Notches on blades. Iron comes to Europe.

Celtic iron sword with a bronze hilt and a bronze scabbard permanently attached to the blade, 60 BC. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

Evil, miserable iron,
You, you filthy piece of trash,
Steel with terrible power! ...
You weren't great, after all,
Neither great nor insignificant,
How I pulled you out of the swamp,
Dragged from the black soil,
Delivered straight to the forge,
Ilmarinen threw himself towards the furnace.

Kalevala. Karelian-Finnish national epic

History weapons. Thus, by the end of the Late Bronze Age, swords with leaf-shaped blades cast integrally with the hilt became dominant. They could be used for both cutting and thrusting, and no longer required much training. Thus, the transition from the rapier to the sword reflected a technological adaptation designed to simplify fencing and increase the weapon's effectiveness.

Celtic sword hilt with scabbard. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

Leaf-shaped swords were used throughout Europe until around 900 BC, after which they became exclusively designed for slashing. This innovation emerged towards the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Early Iron Age. In particular, long bronze swords with a rounded tip have been found in England. Ewart Oakeshott believed these were the swords of horsemen and charioteers. Because only with such a sword could they reach their infantry opponents. And then came the Iron Age!

A Hallstatt horseman's sword (replica by Neil Burridge), late Bronze Age. Length: 825 cm. Weight: 1 kg. Photo by Neil Burridge.

In Europe, the Iron Age can rightly be called "Celtic" (c. 700-0 BC). And not just any Celtic. At this time, the Hallstatt culture spread across central Europe. It was characterized by two types of swords. The longer type was made of both bronze and iron, while the shorter one was usually made only of iron. The blade was leaf-shaped, narrow, and actually quite long, despite being called a short sword. The edges of the blade were defined by a ridge or ridges that merged into a ridge at the tip.

These swords continued to emphasize the slashing blow, which began to develop at the end of the Late Bronze Age. Generally, there were two types of swords: short for infantry and long for horsemen. Moreover, short swords were not at all typical of areas with traditional equestrian cultures, such as the Black Sea steppe corridor and ancient Persia. The Sarmatians, who arrived in the Black Sea steppes, had long swords, about a meter long, with virtually no crossguard, but with a massive stone pommel made of semiprecious stones such as agate or chalcedony. Such swords were awkward for fencing, but quite suitable for slashing a fallen man. It's understandable why the Scythians, with their short akinakes, were no match for them, even though the Sarmatians' main advantage lay not in their swords, but in their bows*.

An iron sword from the Sassanid era. The kings of the Sassanid Empire (224–651 CE) are almost always depicted with a sword slung from their belt—a motif consistent with the image of a victor in battle. This iron sword, in a gold-plated wooden scabbard, is a magnificent example of the weapon the Sassanids adopted from the Huns, who roamed Europe and Asia in the sixth and seventh centuries, shortly before the Islamic era. It has a long, narrow hilt with two finger rests, and the scabbard features a pair of U-shaped protrusions, which originally held two straps of unequal lengths. These straps secured the sword to the warrior's belt so it could be easily drawn even while mounted. The sword itself is inlaid with garnets and glass, and its surface is decorated with a pattern of overlapping feathers. The fact that a similar pattern can be seen on the helmet of a Sassanid warrior has led scholars to speculate that it may be a symbol of the Zoroastrian god of victory, Verethragna. Several other swords of this type are known, some inlaid with gold, others with silver. Circa 7th century CE, Iran. Material: blade, iron; scabbard and hilt: gilded wood, garnets, guard – gilded bronze. Dimensions: 8 × 103 × 2,4 cm. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.

Iron swords of the early Iron Age had one of two structural features. The first type were swords with blades hardened by cold forging, while the second were swords with a "multilayered" structure consisting of layers of varying carbon content. The second type was the direct predecessor of the beautiful "pattern welded" swords that appeared during the La Tène period.** The use of this complex forging method was necessitated by the difficulties associated with adding carbon to iron to produce steel.

The La Tène period lasted from approximately 500 BCE to 0 BCE and is divided into three phases. But what's most important for us is the La Tène swords. The La Tène sword was long, with straight, almost parallel blades tapering to a rounded point. Ewart Oakeshott considered it "the true ancestor of medieval knightly weapons." The shape of these swords was very different from their predecessors. One reason for this may be that early Hallstatt swords, although many were made of iron, were still fashioned after bronze swords and, accordingly, were subject to the limitations of that material. Apparently, people didn't immediately realize that iron could be used to make a long, thin, and flat blade without thickening it in the middle for strength.

Since Ewart Oakeshott believed that "it is difficult to do anything with a sword on a chariot except strike the enemy," it is safe to assume that this is how these swords were used. The fact that the La Tène blades have a rounded tip supports this view.

An early gladius. Drawing by A. Sheps based on a find in Pompeii.

In southern Europe, in the lands of Ancient Rome, the spatha and gladius became the main types of swords. The gladius is perhaps the best known of the two. It was a short, double-edged sword with a sharp, sturdy point. It had a wide blade and was used primarily for thrusting. The spatha was longer and lacked the sharp point of the gladius. Such long swords were typically carried by auxiliaries. They are likely the ancestor of, or at least somewhat influenced, the development of the Anglo-Saxon single-edged longsword, sometimes called by the same name.

The Roman spatha – the first “universal sword.” Fig. A. Shepsa

An iron sword with a bronze hilt. Gaul. Circa 2nd century BC – 1st century AD. Materials: bronze, iron. Length: 43,8 cm. Clearly, no nicks would be visible on such a blade, even if they were there. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

Roman swords were typically made using spot welding, a process that continued into later Saxon times. This process involved adding layers of low-carbon steel to a medium-carbon steel core, welding twisted, carburized iron strips to both sides, and then welding medium-carbon steel cutting edges to the narrow sides. The result was not only a stronger blade but also a very beautiful one, with the twisting of the strips creating distinct patterns on the blade. Despite its attractive appearance, the patterned welding is primarily a byproduct of the manufacturing process, not an intended effect, although it could have been useful for visual confirmation of the blade's quality!

Not long ago, during a seaside vacation, I happened to end up here... Everything is clearly marked on this map.

And in this amusement park called "Roman Empire," you can get to know the warriors of Ancient Rome in great detail... By the way, the reconstruction of the armor and everything else was very high-quality, and the animators themselves played with soul, which was very nice!

Very well-made Roman sword blades. The hilts, admittedly, aren't quite right, but in this case, they didn't need to be particularly accurate!

Why did Roman swords suddenly become so dramatically shorter? It all stems from the training of their legionnaires, who won not through individual combat prowess, as the Germans and Gauls aspired to, but through skillful teamwork. Armed with heavy scutum shields weighing nearly eight kilograms and equally heavy pilum javelins, Roman soldiers would advance on the enemy, closely packed, and then, at close range, hurl their javelins. Such a fearsome projectile, according to ancient authors, could pierce not only a shield, but sometimes two warriors standing one behind the other at once. In other words, the front rank of the enemy was mown down immediately, after which the wounded lying on the ground simply had to be finished off by plunging a long-bladed sword into them.

Then, a second line of legionaries would take the place of the first, and the pilum-throwing would be repeated. Then, a third would take the place of the second... And when all the pilum were exhausted, the legionaries would rush the enemy at full speed and simply knock them down with blows from their heavy shields. Those who fell would be stabbed to death, or those standing would be struck with gladiuses from under their shields, aiming, for example, at the legs. And while the same Gaul swung his longsword (incidentally, not always of good quality) at the Roman, the latter would have plenty of time to simply stab him anywhere, just to inflict a wound that would cause blood loss. In other words, there was no fencing with gladii, so there simply couldn't be any notches on their blades from sword-on-sword strikes.

For the first time in my life, I held an exact replica of a Roman pilum. It was impressive! I don't think I could throw it more than five meters. I wouldn't have the strength. But even then, its sheer weight would pierce any shield! And what if I practiced regularly?

This weight gave it heft. There were pila without weights and even with two such balls. They were probably especially armor-piercing!

And look at the Greek Spartans, for example? They began, like all other Greeks, with "full" copper armor: a helmet with a mask, a cuirass, "pipes" on the forearms and thighs, greaves, and even used metal "finger guards" to protect the forefoot. But by 480 BC, they had abandoned all this "metal," retaining only the helmet and bell-shaped cuirass. Then, even this seemed excessive, and of all their armor, they retained only the conical pilos helmet and shield, making do with a blood-red tunic instead of a cuirass. At the same time, the length of their swords decreased. So, while the xiphos of the Messenian Wars could both cut and thrust, by the Battle of Mantinea, their swords had become dramatically shorter. And there is historical evidence that this is so. Plutarch wrote about this, citing the story of King Agesilaus, who was once asked why the Lacedaemonians' swords were so short. "Because we fight close to the enemy," he replied. The shortened sword forced the Lacedaemonian warrior to deliver thrusts aimed at the groin and lower abdomen, areas that would immediately incapacitate the enemy.

Spartan warriors at the First Battle of Mantinea, 418 BC. Author: R. Hook

*The Scythian bow, when compared to modern weapons, can be classified as a pistol. The Sarmatian bow, however, is a rifle or heavy gun. The Scythians fired numerous arrows with bullet-shaped, three-bladed tips, most likely poisoned, and tried to eliminate horsemen, but spared their horses, as they were valuable prey. The Sarmatians fired from a distance. Their arrows had large tips that could hit both horsemen and their horses. And hitting a horse from a distance is easier than hitting a horseman. As a result, the battlefield was littered with dismounted warriors, whom the Sarmatians finished off with their long swords.

**An Iron Age archaeological culture that existed from approximately the 5th to 1st century BC. It is usually associated with Celtic tribes (Gauls, Britons, and others), but other peoples also contributed to its development, including Iberians, Ligurians, Illyrians, and Thracians. The culture was named after the village of La Tène in Switzerland, near Neuchâtel. It was there in 1857 that a rich hoard of artifacts was discovered, which became the benchmark for defining the entire culture. The La Tène culture replaced the Hallstatt culture and marked the next stage of its development in the western regions of its distribution. Over time, it spread widely: its monuments are found in Central and Western Europe (France, Switzerland, Spain), the Balkans, Asia Minor, Britain and Ireland, as well as in Transcarpathia and Right-Bank Ukraine.

To be continued ...

Comments

[Luminman]

I've always wondered where this museum collected its exhibits. They house some very interesting artifacts that wouldn't be easy to remove from their original countries. Like the Sisanid sword or the handwritten Koran. The British Museum's case is clear—they were looting from their colonies, but where did the Americans get all this?
Article plus!

[Hunter 2]

Greetings to all
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, purchased two major collections of arms (European and Japanese) in 1904, which became the basis of its Department of Arms and Armor, and between 1906 and 1935 the museum conducted its own archaeological expeditions and received finds.
The bulk of the collection was formed through private collections and gifts. For example, John Pierpont Morgan's son donated approximately 7000 items from his father's collection to the museum. Nelson Rockefeller donated over 3000 exhibits from Africa, America, and Oceania in 1969: the museum even received a separate wing named after him.

[Luminman]

Quote: Hunter 2

The bulk of the collection was formed through private collections and gifts; for example, the son of John Pierpont Morgan donated about 7000 items to the museum.

Where did Morgan's son get these 7000 items?

[Hunter 2]

Quote: Luminman

Where did Morgan's son get these 7000 items?

In the Father's collection!
John Pierpont Morgan (April 17, 1837 – March 31, 1913) was an American entrepreneur, banker, financier, and collector, one of the most influential financiers in U.S. history. He was the founder of the Morgan dynasty, which dominated corporate finance and industrial consolidation in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. J.P. Morgan and Company, which later became JPMorgan Chase, is named after him.

[Luminman]

Quote: Hunter 2

In the Father's collection!

Where did your father get it?

[Hunter 2]

Quote: Luminman

Where did your father get it?

And there is no longer any
Morgan is a great "pirate" surname, and you - where did you get it, where did you get it... found it

[carpenter]

Quote: Luminman

Where did Morgan's son get these 7000 items?

Yes, his family was one of the founders of the US financial empire; they could buy everything from politicians to swords and other ancient weapons. His son gave him 7000, and no one knows how much of it the Morgans kept, but it's clearly much more than they gave him.

[kalibr]

Quote: Luminman

But where did the Americans get all this?

Where was it obtained? The caption under each exhibit states where it was obtained. I don't give out this information, there's so much else. But usually the caption says something like: gift of such-and-such... transferred from such-and-such's collection, bequeathed after the death of such-and-such... or purchased at Sotheby's. And then there are the notes starting to appear: returned upon request and a photo of the artifact, but the caption states that the museum parted with it. That's just how it is!

[carpenter]

Quote: Luminman

It's all clear with the British Museum - they were taking looted items from their colonies, but where did the Americans get all this?

So, there were no Americans when the enslavement of America began; more precisely, there was a local population that the British didn't consider Americans. So the British brought these ancient weapons with them and placed them in museums.

[balabol]

There are two main ways Americans acquire art collections.
The first, relatively legal, was that of the impoverished European aristocracy. They stole everything they could from the Old World.
For example, William Randolph Hearst, the creator of the world's first media empire and the inventor of the yellow press, not only became a multimillionaire but also collected an outstanding collection of European art.
He owned numerous properties, and all these mansions, which could easily be called palaces and castles, needed to be decorated. Paintings, ceramics, sculpture, books, antique weapons and armor—he collected everything he could lay his hands on. Fortunately, in Europe, devastated by World War I, there was plenty to profit from the ruins of collapsed empires. And he eventually took this hobby to its extreme: Hearst began buying architectural works, medieval masterpieces that were, for obvious reasons, absent from the United States and left unused in their homeland.
Hearst was far from the only wealthy American who decided to create a corner of old Europe in his homeland.
Back in 1914, George Gray Barnard, an antiques dealer, transported four French monasteries dating from the 12th to 15th centuries to New York. Barnard had been gradually acquiring them, hoping to resell them profitably, but was forced to intensify the shipment before the passage of a law in France banning the export of ancient treasures. The last ship carrying the crates in which the former monasteries were packed departed the Old World just days before the law went into effect.
And less legally, there's the art black market. Americans nurtured this business. A network of individuals and organizations engaged in the illegal acquisition of objects and their legalization in the business world. Besides outright swindlers and crooks, respected artists, historians, art critics, lawyers, and art dealers were also involved. Incidentally, a large number of objects are held in closed private collections, awaiting their rightful release into the public domain.

[Luminman]

Quote: balabol

The first is relatively legal - among the impoverished European aristocracy

What about the handwritten Quran or the Sisanid sword? They're strict about that stuff there...

Quote: balabol

And less legally, the black art market

That's what I'm getting at. Do museums buy exhibits from thieves?

[balabol]

Of course, but indirectly. You can turn a blind eye to fake documents, you can go through a series of transactions, losing the original illegal acquisition deed, conduct a haphazard appraisal, or hide an interesting but suspicious item in storage. But sometimes, the rightful owners return such items.
Each unique item must be examined separately and carefully (the Koran or the sword you mentioned).
I also know real stories about rare artifacts found by chance. During Soviet times, a woman—not an art historian but with a keen eye for art—was on a tour from Khiva to Bukhara and Samarkand. At the bazaar, she bought an antique silver pendant, very atmospheric—it had a whiff of the ancient East. Later, during a tour of the Hermitage, a museum employee immediately noticed it on her. It turned out to be an original antique amulet. Inside, on a piece of parchment, was supposed to be a surah from the Quran. But they didn't open the amulet.
It's a trivial story, but the paths of historical and artistic treasures are very capricious. Museum art historians and collection curators at respectable collections do just that—studying the history of artifacts and attempting to weave them into the web of historical events.

[tlauicol]

I don't quite understand the reason for the disappearance of Sparta's armor, and how it is connected to the sword.
Interestingly, the horseman's thrusting sword was revived centuries later—a man-sized konchar stands in a historical museum. This means that it would have been possible to thrust with a long sword from a chariot or horse.

[kalibr]

Quote: Tlauicol

I don't quite understand the reason for the disappearance of Sparta's armor, and how it is connected to the sword.

Apparently, their training had become such that they no longer really needed personal armor. So what's the point of a long sword? To hack? That would mean breaking the shield wall. And with a short sword, you could simply finish off someone who'd fallen, bending slightly...

[paul3390]

To finish off a fallen soldier with a Spartan sword, you'd have to practically squat. Or bend over in heavy armor with a hoplon in your left hand.

[kalibr]

Quote: paul3390

Well, or bend in half in heavy armor

He was already gone... But I wasn't alive at that time, so I can't say exactly how it all happened, and you can't squeeze much out of ancient texts.

[ANB]

But I didn't live at that time.

Look at the work of the Russian National Guard.
A wall of shields, the size of scutums.
A dense formation pressing on the crowd.
The Romans also have support from behind.
Here with a sword - only a quick thrust and a gap between the shields.

[kalibr]

Quote: Tlauicol

That is, it would be possible to deliver a stabbing blow with a long sword from a chariot or horse

Yes, but now it was made of iron and more durable, partially replacing the spear. The English cavalry also received swords instead of sabres in 1914. And the command changed from "cut" to "thrust."

[tlauicol]

Bronze rapier swords were also long. Why wouldn't horsemen use them? And the quality of bronze alloys had improved, since bronze was used for chopping.
Regarding the disappearance of Greek armor: it turns out that formations were once less dense. They could even cut off a hand. As formations became denser, spears became longer, swords became shorter, and armor disappeared for a time. Until the next vacuum

[3x3zsave]

In 1914, the English cavalry also received swords instead of sabres. And the command changed from "cut" to "stab."
Vyacheslav Olegovich, did you at least read Mike Loades before (pardon the expression!) writing this nonsense?

[Luminman]

Quote: 3x3zsave

The English cavalry also received swords instead of sabres in 1914.

I'm quite versed in English weapon vocabulary, but such concepts in Russian as shpaga, broadsword, sword and other things that cut and stab are pronounced in English as swordSo from an Anglophone's point of view, it's the same concept...

Quote: 3x3zsave

And the command changed from "cut" to "stab"

Here, probably under chop down и prick the word was understood hit - (strike), which has the same meaning in the case of stabbing and cutting weapons. I could be wrong...
This is a translation, possibly machine translation...

[kalibr]

Quote: 3x3zsave

Vyacheslav Olegovich, did you at least read Mike Loades before (pardon the expression!) writing this nonsense?

Anton, I haven't read Mike Loades, but he's not the only one I've read. There are many interesting authors you haven't read, but I have. And you're generally right about the swords. I already wrote to Alexey below about what the matter is. They weren't called that... But the essence is the same: a thrust, not a cut.

[3x3zsave]

Vyacheslav Olegovich, at the turn of the 20th century, there were two schools of horseback fencing. One emphasized thrusts, the other emphasized cutting. Everything they used was called a sabre. Even the one Patton invented (although, to me, it's a classic cavalry rapier).

[kalibr]

Quote: 3x3zsave

Everything they used was called a saber.

Just don't say that about England, okay?

[3x3zsave]

The world doesn't revolve around him, no.
Yes, of course. But he is the only historian I know who has experienced it all firsthand.

[kalibr]

Quote: 3x3zsave

who experienced it all himself.

You can test a lot of things on yourself. But that doesn't mean the results will be 100% reliable.

[carpenter]

Quote: 3x3zsave

In 1914, the English cavalry also received swords instead of sabres. And the command changed from "cut" to "stab."
Vyacheslav Olegovich, did you at least read Mike Loades before (pardon the expression!) writing this nonsense?

In 1914 (and even slightly earlier), the British cavalry began to be armed not just with sabres, but with the Pattern 1908 Cavalry Trooper's Sword. Using the broadsword was simple, as its massiveness and straightness meant that thrusting required simply extending the arm forward and holding it while galloping (which wasn't all that difficult for tall cavalrymen). The change in command from "cut" to "thrust" was precisely due to the change in weaponry and tactics.

[Hunter 2]

Quote: kalibr

The English cavalry also received swords instead of sabres in 1914.

In 1914, the British cavalry were armed with 1908-model broadswords and pikes (bladed weapons), as well as rifle bayonets and sapper shovels.
Pattern 1908 Cavalry Trooper's Sword

[kalibr]

Quote: Hunter 2

Quote: kalibr

The English cavalry also received swords instead of sabres in 1914.

In 1914, the British cavalry were armed with 1908-model broadswords and pikes (bladed weapons), as well as rifle bayonets and sapper shovels.
Pattern 1908 Cavalry Trooper's Sword

This is exactly what I meant when I wrote about swords. The blade of this "broadsword" was much thinner than that of traditional broadswords and was designed specifically for thrusting, not cutting.

[Wildcat]

And the command changed from "chop" to "stab".

Hmm, here's a list of commands, there was no "cut-cut" there.
"The Phased Sequence of Commands"Draw - SABRES!" (or "Fix - LANCES!"): The preliminary command given while still out of effective range, ordering troopers to bare their steel or ready their primary shock weapons.
"Trot - MARCH!": The initial closing gait (approx. 8 mph / 13 km/h), used to cross the medium distance safely while maintaining unit cohesion.
"Gallop - MARCH!": The intermediate pace (approx. 12–15 mph / 19–24 km/h), usually signaled roughly 300 to 500 yards from the enemy as the formation transitioned into a tactical attack posture.
"Line will attack!": The preparatory directive given by the squadron or regimental commander to lock the alignment of the charging line.
"CHARGE!": The final executive command—often accompanied by the fierce, high-pitched blare of the regimental trumpet or bugle call—delivered at roughly 50 yards from the enemy. Troopers shortened their reins, leaned forward in the saddle, and drove their horses into a full-out run for the final impact."
"The step-by-step sequence of commands: "To battle - sabres!" (or "To battle - lances!") is a preliminary command given outside the effective range; it instructed cavalrymen to draw their blades or bring their main striking weapon to combat readiness. "Trot - march!" is the initial gait for approaching the enemy (speed of about 13 km/h), which allowed for safe covering of the middle distance, while maintaining a closed formation. "Gallop - march!" is an intermediate pace of movement (speed of about 19-24 km/h); the signal for it was usually given at a distance of 300-500 yards from the enemy, when the formation went into battle formation for the attack.
"Lines - attack!" is an order from a squadron or regiment commander, designed to finally align the front of the attacking formation.
"Charge!" was the final command to action (often accompanied by a sharp, piercing blast from a regimental trumpet or bugle), given about 50 yards from the enemy; upon hearing it, the cavalrymen shortened their reins, leaned forward, and urged their horses into a full gallop to deliver the decisive blow. (c) AI

On the SUBJECT: there's a lot of "national flavor" in the terms for edged weapons and their translations, and the same "Pattern 1908 cavalry sword" can be translated as "sword," despite the potential one-sided sharpening (here, "broadsword" would be more appropriate).
But, for example, the French have "Sabre de cuirassier modèle An IX" - "cuirassiers' broadsword" (straight, single-edged blade) as "Sabre" and "Sabre de cavalerie légère modèle An IX" - "light cavalry saber" (with a curved, single-edged blade) as "Sabre".

And the debate about whether to stab or chop was never fully resolved by the cavalry.
In theory, heavy cavalry adopted a "stab, not chop" approach since the Napoleonic Wars, but the reality of actual combat encounters, for example with the Boers, once again raised the question of whether chopping was necessary. And the Indians, with their talwars, generally gravitated toward copies of the Pattern 1796 light cavalry sabre or "Blücherovka" (something like that, literally)—"give me something to chop with, something strong and heavy, not all this modern, clad stuff."

[paul3390]

the reason for the disappearance of armor in Sparta

Most likely, the massive use of peltasts played a role. This was especially evident at the Battle of Lechaeum. The vile opponents simply refused to engage in direct combat, running around the Spartan phalanx and pelting it with javelins. The classic heavy hoplite couldn't do anything against them—not even catch up.
In theory, they should have developed both light and heavy infantry, plus cavalry. But Sparta simply didn't have the resources for that, neither human nor material. So they had to transform hoplites into something like heavy peltasts to at least slightly increase their mobility.

[kalibr]

Quote: paul3390

So, it was necessary to transform the hoplites into something like heavy peltasts in order to at least somehow increase their mobility.

Yes, everything you write is correct +++

[tlauicol]

Quote: kalibr

Quote: paul3390

So, it was necessary to transform the hoplites into something like heavy peltasts in order to at least somehow increase their mobility.

Yes, everything you write is correct +++

Under Lehei, all the Spartans were already running in T-shirts.
The reasons must be sought earlier.

[MikMichel]

I don't quite understand the reason for the disappearance of Sparta's armor, and how it is connected to the sword.

Armor didn't disappear completely. Some form of torso protection remained, at least in the form of a linothorax. Another issue is that extensive arm, leg, and other protection was, firstly, inconsistent with Spartan tradition. According to Lycurgus's laws ("society of equals"), all Spartans were required to observe the same asceticism, meaning they weren't allowed to distinguish themselves from the rest by any form of wealth (they even ate communal food at syssitia—communal meals—to prevent anyone from secretly gorging on delicacies). High-quality, rich armor for all parts of the body was, first and foremost, a sign of wealth. Secondly, full body armor was unnecessary for phalanx combat; it was more the armament of lone warriors in the archaic era. In the phalanx, a helmet, aspis shield, and dori spear were enough to constitute a fighting unit—a hoplite. Everything else was provided by discipline, training, and early training, the so-called agoge. Naturally, in the end, there was no complete equality between them, and the more successful Spartans might well have worn linothoraxes and greaves, while the less successful fought in tunics, helmets, and shields. The short sword may also have arisen not only from Spartan daring, but from "poverty" and a reluctance to stand out from their phalanx comrades with a longer sword.

[Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov]

Roman swords were usually made using spot welding.

Well, why not laser? We only had forge welding.

[kalibr]

Quote: Ivan Ivanych Ivanov

The welding was only forge-type.

Well, yes, of course that's true. But I've come across that term in literature.

[paul3390]

they tore it down with blows from their heavy shields

With the Roman grip of the scutum, it's practically impossible to strike with it... And the weight doesn't really help.

[kalibr]

Quote: paul3390

they are almost impossible to hit

It's possible. I've tested it. If you run up and push it, the blow comes out oh-oh! The weight only helps!

[paul3390]

But if several comrades pick you up and use you as a battering ram at full speed, the result will be a real drag...

[Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov]

If you run up and push with it, the blow comes out oh-oh! The weight only helps!

Try it in a buhurt against a fighter—he'll step slightly to the side, let your momentum pass him by, and strike him in the back—a weapon is always faster. In close combat, there are no incompetents—it's either a fighter or a dead man.

[tlauicol]

The formation density is different. If you miss one legionnaire, another will knock you out.
But I agree that the Romans didn't ram while running. Rather, they pushed sharply with their shoulders.

[Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov]

The formation density is different. If you miss one legionnaire, another will knock you out.

Yes, that's why the "Roman formation" is a collective tactic that always outclassed (when it worked) any number of individual fencers. The shield, sword, and pilum were all tailored for this tactic.

[Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov]

With the Roman grip of the scutum, it's practically impossible to strike with it... And the weight doesn't really help.

Yes, you'll most likely fall from inertia. You can pin it down with a scutum.
I've fought in close formations many times, as a shield-bearer in the front ranks. And, I must say, when you're being pressed by your own men from the second rank, and the third rank is using axes and halberds, and the enemy is pinned down with their shields, the only real weapon you can use is a dagger—it's so cramped. So, in close formation, short weapons are the only weapons you can use.

[paul3390]

Yep. Another peculiarity of the scutum is that it's held by the cross handle with the arm lowered. How can you strike with that? All the strength comes from the additional support of the shield on the shoulder and hip. The stance is strictly sideways; that's the only way to achieve the necessary stability. With this setup, it's practically impossible to knock the fighter down; the only chance of hitting him is his head, over the shield, or his foot. Even using an axe against him is practically useless. But using the shield any other way is also practically impossible. And why bother in a tight formation?

[tlauicol]

The scutum lay on the shoulder, along the body, and the legs. Ramming in formation with a running start was probably inconvenient. Rather, they stepped with the front leg, like in boxing. The leg was protected by the shield. Sideways. And they pushed sharply. Hitting the shin with the scutum was also convenient.

[Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov]

Ramming into formation while running was probably awkward. It was more like stepping with the front leg, like in boxing. The leg was protected by the shield. Sideways. And they pushed sharply. Hitting the shin with a scutum was also convenient.

That's exactly it—the point of a large shield is to get as close to the enemy as possible under its cover. With a scutum, this can only be achieved by stepping—but when a well-trained formation does it, it's death to anyone.
And running up and striking is good with the round fist of the Vikings - you can hit with either the edge or the boss.

[tlauicol]

Quote: paul3390

they tore it down with blows from their heavy shields

With the Roman grip of the scutum, it's practically impossible to strike with it... And the weight doesn't really help.

The scutum is very useful for striking the shin and even the face. And it's probably also handy for knocking down a wall. Marcellus, for example, lifted his opponent's shield with his scutum in single combat.

[Semovente7534]

Reading this article reminded me of a passage from a book I just finished, a work on the Roman wars with the Celts in Italy. It described how Celtic swords would bend after just two blows, while Roman swords retained their shape, and this is what ensured the Roman victory. In fact, after searching online, I discovered that this event was recorded by the Greek historian Polybius in his account of the famous Battle of Telamon, which took place in 225 BC. Polybius's description: Blade flaws: Long Gallic swords were made of soft iron and were not always properly tempered. Deformation: One powerful blow against Roman shields or armor was enough to noticeably bend the blade. Warrior's actions: Celtic warriors had to stop, step on the blade with their feet, and with considerable effort straighten it before the next blow.

[Semovente7534]

However, modern archaeological finds indicate that only a portion of these swords were soft and of poor quality.

[kalibr]

Quote from: Semovente7534

Only a portion of these swords were soft and of poor quality.

So.

[Alex013]

Vyacheslav Olegovich, the question here is the origin of the raw materials. If it's local (bog ore), then yes. If it's meteoric iron, then it's of very high quality. Or raw materials from Western Asia.

[Rodez]

Quote from: Semovente7534

Archaeological finds indicate that only a portion of these swords were soft and of poor quality.

Of course, some were of higher quality, the only question is which ones... It's worth considering that swords of "low" quality turn to dust, practically into nothing, faster than a hardened and well-polished blade... Also, to be fair, "composite" blades, made of strips of varying degrees of carbon content, also rust easily due to the unevenness of the internal structure
P.S. Scandinavian swords also did not escape this fate; their rather mediocre quality (with straightening by the leg) is known from literary sources

[kalibr]

Quote: Rodez

Scandinavian swords also did not escape this fate; their rather mediocre quality (with straightening by the leg) is known from literary sources

German, and early ones at that, not Scandinavian! These were of very high quality!

[Rodez]

Quote: kalibr

Germanic, and early ones at that, not Scandinavian

The sagas (without denying the existence of "good" swords) often describe "complete junk" - a classic is the saga of Kormak "... Thorkel hid the sword near the door, and on the other side Narfi prepared a scythe... when Kormak entered, the scythe fell and hit the sword, leaving a notch on it, Thorkel stood up and began to scold Kormak for the harm he had caused..."
:)
P.S. My thought was that low-quality swords simply "didn't survive" to our time, although they were, perhaps, more numerous... or maybe not, but as an archaeological artifact - they are definitely in the minority, they all rotted away

[kalibr]

Quote: Rodez

My thought was that low-quality swords simply "didn't survive" to our time, although they were perhaps more numerous... or maybe not, but as an archaeological artifact - they are definitely in the minority, they all rotted away

This idea is correct, but unfortunately it is difficult to confirm.

[Sergey Tkach]

Vyacheslav Olegovich, thank you for the article!
"Ilmarinen was thrown to the forge." That's who the Finns named their coast guard battleship after.

[kalibr]

Quote: Sergey Tkach

Ilmarinen

A Finnish folk hero. He brought them the "magic tablecloth" – the Sampo mill!

[Alex013]

Vyacheslav Olegovich, who worked on the Sampo combine, by the way, was indestructible, when he was an "obstetrician" (that's what the research director called us) at his university in the seed production department, (manufactured by the Rosenlev company), which also made refrigerators (a reference to the film Kidnapping, Caucasian Style)

[kalibr]

Quote: Alex013

when we were "obstetricians" (that's what the scientific director called us)

My colleagues and I, who were working on seed preparation in a village in the Kuibyshev region in 1986, were also called that by the locals. My article, "Postgraduate Students on Potatoes," is here. Check it out if you're interested.

[balabol]

I'll allow myself to be a bore on my day off.

Thus, by the end of the Late Bronze Age, the dominance of swords with a leaf-shaped blade, cast in one piece with the handle, became dominant.. - unedited stylistic error, -

"hardened by cold forging" - strange name for a technological process.
Perhaps what was meant was the strengthening of metal under the influence of cold plastic deformation, which is called work hardening. 
Work hardening is a combination of structural changes in metal and associated changes in mechanical and physicochemical properties during plastic deformation. 
With an increase in the degree of deformation, the indicators of resistance to deformation (strength, yield strength, hardness) increase, while the indicators of plasticity (relative elongation) decrease. 
While the term "hardening" refers to a type of heat treatment of metals and alloys, which involves heating them to a specific temperature (above the critical point at which the crystal lattice structure changes), holding them at that temperature, and then rapidly cooling them. The purpose of this treatment is to change the internal structure of the material to increase its hardness, strength, and wear resistance. Heating causes a restructuring of the metal's crystal structure at the atomic level.

…swords with a “multi-layered” structure of layers with varying carbon content… The use of this complex forging method was due to the difficulties associated with adding carbon to iron to produce steel. - I do not agree with this statement.
The main reason for such "antics" was the uncontrolled properties of the iron chicken produced in the blast furnace. It had to be broken down, grains with high and low carbon content were selected according to specific criteria, these blanks were forged separately to remove slag and make them more uniform (large samples were produced with imperfections), and only after this preliminary preparation could the forge weld the package be performed.
As blacksmithing techniques developed, the components of the blade package became increasingly technologically advanced—repeated folding with forging, various twisting techniques, and the selection of blade blanks to form, for example, a blade and a central section with different parameters. The blade's complex structure gave it unique characteristics as a weapon.

and twisting the strips in different ways resulted in different patterns on the blade - cause-and-effect relationships have been lost
It wasn't the twisting of the stripes, but the presence of a boundary between layers with different characteristics (compositions) that resulted in barely noticeable differences in reflected light between the layers on polished metal. On ancient welded Damascus steel, these patterns are barely visible. Modern knife makers deliberately bring out this pattern through chemical treatment. While welded blades were once a necessary measure, today all these welded "Damascus" and "Damascus" steels are pure marketing.

For those interested, the book "Weapons of Damascus and Bulat Steel" by V.N. Khorev. Systematic information on the topic.

[Fangaro]

"Hallstatt Horseman's Sword (Neil Burridge replica), Late Bronze Age. Length 825 cm. Weight 1 kg. Photo by Neil Burridge."
There is probably a mistake in the length.

[kalibr]

Quote from Fangaro

There is probably a mistake in the length.

Forgot to put it,

[Gunslinger]

Why did the Romans' swords suddenly become so shortened? ...after which the wounded lying on the ground had to be simply finished off by plunging a long-bladed sword into them.

First they shortened, and then suddenly they lengthened)