Sword Durability

[Matt Easton]

And while laymen are often not aware, I'm sure you are Matt that a knights lance, (even the combat lance as opposed to the one used in tournaments), was essentially also a throw-away weapon very likely to break upon each charge. A few lances may have been carried by a knights squire, after they were used up it was down to the sword, wasn't it?

Later cavalry in the case of Polish hussars and the like were sometimes totally dependent on their sword as a primary weapon.

Did war lances break that easily? We don't really know - lancers in the Napoleonic era didn't have any problem making repeated charges and melees with the same lance.
But this is not really the point - how many times and how long do you think a body of 'knightly' cavalry would usually engage the enemy? Most examples I can think of, with a few notable exceptions, involve one charge and one melee before victory or defeat. That doesn't provide a great amount of time and opportunity to get your sword beaten up, even if you managed to use it once or twice.
CONTEXT.
It is pointless talking about hypothetic 'medieval battles' - please refer to specific examples.
Take the French charge at Agincourt - two wings that were channelled into one, probably reached the English lines despite losing horses to archers and then a brief melee, and finished. Even Hastings where the Norman and Breton cavalry was deployed all day against the English shield wall - they repeatedly attacked and withdrew, attacking where they could with spear and sword and at key moments surrounding separated bodies of infantry and dispatching them. Certainly swords were used - this is well documented in the accounts by William of Malmesbury etc, but how long was the average sword in use? A few seconds maybe.
In an test-cutting session over the course of one afternoon a sword is likely to see far more continual use than an average sword in one medieval battle.

Yes some dismounted knights particularly in the later Renaisssance preferred to use weapons lke poll-axes as primary weapons

Dismounted knights in the 'later renaissance'?......... <img src="/forum/images/icons/confused.gif" alt="" />

I've yet to read this interesting sounding book, but let me ask you, does it deal primarily with the technical aspects of forging swords, or the economics surrounding the production of weapons and the role it played in the politics of the period?

Dude, that sounds like a quote from Amazon or something <img src="/forum/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" />.
Given that it gives results of steel hardness, and tests against weapons, do you think it only deals with economics and politics?... <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

I know that rockwell hardness is only one of many ways to measure the important properties of a sword.

Err, it's a test of hardness..

That only scratches the surface

That is true, in a way, but wouldn't you rather know something more about medieval swords, rather than not? <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

There are many subtleties we do not yet grasp.

So that means you prefer not to read the book?

My attitude is that I would rather read a book to learn what it does contain rather than not read it because of what it does not contain. <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

I think you've missed my point completely. There is a lot to learn here if you are willing.

Matt

[Matt Easton]

Bill, I'm not trying to be nasty, but give advice - try not to start so many of your sentences with something like this:

"I had read somewhere that".

When you have information please try and tell us where it comes from.

Matt

[Matt Easton]

Shane said:
"Not a correction per se', but I have handled many original period blades that do show edge damage of varying degree's. "

Hi Shane - yes, so have I. There are even bronze-age examples in the Museum of London. Oakeshott documents quite a few also, in his books and in the journal of the Park Lane Arms Fair.

Matt

[Bill Tsafa]

Bill, I'm not trying to be nasty, but give advice - try not to start so many of your sentences with something like this:

"I had read somewhere that".

When you have information please try and tell us where it comes from.

For most of the things I posted I gave a link to where I go the informations from. Just some minor points I did not remeber the source.

[Matt Easton]

"For most of the things I posted I gave a link to where I go the informations from."

Being frank though, many of the links you have given are to website info of dubious historical value. Quite honestly there is a lot - A LOT - of crap written on the internet... If I write on my website that Templar Knights fought in the Holy Land with the aid of Native American warriors who had been brought over to Europe by Vikings, does that make it true?...
Try and refer to proper recognised historical authorities, and where possible use *primary sources*, not tertiary ones.
I try, as much as possible, to only use primary sources now - if some historian wrote in the 1930's that medieval swords were X then frankly I don't care. I want to see first-hand evidence.

Matt

[Bill Tsafa]

Try and refer to proper recognised historical authorities, and where possible use *primary sources*, not tertiary ones.

That is very deficult. All primary sources are written in foreign languages. Those foreingn languages have changed through the centuries. Even those sources from 14th century English are written is such a way so it is hard to understand. English prior to Norman Conquest is very Germanic and imposible to understand. So in all cases we would be subjuect to the interpetations of translators.

My approch has been to look at a few diffrent sources. Even if they are not the original, if a few of them say something simmilar, we might have more confidence in the information. This also goes back to my reason for looking at a broad time period and a broad land area. I will be happy to look at other sources if you have any to offer me.

You asked if lances did in fact break. All different sources seem to say so. Can we trust one source alone? Definetly not. Can we trust a few sources saying somthing along simmilar lines? I think we would need to find some solid proof otherwise.

Researching this is not easy, but we have to start somewhere.

I almost forgot to mention. The inspiration that made me think about this whole thing was listening a series of audio lecterers I have downloaded. This one in particular on the early middle ages was 24 lectures 40 minutes each. It is given by Philip Daileadr PH.D, Harvard University. It is here that he stated that knights of the middle ages used a new form of warfare, fighting from horseback using stirrups, highback saddle and sturrups. This is what enabled Charamain to expand into what became known as East Frankia. He said that this was the predominate form of warfare that lasted into the later middle ages. I think it is safe to assume that he checked the original sources. The other sources I checked seem to agree with what he said.

[Matt Easton]

I give up Bill... Clearly you don't want to listen to anyone with knowledge that contradicts your 'personal research'.

I have tried to point you in the right direction and show you the light, but you seem determined to stagger on in the shade of ignorance.

So ignore historical sources, stick to relying on dubious internet sources. But don't expect to arrive anywhere useful at the end of it.

Good luck, I shall no longer post replies to any of your posts on any thread as it is a waste of my time and apparently is as useful as pissing into the wind.

Regards,
Matt, published author and lecturer at international conferences across Europe, but apparently no good at helping out a newbie American kid.

[Gene Tausk]

Shane has already (wisely) asked everyone to keep this discussion respectful. His words are not being heeded.

This thread is now closed.


------------------&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;gene tausk
SFS
Study Group Leader - Houston ARMA Southside
Forum Monitor