Which of our ancestors made the most sturdy, and effective battle ready swords

[MadSquabbles500]

I depends on the era. But the Romans would first toss their light pila. Then if they had to, they would charge into the fight, and depending on the foe either use their heavy pila like a spear or their swords. The big thing the romans had was flexible and adaptable set of subunits. They could move much more easily over broken ground, and immediately insert men into breaks in the enemy line.

But once you throw the pila, you can use it again. And once the pila hit something it was designed to fracture, but not break off. So essentially, there was spear stuck in the enemies shield that you could not get out and would make wielding his shield around harder. How could the Romans have used it in melee, unless to throw it a short distance?

 

[MadSquabbles500]

OK, but those flexible, independently maneuvering units were possible because each legionnaire was an complete fighting unit, carrying his own (massive) protection that to some extent nullified the reach advantage of a two-handed spear. Spear walls require relatively static formations; turning is basically impossible and every movement must be carefully coordinated, especially over rough terrain. The Romans demonstrated that most of the time, a well-trained sword/shield force can outmaneuver, flank, or otherwise disrupt the formation of a spear wall.

During the Phyrric wars, early in their Greek conquest, the Romans did try to attack the Macedonian spear wall head on; naturally, that did not work very well. Also, the legions tended to get wrecked when they had to deal with superior cavalry as they had no defense against mounted enemies.


Fair enough, but the knight would have been armored and didn't really need a shield. Knights also had no unit-level training and would have been unable to execute any tactic more complicated than 'charge' or 'run away.' Not sure why samurai did not use shields.


I think that in an unarmored fight, a man with a very large shield and a rapier would have a significant advantage over a man with a two-handed spear. That matchup reminds me of the classic BJJ vs boxer - once the sword/shield guy traps the spear and closes the distance, it's over.

The spear did remain relevant well into the era of the longbow and even relatively late in the firearms era, with the Swedes nearly taking over Europe with pike-and-shot tactics. The Romans sort of stick out as one of the few ancient armies to successfully use the sword as a primary weapon; furthermore, after the Romans, spears returned to dominance. I think the sword and shield did continue to see use as a primary weapon on the Indian subcontinent into the modern era.

A spearman can carry a shield also. And they can hold it overhand for CQB, and stab downwards. The spear has reach over the rapier. And the rapier was either used with a main gauche (dagger) or a buckler (very small shield). I would say the spearman can hold his own in that regard.

 

[SweetDaddySiki]

But once you throw the pila, you can use it again. And once the pila hit something it was designed to fracture, but not break off. So essentially, there was spear stuck in the enemies shield that you could not get out and would make wielding his shield around harder. How could the Romans have used it in melee, unless to throw it a short distance?

The heavy pila can and were used as spears. It even had a kind of handguard to protect the hands in melee.

 

[SweetDaddySiki]

Fair enough, but the knight would have been armored and didn't really need a shield. Knights also had no unit-level training and would have been unable to execute any tactic more complicated than 'charge' or 'run away.' Not sure why samurai did not use shields.

The Samurai evolved as horse archers where a shield is an impediment. Their 'shields' were actually the enlarged shoulder pads on the yoroi. On foot they tended to use two handed weapons like the yari or naginata. Dismounted Knights abandoned shields themselves as time wore on.

I think that in an unarmored fight, a man with a very large shield and a rapier would have a significant advantage over a man with a two-handed spear. That matchup reminds me of the classic BJJ vs boxer - once the sword/shield guy traps the spear and closes the distance, it's over.

Thats an odd and rather anachronistic combo. By the age of the rapier, large shields were not in use. A rapier isn't a good choice against a spear as its advantage, reach is completely negated by the reach of the spear.

 

[esotamoc]

The Samurai evolved as horse archers where a shield is an impediment. Their 'shields' were actually the enlarged shoulder pads on the yoroi. On foot they tended to use two handed weapons like the yari or naginata. Dismounted Knights abandoned shields themselves as time wore on.



Thats an odd and rather anachronistic combo. By the age of the rapier, large shields were not in use. A rapier isn't a good choice against a spear as its advantage, reach is completely negated by the reach of the spear.

What about the Spanish rodelero and the Italian rotella? Their side swords were like robust cut and thrust proto rapiers werent they?

 

[SweetDaddySiki]

What about the Spanish rodelero and the Italian rotella? Their side swords were like robust cut and thrust proto rapiers werent they?

Aye..somewhat similar. But when compared to what we usually call a rapier, the espada ropera was shorter and more multipurpose than what the rapier evolved into. This is very similar to the kit carried by the rodelero
[YT]jtBLsw56-3Y[/YT]

 

[Gregolian]

The Samurai evolved as horse archers where a shield is an impediment. Their 'shields' were actually the enlarged shoulder pads on the yoroi. On foot they tended to use two handed weapons like the yari or naginata. Dismounted Knights abandoned shields themselves as time wore on.

The Japanese sword can't properly be handled with one hand either.

 

[Magooglie]

Romans. They had tactics that emphasized their swords and they killed a lot of people with their short swords.

 

[I WILL CUT YOU]

The Japanese sword can't properly be handled with one hand either.

I'm not disagreeing however Musashi dual wielded daisho.




As for the best swords, I'd take a modern t-10 alloy or a techno wootz over anything historical functionally speaking. For an art sword, you can't top China and Japan.

 

[Badger67]

I'm not disagreeing however Musashi dual wielded daisho.




As for the best swords, I'd take a modern t-10 alloy or a techno wootz over anything historical functionally speaking. For an art sword, you can't top China and Japan.

^ He didn't do that for the few battles he engaged in, however. Only for his duels (which eventually became two bokken as his skill increased). Would he have duel wielded in a battle ? I'm not entirely sure.

 

[Badger67]

The Samurai evolved as horse archers where a shield is an impediment. Their 'shields' were actually the enlarged shoulder pads on the yoroi. On foot they tended to use two handed weapons like the yari or naginata. Dismounted Knights abandoned shields themselves as time wore on.

IIRC, their cape like implement on horseback also hindered arrows from behind by providing a catch like medium to the arrows force, essentially dissipating the force and negating the arrow.

I remember reading a book recently about samurai history from when japan first had caucasians prior to becoming japanese, the book mentions the sword as a great side arm but didn't become their "soul" so to speak until around the sengoku period and after. Prior to that, the Yari was indeed their preferred weapon on foot followed by the naginata as you have said.

It made little to no mention of shields though, but did encompass a lot on their philosophical battle components. Some which were ludicrous.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Romans. They had tactics that emphasized their swords and they killed a lot of people with their short swords.

And they were able to make a lot of them quickly. Not as sexy as otriental blades, but effective.

 

[SweetDaddySiki]

And they were able to make a lot of them quickly. Not as sexy as otriental blades, but effective.

Most Japanese swords were mass produced beaters as well. We don't see them because no one cared to preserve them. But if you need swords for 40,000 ashigaru, you aren't going to buy quality.

 

[SweetDaddySiki]

^ He didn't do that for the few battles he engaged in, however. Only for his duels (which eventually became two bokken as his skill increased). Would he have duel wielded in a battle ? I'm not entirely sure.

Dual wielding is a duelling thing. In battle he probably used his yari.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Most Japanese swords were mass produced beaters as well. We don't see them because no one cared to preserve them. But if you need swords for 40,000 ashigaru, you aren't going to buy quality.

Great point.

 

[Magooglie]

The japanese sword was over romanticized in the Tokugawa period, where Japan was isolationist and weren't fighting anybody. The last big conflict they had was the Shimabara rebellion and then 200+ years of peace. So it was a lot of time to make fancy things and then theorize about them in isolation.

 

[Karelinator]

"Which was the bestest" is always pretty had to answer, because it isn't very good question really.

'Average quality of sword' would really be far, far down on the list of importance to army miles behind stuff like logistics, morale, formation skills, individual skills etc.

Swords were pretty universal personal, secondary weapons as well.

'Durability' is also not very important quality of sword... Agile, sharp weapon out of hard metal isn't going to be very abuse friendly by definition.

It's not wood chopping axe. It's meant for careful use, yet with understanding that it will get chipped, dulled, broken etc. sooner or later - hopefully managing to save owner's life and health before.

Still, if I had to guess, I would bet on swords from general Alps region in 16th century.

Northern Italy, Switzerland, Austria, Southern Germany, Augsburg, Nuremberg, etc.

Powerful industries, yet with impressively skilled individual artisans, producing swords of countless profiles, geometries, sizes.

Longswords, shortswords, sabers, rapiers, messers, falchions, dussacks, basilards, degens, huge two handed swords, estocs, etc.

Purely thrusting or purely slashing blades with everything in between, huge and small, delicate and somehow robust, with hilts varying from absolutely minimal to very elaborate hand protections baskets, etc.


Later, in 17th century, swords were slowly, but steadily losing their importance outside of more and more specialized duels, so late 16th century is probably peak height of industry.

 

[I WILL CUT YOU]

^ He didn't do that for the few battles he engaged in, however. Only for his duels (which eventually became two bokken as his skill increased). Would he have duel wielded in a battle ? I'm not entirely sure.

No, samurai use spears in battle. Bows, pokearms, and spears. Swords were sidearms, and saved for one on one fights or as a last resort weapon.

Swords became the primary weapon of duelung after the shogunate took over and there was unification and a long period of peace. The reason is, you wore little to no armor while dueling. Swords can't cut through lamellar armor.

 

[Badger67]

I'm well aware of that and never said anything to the contrary. My comment of "i'm not entirely sure" was meant to be dry sarcasm.

 

[MarcoW]

Well I do believe the longsword is the best of the swords, probably coming from Italy or Germany, I do not buy into the "the Katana is a horrible weapon" trite that all weapon enthusiasts seem to regurgitate.