Historical Transitions in Dominant Sword Style

[James Brazas]

As a history buff (which I imagine most of us here are), I've always been curious as to why certain weapons become dominant in one era, then lose their popularity as time goes on and technology changes. I always like to ask "why" that way I really understand it.

After studying Renaissance martial arts for about a year and a half, I think I am beginning to appreciate more the differences and relative strengths and weaknesses of these weapons. All of them were effective, but some were better suited to given historical environments.

Please let me know if I understand these transitions properly:



Sword and Shield: Fall of Rome to Late 1300s

Sword and Shield is dominant due to the inherent weaknesses of maille as armor. Since maille can only reduce the damage you sustain (rather than protect you completely), the additional defense of a shield is extremely helpful. The shield is also useful for deflecting or trapping enemy weapons. The sword and shield are used successfully together in combined offensive and defensive techniques. The sword in question would be an early arming sword optimized for cutting strokes against maille-clad enemies.



Longsword: 1250 to 1600

Longsword gains the advantage due to improvements in armor. With the advent of plate armor, shields lose much of their usefulness. Longswords have greater reach than arming swords, greater point control for stabbing into the gaps of plate armor, greater leverage, and greater firepower on average due to their length and the use of both hands. In the half-sword, the longsword sacrifices reach, but gains maximum leverage, point control, and thrusting power to deal with full plate armor.



Sidesword: 1500s and 1600s (late use: 1700s to 1900s)

With the rise of reliable firearms and the gradual loss of armor, the sidesword gains ascendance. Sideswords, as one-handed weapons, allow for use of pistols in the other hand or for use of other off-hand weapons (like the buckler, dagger, target, or cloak). Sideswords also have much longer reach than any previous one-handed sword - rivaling some longswords for reach. They also have greater hand protection (important since gauntlets are not worn as much since they interfere with gun use). Like the longsword, they have great point control and thrusting power useful for getting into the gaps of plate armor. But partial plate armor was increasingly common and the gaps in armor got larger and larger, so many of the advantages of the longsword (like half-swording: maximum point-control, leverage, and thrusting power) were no longer needed. Sideswords are also easier to use in tight infantry formations. Sideswords lack the leverage and firepower of longswords, but still became more popular due to reach, hand protection, and the ability to use off-hand weapons.



Saber: 1700s to 1900s (early use: 1600s)

With the practical disappearance of armor (basically only used for heavy cavalry and even then just a helmet and cuirass), armor penetration was no longer relevant. The thrust, which was so pivotal for finding and piercing the gaps of armor, became merely another way to kill. Cuts, long only useful against poor men who could not afford armor, became lethal. So the saber rose to dominance - similar to the sidesword in many ways, but curved, single-edged, and optimized for the cut. This was especially useful for cavalry to use, decapitating their enemies as they rode past. Sideswords (or very similar swords such as the broadsword, backsword, spadroon, and other straight cut-and-thrust swords) continued in use, though were less popular than sabers. This late use of sideswords was especially popular amongst heavy cavalry.


Please let me know if I have missed something or if I misunderstand something.

[Kevin Reicks]

I think a few more words on a strait double edged sword would be good. As well as armor picking and stabbing, it has more angles of attack and is good in binding/defending. There were different focuses of those from the changes through the dark ages to the early modern period and have been discusses at length in other topics, articles, and books.

You do have more and more focus on stabbing. You covered the sideword fairly well and many of the same things could be said of the "true" rapier of the very end of the 16th and through the 17th century had little of an edge or cutting ability at all. It, like the sidesword, had such a fast and nimble point and it held up as a self defense weapon and dueling weapon.

Then there is the switch to saber. You're right, as far as I know but there is a little more to it. You have to take in need for multiple angles of attack and being able to defend with one's own blade. Those things is what a strait and double edged sword is fantastic at. You mentioned riding by and whacking an unarmored infantryman, you aren't fighting or defending yourself with the sword. You are using the horse to maneuver and run away as soon as the cut is made. Even against other light cavalrymen, you fight with your horse riding in to position and giving an attack. The defense with a saber was a static perry, and if it was successful you were riding trying to get in a better position with your horse. In the Medieval/Renaissance period, heavy cavalry was the norm and though they would try an outmaneuver and outflank where they could, a man-at-arms would be trained in direct confrontation.

Infantry officers and sailors had sabers too. The former was more of a symbol and the cramped area of a ship combined with the need for a cheap and robust tool for enlisted men was the reason for the cutlass.

[James Brazas]

Thanks!

Your additional reasoning certainly helps explain these transitions better.

What I really find interesting is that in the transition from longsword to sidesword and from sidesword to saber, it was not that the prior weapon was no longer effective. Longswords would still be effective in the 1600s and sideswords would still be effective in the 1700s. The newer weapons were just more convenient and more tailored to the newer battlefield conditions.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

One thing your chronology fails to take into account is the huge overlap between the predominance of the different sword types. Sword-and-shield remained very popular into the late 14th century (long after the Crusaders left Acre), while the one-handed sword without a shield was an important secondary weapon for a mounted man-at-arms in full armour who had lost or broken his lance (as well as for culveriniers/handgunners/whatever you call early firearm-equipped soldiers in the mid- and late 15th century). You've also completely forgotten the sword-and-buckler--always a popular combination for common infantrymen from the mid-13th century to the very end of the Middle Ages. Not to mention that the disappearance of the shield itself from chivalric hands was never complete, as we see large round rotella-like shields on some Italian illustrations of mounted, fully-armoured men-at-arms in the mid-15th century or so.

Straight swords never went out of use among the cavalry either; while the fashion for light cavalry quickly turned in favour of the curved sabre after the 1740s or so, dragoons and heavy cavalry continued to carry straight thrust-oriented swords into the early 20th century, although most of these swords had a respectable cutting capability as well. Look up the Pattern 1796 Heavy Cavalry sword or French cuirassier swords for examples.

[James Brazas]

Thanks!

I've changed the dates listed to help account for that overlap.

I know I simplified a lot of things, perhaps too much. You're right that both infantry and cavalry continued to use arming swords during the longsword's predominance - even without the use of a shield or buckler.

You're also right that I left out sword-and-buckler, which (depending on sword design) would overlap with the sword-and-shield, longsword, and sidesword eras. But, as I understand it, sword-and-buckler was something of a long-standing runner-up sword style as far as popularity goes.

So it would be sword-and-buckler with early arming swords during the "sword-and-shield" era (probably Types X to XIV), emphasizing the same powerful cutting strokes against maille used with sword-and-shield style. Later, we'd have sword-and-buckler with late arming swords during the longsword era (probably types XV to XVIII), with tapered thrusting-oriented blades suitable for stabbing in and piercing through the gaps of plate armor. Then finally we'd have sidesword-and-buckler during the sidesword era.

My original idea was to have an overview of what sword style was the most popular on the battlefield during various eras, along with the reasons for that sword's predominance. So I didn't include styles that might have been only slightly less popular. And I didn't include civilian weapons like the messer or the civilian rapier.

It looks like a more complete overview would have been better.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

I know I simplified a lot of things, perhaps too much. You're right that both infantry and cavalry continued to use arming swords during the longsword's predominance - even without the use of a shield or buckler.

Unfortunately, I still think it's impossible to simplify things to this extent and still give an accurate picture. This is not a dig at your ability or good intentions; the history of the sword is simply too complex to be summarised this far. For example, there is no clear chronological dividing line between the medieval arming sword and the late-medieval/Renaissance "side sword," or between the side sword and 18th/19th-century broadswords and straight sabres. There's also a substantial overlap between the rapier and the side/cut-and-thrust sword. And then there's the oddball branch of evolution represented by the spadroon, which was an attempt to draw a compromise (with mixed results) between the agility of the smallsword and the cutting ability of larger broadswords. Neither did all curved sword lineages in 18th and 19th century Europe stem from the Polish/Turkish/Hungarian sabre; the Messer tradition remained alive and well, bringing forth such descendants as the hanger, the cutlass, the infantry briquet, and even the modern klewang. This last group was often manufactured on very large scales and were numerically no less significant than contemporary cavalry blades.

Now try incorporating that into a neat chronology.

You're also right that I left out sword-and-buckler, which (depending on sword design) would overlap with the sword-and-shield, longsword, and sidesword eras. But, as I understand it, sword-and-buckler was something of a long-standing runner-up sword style as far as popularity goes.

Its longevity alone should qualify it for inclusion in any discussion of medieval and Renaissance sword styles, however.

My original idea was to have an overview of what sword style was the most popular on the battlefield during various eras, along with the reasons for that sword's predominance.

This might be a moot point, considering the fact that the sword wasn't the weapon of first resort for the majority of troop types for the majority of periods being discussed here. Its nature as a status symbol also means that the influence of pure fashion in sword design cannot be usefully disentangled from the more practical and mechanical aspects.

And I didn't include civilian weapons like the messer or the civilian rapier.

But the Messer and some of its descendants (the cutlass, hanger, briquet, and what-have-you) were also quite popular among contemporary military types!

It looks like a more complete overview would have been better.

Perhaps. On the other hand, a more complete overview might become too long and complex to be a concise introduction. I still think the only way to gain a decent understanding of the history of the sword (even if we restrict ourselves to the European milieu) is through a patient and holistic study.

[James Brazas]

Granted.

Thanks for your insights. I have corrected all the mistakes that you mentioned.

It seems like your main point now is that my chronology isn't complete enough since I leave out a lot of weapons.

As you guessed, my intent was to develop something concise and easy to understand so that new students can see how the weapons they are learning to use fit into the larger flow of history.

I also thought it would be useful to show new students how certain weapons rose to prominence due to being so well tailored to particular battlefield environments. All of them are excellent weapons, though some rise or fall in popularity as they are better or worse suited to the warfare of the day.

I also thought it would be a good chance to test my own knowledge and learn from those of you on this website who are more experienced and knowledgeable than I am.

It sounds like what is really needed would be more of a mini-encyclopedia of sorts, with information on each weapon, what defined that weapon, when it was used, why it was effective in its era, etc.

Of course, there are a lot of encyclopedias that cover most of that already - though I've noticed that most don't cover the issue of why a weapon rose to prominence, why it was so effective in its time, and why it lost popularity and eventually became "obsolete."

It is that issue of why it worked that really interests me.