Questions about swords here, please answer what you can!?

cp_scipiom

2012-01-17 07:34:16 UTC

>How long were swords in use in combat for?

since time immemorial. the earliest fully described battle is Kadesh and the Egyptians use swords

>How effective were swords in battle?

very effective- which is what made them so popular. relativelly light and alowing for a wide variety of blows

>How did someone go about fighting someone in full set of steel armour?

two possible ways-

one is to keep hitting one vulnerable spot (usually the head) until something breaks. the weapon of choice here would not be a sword but an axe or a spiked war hammer. a two handed flail was even better- one good swing is all it took

second method is to distract the armoured knight and have someone hit him from behind. once he's down just cut his throat

>Could some swords penetrate armour in the middle ages?

sure. any good european sword could do that- especially with a stabbing thrust. however the intriduction of plate armour meant a likelihood of the blow glancing away- so some spots were more vulnerable and thus preferred targets. the armpit is a good example- provided the armoured man can be tricked into making an overhead strike

>What is the difference between cutting, thrusting, hacking and slashing?

cutting: lay the blade on the meat and slice it back and forth.

or a chop followed by a pull on the sword- making the blade go through soft armour. the most skilled of blows

thrusting: stab with the point of the blade. good for precise hits on non-armoured places. like eyes. deadly dangerous,

hacking; hit with the blade as with an axe. power over skill. the most common of blows in real combat

slashing. striking with the tip of the blade- making a long, shallow wound. used when you want to captue someone alive (and you have the advantage of skill and the luxury of time to do it)

>Were one handed swords used in the middle ages, accompanied with a shield?

yes, that was by far the most common combination

2012-01-17 04:34:46 UTC

Swords have been used in combat since the Bronze Age; the last recorded instance of the use of a sword by military personnel (as far as I am aware) was Mad Jack Churchill, a British officer in the second world war who carried a longbow and a claymore into action.

Swords were considered an ultimate status symbol for a long time; there was a reason for this. A well-made sword was considered a badge of rank in the dark ages, as it could cut through most armour. Swords were combat-effective wherever the opposition was not wearing full-plate armour.

If someone was wearing full plate, a sword wouldn't be much use; it would be much easier to use a heavy, blunt weapon like a warhammer or a mace to cause crushing injuries, or a sharp polearms which could be used to knock the opposition over and then work away at weak spots in the armour.

Swords could penetrate padded cloth, leather, chain-mail and scale-mail. This meant that they could defeat any armour until the 1300s, when plate armour came into more widespread use, and even then it would be over 100 years before full plate was developed, and even full plate had its weak spots.

Cutting/hacking/slashing = sweeping the sword across an opponent's body to lay open flesh or sever limbs.

Thrusting = stabbing; pushing the sword point-first into an enemy's body. This was fairly uncommon in the middle ages as this is the easiest way to break a sword.

There were swords of all sizes used in the middle ages, generally with different purposes. A mounted knight would often carry a longsword to use when he broke or lost his lance after charging, and this would be held in one hand while the other held his shield and reins. A knight on foot would often carry a one-handed sword too, with a shield in his other hand. Some specialist troops would carry a sword so large that it required two hands; examples include the German Landsknechts.

However, ordinary foot soldiers could not always afford a sword, so unless they gained one that they had looted from a battlefield, they would be equipped with a spear or similar polearm, a dagger and maybe a shield.

Swords became more common as the years went on; by the 1600s they were cheap enough to be carried by every soldier in an army, although they had been replaced by muskets and pikes as primary weapons. By the 1700s the only soldiers likely to use their swords were cavalrymen, and footsoldiers stopped being issued swords. By the 1800s only cavalrymen and infantry officers carried swords, normally backing them up with a carbine or revolver. This remained the case until world war I, when close combat was so rare that swords were reserved only for ceremonial purposes, and all members of an army were issued rifles.

Derek

2012-01-17 05:50:47 UTC

These answers refer to Medieaval England and Europe.

Swords are still being used in Africa. They were first used 5,000 years ago. Basically, as long as there were Horse Cavalry in an Army, then the primary weapon would be regarded as the sword.

In full plate armour, a swordfight would be fought the same way as without armour, just a bit more slowly. Due to the weight of the armour (about 75 pounds, a Royal Marine carries the same weight), the combat time would be reduced due to exhaustion, but it was not unknown for both parties to take a rest during the fight. A set of plate armour is a lot more maneuverable to wear than appears, and an armoured knight would be expected to get on his horse unaided. In a battle, if you couldn't, then you were dead. Anything showing a knight being lifted on to his horse by a pulley or block and tackle is fantasy.

Yes, some swords could penetrate plate, it depends on how it was used. Armour was not of a uniform thickness, and weak points were known, especially at the joints, so small plates were devised to cover them. Plate armour was really devised to combat the effect of the arbalist, or crossbow bolt, but at 200yards, not even the finest "alwite" armour could stop a bolt from a heavy crossbow.

Cutting, hacking and slashing are three levels of desperation when using the edge of the sword. Swords were designed in different ways, depending on the historical period. They could be sharp edged with a blunt, rounded tip (a slashing sword), sharp pointed with a thicker, less sharp edge( thrusting and hacking) or a sharp point AND a sharp edged blade(thrusting and cutting). The pommel of the sword could be used as a blunt instrument, and providing you were wearing maille gloves, you could hold the blade and use it as a very large dagger.

One handed swords were the initial type it appears. That then left a spare hand for another weapon, a shield or holding the reins of a horse. In England, the "kite" shield of the Saxons and Normans changed to the "heater" or "flatiron" shaped shield which is the most familiar shape. These started out as quite large but eventually became a more manageable size. (About 40" X 24").The hand-and-a-half or "bastard" sword was what it says.The hilt was longer so that if necessary, the the sword could be used two handed to deliver a heavier blow and was longer in the blade, useful on horseback. The two handed sword tended to used by knights who fought dismounted, the "knight-at-arms". Technically it could be used on horseback, but it was unwieldy and you had to steer the horse with your knees, not recommended in the middle of an armoured charge.

Mike F

2012-01-17 03:31:49 UTC

Swords (or thier varients) were used from the Bronze age untill the invention of the first flintlocks, and beyond! they were still a more readily available weapon than an unloaded musket!

They were as effective in battle as thier rivals sword skills, the same as an assault rifle is as effective as an assault rifle, they only ever come up against each other.

As for penetrating armour, not all combatants were dressed in armour, knights were the equivilent of 'tanks' on a battlefield, Cutting and slashing was kept for those less armoured, a sword fight with a knight was relativly useless, the suits werent exactly agile enough for fencing, a thrust with a broadsword or pike would maybe fall into a joint or weakspot in armour, and to 'some' damage, or unbalance them, (its not easy to spring back up in a steel suit!)

One handed swords with shields were used, while the Broadswords were more like a hammer blow, very heavy! doing serious damage or amputation with 1 blow, however fighters were in training from a young age and so were built to do so, they too could have a shield, but it could be fitted to the forearm or elbow to keep the hand free.

I hope some of this helps...

?

2012-01-17 04:27:50 UTC

The standard Roman Army sword was short, and used mainly by thrusting from between the 'wall' of shields. "Barbarian" swords were longer, and used with a swingig, cutting motion in "single combat"

With the the development of Armour, swords became much heavier, with counter-weighted hilts, and used two-handed - e.g. the Scottish "Claymore". The single-handed "broadsword" was used with a small circulat shield - a "buckler" - strappd to the left wrist, and used to deflect blows rather than protect from them. In the 16th.Century, with the decline of Armour, design went to the other extreme with the "rapier" - long, very light, and used only for rapid thrusting. It was used in defence by turning the opponent's thrust to one side or the other - "fencing". It required great skill, but very little strength, and was particularly deadly. Rapiers became an "article of fashion" for gentlemen, rather that a military weapon, were carried routinely, and used in duelling..Hence the lines on the carpet of the House of Commons, keeping Government and Opposition Members "2 swords-lengths apart " ! It was at first used in conjunction with a long dagger held in the left hand, this partly for defensive deflection, but also for thrusting - this was Hamlet's speciality, and used in his final duel.

Later, the dagger was abandoned, and the rapier used as both sword and shield. Heavy swords - "sabres" - used with a slashing action, continued to be used by cavalry, right into the 20th.Century.as were "cutlasses" in the Navy - last issued to the crew of "Cossack" when boarding the "Altmark" in Josing Fiord in the Spring of 1940 !

The last swords used in military actions were the "Samurai swords" carried by Japanese officers in the 1940s. These were light, and made by a long and complicated process, which produced an extremely sharp cutting edge.

In any contest between cutting and thrusting swords though, it is agreed that "The point will always beat the edge".

WOMBAT, Manliness Expert

2012-01-18 03:38:25 UTC

As far as I know they were used in combat variously into the 1960's. The Japanese Imperial Army famously used katanas, during many battles in the pacific islands in WW2. With very poor effectiveness I should add. Soldiers were instructed to "Banzai charge" the enemy when they ran out of ammunition. Their commanders told them they'd be shown no mercy by the Americans so their best chance was a last-ditch suicide attack. This was a sort of "human-wave tactic."

Swords were common until the invention of breech-loading brass cartridges and repeating weapons like revolvers. The idea being, if the enemy was too close to reload, ditch the gun and pull out your saber..

Swords were fairly effective against unarmored and lightly armored enemies. the main drawback is that they required a lot of training to prevent blunders. I believe one of the advantages of a sword was the ability to parry aside pole-arms.

Against heavily armored opponents, swords were less effective. Swords during the heyday of armored combat around the 1200's, tended to be heavy and only sharpened on the point. They were used less for slicing and more as blunt chopping/bludgeoning weapons. The idea being to cause blunt-force injuries The point would be used to stab unarmored areas.

Yes you could penetrate plate armor, but only with great difficulty. Not something to count on in the heat of battle. A better idea would be to give your enemy a good blow to the head and knock him down, then you could stab him someplace vulnerable.

Weapons like maces and warhammers were seen to be more effective against plate armor.

Pretty much anything solid you could hold in your hand, was used as a weapon in the middle ages. If you were clever, you could cut a tree branch and pound nails into it. You used whatever you had especially if you were a poor conscript. A lot of people could barely afford a spear.

?

2012-01-17 04:27:45 UTC

As a retired Jihadist, I can say without a shadow of doubt that swords have been in use since time immemorial, Perhaps you may qoute me and say a YA user says it`s much more fun to kill with a sword than it is to use the more mundane bullet,bomb or explosives.

Mumford

2017-03-01 13:37:26 UTC

It just depends on your own lifestyle... and your daily activities... Me personally I keep my nail from about a quarter inch from the tips of my fingers because We type all day

2017-01-27 05:53:53 UTC

Well long nails are attractive... but to make this look sexy, put red nail gloss on.... now thats attractive hun!

2012-01-17 03:45:12 UTC

th