if swords are as useless as Veeky Forums says , why were greatswords used as a legit "primary" weapon on battlefields?
an example is the landsknecht or the doppelsöldner who often used those. i cant imagine that they just tried to look cool by buying a weapon that is more expensive but less effective
Other urls found in this thread:
myarmoury.com
twitter.com
landsknechten were not "primary" fighting force, they were "commandos" of sorts
Didn't lansknecht mainly use pikes and spears?
zweihanders mainly being used like axes, to chop the enemy's pike heads off? And only secondarily for swordplay?
>chopping pike heads off
as far as i know , that is pretty difficult to do , even with a chopping weapon . it's a bitch to get the right angle on a moving object
but why did they also use swords beside the glorious polearm as a main weapon? what about doppelsöldner?
>why were greatswords used as a legit "primary" weapon on battlefields?
They weren't? Different swords were often used as sidearms and polearms were primary weapons.
a meme
you dip
greatswords are hardly sidearms
Landsknechts where infantry in general, largely pikemen, with an increasing number of arquebusiers amongst the.
The greatsword wielding ones would have been a very small minority, probably priamrily tasked with guarding banner bearers and such. The greatsword fits that role quite well, large sweeping cuts to keep greater numbers away (IIRC there's been some material shown suggesting that they saw a bit of use with city militias as well, which could be due to similar reasons). Such soldiers would also have status to show off and money for more expensive weapons.
The pike chopping explanation appears to have fallen out of favour nowadays. Ash is tough, yet somewhat flexible. So with anything but a perfect hit, it'll take a lot of force to cut it, but not a lot to bend it a bit, and the great length of the shaft means a huge amount of torque in the hands of the wielder, pushing it aside even further. This means it's probably extremely hard to pull off something like that.
They also could use them as short spears when they adjusted their grip in tighter formations.
Devastating in practically all melee situations, able to sunder the opponents weapons/defenses and flexible enough to remain viable in more clustered ranks.
The downside is cavalry would run you down but you were still threatening to primitive black powder gunners and fucked pikemen.
It's more about batting them aside with a sword long enough to do it safely, then getting close enough to fuck them up.
Historically, they were only moderately effective, and that's why zweihanders were paid double what everyone els was paid.
>if swords are as useless as Veeky Forums says
Veeky Forums is a shitton of people. Stop shoving words that one faggot said into its whole collective mouth.
Swords aren't useless, they're situational, like any and all weapons.
>The pike chopping explanation appears to have fallen out of favour nowadays
IIRC there was some 16th century greatsword manual with chopped pikes illustrations. They were pictured to demonstrate effectiveness against pikemen.
To the best of my knowledge we don't have any manual at all for this kind of sword, so that sounds unlikely. Perhaps an illustration from some other kind of text but, hm, I'll have to remain sceptical until I see it I'm afraid.
I think it was di Grassi. Can't find it right now.
This
i zecond this
No such illustration to be found over at Wiktenauer at least (different editions?). The text did give me some backing though for the crowd pleaser aspect:
"But because one may with it (as a galleon among many galleys) resist many Swords, or other weapons: Therefore in the wars, it is used to be place near unto the Ensign or Ancient, for the defense thereof, because, being of itself able to contend with many, it may the better safeguard the same. And it is accustomed to be carried in the City, aswell by night as by day, when it so chances that a few are constrained to withstand a great many."
Reading through the introduction to the greatsword part, and quickly skimming the rest of it, I see no mention of fighting against polearms at all.
Swords aren't useless.
Found it in Marozzo's third book.
>psshhhhh ... nothing personnel , pikeman
are those daggers in their pants or are they just happy about their victory?
codpieces my friend, codpieces...
Well, it certainly isn't in the illustration, so looking around for a translation of the sword-vs-polearm section I found: myarmoury.com
From what I can see it tells you to strike towards the shaft a lot in order to parry attacks. This could in theory cut the haft, and we do get one "if this didn't cut his haft", but unless I'm missing somethign that doesn't appear to be what you're really aiming for, just a nice bonus if it happened. Instead we're simply displacing attacks by cutting into them, pretty standard swordsmanship.
>my feet hurt
>this sword is too heavy
>my hat is too lopsided for the lads to take me seriously
>this maiden stole my glove
>I wish I was back home sharpening my knives
>From what I can see it tells you to strike towards the shaft a lot in order to parry attacks
This bothered me too. I don't know Italian but from what I understand, it describes how to fight and defend against polearms. Chopped pikes could be used symbolically to show defeat and superiority of the greatsword.
As far as myth about chopping pike heads goes, it's the only illustration that could spawn it.
but for what purpose.
if it is supposed to be groin protection , why did it have to be raging erections... imaginge some mad fabulous guy with an erection running towards you swinging a big sword
Fashion.
Because they made these swords specifically to destroy pole arms.
After that they're more or less giant, unwieldy cleavers you swing to keep people at bay until your arms wear out and you die horribly.
if it goes like you said (the "dying horribly" part) , how come that this tactic was in use for quite a while?
(most polearms were roughly the weight of most greatswords)
>Because they made these swords specifically to destroy pole arms.
As per above, this does not seem to be the case.
>you swing to keep people at bay until your arms wear out and you die horribly.
With a fight of one against many being a really bad spot to begin with, the idea would probably have been to merely swing until help could arrive, or the guy you're guarding could un-arrive.
Fashion and syphilis.
>imaginge some mad fabulous guy with an erection running towards you swinging a big sword
This is exactly why.
Landsknechts were first strike troops, sent as a first attack line with others supporting them from behind. Their job was to break through the wall of pikes (something horses were shitty at), break the formation and murderfuck as many people as they could before retreating and letting others finish the job. They weren't troops made for prolonged contact.
Also, some of them carried crossbows, switching to sword in melee.
This thread is getting wierder with every new post.
So I propose that Landsknechts were actually scouts who were raised into the air tied to huge kites.
The landsknecht as a whole weren't some kind of particular elite troops, they were simply mercenaries raised from the lowlands of Swabia. They were primarily pikemen (early on at least, guns would become more popular over time), raised at first by Emperor Maximilian to hopefully match the Swiss mercenaries the French used to pit against him.
You're thinking of the doppelsoldners ("double soldiers", as in double pay), who were the elite of the landsknecht.
That their job would be to specifically break apart pike formations, either by cutting the pikes or simply showing them aside, is suggested form time to time, but I'm not aware any of real historical evidence for this.
Right, i mixed them up a bit.
>You're thinking of the doppelsoldners ("double soldiers", as in double pay), who were the elite of the landsknecht.
...and everybody who could bring along his own gear, really.
>It's more about batting them aside
This.
Pikes of the time had become absurdly long, often over 20 feet, and were too unweildy to use in close quarters like earlier spears. They were great for stopping cavalry, but if some crazy bastards got in past the points of the pike formation swinging zweihanders, you were fucked.
A pikeman would have to drop his pike and try to fend off the landschneckt with whatever dagger or short-sword he happened to have, and would have to draw that weapon within the few moments it took the landschneckt to cover that last 15 feet or so of distance. Of course, that's almost impossible, so the front rank of were pretty much doomed if the enemy got in past their pikes. Now, the rest of the formation could get their close combat weapons out and maybe survive the ensuing melee, but they'd have broken formation and lost their pikes, essentially neutralizing that unit of pikemen as a fighting force in the battle.
Getting past 5 to 10 pike points isn't an easy task I take it.
You know that they came in formations?
PS, early landsknecht pikes were only 12 feet tall and I don't believe they went much over 18.
the main problem of swords is that they are situational. Mainly, they cannot slash through metal armour, and as a stabbing weapon you have a choice between light, short blades (where in many cases long knives would be better) or long, heavier weapons like the longsword and the estoc (which are outclassed in many situations by spears) and evenn then rely on aiming for the weak spots in plate armour.
If you look at the history of swordplay, they tend to be widely used in era's and locations where metal armour is either very limited or not widely used, like the Roman era (where no armies had full body protection, leaving gaps for the roman stabbing swords), or late 17th century europe where fulll body plate was on a massive decline (armouring against bullets became so heavy that most troops concentrated on the torso and head protection), and even then sword armed troops were rather rare, either cavalrymen, well trained specialists like the landsknecht swordsmen, or military experiments that did not work out (like the attemps to integrate swordsmen into the spanish tercio's).
ever since coats of plate came into fashion in europe, swords have been mostly relegated to being sidearms, the weapon you can carry around at any time in any setting. Which is still important, but not a serious military use.
To be fair, the zweihander is basically a polearm itself.
>and were too unweildy to use in close quarters like earlier spears
No spear can be used in close combat while in formation. That's why you have guys behind you with spears to stab the guys you can't, and guys behind them with spears, and so on.
I think they were actually sweeping the pikes and only occasionally cutting them.
>relegated to being sidearms
>not a serious military use.
You're right and that's why the worlds armies don't issue pistols.
Swords are the most versatile weapons, and the longsword is the most versatile sword. Grab the blade and now you have a rondel with three feet of handle for insane leverage. Flip it around and you have an armor puncturing pick. Punch someone in the face with the pommel and you will ring his helmet like a gong. There's a reason everyone carried a sword into combat. Halberds and lances are great and all, but when you find yourself surrounded by baddies and you need to fight your way out, the sword is the only weapon that gives you the toolbox you need to have half a chance at getting out alive.
I don't get one thing. Humor me.
How many mass, army-on-army combats have your characters participated in?
Why do we always gauge effectiveness of weapons by formation fighting?
Because that's the only way polearm and access fanboys can claim any sort of superiority. Take them out of formation and they become "pretty good as long as you keep it short" and "absolutely abysmal" respectively.
>Access
Axe
Several. But GM always just handwaved it because he couldn't be arsed with the rules, so my PC might as well have had a short pointy stick.
>Which is still important, but not a serious military use.
A side arm is most definitely a serious military use. If we take a block of charging knights for example, only the front rank is going to get any real use out of their lances, for those behind that sidearm is where it's at. A pikeman with a foe past his point, an archer finding himself in melee, both will have their sidearm serve well if they are to survive.
And as the sword remained immensely popular in 15th and 16th century Europe, it doesn't seem like a weapon only fit for poorly armoured times.
Now any weapon is situational. But if anything it seems that the sword may be your best overall bet. Ritsu Otake for example, head instructor of Katori Shinto Ryu, holds that while the sword isn't always the best, it is the weapon which will give you the best chance in the greatest number of circumstances, against the most different weapons (see Amdur, "Old School"). And in between that and Europe:
"[The sword] is (such) a good brother that it does not become inactive in wide or even narrow places. One needs it on the sea and on the land and in crowd. On a very windy day the lance becomes a burden for its possessor, but this (the sword) never becomes useless. And on that day the archer can not shoot his arrow straight, (therefor) no one can do without the sword."
"Although they have many weapons, they would never be able to do without the sword, but those who have swords can do without all the other weapons."
Kitab al-Furusiyya va'l-Baytara, 14th century
The sword also appears in, well, basically every culture that can make them, often as one of the main wepaons. This suggests that its useful in a wide range of situations.
And contrary to most "primary" weapons, the sword is (usually) somethign you can simply have hanging from your belt. Dragging around a halberd as you go about your daily life, or fight with another weapon, would be hard.
I think he means in the same way that nobody would say "Alright, you lot get in there with your pistols."
>if swords are as useless as Veeky Forums says
[Citation needed]
they actually dodnt used these in mass pikes and muskets were used zweihänder were used to run into pike blocks the swords were used not as some anons said to cop the pike heads off ,but to kick them away and when they got in they could rampage but as op said it was a specialized unit with a hight death toll but it was also highly paid
Specifically 20 feet in the air. How are you going to fight a man 20 feet away stabbing you with a 20 foot polearm? He is invincible from his lofty perch!
The closest you get to that is the halberd but the halberd takes two hands to wield and one to carry. A sword needs just a single hand to wield and no hands to carry with a sheath.
Throw a rock at him!
A big rock!
But a big rock would then fall back down upon the thrower. A phyrric victory at best.
Swords worth using take two hands to wield competently. Halberds are specialized weapons for fighting in formation against armored and/or mounted opponents. The longsword is a highly versatile weapon that is effective in nearly any situation. However, it's rarely better than a weapon specifically optimized for any given situation and it's comparatively difficult to learn to use effectively.
Pyrrhic victory is still victory, I'll take what I can get.
I don't believe in the No-Win scenario
I think the legions of Rome would take issue with that assessment. As would late medieval and renaissance duelists. In close quarters, such as in the press of tightly-formed infantry, a weapon optimized for two-handed use is a liability. In completely-open engagements, a non-trivial reach advantage, particularly with a thrust, can be achieved with a single-hand grip on a similar-length weapon.
Many weapons, including many swords, are most effective when wielded with two hands. But not all of them. And not under all circumstances. If you were outfitting a mass of soldiers with side arms, the military doctrines of your era would be an important consideration. Landsknecten (referred to in the OP) typically used Katsbalgers IIRC, which are a form of sword not particularly suited to two-handed use.
A greatsword is a short mostly metal polearm disguised as a sword. Actual swords are quickdraw backup weapons. It's not so much that swords are terrible primary weapons, but that everything else is a terrible backup weapon. So you start with your non-sword weapon.
Honestly, a lot of cultures AFTER Rome would take issue with it too if only because almost all didn't really have the metallurgical technology to make long tapering 2-handed blades yet.
Of course since during the Migration and Early Middle Ages periods the average enemy in battle was NOT necessarily expected to be wearing metal armor (which for many cultures kind of peaked out at being maille, especially after Rome stopped being a major power in Europe), just a heavy gambeson and helmet and shield, then you didn't really need tapering pointed weapons to pierce heavy armor at all quite yet.
>This acceptable-quality sword isn't really a sword
>Swords are shit
Ladies and gentlemen for your pleasure and entertainment, the polefag.
Nigga you dumb, he didn't say any of that.
why would axes be bad outside of formation? just curious since iv never heard that before. i assume you mean the long two handed axes
Veeky Forums needs to move on to debating what fails were used for. that would be a fun conversation
As you say, the "double" referred to their pay, since they were the bravest soldiers willing to fight in the frond. It has nothing to do with their weapon, which could be anything, not just a "double" handed sword.
Greatswords are nasty weapons individually, but I can't imagine a tight formation trying to use them. Probably why they are more of a historical curiosity.
Incidentally, to prevent people from getting in and disrupting them, early Spanish tercio formations deployed sword and shield men.
Romans didn't use a sword, they used a knoif. And one handed swords in general require a shield to be useful which then makes them into optimized formation fighting weapons and not general purpose weapons.
Because they're not actually good at anything. Fantasy axes share more in common with felling axes than battle axes and would be worse than worthless in a fight. You might get away with holding it just below the head and using it like a baton, but you're better off with a stick.
Danish axes are the closest thing to a fantasy axe ever used in battle, but they were much longer with small heads and used because they were cheap and gave enough range to reach over the front ranks of a shield wall.
Late medieval battle axes were mostly a spike on a stick rather than what you might normally consider an axe, because an axe blade can't puncture armor without a huge lever arm like on a halberd.
Here's what the kind of axes you see in historical combat look like.
why are you talking so much about fantasy axes? i even preemptively mentioned that i was specifically talking about real axes and my question was in response to you talking about historical axes
you also completely ignored my actual question. why would danish axes be "absolutely abysmal" outside of formation?
i thought for a second you where something other than the typical Veeky Forums armchair warrior expert
also i would love to take you on in a fight where i get a working axe and you get (the superior weapon apparently) a stick
do you also think 9mm rounds cant harm anyone because its not the statistically most perfect round in existence?
You can't be this obtuse. Stop.
I'm a different poster, but have you ever actually split wood? Those things aren't balanced at all, all the weight is at the end in order to do what it does. You swing that at someone and they just step back, and you're fucked.
yes i have. so where are we going to have our duel? you can have the first guys stick when hes done with it
War axes were much lighter than axes used to chop wood
I'm aware. I'm responding to someone who would pick a wood chopping axe as a weapon.
Yes, if you landed a blow with one of those, it would deal damage. They are also incredibly unwieldy.
>Romans didn't use a sword, they used a knoif.
The Gladius is a fucking sword you dumb fucking crotch stain. Gladius fucking MEANS sword.
i didnt say i would pick a wood chopping axe you illiterate nigger
the user i responded to said a literal stick would be a better weapon than a working axe. actually he said it would be worse than worthless in a fight. so maybe i should have challenged him to a duel where i get an axe and he gets nothing. according to him the fight would still be in his favor but i think i could manage
You brought up fantasy axes when you posted a picture of one next to your question. As far as the effectiveness of an axe, they're short bladed weapons that typically don't have a point. It's literally just a fraction of the toolbox that a sword offers.
They do have some benefits in their ability to penetrate, but that's just a result of their balance. You could balance a sword the same way pretty easily, but it's not done because it has serious drawbacks, making the weapon slower and requiring more strength and endurance.
It's a joke, asshat. Did you not have a childhood?
Yes, offered a choice between grappling a guy armed with a splitting maul or trying to hit a guy with a fuckhuge axe while he's punching me from three inches away, I'd choose the former.
...
What are you even >implying? If you weren't such a shutin neckbear loser, you would have caught the reference.
Thirded. Anything used in historical context wasn't shit, and very few technologies totally dominated at any time (and even then, it was for a fairly short amount of time).
>Incidentally, to prevent people from getting in and disrupting them, early Spanish tercio formations deployed sword and shield men.
Wrong. They sent them out because that was all they had, but frankly we got like two incidents of them succeeding against pikes and the rest of what we know is basically about how they were quickly relegated to raiding- and ambhush-duty in Italy until they could finally phase them out in favour of guns and pikes.
Apparently sword&board had some use in the campaigns of sieges they fought during the reconquista, but they generally got creamed when they were up against shock cavalry and pikes.
>Play JRPGs sometimes
>"Gladiator" class or character
>Literally latin for "Swordsman"
>Incapable of equipping swords
Nippon, why?
Polite sage for my off-topic post