Truth versus fiction on Medieval weapons and armor
Great Article on:
Medieval Misconseptions (click link for original)
Heavy, cumbersome swords
- The issue of weight seems to be one of the most commonly mistaken aspects of medieval combat. Smiths all made swords slightly differently and each fighter had his own preferences. It is impossible to generalize when it comes to the technology of an entire continent from c/ 500-1500 AD, and both very heavy and very light swords existed. In terms of what was typical, though,, here’s a rough guide to averaged:
Single-handed sword (aka sword) - 2.5 pounds
Hand-and-a-half (aka bastard sword) 2.5-3 lbs
Two-hander (aka longsword) - 3 to 3.5 pounds.
The absolute largest swords still rarely hit the 5-pound mark. These were designed to serve very specific tactical functions on the battlefield and were not intended for general-use purposes. Experience showed smiths and warriors that this was the ideal weight range for their weapon. It’s essentially natural selection at work: people whose swords were too light or too heavy went off to battle and didn’t come back. Those with properly weighted swords did. Any heavier and it becomes unwieldy. Any lighter and it lacks the momentum to hit with sufficient force.
Conversely, most Japanese Swords weighed slightly more than European swords relative to their length. Once again, though, keep in mind that this is not a bad thing, nor does it imply that they were slow or relied on brute strength over skill. Quite the opposite, in fact, as the sword's weight gives the fighter the power he needs so he can devote his muscle to technique. Light swords are not very effective when it comes to penetrating any armor, be it plate, chain, or leather. (Fencing foils and other ultralight weapons only came about after gunpowder caused armor to die out, and the heavier two-handers hit their prime when armor was at its fullest.)
In practice, the weight variation is not significant enough that it would make a noticeable difference in combat, but it is there. The Japanese smith would face the exact same system of natural selection as the European one, but due to different environmental conditions the result came out slightly different.
Heavy and cumbersome armor
- A full suit of high quality plate armor weighed on average 55-65lbs. Though there was variation based on the technology available from one century to another or according to one's financial means, this remains a decent rule of thumb from the legionnaires of ancient Rome to knights in full plate to modern Marines. The logic is the same as it was for determining the weight of a sword: You want as much protection as you can possibly afford without it becoming unwieldy. For a well-trained, fit man this limit is around 60 lbs.
There are records in the Middle Ages of people in full plate (i.e. 1350 and later) being able to climb ropes, roll, cartwheel, and even jump onto their horses without using the stirrup. Modern tests confirm these reports.
There are stories about knights needing cranes to get on their horse, or needing squires to help them if the fall on their back. Neither of these stories have any real historical basis. If armor were such a liability, nobody would have worn it, let alone spend a fortune on it. The very fact that it exists in number and for such a long time is proof enough that it is better than going unprotected.
Fighters with swords on their backs
-It is physically impossible for a human to draw a straight, average-length sword from their back while in its sheath. A sword worn on the back is usually curved or short. Cases of back-sheaths were virtually unheard of in Europe and rare elsewhere. (In those cases, the swords were very short. A Roman Gladius or modern machete would still be too long to draw with any degree of comfort.) A fighter might plausible wear a sword in this manner if he had absolutely no intention of fighting any time soon, since it is arguably easier to move around and sit down without it getting in the way.
Archers with quivers on their backs
-This is almost the same as the previous misconception, but it is even more common to hear about. Arrows can be gripped in the middle and are thus possible to draw, but the motion is much more slow and awkward than a draw from the hip, or even better, by sticking the arrows into the ground ahead of time. That being said, images of quivers are still extremely rare in medieval artwork and were simply not used in combat situations in Medieval Europe. Speaking of archers…
Fast and slim medieval archers
- A quality longbow back in the middle ages was made of yew or ash, and needed to have an effective range of up to 300 yards and enough power to penetrate mail. A bow that meets these requirements is going to have a draw weight of somewhere between 120 - 180 pounds. That's like lifting a grown man with three fingers. If anything, an archer was likely to be bigger and stronger than the frontline soldiers. Excavations reveal that the skeletons of medieval archers were permanently warped from the strain of such repeated and imbalanced muscle stress. They did not wear much armor only because archers were never nobility, and therefore couldn't afford any.
Shiny, battle-ready swords
- No matter how well polished, high-carbon steel (the metal swords were made of) just isn’t all that shiny. A common metal for modern decorative swords is stainless steel, which is conveniently rust resistant as well as attractively bright. It is also very hard. Which seems like a good thing, until your realize that so is glass. A real medieval sword has to be able to bend slightly in order to help absorb shock, and a sword that is too hard will be rigid and more prone to snap or shatter. A harder sword can keep a nice straight cutting line and hold an extra sharp edge better, but it also runs the risks mentioned above. The Japanese sword was developed in a less armor-intensive environment, so they can afford to place less emphasis on durability in favor of a keener edge. Often, Japanese swordsmanship techniques involve "using the opponent's energy against them." This is partially because it is an effective technique, but it is also to protect the weapon from taking too many direct hits.
Single-handed sword (aka sword) - 2.5 pounds
Hand-and-a-half (aka bastard sword) 2.5-3 lbs
Two-hander (aka longsword) - 3 to 3.5 pounds.
The absolute largest swords still rarely hit the 5-pound mark. These were designed to serve very specific tactical functions on the battlefield and were not intended for general-use purposes. Experience showed smiths and warriors that this was the ideal weight range for their weapon. It’s essentially natural selection at work: people whose swords were too light or too heavy went off to battle and didn’t come back. Those with properly weighted swords did. Any heavier and it becomes unwieldy. Any lighter and it lacks the momentum to hit with sufficient force.
Conversely, most Japanese Swords weighed slightly more than European swords relative to their length. Once again, though, keep in mind that this is not a bad thing, nor does it imply that they were slow or relied on brute strength over skill. Quite the opposite, in fact, as the sword's weight gives the fighter the power he needs so he can devote his muscle to technique. Light swords are not very effective when it comes to penetrating any armor, be it plate, chain, or leather. (Fencing foils and other ultralight weapons only came about after gunpowder caused armor to die out, and the heavier two-handers hit their prime when armor was at its fullest.)
In practice, the weight variation is not significant enough that it would make a noticeable difference in combat, but it is there. The Japanese smith would face the exact same system of natural selection as the European one, but due to different environmental conditions the result came out slightly different.
Heavy and cumbersome armor
- A full suit of high quality plate armor weighed on average 55-65lbs. Though there was variation based on the technology available from one century to another or according to one's financial means, this remains a decent rule of thumb from the legionnaires of ancient Rome to knights in full plate to modern Marines. The logic is the same as it was for determining the weight of a sword: You want as much protection as you can possibly afford without it becoming unwieldy. For a well-trained, fit man this limit is around 60 lbs.
There are records in the Middle Ages of people in full plate (i.e. 1350 and later) being able to climb ropes, roll, cartwheel, and even jump onto their horses without using the stirrup. Modern tests confirm these reports.
There are stories about knights needing cranes to get on their horse, or needing squires to help them if the fall on their back. Neither of these stories have any real historical basis. If armor were such a liability, nobody would have worn it, let alone spend a fortune on it. The very fact that it exists in number and for such a long time is proof enough that it is better than going unprotected.
Fighters with swords on their backs
-It is physically impossible for a human to draw a straight, average-length sword from their back while in its sheath. A sword worn on the back is usually curved or short. Cases of back-sheaths were virtually unheard of in Europe and rare elsewhere. (In those cases, the swords were very short. A Roman Gladius or modern machete would still be too long to draw with any degree of comfort.) A fighter might plausible wear a sword in this manner if he had absolutely no intention of fighting any time soon, since it is arguably easier to move around and sit down without it getting in the way.
Archers with quivers on their backs
-This is almost the same as the previous misconception, but it is even more common to hear about. Arrows can be gripped in the middle and are thus possible to draw, but the motion is much more slow and awkward than a draw from the hip, or even better, by sticking the arrows into the ground ahead of time. That being said, images of quivers are still extremely rare in medieval artwork and were simply not used in combat situations in Medieval Europe. Speaking of archers…
Fast and slim medieval archers
- A quality longbow back in the middle ages was made of yew or ash, and needed to have an effective range of up to 300 yards and enough power to penetrate mail. A bow that meets these requirements is going to have a draw weight of somewhere between 120 - 180 pounds. That's like lifting a grown man with three fingers. If anything, an archer was likely to be bigger and stronger than the frontline soldiers. Excavations reveal that the skeletons of medieval archers were permanently warped from the strain of such repeated and imbalanced muscle stress. They did not wear much armor only because archers were never nobility, and therefore couldn't afford any.
Shiny, battle-ready swords
- No matter how well polished, high-carbon steel (the metal swords were made of) just isn’t all that shiny. A common metal for modern decorative swords is stainless steel, which is conveniently rust resistant as well as attractively bright. It is also very hard. Which seems like a good thing, until your realize that so is glass. A real medieval sword has to be able to bend slightly in order to help absorb shock, and a sword that is too hard will be rigid and more prone to snap or shatter. A harder sword can keep a nice straight cutting line and hold an extra sharp edge better, but it also runs the risks mentioned above. The Japanese sword was developed in a less armor-intensive environment, so they can afford to place less emphasis on durability in favor of a keener edge. Often, Japanese swordsmanship techniques involve "using the opponent's energy against them." This is partially because it is an effective technique, but it is also to protect the weapon from taking too many direct hits.
No comments:
Post a Comment