An example of the rapiers with dagger in the war

[YIzhe LIU]

One of the techniques that the Portuguese warriors employed against their enemies who held the Moorish bow was just more than unusual.

They knew that the Moorish bow would be very effective within the range from 50 meters to 400 meters.

So when 40 Portuguese soldiers disembarked to face a first row of 300 archers also armed with tulwars, their first act was to run like madmen towards the archers, with their rapiers and left handlers in hand. The archers would be stunned by this totally insane act, as due to the heath, very few would wear armors. This stunning delay would again act in favour of the Portuguese who would close de 50 meters range with a few more seconds of advantage.

The Portuguese knew about the 50 meters bow effectiveness and that their only hope was to run frontward to cut that distance, after which their highly seasoned maneuver of the rapier and the left handler would destroy the tulwar in no time, one after the other. One blade would stop the tulwar strike and the other would dispatch the enemy, and this was one methodically in no time.

Running front wards for cover was a tactic that brought the Portuguese warriors great fame and respect for their bravery




It seemed that rapier with dagger in the war that can be good against one hand sword.

[Roger Norling]

This sounds interesting, but I would really like to see a proper source for this. All articles online seem to use the exact same phrasing, quoting each other in full, including all spelling errors. I wonder which article was the first and what it based its material on?

I really can't find any reference to when and where the Portuguese soldiers were to have used this as a tactic.

And what is a Moorish bow? Is it just a bow held by a Moor? I assume it is a bow similar to the Turkish and Mongol bows?

And a "tulwar"? Those are mostly associated with India and Afganistan, although the Turks of course also had similar swords. They just called them kilij (sword) though. So I assume we are talking about Turks vs Portuguese here?

Another question that came to mind is why the bows wouldn't be effective at less than 50m. I would have thought they would be better at short distance, even if they were known to be able to shoot great distances with flight arrows. Running 50m would still give the front line archers opportunity to fire another 2-3 arrows each, easily. And then in a straight line right at your face.

Of course, if they were standing in lines with men behind each other, short distance aiming would pose a problem. But not the bows themselves. And the text describes a "front line of 300 archers"... So we have 40 soldiers running against 300 archers shooting at least a 1000 arrows against them. And if the distance was more than 50m, more.

But, if the Portuguese split up, confusing the archers regarding whom to aim at, and if they wore armour, such a tactic might have brought a good number of them right up to the front lines, where their close combat skills would have come in use. Turkish arrows are not known to have been very good for use against armoured enemies and there are several descriptions regarding how they were almost useless.

But, it sounds to me as if this would not be a tactic any military commander would prefer as a primary choice, and only resort to under very certain circumstances.

And given that these soldiers were supposedly initially outnumbered by almost 8-1, and after the dash towards the enemy lines, probably even more outnumbered, I have a strong feeling that not everything is correct with this story. Despite the romance in outnumbered soldiers being able to confuse the enemy by showing insane courage and bravery...

[Jonathan Hill]

Another question that came to mind is why the bows wouldn't be effective at less than 50m. I would have thought they would be better at short distance, even if they were known to be able to shoot great distances with flight arrows. Running 50m would still give the front line archers opportunity to fire another 2-3 arrows each, easily. And then in a straight line right at your face.

You kind of nailed the answer there, less than 50 meters you only face the front line, you don’t face the ten rows of archers behind them because the front row now blocks their line of site. Similar to the reason they went to a longer line with only a few ranks deep when using muskets rather than many rows deep. You can’t do a mass volley when you are restricted to line of site unless you have one very long line.

I’m curious where the thought that the ‘left hander’ is a knife comes in I take it this is referenced somewhere. Facing a Tulwar you are better served with a shield rather than a dagger in the off hand. At the same time a group of trained swordsmen fighting archers using their back up swords isn’t that much of a fight.

[Roger Norling]

Only the the exact wording of the text is "a first row of 300 archers".

And I wouldn't be so quick in discounting 300 lightly armoured and mobile Turks armed with bows, sabres and likely more than a few shields facing 40 heavily armoured Portuguese soldiers with rapiers and daggers. The Turks were pretty good warriors too. And the text indicates that the 300 were the first row of archers only... Something smells fishy in the Kingdom of... if you ask me.

[Stacy Clifford]

Excellent analysis Roger, I'd like to see that source too.