Death Scythe: Renaissance two-handed swords with a flaming blade

Two-handed sword on a miniature from the manuscript "Human Mirror of Salvation", c. 1325-1375, Karlsruhe. Germany, Baden State Library

"... for all who took the sword will die by the sword ..."
(Matthew 26: 52)

Weapon from museums. In the previous article, we were talking about exactly how the two-handed swords of the Middle Ages differ from the two-handed swords of the Renaissance. And it is obvious that the differences lie not only in the details of the form, but above all in their length, weight and application in battle.

Knights, however, also used two-handed swords. But mostly in tournaments. Collectible quality polystyrene figurine of a knight in tournament armor of the Japanese firm "Imex" on a scale of 1:12. Photo by the author

The two-handed sword (bidenhender) has a total length of 160 to 180 centimeters. No scabbard was made for these swords; they were worn on the shoulder like a lance. The upper part of the blade, the one that directly adjoined the crosshair and the handle, was usually not sharpened, but covered with wood and leather. Therefore, the hand could freely grasp the blade, which at least slightly facilitated fencing with such a sword (or even made it possible). Very often on such blades, directly on the border between their sharpened and non-sharpened parts, additional parrying hooks are found. It is easy to guess that such a Renaissance two-handed sword could not be used in the same way as a medieval battle sword. If in general it was still somehow used in battle, then it was done by foot soldiers, who, with the help of such swords, tried to punch gaps in the line of the enemy's peak. Since these were, in a certain sense, suicide teams, and only very strong warriors could properly handle a two-handed sword, they received a double salary, for which they were also called "double mercenaries."

Two identical two-handed swords [1, 3] more than 2 meters long served as weapons in the fencing school. But the sword [2] with leather guards, weighing 8,25 kg (here, at last we got a sword in 8 kg!), Most likely, was a military weapon, otherwise why did he need a leather guard? The ceremonial sword could be decorated with something more beautiful, but for the training one it is too heavy. The medallions on the top of its handle are nothing more than a tribute to Juan of Austria (1547-1578), who commanded fleet Of the Holy League during the victorious battle over the Ottomans at the Battle of Lepanto on October 7, 1571. The tops of the hilts of these swords are very characteristic: for example, the "decanter cork" on these thrusting swords and the octagonal pommel with a medallion in the center on the cutting sword. That is, before us are typical finials of the XNUMXth century. Armory of Dresden. Photo by the author

During the 2th century, two-handed swords were less and less used in combat and increasingly became ceremonial weapons. For example, they were armed with honor guards, because these powerful swords made a strong impression. The two-handed sword became a ceremonial sword, which was carried out by holding it in front of oneself. The swords became longer (often reaching XNUMX meters) and were decorated more and more magnificently and carefully.

The arches of the cross of such swords were most often playfully bent and decorated, and the pommel (see the middle sword) sometimes took the most amazing shape. Well, the blades of intimidation were sharpened in waves for the sake of (the so-called flamberg sword). Armory of Dresden. Photo by the author

The record for size belongs to ceremonial swords worn by the guards of Prince Edward of Wales during his time as Earl of Chester (1475-1483). These swords reached 2,26 meters. Needless to say, such huge swords no longer had any practical value, but should have symbolized the power of this suzerain.

It is clear that already at the very beginning of the appearance of such swords, attempts were made to further increase their striking power. And ... that's how flamberg-type swords arose. It was believed that a blow with such a sword - whether stabbing or cutting, inflicts a more severe wound, because it "breaks apart" it like a saw. Naturally, such conversations also caused greater fear, so the appearance of a warrior with such a sword had a strong psychological effect on the enemy. The owners of flambergs began to be condemned as notorious villains. Like, everyone:

"Wearer of a blade, like a wave, should be put to death without trial or investigation."

Check out these impressive two-handed swords ranging in length from 180 to 210 cm and weighing from 4 to 4,8 kg, which date from the reign of the Elector Augustus of Saxony. They were part of a group of 99 such swords, which were donated to the Armory from the Royal Saxon Arsenal in Dresden in 1833. The Bidenhanders displayed in this display case are the clear weapons of the Landsknechts. The elongated ricassos, covered in leather, could be used as an additional handle. Without a doubt, the handling of these weapons demanded excellent physical fitness and considerable courage from the Landsknechts. Armory of Dresden. Photo by the author

However, it should be noted here that when hitting with a two-handed sword on armor, there is not much difference what kind of blade he has. And in the same way, there is not much difference when the blow falls on a living body. Or let's put it this way: there may be a difference, but it is not so great to justify the technological difficulties of manufacturing and, consequently, the high cost of such blades. After all, forging a flamberg was more difficult than an ordinary sword, and it required more metal, which means it was heavier. In fact, it acquired the function of not a blade, but a polearm, and there everything depends not on the shape of the blade, but on the weight and length of the handle!

Flamberg sword, 1571-1599 Sword length 1684 mm, blade length 1225 mm, weight 5528 g. Royal Arsenal, Leeds

Each bend of the blade created a zone of increased metal stresses, so it was easier for a flamberg to break than a "two-handed" with a straight blade. One could have acted differently: forge a straight blade and simply sharpen its blades "under the wave." But again, it was a very time consuming task, given the length of the blade and the number of indentations and protrusions on it.

English bayonet bayonet, 1600-1699 Royal Arsenal, Leeds

In any case, it was a heavier and more expensive weapon, and if heavier, then ... and more effective when hitting, no matter how sharpened his blade. And it was not for nothing that flambergs, in general, did not become a mass weapon. How did the eastern sabers with wavy and serrated blades not become a mass weapon! Wavy bayonets did not become widespread, although they could have been produced in machine production without any problems. It is possible, but did not ... They considered that "the game is not worth the candle!"

Scottish claymore from the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. Handle close-up

Perhaps, the Scottish Highlanders used two-handed swords in battle for the longest time. What is known about him? That the two-handed claymore was a "great sword" used in Scotland during the late Middle Ages and early modern times from about 1400 to 1700. The last known battle in which the claymores are believed to have been used in large numbers was the Battle of Killikranky in 1689. This sword was somewhat longer than other two-handed swords of that era. In addition, Scottish swords were distinguished by a crosshair with straight crosses inclined forward, ending in a quatrefoil.

The blade of this claymore was made in Solingen ... Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

The average claymore had a total length of about 140 cm, with a handle of 33 cm, a blade of 107 cm and a weight of about 2,5 kg. For example, in 1772, Thomas Pennant described a sword seen on a visit to Raasai as:

“A bulky weapon two inches wide with a double-edged blade; blade length three feet seven inches; the handle is fourteen inches; flat weapon ... weight six and a half pounds. "

Largest claymore in stories, known as the "bloody killer", weighs 10 kilograms and is 2,24 meters long. It is believed to have been owned by a member of the Maxwell clan around the XNUMXth century. The sword is currently in the National War Museum in Edinburgh, Scotland.

Here is this claymore from the collection of the Metropolitan Museum in New York in "full growth". Made in the XVI-XVII centuries. in Solingen (blade), the handle is local, Scottish. Length 136 cm, blade length 103,5 cm, crosshair width 28,5 cm, weight 2068,5 g

However, such a "thing" as the inertia of thinking is a terrible thing - swords with wavy blades disappeared, but for some time rapiers with exactly the same blades appeared in Europe. They say that in a duel for the blade of an ordinary rapier, you can grab a hand in a thick glove, hold it, and in the meantime, slaughter your opponent. Whereas it is impossible to grab such a blade even with a glove. Moreover, such a sword does not get stuck in chain mail and ... in bones. But again, all these "magical properties" of such a blade were most likely clearly exaggerated.

Here is a rapier with a wavy blade, approx. 1620-1640 Italy. Length 111,8 cm, cross-hair width 24,8 cm, blade width 14 cm, weight 1346,6 g. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

Still, there were many more swords with an even, smooth blade. Well, let's say - these are ... These so-called "heavy swords" and parrying daggers are characteristic of the Italian school of fencing. Armory of Dresden. Photo by the author

And such! As for helmets and shields, they most likely served as attributes of the court guards and were least of all intended for battle. Armory of Dresden. Photo by the author

Sword. Unknown master. Italy, about 1540-1550 Length: 112,4 cm. Blade length: 98,8 cm. Blade width: 2,8 cm, blade at the top - ricasso. Guard width: 17,6 cm, protection. The handle has a pear-shaped pommel, the handle is wrapped in twisted wire. Crosshair: straight square bar, thickened at the ends; side rings and other parts are all square. Hexagonal blade, double-edged, with ricasso. Refers to the transitional type of sword, which is found in both civilian and military portraits of that time. Swords of this type in combination with a buckler or dagger were used by swordsmen of the Bologna school of fencing of Marozzo, which, although it included new innovations such as the parrying dagger, in its essence followed the old medieval martial tradition, including fencing with two-handed swords. The simple yet elegant hilt decoration seems to follow the civil fashion of the time and is most typical of weapons dating from about 1530-1550. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

But how much is a sword, how much a sword - you can argue endlessly!

Comments

[polpot]

Thank you for a wonderful article with great illustrations, great work.

[3x3zsave]

Finally!!!
In the previous article, we were talking about exactly how the two-handed swords of the Middle Ages differ from the two-handed swords of the Renaissance
Did I miss something?!
Thank you, Vyacheslav Olegovich!

[Richard]

The record for size belongs to ceremonial swords worn by the guards of Prince Edward of Wales during his time as Earl of Chester (1475-1483). These swords reached 2,26 meters. Needless to say, such huge swords no longer had any practical value, but should have symbolized the power of this suzerain.

However, they did not become ceremonial at once: the first swords with long handles, according to the classification of the most authoritative specialist in this field, E. Oakeshott, appeared already in the second half of the 910th century. He identified such swords as Type XIIa. With a blade length of 1100 - 150 mm, the length of the handle varied from 250 to XNUMX mm.
a photo.Sword type XIIa by E. Oakeshott

And the very technique of combat, in which the weapon is held with two hands, E. Oakeshott also refers to the XIII century. It is assumed that its appearance is associated with an increase in the effectiveness of the armor: in order to break it, an increasingly powerful blow was required.

[Richard]

the technique of combat, in which the weapon is held with two hands, E. Oakeshott also refers to the XIII century.

It is worth saying that somewhere at the same time, this technique is also recorded in the annals describing events in Russia, for example, in the so-called. Radziwill Chronicle dating from the beginning of the XIII century.
a photo. Two-handed grip from the Radziwill Chronicle.

[ee2100]

Hi Dmitry!
I read your comments, everything is great! Once again, the author "somewhere did not overlook or somewhere did not finalize"
This proves that there was no so-called. progressive development, but there was a time of scientific "poke".
Thank you, pleased!

[Catfish]

Hello Alexander!
"You can't embrace the immensity" (c) And Dima is really great.

[ee2100]

Good evening Konstantin!
Yes, Dmitry continues to amaze me with his erudition! And most importantly, there is nothing to object to the author.
Although TGIF, the article is interesting, and the comments are beyond praise.

[Catfish]

And why object if everything is correct.

[kalibr]

Quote: ee2100

And the most important thing is that there is nothing to object to the author.

Why should you object? Is this a goal or a duty? Let him write what he wants ...

[The leader of the Redskins]

Thank you Friday Charlie! Sorry for being frivolous, Vyacheslav Olegovich. Just today I complained to a colleague that there is nothing to read)))

[kalibr]

Quote: Leader of the Redskins

Friday Charlie!

This is a compliment, however!

[Normal ok]

The caption to one of the photos in the article reads:

Here is a rapier with a wavy blade, approx. 1620-1640 Italy. Length 111,8 cm, cross-hair width 24,8 cm, blade width 14 cm, weight 1346,6 g. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

14 cm at the rapier ?! Not every sword had this blade width.

[kalibr]

Quote: Normal ok

14 cm at the rapier ?!

The error is most likely. You're right.

[kalibr]

Quote: ee2100

Once again, the author "somewhere did not overlook or somewhere did not finalize"

For some reason you like the role of Tobacco, but it is not clever. This is not a monograph with a bunch of links to sources, but a popular article designed for the most common reader. More or less informative text and beautiful photographs, that's enough. And who wants to go deeper, then who is hindering? For that and comments. But it is simply unrealistic to write about everything in a short article, it is not even worth trying.

[vladcub]

I thought that the two-handed sword was not widespread in Russia.
It is impossible to say that you did not know such a sword, most likely it was not popular

[Han Tengri]

Quote: Richard

the first swords with long handles, according to the classification of the most authoritative specialist in this field, E. Oakeshott, appeared already in the second half of the 910th century. He identified such swords as Type XIIa. With a blade length of 1100 - 150 mm, the length of the handle varied from 250 to XNUMX mm.
photo Sword type XIIa by E. Oakeshott

And where, in this case, a two-handed sword? The photo shows a typical bastard. The dimensions you give also correspond to one and a half handcuffs.

[kalibr]

Well, here I promised you and fulfilled ... there will still be a second article.

[3x3zsave]

Excellent! I will wait!

[vladcub]

It's very good when you have something to wait

[Catfish]

Hello Anton.
I'll "hook" on you, because I found a couple of pictures and I'm afraid of another glitch on the site.
I'm not a specialist, but it seems like all the guys with two-handed swords.

Thank you Vyacheslav for another portion of pleasure.

[3x3zsave]

Hi Uncle Kostya!
Judging by their clothes, they are one hundred percent landsknechts.

[Catfish]

Once in Novodevichy we had an exhibition of armor and corresponding weapons. I was completely captivated by the Reitarskaya ammunition (entirely one large showcase), nothing superfluous, no decorations, everything is extremely simple, reliable and functional. You know, I am a loyal fan of firearms, but while preparing this exhibition, holding these things in my hands, I honestly, involuntarily felt respect for the craftsmen, and for those who ordered these armor and weapons, and did my work with them. There, professionalism was felt at first glance, both the masters and the customers.

[3x3zsave]

Photos left?

[Catfish]

Alas, I have not, but our photo department worked there, and not only he. I regret that I did not take the printout from the guys, but this is not the only jamb in my life in general and in the museum in particular.

[3x3zsave]

Do not mind it. It happens. If I find myself in Barcelona again ... But, I hope, it will still work out!

[Korsar4]

Not taking photos - cant? Strictly you judge yourself, sir.

[Catfish]

Strictly you judge yourself, sir.

Well, it's over time. And, basically, I do not regret it.

[Korsar4]

In childhood, the fairy tale came across an oriental one.
One of the instructions in it was: "Never regret what you did."

[Catfish]

So I regret NOT done.

[Korsar4]

It happens. But all only Phileas Fogg provided that it was necessary to take with him to the next series.

[Catfish]

And who is it? Hear it for the first time.))

[Korsar4]

Jules Verne Around the World in Eighty Days. And there was a wonderful Australian cartoon.

[Catfish]

You will laugh, but I have not read this book. For me, "The Mysterious Island" was always my favorite, I even reread this one in my youth.

[Korsar4]

I read it late.
Read as a child was Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea.

[Catfish]

Yes, and this book too, but "The Island" was the best!

[Korsar4]

Now I looked at the cartoon. The translation is not the same, but still great.

[Catfish]

What cartoon?

[Korsar4]

"Around the world in 80 Days". Shown here in the eighties.

[Catfish]

I know, I seem to have seen it, but I don't remember at all.

[Korsar4]

"Fix's tricks!" (from).

[Catfish]

No, a complete failure.

[Grim Reaper]

Quote: Sea Cat

You will laugh, but I have not read this book. For me, "The Mysterious Island" was always my favorite, I even reread this one in my youth.

Stunned. So as not to know "around the world ..." after all the reprints, cartoons and film adaptations, one with Jackie Chan. "Is it true? Where did you get drilled? Next to the Lykovs? I also want that ... :)

[Catfish]

Near the Lykovs?

I "hacked to death" in the city of Moscow on Tsvetnoy Boulevard.
And you can want anything, including reading those books that I have read and about which you have no idea. I wish you success.

[Richard]

Anton
Is not a fact. The landsknechts, however, not all had very characteristic swords - Zweikhanders.

Zweihander (German Zweihänder or Bidenhänder / Bihänder, “the two-handed sword”) is a weapon of a special division of landsknechts who consist of double salaries (doppelsoldnerov). If the claymore is the most modest sword, then the Zweihander was indeed impressive in size and in rare cases reached two meters in length, including the handle. In addition, he was notable for a double guard, where special “boar tusks” separated the uncut part of the blade (ricasso) from the sharpened blade.
Such a sword was a weapon of very narrow use. The fighting technique was quite dangerous: the owner of the Zweichander acted in the front ranks, pushing as a lever (or even completely chopping off) the shaft of the enemy pikes and spears. To possess this monster required not only remarkable strength and courage, but also considerable skill of a swordsman, so that the mercenaries did not receive double salaries for their beautiful eyes. The technique of fighting with two-handed swords bears little resemblance to the usual blade fencing: such a sword is much easier to compare with a reed. Of course, the Zweichander did not have a scabbard - it was worn on the shoulder like an oar or a spear.

[3x3zsave]

Dmitry, my respect!
Not a fact.
Fact. I appreciated the clothes.

[Richard]

Fact. I appreciated the clothes.

I throw out the white flag. Here I am a complete layman

[3x3zsave]

I also don't know much about the Renaissance, but the Landsknechts had four main items of expenditure: weapons, women, swill and rags. Most likely in this sequence.

[Richard]

During the Renaissance, there were laws prohibiting members of the lower classes from dressing pretentiously and brightly. Emperor Maximilian gave his landsknechts such a privilege, saying: “Their life is so short and bleak that magnificent clothing is one of their few pleasures. I'm not going to take it away from them. "
And the Landsknechts enjoyed this privilege to the fullest. They took the brightest fabrics, their berets were adorned with curled ostrich feathers, and their groin covered a pouch for genitals - brageta. It was made huge and stuffed with cotton wool - not only to show the masculinity of the owner, but also to soften the blow, if any. Sometimes they also hid a wallet in the brageta.
The Landsknecht style of dress, the so-called "puffs and cuts", where they cut through the outer garment and stuffed the lower layers through these cuts, quickly became popular. Moreover, it is so popular that even the English king Henry VIII, seeing the mercenaries, adopted their fashion and began to flaunt such a costume.
The highest "aerobatics" was steel armor, imitating the style of "puffs and cuts". It cost a lot of money, but medieval fashionistas were unstoppable.
a photoThe same armor in the style of "puffs and cuts".

[kalibr]

Quote: Richard

The same armor in the style of "puffs and cuts".

Well done, Richard. I got to the Metro ... But there is only that view of it, for some reason there is no front view.

[bk0010]

Quote: Richard

The fighting technique was quite dangerous.

From the video - as the sixth waving, they correctly wrote in the article that such a sword is actually a pole-arm.

[novel66]

in fact, the Swiss alshpis - a confirmation of this - are similar, right?

[ee2100]

Who cares. There is more
https://youtu.be/kb8tNzWlrhg

[Richard]

Thank you, Alexander, you are a tempting serpent
I have to read Vyacheslav Shpakovsky and your link at the same time with interest.

[kalibr]

Quote: 3x3zsave

Did I miss something?!

Yes, Anton! It turned out like this: this is the SECOND ARTICLE about two-handed swords. The first one remained under moderation. Well ... that's how it happened. I'm not exhibiting them. So the first will now be the SECOND, and the SECOND has become the FIRST.

[3x3zsave]

Hmm, "cant" however, but not yours. It's a shame, you know, the Middle Ages are more interesting to me than the Renaissance.

[Richard]

Perhaps, the Scottish Highlanders used two-handed swords in battle for the longest time. The Claymore was a large sword used in Scotland during the late Middle Ages and early modern times.

That's how claymore actually translates. Claymore (claymore, claymore, claymore, from the Gaulish claidheamh-mòr - "great sword").
You have correctly pointed out that its distinctive feature was the characteristic curve of the arches of the cross - downward, towards the tip of the blade. This design made it possible to effectively grip and, with a twist, literally pull out any long weapon from the enemy's hands - both swords and spears.
a photo. Irish Museum. Claymores

[Avior]

... here it should be noted that when you hit the armor with a two-handed sword, there is no particular difference what kind of blade he has.

I heard a version that there is a difference - the flamberg cuts through the armor better because of the shape of the blade - the impact force falls on a smaller area - on the upper parts of the waves of the blade

[WHAT IS]

From a purely structural point of view, the Flamberg blade is less rigid and has many more stress points than a normal sword - one point for each "half wave". The number and amplitude of half-waves, by the way, differed - the fewer there were, and the greater the amplitude, the more terrible a wound a flamberg could inflict. the bends of the blade, especially the shallow ones, will act as a good scavenger, preventing the enemy's blade from sliding towards the guard. On the other hand, I suspect that such a blade was serrated and chipped desperately, since the angle of meeting of its metal with enemy steel is fundamentally different than that of a normal sword.
A puncture wound with a "saw" blade will be twice as wide as a normal blade with the same tip diameter, and have ragged edges. With the level of knowledge of the then medicine - certain death. By the way, in the film "Countess de Monsoro" Count de Bussy was wounded somewhere in the hypochondrium by a rapier-flamberg. The filmmakers pretty much sinned against the truth - in real conditions, after such injuries, they rarely survived.

[depressant]

It is believed that flambergs as "inhumane" weapons were prohibited by the Holy See. However, there is not a single document that would confirm this version. It was different there.
In the 17th century, Europe was overwhelmed by an epidemic of duels, there were many corpses, the nobility suffered serious losses out of the blue without any war. Concerned secular authorities were forced to come up with all sorts of dueling codes to stop the avalanche of deaths. The Codes of Honor provided for the use of weapons that often avoided mortal wounds. Flambergs are military weapons designed to kill, not injure, high lethality from use, therefore they fell under the ban.

[Korsar4]

I wonder if there is a "humanism" of weapons at all?
This is how the French complained during the Patriotic War of 1812 that ours "are not fighting according to the rules."

[depressant]

I wonder if there is a "humanism" of weapons at all?

Well, Sergei, you are a provocateur! )))
You can also kill with a stiletto. But that's if you're lucky. Anyone can use a skewer, it is even worse than a flamberg - it is not as easy to squeeze into a carcass as a stylet, some force must be applied, but tissue destruction is such that the surgeon is useless.
I remember that in "Captain Rip Head" the doctor constantly emphasized that there are humane and inhuman bullets. One makes a neat hole, the wound is easy to sew up and heal, while the other creates a catastrophe in the body.

[Korsar4]

Aren't you used to my communication style yet?

This book by Boussinard came across late.
But I read "Diamond Hunters".

[depressant]

Your manner of communication gave me a reason to remember the book by Louis Boussinard, re-read in childhood countless times. But "Okhotnikov" was once quite indifferent to herself. For some unknown reason, "Captain" seemed akin to the heroes of Gaidar.

[Korsar4]

Some ants and a rhino, from which the elephant got what are worth.
And books on history and travel on the forum periodically appear.

And in general, remembering a book, you can even be transported during the first reading.

Everything, down to the smells, comes to life.

By the way, Gaidar's "School" is quite an interesting thing.

[depressant]

And if you recall more reasonably, then in most of the books I read as a child, there were some types of weapons, including fists, as an advantage in solving problems. Militarization of consciousness took place.
Here is an interesting author Vilyugov writes:

Quiet the severe wrath of your soul!
Do not curse - you ruin your heart with a curse!
Do not condemn - and you will not be condemned
Neither God nor people!

Restrain your anger, born of offense!
Forget about revenge, and your sword is bared
Do not raise your brother in the heat of the moment!
The one who lifts the sword will die
From the sword.

The naivete of the humanities? Agreements instead of negotiations.

[Korsar4]

It's just that someone has a sword, someone has a word.

“Everyone chooses for himself
Woman, religion, road ”(c).

[depressant]

Defense rhetoric ... Practice shows that a word cannot be dissuaded from war. Therefore, pacifism is always somehow sharply inferior to militarism. Evidently, human evolution has not yet reached the level of civilization at which the desire to win with a word prevails over the desire to win with a sword. And then songs like this sound:

My sullen sword into the enemy,
a tank of resin in the enemy;
We are fighting for the king
in the edge of a thick winter!

And in the summer we fight
in the spring we sharpen the sword
For the glory of the sovereign
bones we can lie!

Posted by Adam McCoy.

And judging by the delight with which the theme of swords was accepted, pacifism is still inferior to militarism with a large score)))
The only thing that in this case becomes the subject of consideration in the modern world: not for whom, but for what to swing with swords

[Korsar4]

“On that day, when over a new world
God showed his face, then
The sun was stopped by the Word,
They destroyed cities in a word ”(c).

What do you think there are more sites - with a military theme or with a civilian one?

[depressant]

The statistics know. I suppose, more from the civilian, because the military theme is the lot of either the instinctively courageous, or out of necessity.

[Korsar4]

Probably any boy thinks about weapons.
And if you want to be a musketeer, the sword is made from a branch and a plastic lid.

And then you find your own kind.

Like Vysotsky:
“There lived book children who did not know battles,
Suffering from his petty catastrophes ”(c).

[depressant]

Not just boys. The instinct to protect offspring is equally characteristic of both sexes and often takes indirect or perverted forms. Mediated is death for the king, for land, for necessary and sufficient property, for personal honor. Perversion - for excess property or someone else's land. Well, there are also pathologies. This is when a person is a serial killer or a duelist.

[Korsar4]

Different behavioral strategies.
This is a given. And it's good when the roles are not mixed up.

[novel66]

one of the most cited points

[Undecim]

Flambergs are military weapons designed to kill, not injure, high lethality from use, therefore they fell under the ban.
The "lethality" of the Flammard is the same as that of a regular sword.

[depressant]

Presumably, two-handed duels were hardly used, right? The sinuous blade lasted much longer.

[Undecim]

If we are talking exclusively about Zweihänder or Bihänder, then these are weapons exclusively for mercenaries - landsknechts. As for the duels between them - it is necessary to clarify.

[Van 16]

The day was crazy. And how wonderful it is to read such a good, competent article at the end of such a day.
Thank you so much!

[Dkuznecov]

About the "flaming blade" ...
I liked the explanation in the chapter
6. "Diploma winner" of M. Weller's story "The Gunsmith Tarasyuk".
Short and easy to understand.
I think anyone interested will find a fragment on the Internet.

[Avior]

I heard this explanation as well - the shape of the blade creates a cutting effect with a chopping blow. And it also looks very plausible.

[Richard]

During excavations of the burial of a noble Sarmatian near the village of Vesnyanoye, dated to the 81,3nd century, among other things, a completely Sarmatian sword was found, with a long straight lenticular blade and a small cross, but with a very long shank: with a blade length of 18 cm, the shank was 4,2 cm long! At the same time, it gradually narrowed towards the end: with a total blade width of 3 cm, the shank at the heel had a width of 1,8 cm, and at the end - XNUMX cm.
a photo. Sarmatian sword from the village of Vesnyanoye.

At the same time, experts believe that the handle itself (it was made of wood and did not survive, only traces of wood remained on the shank) was even longer, and the pommel was fastened with a vertical pin into the expanding handle (finds of such pommels with preserved pins are known). The total length of the handle reached 21 - 28 cm.
It should be noted that the small crosspiece of this sword, as it turned out after clearing it, is not straight, but bent at an obtuse angle, which is directed downward.
And this is far from the only such sword.
The shank 21 cm long was also found in the sword found during the excavation of another Sarmatian burial at Ternovka. At the same time, his blade, also straight and lenticular in cross-section, had a length of 78,6 cm and a straight cross.
Moreover, if we start from archaeological finds, then we can confidently say that swords of this type appeared already in the 1260th century BC, and their total length reached 250 mm with a handle length of up to XNUMX mm

[WHAT IS]

Dmitry! Stop writing comments - write articles. One interesting author on the site in the "history" section will be more.

[vladcub]

That's for sure. Richerd-Dmitri could write a wonderful story

[mihaylov]

Quote: Richard

Moreover, if we start from archaeological finds, then we can confidently say that swords of this type appeared already in the 1260th century BC, and their total length reached 250 mm with a handle length of up to XNUMX mm

Good afternoon Dmitry, Sarmatian "two-handed" swords (the name is naturally conditional) nevertheless appear later - in the late Sarmatian period from the XNUMXnd century AD. Before that, they had swords of ordinary sizes, in principle, they did not differ much from the Scythian ones.

[Undecim]

The two-handed sword (bidenhender) has a total length of 160 to 180 centimeters. No scabbard was made for these swords; they were worn on the shoulder like a lance. The upper part of the blade, the one that directly adjoined the crosshair and the handle, was usually not sharpened, but covered with wood and leather.

Therefore, the hand could freely grasp the blade, which at least slightly facilitated fencing with such a sword (or even made it possible).

This did not make fencing easier. This allowed the use of the half-sword or halbschwert technique.

Almost all medieval fechtbuchs recommend this technique when fencing against an enemy in full plate armor, since chopping blows are not effective in this case, and the half-sword technique allows you to deliver accurate thrusting blows to the most vulnerable places.
The enemy in the illustration uses the Mordstreich technique, when the sword holds on to the blade.

[Undecim]

Yes, I missed the moment. The not sharpened part of the blade is called ricasso, in Russian - the heel of the blade.

[Richard]

The longest sword found in the Kolpansky burial ground in the south of Moldova reached a length of 1650 mm!
An idea of ​​the scabbard of such swords is provided by a find made by the Soviet archaeologist V. Sarianidi during the excavation of the famous Tillya-tepe (Golden Hill) in Afghanistan (link: (Nefedkin A. Military affairs of the Sarmatians and Alans. SPb., 2011).): In one of the The richest burials found an iron two-handed (judging by the size of the handle) sword with a long double-edged blade was inserted into a wooden scabbard painted with red paint, which was attached to the belt with two bronze buckles. Due to severe corrosion, it is difficult to judge whether there was a crosshair under the handle. The gold pommel in the form of a flat circle is decorated with a "vortex rosette" and a high cone with a turquoise insert in the center "(link: V. Sarianidi Temple and necropolis in Tillyatepe. Moscow, 1989).

It is curious that, according to V. Sarianidi, these swords were placed in the burial in a special way - they rested the handle on the forearm.
The first source who claimed that the Sarmatians acted with two hands with these swords is Tacitus: describing their actions in 69, he writes:

"But then, when it was a wet day and the ice was melting, they did not use either pikes or swords, with which, very long, they operate with two hands."

[agond]

A wavy blade of a sword can block the enemy's weapon, and with a stabbing blow with a "wavy" sword, the edges of the wound will have a large surface, even if it is possible to stop the bleeding, the risk of infection is very high, in fact, a warrior with such swords was considered especially dangerous villains.

[WHAT IS]

Quote: agond

the edges of the wound will have a large surface

People are very intelligent and observant mammals, endowed with the ability to articulate speech and highly developed abstract thinking, quickly realized that curved and wavy blades cut open flesh somewhat better, and a wavy blade just cuts better and gets stuck less. Simplifying a little, we can say this: such swords combined the advantages of a saw and a straight blade, while neutralizing the shortcomings of both. It is said that the owners of such weapons with special zeal and zeal were killed in captivity (if at all, they were taken prisoner). But I did not find historical facts of such treatment of the happy owners of flambergs, then they did not stand on ceremony with especially captive thieves ..

[Richard]

The surviving images of Sarmatian warriors with these swords in battle (several of them are known), do not record a two-handed grip: the weapon is held with one hand.
a photo. A Khianito-Kidarite horseman (XNUMXth century plate) with a sword hunts a lion.

The figure clearly shows that the rider is holding the weapon at the very guard. Proceeding from this, A. Nefedkin suggested that the long handle was needed not to provide a two-handed grip, but to provide a counterweight to the long blade, i.e. for an acceptable balance of weapons. As he quite rightly writes:

"for a long sword you need a counterweight in the form of a long handle" (link: A. Nefedkin Military affairs of the Sarmatians and Alans)

[kalibr]

Moreover, it had a pommel - a horizontal lenticular stone disc! I was holding this ... A decent "flying saucer" with a hole in the middle.

[Richard]

Vyacheslav Olegovich, thanks for the excellent article. Above all praise
The only thing that is not clear is why you did not mention anything about the sword "Big Pierre" by Pierre Gerlofs Donia? After all, this sword just has a gorgeous story. Yes, and EMNIP is by far the largest combat two-handed sword.
a photo museum photos with "Big Pier"

Or will it be about him in the next article?
Best regards

[kalibr]

Quote: Richard

Why didn't you mention anything about the sword "Big Pierre" by Pierre Gerlofs Donia? After all, this sword has just a gorgeous story. Yes, and EMNIP is by far the largest combat two-handed sword.

Here! Because in the literature that I used, there was no question of it. In general, I heard about him from you for the first time. Just now I read it in your comments. There will be joy for Alexander, of course, but it is so. I have not heard, have not read, I do not know anything about him. So you and the cards in hand!

[Trilobite Master]

Greetings, Dmitry.

Quote: Richard

A. Nefedkin suggested that the long handle was needed not to provide a two-handed grip, but to provide a counterweight to the long blade,

I think he's wrong.
In fact, equestrian combat does not imply any fencing in the sense of exchanging a series of blows, and shifting the balance of the weapon to the hilt does not make sense. The picture, when the riders stop and, sitting on the horse, try to reach each other with a blade, seems somewhat unrealistic. In battle, of course, this could happen, but in this case, both would immediately try to gain speed again, since the "stagnant" immediately becomes an easy target for a warrior on the move. Equestrian combat is a constant movement and the riders have literally a second to exchange blows - they have gathered and parted. In such circumstances, there is no point in shifting the balance of the blade to the hilt, but lengthening the weapon is very even. So, most likely, a long handle is needed not for balancing, but for being able to intercept the weapon, lengthening it and being able to "reach" the enemy, while remaining out of his reach.
Well, of course, we are not talking about a two-handed grip for an equestrian warrior.

[Richard]

Mikhail, I welcome you.
Personally, the first thing that comes to my mind is a stabbing overturning blow at speed (similar to a lance strike) when the hilt of the sword is pressed against the saddle bow or the rider's armor. This is where the balance of the weapon to the hilt matters. And it is much easier to transport it with the tip up, resting the handle on the saddle, in the stowed position.
Well, about the exchange of blows with the riders - here I completely agree with you

[mihaylov]

Quote: Richard

Well, about the exchange of blows with the riders - here I completely agree with you

Dmitry, as I understand it, you used Nefedkin, and he is a slightly carried away author, look also at Simonenko, he seems to me to have a more balanced approach.

[Richard]

see also Symonenko

If it's not difficult, please discard the link

[mihaylov]

Quote: Richard

If it's not difficult, please discard the link

A.V. Symonenko "Sarmatian Horsemen of the Northern Black Sea Coast" - I think you will find it on the net without any problems and download it, if you don’t find it, remind me next week - I will send it to you, I downloaded it, but at work. He has a good description of Sarmatian swords and combat techniques.

[Richard]

Thank you. Find

[bk0010]

Quote: Richard

Personally, the first thing that comes to my mind is a stabbing overturning blow at speed (similar to a lance blow)

Look about konchar: in fact, a spear in the form of a sword, allows you to get on foot and horsemen, breaks through armor.

[Engineer]

The picture when riders stop and, sitting on a horse, try to reach each other with a blade, seems somewhat unrealistic.

You solved the most difficult task in passing - what the mechanics of equestrian combat looks like))). When deciding which there is no consensus from the word at all.

... Equestrian combat is a constant movement and the riders have literally a second to exchange blows - they gathered and parted

Do they always have space to part ways?
In all the depictions of equestrian sword fighting, it takes place at close-middle.
I flipped through the history of France in miniatures - all the riders, although there are not many of them, seem to be holding a sword at the very crosshairs. From memory there was something in the picture with a falchion with a grip in the middle part. But who held the weapon with a grip at the pommel?
By grabbing the sword from the pommel, you win 15 cm in length at best. Your opponent, taking under the crosshair, will swing faster and strike - less moment of inertia relative to the hand. And his grip will be more reliable and less likely to drop the weapon.

In my opinion, the long handle balances the sword, but its main purpose is to draw it out blindly, which is very important for a horseman.

[mihaylov]

Quote: Engineer

In my opinion, the long handle balances the sword, but its main purpose is to draw it out blindly

What is depicted in this miniature?
"Two-handed" Falchion or Romfaya?

[Engineer]

Falchion like
But the picture is not relevant - work with two hands and the warrior clearly stood up on the stirrups, which were not in antiquity.
I looked like this

One-handed grip, at the crosshairs

[mihaylov]

Quote: Engineer

Falchion like

Here I cannot understand.

But the picture is not relevant - work with two hands and the warrior clearly stood up on the stirrups, which were not in antiquity.

Miniature, what will you take from it?

I looked like this

Hundred Years War?
An interesting point: one equestrian warrior finishes off another with a dagger - it turns out that they could converge very closely. Maybe the Scythians cut short akinaki right on their horses? and there was no need to dismount.

[Engineer]

An interesting point: one equestrian warrior finishes off another with a dagger - it turns out they could very closely converge. Maybe the Scythians cut short akinaki right on their horses?

Exactly so, and if you remember that the chippers-klevtsy were with akinak length, and sagaris, if longer, then not much. We get a wheelhouse on the near

[Trilobite Master]

Quote: Engineer

You solved the most difficult problem in passing

Well, let's say, not me, or rather, I solved it for myself. The arguments that I have used are approximately as follows.
Descriptions of the cavalry battle, when the riders stop and plast each other in slices, can only be found in fiction (cinema). The descriptions of those who directly participated in such battles (XIX - XX centuries) speak of short skirmishes, after which some run, others catch up.
Jumping into a bot-to-bot attack became possible only in the XNUMXth century, and for the first time such a method of attack was used by Seydlitz, if my memory serves me right. Prior to this, attempts to maintain the formation were unsuccessful. The Teutonic "pig" should not be offered, or, if you want, we will discuss it separately, there is also something to argue about. That is, before Seydlitz, the equestrian formation in the attack was a rather loose mass even for regular knightly cavalry, not to mention light cavalry (including Scythian), the distance between the attacking horsemen allowed the enemy to drive between them.
In real life, a clash of two cavalry lava will look like a checkers game, where the opponents' checkers move across fields of different colors. Of course, it could not do without landfills, but from such a landfill, I personally would try to get out as early as possible in order to accelerate again as quickly as possible - this will allow, at least not to look back.
The element of cavalry is speed and onslaught. A stopped rider has less combat value than an infantryman, therefore, again, riders in battle had to try with all their might to maintain mobility.
Some descriptions of medieval battles speak of horse collisions, comparing them with waves, for example, the chronicle description of the Battle of Rakovor, which again speaks of the mobile nature of horse fighting.
And, finally, Klim Zhukov finally convinced me that horse fighting is dynamic and mobile. No matter how I treat him as a historian, as a reenactor he has very serious experience, including the experience of participating in horse fights. He believes that in the course of the evolution of the sword from the Carolingian to the Romanesque type, the lengthening of the hilt of the latter was due precisely to the reasons that I voiced in the first commentary and bases this statement on my own experience of the reenactor, which, it seems to me, should not be completely ignored.

[Engineer]

not to mention the light cavalry (including the Scythian), the distance between the attacking horsemen allowed the enemy to drive between them.

The Greeks built their cavalry in 4 lines. Persians at 20. Xenophon has it. How to part with deep orders?

The element of cavalry is speed and onslaught. A stopped rider has less combat value than an infantryman, therefore, again, riders in battle had to try with all their might to maintain mobility.

Undoubtedly, only life is difficult. The horsemen's dump was apparently a common thing.

Zhukov. No matter how I treat him as a historian, as a reenactor he has very serious experience, including the experience of participating in horse fights. He believes that in the course of the evolution of the sword from the Carolingian to the Romanesque type, the lengthening of the hilt of the latter was due precisely to the reasons that I voiced in the first commentary and bases this statement on my own experience of the reenactor, which, it seems to me, should not be completely ignored.

Sword tests clearly show that the maximum impact force develops upon contact with a target in the middle of the blade - from the first to the second third. Plus or minus. Strikes with the tip of the sword are ineffective. The swordsman must get closer.
Well, what about iconography? where was it to be kept according to Zhukov?


Here is Klim Zhukov of a healthy person
https://www.youtube.com/user/neosonic66
Everything is great, including working with images.

[bk0010]

The Greeks built their cavalry in 4 lines. Persians at 20.

Antiquity is another matter entirely. There is practically no cavalry there, for example, the riding infantry (not dragoons, not mature enough): the horses are small (and so much that they had to fiddle with chariots), there is no saddle, no stirrups, no ramming blow, no horse archers (the Greeks), etc. etc.

[Engineer]

horses are different. There were already horses of the Akhal-Teke type. 140-145 at the withers. English horses of the Middle Ages, judging by the changes in horse armor in Leeds-145cm.
There is a saddle.
There are no steps
There is a ramming blow. Greetings from the cataphracts.
The Macedonian etyrs, cataphracts, and the Sassanian aswaran were the main striking force of their armies. Yes, and among the Scythians at Fata, the result was achieved by a head-on blow from a noble squad

[bk0010]

Quote: Engineer

Hello from cataphracts

I didn't know, I thought they were Byzantine troops, it turned out that they were much earlier.

[Trilobite Master]

Quote: Engineer

How to part with deep orders?

I already wrote - like checkers that move across fields of different colors. The two formations do not have a clear boundary, mutually penetrating each other, the flesh until the complete passage of some horsemen through the enemy's formation. As I see it, the classic line of contact is absent - the battle goes to the full depth of the formation with the chaotic movement of opponents until one of the sides takes to flight.

Quote: Engineer

The horsemen's dump was apparently a common thing.

I agree. As well as rubble in the battle of infantry in a dense formation. I fully admit that blockages happened in almost every battle, but an insignificant part of those who fought took part in them, and everyone who found themselves in such a "blockage" tried to leave it as soon as possible. Naturally, in battles with the participation of knightly cavalry, such blockages should have happened more often, in battles of light cavalry less often.

Quote: Engineer

Sword tests clearly show that maximum impact force develops upon contact with a target in the middle of the blade.

My experience with the cleaver shows the same thing.
But in a dynamic horse fight, the one with the longer blade will still have the advantage. Two riders on a head-on course - here you can even just touch the end of the blade and deliver the strongest blow due to the total speed. Or, for example, a blow to an opponent who has already slipped past you, if he is not armored or lightly armored, will also be very dangerous.

Quote: Engineer

Well, what about iconography?

What about iconography? The sword was usually held, of course, closer to the guard, but if necessary, it could be intercepted closer to the pommel, increasing the affected area. Nobody says that the sword was constantly held "by the apple."

[Engineer]

The system was violated, you yourself write. There will be no end-to-end corridor. The gap in the first-second row will be and then the enemy is right in front of you
The Attack-Rise-Re-Attack hypothesis applies only to equestrian shallow formations against the same equestrian formations.
The hypothesis attack-dump-turn back repeated aiak is applicable to any situation, including an attack by an infantry formation with a cavalry
Any hypothesis must be supported by sources. The dump in equestrian combat is confirmed by both iconography and narratives. For example, the Battle of Gaugamela at Arrian.
Riding through the battle formations? Cases of breaking through the battle line are naturally not accepted.
About long handles of swords for the sake of fighting for the tip. It's just not serious. There is no evidence. Just speculative arguments. Moreover, they are ridiculous. The Carolingian hilt is five centimeters longer than the hilt of the Romanesque sword. The apple has a very thin Carolingian handle. You just can't hold it there properly. It is clear that the creators did not even think about such an option, otherwise it would have affected the design - they would have thought over the ergonomics.

[Trilobite Master]

By the way, Arrian's description of the Battle of Gaugamela, it seems to me, to a greater extent illustrates my point of view.

Alexander, having received his report, stopped pursuing and, turning with the cavalry of the "friends", galloped to the right wing of the barbarians. First, he attacked the fleeing enemy cavalry, the Parthians, part of the Indians and the most numerous and powerful troops of the Persians.
The horse battle began, the hottest thing in this whole battle. The barbarians, lined up in the depths of the troops, turned and attacked Alexander's warriors, facing them face to face; they didn’t take darts, did not spin as usual in a horse battle; each struck the one who was in front of him, seeing in this his only salvation. They struck in a hurry and fell themselves; neither one nor the other had pity: they fought no longer for the sake of someone else's victory, but for the sake of their own salvation. About 60 "friends" fell here; Hephaestion himself, Ken and Menid were wounded; but here, too, Alexander prevailed.
Those who made his way through the ranks of the Alexander soldiers, turned into irrepressible flight.

Nothing has been written about the dump, although the fight is called stubborn. But it is clearly written that part of the barbarians passed through the formation of Alexander's cavalry. Did not break through it, but went through it.

Quote: Engineer

There is no evidence. Just speculative arguments. Moreover, they are ridiculous.

This is not necessary, please do not provoke me to be harsh. They do not seem ridiculous to me, and you have not proved their absurdity.

Quote: Engineer

The Carolingian hilt is five centimeters longer than the hilt of the Romanesque sword.

The handle of the Carolingian is very short, the palm of a modern man barely fits into it. The handle of a Romanesque sword is noticeably longer, and the blade itself is longer on average, and it is quite obvious that these changes are clearly taking place taking into account the need to conduct horse battle in a rarefied formation, where you can swing.

[Engineer]

Nothing has been written about the dump, although the fight is called stubborn. But it is clearly written that part of the barbarians passed through the formation of Alexander's cavalry. Did not break through it, but went through it.

Reverse 3-14-5 Arrian

Their line was here broken through: through breakthrough part of the Indians and Persian cavalry broke through to the wagon train of the Macedonians. Here a hot affair began.

How much clearer?

What to do with this?

standing against them face to face

Standing face to face - static head-to-head horse fight is the most natural explanation.

What to do with this?

The Persians bravely attacked people, most of them unarmed and not expecting to be able to penetrate them by cutting through a double front. Captured barbarians joined the Persians and together with them attacked the Macedonians

Driving through the front, according to your hypothesis, should have been commonplace, but here it is perceived as an emergency.


You have highlighted

did not spin, as is usually the case in a horse battle;

However, the phrase is structured as follows

they did not take up javelins, did not circle, as is usually the case in a horse battle;

The mention of javelins is pretty clear that "usually in equestrian combat" is javelin combat. He is opposed by a decisive hand-to-hand combat.

This is not necessary, please do not provoke me to be harsh. They do not seem ridiculous to me, and you have not proved their absurdity.

I don't need to prove anything. Zhukov introduced a new essence - an apple grip to fight for centimeters. This I am waiting for proof.

The handle of the Carolingian is very short, the palm of a modern man barely fits into it. The handle of a Romanesque sword is noticeably longer, and the blade itself is longer on average, and it is quite obvious that these changes are clearly taking place taking into account the need to conduct horse battle in a rarefied formation, where you can swing.

I wrote in several runs in between cooking and got it all wrong.
The handle of the Romanesque sword is 5 cm longer than the Carolingian. This is despite the fact that there are a lot of "romantics" with a very short handle. As far as can be judged, the hilt of the Romanesque sword, like the Carolingian sword, narrows to the apple - the grip there is completely not ergonomic.
Better balance and ease of grip make this much easier. The elongation of the blade is quite natural and follows from the development of metallurgy - more durable blades and the need to fight armor, which were becoming more widespread, due to gravity. No new entities are needed.
The Romanesque sword, in contrast to the Carolingian, is well balanced, which means there was a steady demand for this particular feature. The apple grip completely upsets the balance. Another nail in the theory's coffin

Any historical hypothesis is built like this
Assumption - evidence (narrative, pictorial) - verification with related concepts - construction of a theory based on a hypothesis with the definition of its place in historical science

[Trilobite Master]

Regarding Arrian - verily, we look at the book, we see what we want.
Where are you, even in the above quotes, I saw a static battle completely incomprehensible to me. Personally, I see with absolute evidence the collision of loose horse masses and the absence of a clear line of contact with the mutual penetration of one formation into another. The battle on the left flank of the Macedonian army - the bulk of the Persian cavalry and short strikes of the few Macedonian reserves in order to reinforce the threatening directions, where the Macedonian line was already thinned out. Roughly speaking, Parmenion or whoever was there, I don't remember, sent hundreds after hundreds into battle, to "dangerous" places, these hundreds, one after another, dissolve into the general mass, but for the time being they hold back the pressure of the Persians. "Breakthrough" in this case is a critical decrease in the ratio of the number of their soldiers to those of the enemy in a specific area, when the Persians suddenly did not appear before the eyes of the Macedonians.
Driving through the enemy's formation is not at all a common thing - I have not written or thought that. The loose cavalry formation was therefore lined up at great depths in order to exclude such "unobstructed" passage. Those galloping in front are killed first, not having time to "reach" the last row. Everything is decided literally in a minute and already some are running, others are catching up, reinforcements come to the retreating and the sides change roles, and so on several times.
As you can see, instead of such a picture, the picture of a dense standing forehead to forehead is completely incomprehensible to me. Horses in a tight formation of five or more rows ... Complete nonsense. They cannot prop up each other like infantry.
Actually, on the miniatures you see what you want to see. On them horses almost everywhere they jumpbut you don't notice it. You see only a dense formation, or rather, what seems to you to be a dense formation, a stirrup to a stirrup, but in fact it is not. It's just that the medieval artist did not have the opportunity to look at the cavalry clash from a bird's eye view, and then there were some difficulties with the depiction of perspective.
That's all your evidence - both narrative and pictorial. You just see them as you are used to, as you want.
Well, by swords ...

Quote: Engineer

The elongation of the blade is quite natural and follows from the development of metallurgy - more durable blades and the need to fight armor, which were becoming more widespread, due to gravity.

Don't you think these arguments are far-fetched?
That is, in the IX century. could not forge a long blade, but learned in XI? Do you believe it?
"Due to the severity" - despite the fact that the "Carolingians" were on average even heavier than the "Capetian", despite the fact that they were shorter?
Or maybe everything is simpler? Maybe just with the mass "transfer" of feudal squads onto horses, their blades lengthened and lightened simply because it is more convenient to work with a horse with a long blade, and the force of the blow provides the rider's speed?
As for "Fighting Armor", then I was completely at a loss. To combat the armor, a "Gothic" sword was invented, not Romanesque, and it appeared along with this armor itself - at the end of the XIV century, not earlier.
And, in any case, Denis, all this - both the cataphracts and the knights have nothing to do with the Scythians with their "long ephesian" blades, from which, in fact, it all began.

[Engineer]

Where are you, even in the above quotes, I saw a static battle, it is completely incomprehensible to me.

I perceive this passage as if both sides had finished their maneuvers and "rested" coming together in a decisive battle.

The barbarians, built in the depths of the troops, turned and attacked the soldiers of Alexander, standing against them face to face[/ b]; they did not take up javelins, did not circle, as is usually the case in a horse battle; [b] everyone amazed the one who was in front of him, seeing in this the only salvation for himself. They struck in a hurry and fell themselves; neither one nor the other had pity: they fought no longer for the sake of someone else's victory, but for the sake of their own salvation. About 60 "friends" fell here; Hephaestion himself, Ken and Menid were wounded; but here, too, Alexander defeated.

The battle on the left flank of the Macedonian army - the bulk of the Persian cavalry and short strikes of the few Macedonian reserves in order to reinforce the threatening directions, where the Macedonian line was already thinned out.

Both Curtius Rufus and Arrian clearly write that the Persians, having an advantage in numbers, bypassed Parmenion

"Breakthrough" in this case is a critical decrease in the ratio of the number of their soldiers to those of the enemy in a specific area, when the Persians suddenly did not appear before the eyes of the Macedonians.

Arrian writes "made it through." Olbricht, who comparatively recently compared the text with the Latin original, also speaks of a breakthrough.

Actually, on the miniatures you see what you want to see. Horses gallop on them almost everywhere, but you do not notice it.

On horse miniatures are moving... And here's how exactly is the question. My opinion
Warriors in close equestrian combat, after being struck with spears, often move to a step for better control, and put pressure on the enemy if necessary. At the same time, they are ready, if necessary, to spur the horse in order to rush to avoid a dangerous situation or catch the moment to overturn the enemy. Movement along the front directly in battle is possible as well as a short dash in an attempt to reach a particularly important enemy.

That's all your evidence - both narrative and pictorial. You just see them as you are used to, as you want.

I did not see your proofs at all. This is especially true of Zhukov's case. In general, I alone take the rap and throw up sources. You only criticize what I said))

As you can see, instead of such a picture, the picture of a dense standing forehead to forehead is completely incomprehensible to me. Horses in a tight formation of five or more rows ... Complete nonsense. They cannot prop up each other like infantry.

The horses did not support each other. Dense standing - "carpenter" alternated with maneuvers. Diffusion of the formation into the formation took place, but usually no further than 2-3 ranks. The rear ones belayed the front ones, attacked those who had broken through, and parried the coverage of the flanks. Breakthrough of the formation -ChP Both sides were very concerned about the integrity of the battle line.

That is, in the IX century. could not forge a long blade, but learned in XI? Do you believe it?

In terms of quality, Romanesque swords became, on average, better than the Carolingians. Technological progress has not been canceled.

As for "Fighting Armor", then I was completely at a loss.

Don't get lost. 11-12 centuries is the spread of drawing mills in Europe. The wire for chain mail began to be made on an industrial scale. There was an increased demand for cutting through chain mail.

Or maybe everything is simpler? Maybe just with the mass "transfer" of feudal squads onto horses, their blades lengthened and lightened simply because it is more convenient to work with a horse with a long blade, and the force of the blow provides the rider's speed?

Of course, it remains only to link this with horse fighting and the grip at the apple according to Zhukov
Among the Saltovites and their successors in the steppes at the same time, single-edged broadswords evolve into slightly shorter or similar sabers in length with lesser handle
Maybe the key is that the nomad works mainly against the horsemen, and the lengthening of swords in the West is primarily for cutting infantry ??
The rider's speed alone does not provide the force of the impact. Even for a spear. Here is a seeming paradox. It turned out that transferring the momentum of a horse's movement to a weapon is very difficult even for a spear.
And so

, in any case, Denis, all this - and the cataphracts and knights have nothing to do with the Scythians with their "long ephesian" blades, from which, in fact, it all began

.
There were two problems - the mechanics of close combat and the grip of long-handled swords. Both cataphracts and knights are quite relevant here. You just need to correctly ask yourself the method by making a discount on stirrups and other things that were not in antiquity. ... I am a comparativist.

[Trilobite Master]

Quote: Engineer

I perceive this passage as if both sides had finished their maneuvers and "rested" coming together in a decisive battle.

Of course not. This is the moment when Alexander attacked from the rear the Persian cavalry, pressing his left flank. The Persians were surrounded and were forced to break through the ranks of the Macedonians. And, mind you, many left, although there was no breakthrough as such. Just leaked through the line.

Quote: Engineer

Arrian writes "made it through." Olbricht, who comparatively recently compared the text with the Latin original, also speaks of a breakthrough.

A breakthrough is when the front is empty, and the back is only our own. It was this situation, apparently, that developed at some point among the Persians on the left flank of the Macedonians. The "dump for dogs" in a certain area has ceased due to a sharp, critical reduction in the number of Macedonian horsemen and their lack of replenishment. Yes, this is definitely a breakthrough, we made it through.

Quote: Engineer

Warriors in close equestrian combat, after being struck with spears, often take a step

When two objects of comparable mass and speed collide, they mutually extinguish each other's energy, and therefore the speed drops. Sometimes the horses could not stand it and fell from such a collision, although the enemy did not directly act on them.
After such a collision, a turn often followed, for a cavalryman without speed is the same as a fighter on the runway - helpless and useless. Moving at a step is almost the same as standing.

Quote: Engineer

Diffusion of the formation into the formation took place, but usually no further than 2-3 ranks.

There were no strict ranks, only conditional ones that existed before the start of the attack during the initial formation.
The overshoot of the enemy formation of single horsemen did not decide the outcome of the battle. He slipped through, closed behind him. Now the one who has already slipped through has to think about how to survive.

Quote: Engineer

Maybe the key is that the nomad works mainly against the horsemen, and the lengthening of swords in the West is primarily for cutting infantry ??

I think, rather, the need to resist the horsemen of the east during the crusades.
The rider's speed is the moment that can significantly increase the force of the blow. But you still need to be able to deliver a blow, of course.

[Engineer]

Of course not. This is the moment when Alexander attacked from the rear the Persian cavalry, pressing his left flank. The Persians were surrounded and were forced to break through the ranks of the Macedonians. And, mind you, many left, although there was no breakthrough as such. Just leaked through the line.

And I think that of course yes)

The horse battle began, the hottest thing in this whole battle. Barbarians, built in the depths of troops, turned and attacked on the warriors of Alexander, standing against them face to face

Alexander went to the rear, but the Persians and the allies reacted in time and to the extent that they are called attackers. I wrote "the maneuvers are over." Go carpenter

And, mind you, many left, although there was no breakthrough as such. Just leaked through the line.

Again. Written the same made it through, not leaked.

Those who broke through through the ranks of the Alexander soldiers, turned into irrepressible flight

Words leaked when describing none at all. The English translation indicates force their way. Completely broke through

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Anabasis_of_Alexander/Book_III/Chapter_XV
You can criticize my perception as much as you like, but I have not found the word "leaked" anywhere. Not at all

When two objects of comparable mass and speed collide, they mutually extinguish each other's energy, and therefore the speed drops. Sometimes the horses could not stand it and fell from such a collision, although the enemy did not directly act on them.

Undoubtedly. Therefore, a simple mechanical collision meant a stupid mutual destruction of the first rows. In my model, a blow is struck with spears at a gallop when approaching - then the spear is thrown, the reins are taken over and enter the gaps of the first and second rows. I went to the transition to swords. If the attack is made at a trot, and not at a gallop, then there is an opportunity to save the spear.

There were no strict ranks, only conditional ones that existed before the start of the attack during the initial formation.

Of course, it is in the intervals of these ranks that you can wedge yourself in like checkers at the first onslaught. And then a dump.

After such a collision, a turn often followed, for a cavalryman without speed is the same as a fighter on the runway - helpless and useless.

A cavalryman, without speed, quite crushes his horse even while walking. By simply guiding his horse through the gaps, he wedged himself into the ranks of the enemy until the riders of the next ranks appeared in front of him. There are two alternatives - either a U-turn or a dump with an attempt to push through in order to break through the formation. ... The better defended with the better ridden horse wins.

The overshoot of the enemy formation of single horsemen did not decide the outcome of the battle. He slipped through, closed behind him. Now the one who has already slipped through has to think about how to survive.

Exactly so, only the word leaks out in the absence of regular intervals, chaos and confusion is better to replace with break through)

The rider's speed is the moment that can significantly increase the force of the blow. But you still need to be able to deliver a blow, of course.

I repeat once again that even for a spear it is very problematic to utilize the horse's speed. I'm not even talking about the sword.
And to strike, the sword must be properly grasped. Naturally, not by the apple)

[Trilobite Master]

Let's replace the word "leak" with the word "break through". It will be even more accurate.
A cavalry clash at different times looked different, but, for example, a spear battle of heavy knightly cavalry in my understanding looked like this:
The knight formation goes on the attack with a step, accelerating to a gallop only in the last hundred meters. At the time of the beginning of contact with the enemy, both formations had already disintegrated, the collisions of individual fighters with a ramming strike did not occur simultaneously on the entire front of the attack, the first ranks stopped, in the intervals between the riders of the first rows, the riders following them attack, and so on. Someone broke through, someone was knocked down at the first collision, everything mixes up, our own, others, the total number of active fighters on horseback after the first "access", as our ancestors said, within a minute is reduced by a third. If the advantage of one of the sides becomes obvious, retreat and pursuit take place. If the winner was not identified, which, although rarely, did happen, then in the presence of extreme bitterness, cutting could continue with swords in the form of a "dog dump", when at any moment it could fly in from any direction. In this case, the participants tried in every possible way to gain speed, since a stationary fighter is an ideal target.
From the point of view of a fighter, it will look like this: the convergence of formations, a spear strike, the continuation of forward movement, a kaleidoscope of figures and blurred images, from which you dodge, changing the direction of movement, or you swing your sword until you either see a gap in front of you, breaking through the enemy formation, or darkness will not come.
You asked for a link to the sources. My head is designed in such a way that I perceive information as a whole, putting it into a single, internally non-contradictory picture, but the particulars sometimes elude me. But now I remembered, for example, the battle on Lipica. Mstislav Udatny in it, if my memory serves me, three times (!) Rode through the formation of the regiments of the Suzdal princes. Similarly, there were more examples of this kind both in our and in European history.
But nowhere, nowhere and never in serious literature have I come across a structure in which horsemen, whether heavy or light cavalry, would fight in a static position or moving slowly in one direction.
In today's article about Austerlitz, our Shpakovsky described the battle of Russian cavalry guards with French cuirassiers. Exactly what I'm talking about - speed is everything.
As a child, we cut ourselves with wooden swords, but there was a crackling sound. Including on bicycles - the film "The Ballad of the Valiant Knight Ivanhoe" was very inclined to this. And, honestly, I'm not lying, when we fought on foot, our swords were of normal length - somewhere with a hand. The most convenient. But when they fought, sitting on their bikes, they tried to choose a more authentic weapon, so that it was more convenient to get the enemy. It is a pity that then we did not think to make ourselves swords with long handles, which make it possible, by simple interception, to win ten centimeters in a particular situation.

[Engineer]

If the winner was not identified, which, although rarely, did happen, then in the presence of extreme bitterness, cutting could continue with swords in the form of a "dog dump", when at any moment it could fly in from any direction. In this case, the participants tried in every possible way to gain speed, since a stationary fighter is an ideal target.

From the point of view of a fighter, it will look like this: the convergence of formations, a spear strike, the continuation of forward movement, a kaleidoscope of figures and blurred images, from which you dodge, changing the direction of movement, or you swing your sword until you either see a gap in front of you, breaking through the enemy formation, or darkness will not come

We have a dump. Pick up speed and jump where? All as catechumens gallop, constantly colliding as in Brownian motion? The same madman as I crashes into me, we fall, cripple, die without benefit and meaning. How do you manage this chaos? How will the commander give the command to "turn back" to regroup, say, to re-attack? Who will listen to it and who will be able to fulfill it?

I am at the very beginning of comprehending my hypothesis. Here's my train of thought:

Postulate 1. A fighter fights for victory. Therefore, he rationalizes the fight and tries to make it as predictable as possible. The commander even more so.
I, in full accordance with modern concepts of history, introduce the psychological aspect into opposition.
A head-on "mechanical" collision with mutual cancellation of speeds is unthinkable. At all. From no point of view.
It is inconceivable mechanically, because the energy of the actual horse strike is at least an order of magnitude lower than the energy of the galloping rider. Tests show this unambiguously.
It is irrational. The daredevil and the hero crashes into a coward whose horse has suffered and both break their necks. How to win here? How do you comprehend the fight? Mutual annihilation of the first ranks looks inevitable, but this was not the case, here we can say with confidence.

Decision.
Both sides come close to strike with spears, the formation is already in disarray, there is no talk of alignment at a gallop. Therefore, everyone has chosen a target for a spear strike and prepares to drive into a place next to this opponent. Simultaneously with the blow of the spear, ALL warriors tighten the reins and slow down to trot or stride. The next lines do this with some delay, which increases the density of the lines. Those who have not dropped their speed flies into the enemy's ranks with unpredictable consequences.

A speed reset immediately after a spear strike is absolutely necessary.
1. HE is needed for volta-turn back to regroup for the next attack
2. It is needed for further combat in the junkyard. Because now maneuverability and especially controllability are important. Horse control is a condition of survival.

We got a dump that can end with a lapel for a second attack, and further escalation to break through the formation. If the second happens, then the fight continues at low speeds. Only sometimes does the rider spur the horse to avoid mortal danger or break through to the enemy leader.

Confirmation
We know that ancient generals often fought in the forefront of the cavalry and contrived to command. And they were listened to!
This means that the riders did not rush headlong after all.
We know that under Granicus Alexander contrived to throw phrases with Areta while he was waving a spear or rather a wreck, received a spear from Demarat, and Klyt managed to assess the situation and save the king's life. That is, the dump at Granik was sensible and manageable. So it was static enough for all these actions to happen.
On the thumbnail above, a warrior with a dagger uses a wrestling technique !! This means that the dump in this case was so static and dense that both sides practically "rested" on each other.
Naturally, these are not all cases.

Limitations of the hypothesis
It is formulated for the center of the system first of all. Things could have been much freer on the flanks

It is formulated for constructions with depth. More than two ranks

It is not suitable for the wars of the modern era. And the realities of the New Time are not suitable for testing it!

The cavalry in the era of Napoleon fought not so much with broadswords and sabers as in order and timing. They are advancing in a dense mass of horses in perfect order - we run without question. They were upset in the offensive, our reserve counterattacked in a dense formation, they immediately flee. The cavalry of the new era fought more in appearance, a demonstration of threat. Plus cavalry attacks were often prepared by artillery. This takes us completely aside.

But now I remembered, for example, the battle on Lipica. Mstislav Udatny in it, if my memory serves me, three times (!) Rode through the formation of the regiments of the Suzdal princes. Similarly, there were more examples of this kind both in our and in European history.

And I didn’t forget.). It is described as an amazing, completely atypical affair.

But nowhere, nowhere and never in serious literature have I come across a structure in which horsemen, whether heavy or light cavalry, would fight in a static position or moving slowly in one direction.

Well, let's be honest, we are both amateurs and not very familiar with historiography on this issue, especially Western

And, honestly, I'm not lying, when we fought on foot, our swords were of normal length - somewhere with a hand. The most convenient. But when they fought, sitting on their bikes, they tried to choose a more authentic weapon, so that it was more convenient to get the enemy.

You didn't try to kill each other. And the warriors of antiquity tried. You weren't afraid to lose your sword. And the warriors of antiquity were afraid.

[Trilobite Master]

There is something to answer, but with your permission, tomorrow.

[Trilobite Master]

Quote: Trilobite Master

How do you manage this chaos?

But in no way. It's impossible. Noise, din, crackling, screams, closed helmets, full concentration of attention on preserving your own life in an instantly changing environment ... No way. A unit that comes into contact with the enemy becomes practically uncontrollable until the end of the battle or local skirmish. You can give some loud, simple signals, such as "all to me" and then those who are not directly involved in clarifying the relationship with their opponents can pull themselves to the appropriate banner, but how many of these banners and how many such signals will there be in battle?
It seems to me that the commander could control the battle only by introducing fresh contingents into the battle and pointing them in the direction of the attack. There were, of course, the Mongols, they demonstrated amazing controllability at that time on the battlefield, but their controllability remained only as long as they conducted archery fire, that is, remote combat.

Quote: Engineer

A head-on "mechanical" collision with mutual cancellation of speeds is unthinkable.

At tournaments, it was fully worked out. That is, quite conceivable.

Quote: Engineer

Mutual annihilation of the first ranks looks inevitable

You still need to be able to deliver a ramming blow with a spear accurately, but the enemy does not pose as a target either. A blow can be deflected with a shield, you can dodge it by changing the trajectory of movement by some centimeters, force the enemy to change the vector of application of effort, thereby weakening the blow itself, in the end, the enemy himself can stupidly miss. So "annihilation" was simply not possible.
I strongly disagree with the fact that the speed was deliberately extinguished. Speed ​​is the force of the blow and your own safety. Therefore, those who managed to maintain speed after the first collision were in an advantageous position relative to those who lost it for one reason or another. Swooped in, hit, dodged, galloped on. A repeated attack was possible only when the infantry formation was attacked by cavalry, since there was really an opportunity to turn around and safely withdraw, turning his back on the enemy, then rebuild, let the horses catch their breath and continue.

Quote: Engineer

We know that ancient generals often fought in the forefront of the cavalry and contrived to command.

I doubt it. They commanded before entering the battle and attacked themselves personally only when the outcome of the case was clear or it was necessary to make a turning point in the course of the battle. It is impossible to control by participating in a fight, for this you need to get out of the battle, look around, make a decision and give the appropriate instructions.
Of course, all, probably, the leaders had their own detachment of bodyguards, whose main task is to ensure the safety of their ward. With them he could talk during the battle, they were able to provide him with a pause in swinging a sword or spear, take him out of the dump, return to the command post, etc.
Under Gaugamela, Alexander, having completed the defeat of the center of Darius, managed to turn his detachment and lead him to his left flank. Could many commanders before and after him carry out such a maneuver? Hannibal, perhaps ... In the Middle Ages, such a maneuver was unthinkable. Let's remember the Rakovor battle. And in general, how many times have we read such phrases as "carried away by robbery of carts", for example? All about the same. Conclusion: the units directly participating in the clash are uncontrollable, as a rule, until the end of the battle.

Quote: Engineer

amazing completely atypical business

Three times - really amazing. And one or two is a common thing, they did not write about this

Quote: Engineer

we are both amateurs

Personally, I don't pretend to be more. That is why I do not bother myself with looking for quotations that would be necessary in an academic dispute, setting out my own vision of the issue, which I have formed on the basis of the read and meaningful material.

[Engineer]

I doubt it. They commanded before entering the battle and attacked themselves personally only when the outcome of the case was clear or it was necessary to make a turning point in the course of the battle.

There is no need to doubt. You wrote when you need to make a break. That is, in the very heat. Almost everyone drove.
Shl it's about the Hellenistic commanders

With them he could talk during the battle, they were able to provide him with a pause in swinging a sword or spear, take him out of the dump, return to the command post, etc.

In the episode at Granikom, all the royal mud was already involved in a fierce batch. Since Alexander and his friends heard and insured each other right in the carpenter, it was possible in other divisions as well. And low speeds are a necessary, although not a sufficient condition for this

Swooped in, hit, dodged, galloped on.

Where to go? This is a matter of principle. One of.

So "annihilation" was simply not possible.

For annihilation to be impossible, it is necessary to exclude a horse hitting a horse. This is the goal. I have described how this is achieved in my model.

Alexander achieved complete control of the cavalry. The rest were able to achieve this only partially. Demetrius was reproached in antiquity for not deploying his cavalry after the initial success at the Battle of Ipsus. That is, it was considered achievable.
Turning back to re-attack in equestrian combat is really a rarity. But here it is necessary to understand that history practically does not record unsuccessful attempts to do this.
Description of the battle of Publius with the Parthians at Plutarch

The horses reared in pain and died, crushing both their riders and opponents, who had mixed with each other. But the Gauls were cruelly tormented by an unaccustomed thirst and heat. And they almost lost all their horses when they rushed to the Parthian spears. So, against their will, they had to retreat to the heavy infantry, bringing with them Publius, who was already exhausted from his wounds. Seeing nearby a sandy hill, the Romans retreated to it; inside the formed circle, they placed the horses, and closed the shields themselves, hoping that it would be easier for them to repel the barbarians.

The Romans were defeated in the first clash, but were able to retreat to the infantry and rescued the wounded commander. That is, a direct indication that the equestrian battle was at least partially controllable. Somehow there was a break in combat contact and this is a fact.

At tournaments, it was fully worked out. That is, quite conceivable.

The tournament excludes the direct mechanical impact of the racing horses on each other. The riders are separated by a barrier. Only spears. Impossible.

Moreover, there was such an interesting discipline - the equestrian melee. And there the following technique was sometimes used - grabbing the enemy's horse by the bridle to drag it to your banner. According to the terms, this was considered tantamount to capture. Century by the way 12. That is, for miles the speed was not great.

[Trilobite Master]

Quote: Engineer

There is no need to doubt.

Necessary.
They took them - yes, into the very heat - it happened, but in order to manage something at the same time - have mercy, how? The only way is to give a loud signal "do as I do, march behind the banner!" Will everyone hear the signal? Will everyone see the banner? Will everyone be able to join? Will everyone want it in the end?

Quote: Engineer

Since Alexander and his friends heard and insured each other right in the carpenter, it was possible in other divisions as well.

Only in theory. In practice, however, Alexander's army could not be created for a very long time after him. In addition, there is a conversation about the inner circle of bodyguards, whose task is to literally stick to their patron. Yes, and the commander himself did not set himself the main task of killing as many opponents as possible personally, which stood for the rest of the participants in the battle, except for his bodyguards.

Quote: Engineer

Where to go?

Before your eyes is this very "plump", where "nowhere". I have a space full of riders in constant motion, chasing each other

Quote: Engineer

For annihilation to be impossible, it is necessary to exclude a horse hitting a horse.

It is unlikely that it will be possible to exclude it, but to minimize it to acceptable volumes - yes. Moreover, I have never argued that landfills are completely absent. They did happen, of course, but they were not the main way of fighting. Only as force majeure.

Quote: Engineer

Alexander achieved complete control of the cavalry.

Well, that's why he and Alexander. Moreover, I would not talk about "complete" controllability. "Maximum" in this case will be more appropriate.

Quote: Engineer

history practically does not record unsuccessful attempts to do this.

Conflicts followed by the pursuit of one side by the other are precisely such unsuccessful attempts.

Quote: Engineer

Description of the battle of Publius with the Parthians at Plutarch

Is this the Battle of Carrh? As far as I understand, the quote describes an episode when the Roman allied cavalry was defeated and retreated under the cover of the infantry? For some reason, I see this scene as follows: that the Romans (Gauls) are running with all their might, pursued by the Parthians, who shower them with arrows and finish off the stragglers. The flight ended with the exit of the defeated cavalry under the cover of the infantry. The cavalry cannot retreat, it can only flee, unlike the infantry, which can retreat.
As for the tournaments, I remembered them only to illustrate that a knight who received a ramming blow with a spear did not necessarily go out of order and could not continue the battle. Well, as for the shallower, this action took place on a limited lists, so the carpenter happened there, of course, much more often than during a real battle.
By the way, about the battlefield: its landscape could largely influence the nature of the battle - in some cases the carpenter was simply inevitable, as, for example, at Sterling Bridge. However, in all cases when such a carpenter happened, in any case, which I can now remember, the cavalry was defeated. This is not her element, which I, in general, speak about.
For effective use, cavalry needs speed, which means the space that the commanders of this cavalry have always tried to provide for themselves, which means longer weapons. To drive the enemy cavalry into dense formations, inactive and inert, was probably the dream of many commanders.

[Engineer]

Only in theory. In practice, however, Alexander's army could not be created for a very long time after him. In addition, there is a conversation about the inner circle of bodyguards, whose task is to literally stick to their patron. Yes, and the commander himself did not set himself the main task of killing as many opponents as possible personally, which was for the rest of the participants in the battle, except for him.

Nope. Don't mix. There are two aspects - the diadochi really did not achieve the same controllability and interaction as Alexander's. at the level of the armies, but specifically here we were talking about the mechanics of the equestrian production unit in the heat of battle. And from this point of view, the tsarist silt of Alexander did not differ in any way (it simply should not have) from the mechanics of the battle of ordinary silt as part of the cavalry of the conditional Pyrrhus.
In Alexander's mud they heard each other, passed spears and came to each other's aid. This means that other divisions could also do this. The only question is the quality of performance in each specific case

They took them - yes, into the very heat - it happened, but in order to manage something at the same time - have mercy, how? The only way is to give a loud signal "do as I do, march behind the banner!" Will everyone hear the signal? Will everyone see the banner? Will everyone be able to join? Will everyone want it in the end?

Your doubts stem from your paradigm - there could be no more. Here deduction is needed - we establish the facts as much as the sources allow and only then draw conclusions.

Here is an example of interpretation

Is this the Battle of Carrh? As far as I understand, the quote describes an episode when the Roman allied cavalry was defeated and retreated under the cover of the infantry? For some reason, I see this scene as follows: that the Romans (Gauls) are running with all their might, pursued by the Parthians, who shower them with arrows and finish off the stragglers. The flight ended with the exit of the defeated cavalry under the cover of the infantry.

If the Romans are running, then not with all their might - otherwise they would not have pulled out the wounded Publius, some of the Romans lost their horses, but survived, that is there was no persecution
After the first collision, there was a fairly large gap - the Romans retreated to the hill and rebuilt

But the Gauls were cruelly tormented by an unaccustomed thirst and heat. And they almost lost all their horses when they rushed to the Parthian spears. So, against their will, they had to retreat to the heavy infantry, bringing with them Publius, already exhausted from his wounds. Seeing a sandy hill nearby, the Romans retreated to it; inside the formed circle, they placed the horses, and they themselves closed their shields, calculating,

Fight with Publius - a classic dump from the Chamber of Weights and Measures

The Gauls grabbed the enemy spears and, coming close to the enemies, constrained in their movements by the weight of the armor, threw them from their horses. Many of them, dismounting and crawling under the belly of the enemy horses, struck them in the stomach. The horses reared in pain and died, crushing both their riders and opponents, who had mixed with each other.

And now we compare the facts - the dump - the retreat, the flight of the Romans - the repeated attack of the Parthian attack.

Decision.

Having smashed Publius, the Parthian cataphracts did not rush after him. They regrouped to assess the situation.
The Parthians ruled the cavalry battle.
They did not rush straight ahead after the first success, but played to the point. Their commanders stopped their pursuit of the Romans in the bud (otherwise none of the Gauls who had lost their horses would have survived), regrouped and attacked.
They deliberately cut off combat contact

Before your eyes is this very "plump", where "nowhere". I have a space full of riders in constant motion, chasing each other

One of the important issues is the distance between riders in front and in depth. Even if at five or seven meters, then no "galloped at full speed further can not be - after the first collision there are riders everywhere at a distance of 2-3 hulls (RMS hehe, with a huge sigma if you operate in statistical terms) of a horse, who are also rushing about chaotically. Mutual Destroy Stupid and senseless.
The question of intervals I must study separately, no doubt.

As for the tournaments, I remembered them only to illustrate that a knight who received a ramming blow with a spear did not necessarily go out of order and could not continue the battle.

I did not state or imply this. In my model, the horseman, after being hit with spears, is not obliged to take the place of the defeated enemy. Maybe not even hurt. On the contrary, he enters the system next to him - to the right or to the left as appropriate. He decides where to enter and slightly adjust the horse before hitting. The intervals between the riders were always not a Prussian knee-to-knee attack. But the alignment in the formation of the enemy is not observed and the rider has practically no hope of going through the formation like along a corridor. because there will surely be a new adversary right in front of him who violated the alignment for a thousand reasons and that very head-on collision of a horse into a horse will happen that no one wants. Therefore, everyone should slow down as quickly as possible, giving the fight a certain amount of positioning.

For effective use, cavalry needs speed, which means the space that the commanders of this cavalry have always tried to provide for themselves, which means longer weapons. To drive the enemy cavalry into dense formations, sedentary and inert, was probably the dream of many commanders.

Relatively dense.
Quite mobile
Inert to some extent, no doubt, like absolutely any group of people acting together.

By the way, it is much easier to restore the formation for a new attack, say the second line (not to be confused with the line) of the enemy in my model.

[Trilobite Master]

It looks like we're at a dead end again. Our arguments, apparently, do not impress us. You can still argue with each other, but to be honest, I'm already tired. I expressed my main arguments, I listened to yours, then the repetitions will go further ... It was interesting, thanks. As usual, each will remain at his own opinion.

[Engineer]

Okay,
We haven't had holivars for a long time. And there is not much antiquity either.
I still will not add an article for VO, so at least this way.

[Richard]

Perhaps these swords were used as an analogue of konchar. In general, the two-handed grip of swords in antiquity was not something new. The Thracian Rumfei are a prime example of this.

[Dimide]

I read that the church was very disapproving of the "flaming blades", called "devilish"
The article is as always "kosher"

[Richard]

The article is as always "kosher"

In the sense of "cut off"?
So he writes so on purpose. The number of characters is limited. Conveys the essence, leaves room for comments, and actively participates in them

[motorized rifle]

Not quite the topic, but two-handedness on the face ...

[bubalik]

There will be only one! (FROM)

[3x3zsave]

Somehow William Wallace comes running to Robert the Bruce and says: "Your Majesty, the other day I learned that the Sasenakhs (Englishmen, in Russian) do not clean swords with GOI paste! Tell us not to clean our swords, otherwise if there is a war, they do not cut them. fit! "

[bubalik]

,,, spam. In the 15th century, you wait, you wait for a letter from your beloved ... a carrier pigeon arrives ... you open the message, and then "forge swords ... inexpensively."

[3x3zsave]

"I'm puddling, soldering, fixing Zweikhanders"

[Richard]

you open the message, and there

Man, would you like to rest?

[Phil77]

Not a fig not alone! And Rutger Hauer?!?!

[3x3zsave]

And Rutger Hauer?!?!
Let it run on the blade

[Trilobite Master]

Vyacheslav Olegovich, thanks for the material, they didn't let me die of boredom. It’s a pity that he came out at night. Now you have to sit at the table, with a pile, with your family, and not at the computer.
Personally, I liked the material, although I still did not understand what practical use these teeth were on the blades, but it doesn't matter. By and large, no one really understands this.
When one Jew was asked why they do circumcision, he replied: "Well, first of all, it is beautiful ..." I fully admit that we could get approximately the same answer from some landsknecht or a master gunsmith.
The mention of Prince Edward, Earl of Chester, amused. At first I did not understand who it was about, which led me to confusion - I know this period of the history of England quite well. It did not immediately come to light that this was Edward V, the uncrowned king, the eldest of the so-called. "princes of tower".

[kalibr]

Quote: Trilobite Master

this is Edward V, the uncrowned king, the eldest of the so-called. "princes of tower"

Yes, Mikhail, all the time there are such "deviations" in the plot and if you explain everything ... then you will forget about swords. And the hooks - they protected the hand that lay on the ricasso.

[Trilobite Master]

The hooks are understandable. I'm talking about the teeth on the blade. As a result, everyone refused them, but why did they start doing it at all, so no one really answered.

[3x3zsave]

I will express a conspiracy theory. Flambergs emerged as a counterweight to the scimitar.

[Eule]

According to experiments, the "teeth" are less than a quarter of the width, but the bends of the blade by half or more of its width are a serious increase.
You can speculate. that with a stabbing blow, the wound will be wave-wide, and at the same time the mobility of a thin blade is like that of a thin rapier. Less area - faster to pull out of the carcass. Below I also answered about "waves".

[vladcub]

"made in 16-17 in Solingin (blade) the handle is local. There are two options
1) some merchant bought blades in Solingin and resold

[acetophenone]

If I understood correctly, the danger of a blade with a "flaming" blade is not in chopping, but in cutting (even light, superficial) injuries of the body. That is: an ordinary blade makes a single cut, the cells of the body tissues in the area of ​​the cut are poorly, but somehow they are supplied with blood. Then the body adjusts, it heals, etc. If the wound is not too infected. The "flaming" blade leaves a multiple cut, thin "slices" are cut off on both sides, (even with a shallow wound) they are outside the bloodstream and die off. Decay, and - "momento sea" (c).

[Eule]

A very well thought-out, but incorrect hypothesis. How much meat and fish did I cut "wavy" in the kitchen - one cut, no slices. The effect here is different - the "oncoming" waves cut at an angle to the movement of the blade, that is, it is equivalent (geometrically) to a blade with a much sharper angle. That is, the cross-section is 30 degrees perpendicular to the blade, and the forming angle for the "oncoming" cut is 15 or less.
I suppose that in ancient times it was significant that when hitting a helmet or something else, one half-wave protrusion was blunt, the blade did not slide over the enemy, and at the next blow it cut with "fresh" unblunted parts like a new one. It is also likely that the opponent's clothing fibers will be dragged into the wound by a notch from the previous blows, and then they were rarely washed. Here there could already be decay. But this is already my speculation, since the long sword did not reconstruct and did not chop tin with it.

[mihaylov]

Museum "Arsenal", Pushkin

[3x3zsave]

You will look at amateur photographs from our museums, and you just want to stuff the muzzle of the museum designers! Well, you can't expose the light like that!

[mihaylov]

Quote: 3x3zsave

You will look at amateur photographs from our museums, and you just want to stuff the muzzle of the museum designers! Well, you can't expose the light like that!

Good evening, Anton, as you just noticed: even climb the ceiling, but you can't take a normal photo, everything glares and secondly, the distances are so small that sometimes you can only take pictures in pieces.

[3x3zsave]

My respect, Sergey!
There is no need to notice, it is enough to work in the theater for six months to understand how to properly expose the light. From the showcase designers of our museums, the impression is that they were recruited at the Kondratyevsky market from home-made aquarists.

[mihaylov]

Quote: 3x3zsave

There is no need to notice, it is enough to work in the theater for six months to understand how to properly expose the light.

This is a huge problem for me: I like to photograph in museums, but sometimes it is not realistic to make something that is not just an art photograph, but just to be seen, especially if the exhibit is behind glass.

[3x3zsave]

This is a common problem. But let those who created it be ashamed!

[vladcub]

"made in the 16-17th century in Solingin (blade), the handle is local" there are two options: 1) some merchant bought blades in Solingin, and then sold them at a premium. The arms trade is always profitable.
2) once it was a whole sword, but the owner, somewhere laid down his head, and the Scotsman appreciated the quality of the steel and gave it to local blacksmiths to replace the handle
If the sword could speak. It would be a gruesome but captivating story.

[Basarev]

Were there even larger, three-handed swords?

[Korsar4]

Is it for the squire to help? At the most crucial moment?
Or for contacts with Gromozeka?

[vladcub]

"two-handed swords from 180 to 210 cm long and weighing from 4 to 4,8 kg" constantly carry a 5-kilogram "fool", and also wave. The life of the Landsknechts was not sugar.
Curious to know, were there many who wanted to wave them? Although it is double the salary, there is a high chance of not seeing the salary.
PS. Q. Oh, can you name any film showing such swords?

[kalibr]

Quote: vladcub

Can you name any movie showing such swords?

Only "Secrets of the Burgundian Court", others did not look ...

[Phil77]

Paul Verhoeven. * Flesh and blood. * 1985. The hero of Rutger Hauer has just such a sword. Photos of two episodes I brought. By the way, a great movie!

[Phil77]

Here's another.

If you have not watched this film, then you can only envy you, because ... you will get great pleasure from watching! Honestly, Svyatoslav!

[vladcub]

Honestly, I don’t remember, I probably didn’t look ..

[Maks1995]

Interesting. Good photos.
The only forged flaming sword in the comments, and the rest are all sharpened. Although both are usually mentioned in the literature.

[faterdom]

The most beautiful and ridiculous weapon in the entire history of war.

[novel66]

Quote: Undecim

If we are talking exclusively about Zweihänder or Bihänder, then these are weapons exclusively for mercenaries - landsknechts. As for the duels between them - it is necessary to clarify.

fantasy, of course. but still
https://booksonline.com.ua/view.php?book=174742&page=202

[agond]

Regarding the issue of chopping the peak, of course, I did not chop the peaks and did not see how they do it, but I did quite a lot with special homemade machetes (for clearing the track), naturally I have it not two manual ones, but only 41cm and weighing 450g, but horizontally bush branches with a thickness of up to 5 cm are cut into half the diameter or more from the first blow, although the blow must be applied at an angle of 45 * to the surface of the branch in the wood stretching zone, it is probably impossible to strike with a two-hander in a similar way (due to twisting the body) at the peak in battle due to limited space, not the most optimal oblique blow from above will remain (due to the bending of the body), but it must be borne in mind that the pike is large and heavy, it is easier to cut it than a lighter spear .. and of course the fighters were perfect.

[Mikhail3]

However, it should be noted here that when hitting the armor with a two-handed sword, there is not much difference what kind of blade he has.

However, it should be noted that it would be nice for the author to learn at school. However, he already "studied", but the Soviet school is not for him. Here is a gymnasium of the early 20th century, with corporal punishment ...
In general, the author will have to open his eyes once again. I must say that this occupation has already bored me, but ... In general, the fact is that the force of the blow is not all that needs to be taken into account when calculating the damage inflicted. You see, this very damage very much depends on the contact area. The smaller the area of ​​contact between the sword and armor upon impact, the stronger the damage inflicted. That is why, the author, a blow with a sharp point penetrates armor better than a blow with a blade. And not because of the mysterious magic, as you have thought all your life.
So the fiery blade of a heavy sword (this is how it should be said - fiery, because "flaming" can simply be painted red) breaks armor more efficiently than a smooth one. And also, it is much easier for them to cut the spear, the bends partially capture it. Diplomas ...

[Freedim]

If you cut the tops off the claymore guard, I think they are perfect for hot and cold water valves

[mmaxx]

I look at the drawing of flamberg waves ... It seems that they simply forged it. They twisted two rods and hammered them. The hypothesis can only be confirmed practically or by cutting a museum piece ...

[Eule]

The wavy blade has an amazing cutting ability, rather saber even. So against lances and other drins, as well as against quilts, leather and other non-metallic armor, it should have a higher cutting effect.
According to experiments, it cuts frozen meat, fibrous plants, and bundles of twigs better than direct. In general, it seemed to me that the wavy blade is about one and a half times longer ... but in the Russian Federation, the length of the knife is limited by law. Therefore, it is necessary to think and try. Do, test, study. My wife drew and received as a gift a wavy Scandinavian knife "with a fungus", which turned out to be great for collecting honey agarics, although it had a kind of intimidating effect on other mushroom pickers.
Waviness of 3 or 5 waves gives almost nothing at lengths up to 90 mm, but in the interval 100 - 149 mm (with other signs of household use), 4 - 5 - 7 waves give an increase in cutting ability for almost all types of products and objects like: heaters, packing material, rubber goods and other things that had to be cut at their work as a fitter. When installing heaters for stoves, the "wavy" folding does not require sharpening all day for a smooth cut of high-temperature mineral wool without "snags" throughout the day.
The ratio of the width of the wave to the width of the blade is not less than one and a half, probably two-thirds is optimal. The wavelength in the knives is around 20 - 30 mm, it is optimal to take a progression, that is, the wavelength increases towards the handle with the addition of 3 mm. Well, or decreasing to the edge.
In part of the photo, the swords have waves less than a quarter of the width, that is, how they work is unknown. It needs to be reconstructed and checked by the felling of materials, which requires an enthusiast with a forge.

sword [2] with leather guards, weighing 8,25 kg (now, finally we got a sword in 8 kg!), most likely, it was a military weapon, otherwise why did he need a leather guard?

I really disagree, as a former pentathlete. This is a training drill for strengthening the arms, as indicated by the leather protection - it is useless against a war blade. But for training, weighted swords and swords were used throughout the known history.
The version that this is a butcher's sword also requires consideration.