripped down to "light cavalry" gear, raiding and scouting around the countryside, than lining up in full armour and barding for the straightforward charges stereotypically associated with them.

Not really. If two lines of cavalrymen ride at each other and both have the nerve to maintain their speed rather than slowing down to a halt, they'd naturally open up lanes to thread through each other's formations and ride clear through to the other side. The actual engagement is restricted to the brief amount of time that the two sides were actually threading past each other, and the results are usually determined by which side manages to rally and reform itself once it has ridden clear through. There's no shortage of primary accounts mentioning knights (probably along with their small troops/retinues) riding clear through to the rear of the enemy line and then rallying to charge through straight back to their own side of the battlefield.

This is mostly romantic nostalgia, longing for the "good old times" that never existed. Simple but effective manoeuvres like envelopments and feigned flights were very common in medieval cavalry warfare right from the start. Granted, they didn't happen all the time, but they did often enough to give the lie to the notion that medieval European knighthood were unsophisticated brutes who knew nothing except how to ride straight ahead.

I apologize if I sounded like they could only charge in and wouldn't do some crafty maneuvering or outflanking.
I'm trying to stress worst case scenario of the press of combat and that did happen. I have no idea the percentages, but it seemed common enough where a knight would want to be prepared. Sir Puffypants might be immagining things to an extent, but there is still some truth to what he is saying.

But "Eastern cavalry" covers a far greater variety of types! There weren't only the light horse archers of the steppes or Moorish mounted javelineers, but also hard chargers like Arab lancers and Persian/Byzantine cataphracts.

They still didn't rely on chargers like Western Europe did. Western Europe put a high value on a large charging horse. They didn't have the same amount of vast rolling plains like much of the rest of the world. Some Western countries had more of them then others, but there are more forests and mountain ranges. Many other parts of the world that invaded didn't do so well once they got deeper in. They all put more in to light cavalry and they usually outnumbered the Europeans. Best example I can think of are the Franks beating the Moores at Poiters. The Franks were infantry as apposed to heavy cavalry based, but they still beat the Moorish cavalry which by European standards be on the lighter side overall. The invaders that seemed to do well were Eastern Europeans who used heavy cavalry charges like the Goths and Lombards. On the reverse of that, in second crusade the Arab archers played 'Keep Away' with the Europeans on the desert plains with light, fast horses.

By one author. And not as a primary weapon--his cavalrymen were primarily armed with throwing spears that could also be thrust in a pinch.

It is still an important opinion and the sword wasn't the main weapon of charging men-at-arms. It goes along with worst case scenario. You're in the press and you are fighting somebody face to face. Lance is probably broken and even if it isn't, if you're close with an enemy a sword with two edges gives more angles of attack.

It's worth noting that curved swords weren't really that popular among Renaissance European light cavalry. Venetian stradiots used it, sure, and Hungarian hussars. But the latter also carried long straight swords--indeed, one curved and one straight sword was the traditional armament load of the light hussar (the Hungarian variety as opposed to the Polish husaria, although even the Poles sometimes carried the two-sword combination too) for quite a long while. Meanwhile, other more "traditionally" Western forms of light cavalry such as Spanish jinetes, demi-lancers, and German reiters went on carrying long straight swords, often fairly slender and tapered ones with an obvious thrusting focus (although their blades were usually still broad enough for effective cuts as well).

Part of the reason curved swords weren't necessarily as popular was armor. Forgot about that. I think I read that the estoc was pretty popular for cavalry. No edge, just a nice point to get through mail and in between plates.

Sabers were popular for cavalry all across the world as noted and the more popular light cavalry became in Europe, so did sabers.

Correlation does not always equal causation, I get that. I am not a salesman for cruciform swords for heavy cavalry.

LC, you might be wanting to skip a sword and just rip my thick head off in frustration. Please don't be. I love this subject as anybody else and I love brainstorming and discussing these things. My mind is still very open, but there is a reason why things become common in war and what I have stated is best arguments that I have heard and read beyond "Granddad used (X) swords and there is no point trying to improve on things." or a given culture couldn't figure out to make a (X) sword.

The only other explanation I can come up with is how more governments across the world supplied their armies with equipment, and sabers might be cheaper to make. As weapons became more provided and standardized via central governments in Europe, it was cheaper to use sabers then double edged swords. Lots of flaws in that one too.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

Sir Puffypants might be immagining things to an extent, but there is still some truth to what he is saying.

It depends. If it was Bayard, le chevalier sans peur et reproche, I can't help suspecting a dose of irony since one of his celebrated exploits was the lightning raid (in classic light cavalry fashion) that captured almost all of the opposing army's top leaders. If it was Baldassare Castiglione, he was more a courtier than a soldier so we need to treat his romanticism with a handful of salt.

But "Eastern cavalry" covers a far greater variety of types! There weren't only the light horse archers of the steppes or Moorish mounted javelineers, but also hard chargers like Arab lancers and Persian/Byzantine cataphracts.

They still didn't rely on chargers like Western Europe did.

Oh they did! The Persians' Nisean horses were quite large for their time. So were the horses raised for the heavy cavalry forces of certain Central Asian city-states (such as Samarkand). More importantly, it was a common rule that city-states and tribes that had both light and heavy cavalry tended to beat tribes and cities that could only afford light cavalry.

Best example I can think of are the Franks beating the Moores at Poiters. The Franks were infantry as apposed to heavy cavalry based, but they still beat the Moorish cavalry which by European standards be on the lighter side overall.

Tours-Poitiers may be the worst possible example you could pick since the cavalry the Franks faced wasn't Moorish but Arab, and the Arabs of this era were hard-charging lancers (particularly after they conquered Syria and Egypt, which gave them the resources to obtain more armour for their frontline units). The Franks in this battle were praised for their ability to resist the terrible Arab charges "like a wall of ice," and it's unlikely that the Franks would have made much of it if they had been facing Moorish javelin cavalry.

On the reverse of that, in second crusade the Arab archers played 'Keep Away' with the Europeans on the desert plains with light, fast horses.

That was (mostly) the Turks. And even Turks were quite happy to charge European infantry to stifle their crossbows' effect while another detachment engaged the European knights. They had some seriously heavy cavalry, too, including Caucasian vassals and allies (some of whom contributed cataphract lancers on occasion).

worst case scenario. You're in the press and you are fighting somebody face to face. Lance is probably broken and even if it isn't, if you're close with an enemy a sword with two edges gives more angles of attack.

Which could be provided with a false edge on a single-edged sword, even a curved one. And heavily curved swords open up their own unique attack possibilities too, including flipping the false edge or the point around a static parry (also possible with a straight sword but the curve makes it easier) and parries that glide smoothly into a thrust against the opponent's back (again, also possible but rather awkward and slow with a straight blade).

Sabers were popular for cavalry all across the world as noted and the more popular light cavalry became in Europe, so did sabers.

The correlation between light cavalry and sabres in Europe was never that clean and simple. Apart from hussars and uhlans and other types derived from Eastern European examples, there were other light cavalry units that carried the traditions of older Western European units (Light Dragoons, chevaux-légeres, etc.) and the latter type often retained straight blades or used less deeply curved sabres well into the 19th century--and note that straight swords returned to light cavalry use in countries where the cut vs. thrust debate was won by proponents of the thrust.


My general point is that there's no simple answer to the original poster's question -- at least none that doesn't become misleading somewhere down the line. The study of swords and martial arts is inherently complex, so it's better to resist the temptation to over-simplify and just learn to enjoy the complexity.

[Kevin Reicks]

On the harrumphing knight, definitely was not Bayard. My book is somewhere in a box underneath a lot of other boxes in storage. Organization is highly overrated and creates problems

On the Franks vs Moores: I apologize, big mistake. I was told by a teacher a long time ago something a little different. Thought I have read that was the case in later years. I might have been confusing it with other wars. You are right about the heavy use of lancers by the Moores. I apologize to ARMA, the entire martial arts community, modern day France, Morocco, and any and all possible descendent's of said battle.

On the Persians, I read of lancers and horse archers. Never read of a city state specializing in one or the other. For the sake of argument, I'll take your word for it.

On the second crusade, they still loosened up the European infantry with horse archers with 'keep away' tactics and spurned the need for horse archer/crossbowmen for the Europeans in the third crusade. I was trying to make a point of specialized light cavalry.


The edge on edge parry advantages, I hold the ARMA position that static edge on edge was not widely taught in Europe until the mid 1600s and for swords with edge, mostly a cavalry thing, and considering the slow pull away from heavy lancers, I think helps my argument. As for if they were teaching static parries prior or how good it was, it is a road to nowhere that has been debated many times on this forum.

Again, I am aware of charging lancers used all over the world and traveled culture to culture with the stirrup. I still think there is a relationship between sword geometry, battle tactics, particularly in this case of the different types of cavalry.

You have softened me on my position and I see what your saying, but I haven't completely changed my mind. I think I should stop here, getting off track a little from topic. Thanks for the pleasant debate.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

On the Franks vs Moores: I apologize, big mistake. I was told by a teacher a long time ago something a little different. Thought I have read that was the case in later years. I might have been confusing it with other wars. You are right about the heavy use of lancers by the Moores.

Not the Moors themselves. Later on the Berbers and Moors had some lancers, albeit not particularly heavy ones, but the hard-charging lancers we're talking about in the context of Charles Martel's opponents at Tours-Poitiers were Arabs. As in conquerors who travelled and spread over several generations from the Middle East, across North Africa, and up into Spain and southern France. Not native Moors as such (although they also had Moorish/Berber troops in their armies, mostly as infantry and light cavalry).

On the Persians, I read of lancers and horse archers. Never read of a city state specializing in one or the other. For the sake of argument, I'll take your word for it.

Don't! Go read up on Central Asian cities like Samarkand, Bukhara, and Khwarizm. Most of them were part of one Persian/Iranian empire or another at one point of time or another, but not all the time. There were long stretches of time when they were independent city-states that developed their own military customs and institutions, though they obviously still borrowed a great deal from both the Persians on one side and Steppe nomads on the other.

The edge on edge parry advantages, I hold the ARMA position that static edge on edge was not widely taught in Europe until the mid 1600s and for swords with edge, mostly a cavalry thing, and considering the slow pull away from heavy lancers, I think helps my argument. As for if they were teaching static parries prior or how good it was, it is a road to nowhere that has been debated many times on this forum.

Well, static blocks (regardless of edge alignment) is generally the most common response by an untrained fencer (a Buffel/buffalo in the Liechtenauer style's terminology) to an incoming cut. If not, why would all swordsmanship systems that I know of teach how to get around such blocks with one technique or another? Curved blades are especially useful for this since they can reach more easily around the block with a thrust or a false-edge cut. Straight blades can do the same, too, but generally require more angulation on the wrist to reach the target behind the block. Look at current interpretations of the Sturzhau (which is generally performed with a straight blade) and compare it with the interpretation of a reconstructed Polish sabre technique in this document.

[Garrett Harriman]

While the correlation between battlefield tactics and preferred weapons of a culture could not be denied, I've always found it interesting that the swords of the era were reminiscent of the holy symbols of the competing powers (the cross for the Christians and the crescent for the Muslims). As was said earlier, sword play and the swords used it are like beautifully complex jewel, but that should not dissuade anyone from trying to see the facets in detail.

The crusades were, as we all know, a series of holy wars. When you are engaged in a war pitting such highly motivating ideologies like religions against each other, there has got to be a relation to the symbols of the religions and effective weapon design. It had to have been a huge moral boost to have used the very symbol of your faith to smite your god's enemies.

On top of that there must have simply been cultural differences throughout their respective histories to prove what worked.