Military Review

Sword in general or "Sword or rapier?"

74
Sword (or rapier) - light and long, universal, able to chop and prick, long bladed weapon. It is a sword with a narrow, fairly flexible blade, up to 1-meter long, with a straight handle with a top, with a complex guard of a wide variety of forms, which provided good protection for the brush. Weight up to 1,5 kilogram.


Sword in general or "Sword or rapier?"


Sword is the same age as a firearm. With the advent of the first cannons and guns, the armor ceases to be relevant, and with them the heavy sword that can cut through or pierce the armor ceases to be relevant. Gradually, one-handed swords are replaced by swords, this begins to occur in Spain in the middle of the 15 of the 20th century. More precisely, in the 60 of the 15 of the 20th century, the nobles began to wear blades that were somewhat narrower than fighting swords and had a more complicated guard - the arms appeared to protect the fingers, pass-dan rings (ring on the side of the sword cross or dagger). perpendicular to the axis of the blade), etc. These swords quickly spread among the nobility and nobles: they were lighter than swords, which made it possible to carry them with you all the time; and they turned out to be “more beautiful” - the gradual abandonment of armor (in particular, from plate gloves, which prevented the use of firearms), led to the fact that the swords, to protect the hand, developed complex guards: baskets of metal bands, cups, plates with crosshairs and finger arches - these guards began to be decorated with gilding, stones, chasing, etc. And most importantly, swords allowed not less than swords to protect their lives in case of need, allowed successfully, both to attack and defend in battle. Gradually, the sword spread to almost all branches of the army, displacing the sword. Until the 18 century, the combat sword was in service with both infantry and cavalry until it began to be squeezed out with a sword and broadsword. But not completely disappeared. Even at the time of its dawn, the sword was divided into military and civil. Civilian swords were a little lighter and narrower, often sharpening only near the tip. Such swords were worn as weapons - in spite of lightness, such a sword was just a weapon, and as a piece of clothing. The military wore them in peacetime instead of military weapons, nobles and bourgeois with ceremonial robes, some raznochintsy. Even students had the right to say that it was a duty to wear swords. Practically until the 20 century, swords remain part of ceremonial clothes for nobles, not military weapons of officers (in Russia before 1917, the sword was obligatory for officers who were cuirassiers outside the ranks, generals), for civilians during parade , with parade uniforms wore swords), and weapons for duels. So, somewhere in the middle of the 19 century, the sword becomes a ceremonial, often premium, dueling and sporting weapon.

The sword and its appearance gave a powerful impetus to the development of the art of fencing with long bladed weapons. I don’t want to say that before this, swords were felled without training, as God would put it in his heart, but it was the lightness of the sword that made it possible to invent a whole variety of fencing techniques. There are schools of fencing: Spanish, English, French, German and Italian, each of which had its own characteristics, and whose adherents argued whose school is better. Fencing textbooks are written: for example, Ridolfo di Cappo Ferro "Gran Simulacro dell'arte e dell'uso della Scherma" ("The great image of the art and practice of fencing") of 1610. In each country, fencing knowledge is systematized and supplemented by something new. For example, the first sword fencing systems in Germany and Spain focused on cutting technology, and the principle of “killing with a sharp point, not a blade” appeared in Italy only in the middle of the 17 century, and gradually it was the Italian school that became dominant. Fencing became fashionable, it was studied in prestigious educational institutions. In the reigning houses, and not only, the position of fencing master - fencing teacher appeared. A sword becomes a sign of a noble person, a nobleman, a bourgeois, sometimes a commoner, a defender of a man’s honor in a duel (not only for men, but also for women), being deprived of honor, a man was deprived of a sword - she was simply broken over a man’s head. Sword production was in the same places as the production of other melee weapons. German Solingen, which produced the world-famous cold weapons, English Sheffield, French Tire, Spanish Toledo. The blades were forged, metal handles and tops were cast, guards could stamp or weld. But if in the manufacture of the sword it was enough to be a blacksmith, then with the skier master should have been more versatile. The guards of the swords, and then the blades, were decorated with embossing and carved patterns, gilding, blackened, cast down precious stones and so on.

So, directly the sword itself: a long, relatively narrow blade, double-edged or having only a sharp point; one-handed straight handle with a massive top-counterweight; complex guard, well protecting hand. By the way, different guards are the criteria for the classification of swords created by Evor Okshott. He distinguishes: wicker garda of bands or rods - baskets; garda bowl in the form of a hollow hemisphere; Saccular guards - slightly curved disc; guard loops - in the form of a simple arc, protecting the fingers, and so on. Well, so somehow.

Like almost any object that has been used for a long time, the sword has gone through some way of modifications. First, it concerned the blade - from a rather wide two-edged, to a thin faceted, having only a sharp end. Secondly, it concerned the guard: from a simple cross with a finger arch, to a complicatedly woven basket or a solid bowl, and again to a simple small disk. Historically, many researchers, Okshott, for example, have divided swords into three types:
- reitschwert (literally, “the rider’s sword”) is a heavy sword suitable for chopping blows - it is called the “combat sword”. Appearing in the XV century, this type of sword was the most popular in the cavalry of the XVI century, but from the XVII century begins to be replaced with sabers and broadswords. Although in some countries, Russia, Sweden, was used both in the XVIII century and in cavalry and infantry.
- espada ropera (literally "sword for clothes") - intended for wearing with civilian clothes, a little easier and already combat sword, but with two-sided sharpening. This type of sword was most popular in the 16th century, but from the middle of the 17th century it began to be supplanted with even lighter swords.
- smallsword (literally "small sword") - was an even lighter version of the sword with a short blade. Appearing in the middle of the 17th century under the influence of the French school of fencing at the end of the 16 of the 20th century, later it practically superseded other types of swords. It was this type that became an exceptionally thrusting type of swords, even with a blade it was inconvenient for them to chop because of the low weight. Most of these swords had a faceted hexagonal blade, which was replaced by a triangular cross section with the valleys, which can still be seen in a sports sword. By the way, the lightness of this type of sword allowed to “painlessly” lengthen the blade and swords of almost one and a half meter appeared.

Well, now directly the second part of the topic: "Sword or rapier?"

To begin with, a quote from the "Three Musketeers": "... broke away from Athos when he saw Kayuzak's sword fly off twenty paces. D'Artagnan and Cauzac simultaneously rushed after her: one - to get her back, another - to take possession D'Artagnan, more agile, ran first and stepped on the blade.Kayuzak rushed to the Guardsman who had been killed by Aramis, grabbed his rapier and was about to return to D'Artagnan, but on the way he jumped on Athos, who managed to translate during these short moments spirit ... "So, judging by the text, let it be artistic, in one m Este, at the same time and, practically, in one kind of troops, there are two types of weapons, judging by the name. Kauzak loses his sword, and raises the rapier. What is it, the mistake of the author or translator? Or do people from the same kind of troops have different weapons? Are there differences between the sword and rapier? So let's try to figure it out. The most common opinion is that a sword is a weapon that can be chopped and stabbed, a rapier is only a piercing weapon. A modern swordsman, without hesitation, will respond in the same way. A tetrahedral rapier in cross section, without pronounced cutting edges, which only piercing blows are allowed, and a sword that has a flat triangle in cross section, with a hint of sharp edges that allow you to emphasize a chopping strike. But this is a sporting weapon. And what about old weapons? If we turn to literature, artistic and scientific, we will see descriptions of chopping blows with a rapier or just the piercing technique of working with a sword. Sometimes the rapier is described as something double-edged and wide, and the sword, as something narrow, with only a sharp end. Again inconsistencies.

To understand, you need to look at history. More precisely on the first name of the sword. In Spain, in the 15th century, "espadas roperas" - "sword for clothing" - appeared Many researchers make two mistakes in the translation of this name: they translate "espadas roperas" or as "a sword for civilian clothes"; or translated as "sword for clothing." For example, such a translation is given by John Clements, well-known in the circles of historical fencers. And, on the basis of this inaccurate translation, wrong conclusions are drawn regarding the sword and rapier. But the word "espadas" comes from the Latin "spata" - the sword, the so-called long cavalry sword of ancient Rome. And “for clothes” means “clothes, not armor”, not civilian clothes, since the concept of “civilian clothes” did not exist yet. After reading carefully “espadas roperas”, it is easy to see that the words “sword” and “rapier” are two parts of this name: “espadas” - sword, “roperas” - rapier. In many languages ​​these two names simply do not exist: in Spanish, the above described weapon is called “espada”; in Italian - “spada”; in French - "epee"; the English use the word "sword" - sword: court sword - court sword, town sword - city sword, scarf sword - sword for sash, small sword - small sword, to denote a sword in relation to more massive English swords; in German, the word "degen" refers to everything that we used to call a sword or rapier. Practically, only in Russian they use these two names, in other languages ​​they use only one: either "rapier" or "sword". Yes, and these names - teams, among the swords or rapiers there are also names of their own - papperheimer and Valon's sword, for example, komishelard - a type of sword, in which the 1 / 3 of the blade was much wider than the rest of 2 / 3. Even if these conclusions based on the analysis of the names are erroneous, it is very difficult to argue with the collections of museums in which the exhibits are kept with similar, clearly piercing-cutting blades, which are different only in the form of a guard, but sometimes called sword or rapier. At the same time they are made in different countries and at different times, and for weapons, their changes and development, and 20 years - a lot.

In the photo with various guards, all four types of weapons are called rapiers, without looking at the fact that only 3 and 4 blades can be called piercing, and the first two blades have pronounced slashing blades. Strange, right?

Here, five types of blades: two clearly chopping, one something in between and two thin piercing. But they are all called rapiers.



So, we can safely make the assumption that, in Spain in the 15 century, piercing-chopping light swords, which later differed only by the guard and blade length, can be called a sword and a rapier at the same time, and not to be mistaken. Because, initially, the sword and rapier is the same. And it is possible that the first name was just a rapier. And the confusion arose later, when at the same time the “old” slashing-piercing swords-rapiers and the “new” exclusively piercing swords-rapiers began to exist. Later, these names were entrenched for sports weapons, in order to emphasize the differences in the structure and principle of action of swords and rapiers. The most interesting thing is that it is rather difficult to prove or disprove my conclusions based on the writings of gunsmith specialists, so I don’t refer, for example, to von Winkler, Okshott or Bekhaym in this matter - their opinions on this matter are very different. And some researchers call swords or rapiers and estas with konchars — only sharply piercing swords (although this is simply ridiculous — the sword appeared when the armor began to disappear, and the konchar or estk appeared to pierce this armor itself), and the ancient narrow Irish swords made of copper and bronze .
Author:
Photos used:
myArmes.com
74 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. mirag2
    mirag2 8 February 2014 09: 04
    +2
    Interesting conclusions.
    1. Aryan
      Aryan 11 February 2014 01: 13
      +1
      but better plug
      one hit four holes good
    2. The comment was deleted.
  2. makarov
    makarov 8 February 2014 09: 09
    +5
    interesting excursion into history +
  3. My address
    My address 8 February 2014 09: 11
    +2
    I also read about the difficult-to-manufacture form of the sword blade - in section "V". The rigidity is high, but manufacturing is not easy either.
  4. bistrov.
    bistrov. 8 February 2014 09: 54
    0
    Thanks to the author. And then we are all brought up on Soviet conclusions, where the sword is a triangular pricking weapon, and the rapier is flat, double-edged in cross section, it was possible to apply chopping blows to it.
    1. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 10 February 2014 10: 14
      +3
      Just the opposite. Initially, a sword is for applying both piercing and cutting-cutting blows. Rapier - exclusively for stabbing. This is an established terminology. The fact that the author of the article rejects all the most recognized and authoritative authors listed in his article is his personal opinion.
      His constant mention of a sports projectile (and not a weapon) a three-sided sword is somewhat one-sided and strange if the article is devoted to military weapons.
      It is only true that the very first swords and rapiers were one and the same thing - just a narrowed sword. And a clear separate terminology at that moment did not exist. Everything was called a sword.

      But the opinion was expressed that the sword came into fashion with the abandonment of armor and as a lighter weapon - a complete misunderstanding of the history of armor and weapons, their relationship and the amateurism of the author.

      1. The 15th century indicated by the author as the time of the appearance of the sword. For those who are too lazy to recall, I recall - this is from 1401 to 1500. The time of the APPEARANCE and development of the classical (in the philistine sense) plate armor of large integral plate parts. Prior to this, the main type of armor was brigant. So the knights have just begun to book on the most indulge. The heyday of the European armor complex came just at the very end of the 15th (after 1480) and the next, 16th century. Accordingly, the cavalry spears became so heavy that the support hook on the cuirass became the obligatory standard, and not a pleasant addition for some as before. It is pointless to cut such a full armor that can survive a ram blow with a spear at full gallop even with a heavy two-handed sword (which, by the way, appears in quite massive quantities at that time). The sword is becoming more and more triangular in plan than before. Increasingly, instead of dales on a relatively thick blade (which is useful for cutting), a stiffener appears on a thinner blade and the sword becomes a diamond-shaped (section options: an elongated hexagon, diamond), adapted for penetrating into the joints or, when lucky, piercing armor piercing strokes. At the same time, the infantry also began to heavily armor en masse.
      Mass abandonment of armor began already after 1600, that is, at the beginning of the 17th !!! century. It is associated with the incomparable cost of training a knight and a simple infantryman in conditions of mass use of a firearm. To prepare new soldiers with guns to replace the 10000 dead could have been much cheaper and a hundred times faster than a couple of hundred knights in super-expensive bulletproof armor (consider almost from birth to train). No armor could save the guns. Yes, and the multi-row phalanx of pikemen cannot be rammed by any knight.
    2. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 10 February 2014 10: 15
      +2
      2. The average weight of a combat sword is 1.5 kg. Even the author of the article cited this. This corresponds to the average weight of the bastard sword and the later combat sword that was often called the "big sword". The early epee is essentially a variation of it. The average weight of an earlier (and modern epee) combat one-handed sword is from 1200 to 1400 grams. With a heavier sword, it is too tedious to actively fence with one hand in a prolonged battle. This is not 1-2 minutes of a duel fight without armor somewhere in the alley. The first swords are just a heavier and lengthening sword of a narrower geometry for working on a heavily armed enemy. The narrowness of the blade and the large massiveness of the sword are dictated by the increased strength of the enemy's armor with a minimum of vulnerable spots. For the same reason (the strength of the armor), the shield was gradually abandoned. This made it possible for combat fencing to use the second hand grab and half-sword technique. When a swordsman took a sword with his second hand in a plate gauntlet above the guard or in the middle of the blade and with a powerful thrusting blow with both hands tried to pierce the armed opponent with a sword like a spear (considering that at all times the sword was sharply sharpened only half or even one third from the point).

      3. Gradually, a specialization of blades appeared: a sword - for battle, a rapier - for wearing in peacetime. Punishing an enemy duel without armor is much easier than chopping and not so tiring. Where do not stick, if you did not immediately kill and injured, then the next blow finishing. And the blade does not need to be made so massive. But long - the first reached and victory.
      And in battle, sometimes you can, you need to slash the horse, and turn up the enemy without armor, and repel the attack from the attack on the other hand, without wasting time turning the blade. That is, the weapon is more universal, for any situation.
      1. Kir
        Kir 10 February 2014 12: 16
        0
        Well, in my opinion, here is no longer a complete infa is not so rare, especially on a cold one. And vom Respect for such a detailed "addition".
        By the way, not later than yesterday, on "What to Do" on our dispute with you about modern "knights", a question arose, and so the Experts expressed opinions similar to what I said to you about the Excessiveness and Harmfulness of "completely enclosing in" armor "", and if you do this then only for a limited circle of specialists and then according to Mind.
        1. abrakadabre
          abrakadabre 10 February 2014 13: 35
          0
          By the way, not later than yesterday on "What to Do" on our dispute with you about modern "knights" the question arose
          Unfortunately not aware of the latest "What to Do".
          Experts have expressed opinions similar to what I have expressed to you about the Excessiveness and Harmfulness of "completely enclosing in" armor "", and if this is done, then only for a limited circle of specialists, and then according to Mind
          Knights were also always a relatively small part of the army. There is a complete analogy with modern tanks. On an even wide field, their effectiveness is great. In cramped conditions it decreases. For example, in a dense forest, dense buildings or in marshland, maneuver, speed, and group interaction are sharply reduced. So the power of the blow. And the limited field of view in the helmet does not contribute to survival.
          In hot deserts - overheating. Sometimes to death.
          The gigantic mass of destruction (war horse) greatly reduces strategic mobility and endurance on long marches. After all, even in a frontal attack in battle, the chivalrous system at first walked in steps or light trot and only at the last tens of meters moved to the maximum gallop. A ram of an almost ton horse at full gallop could not be stopped by almost nothing. Only carts of taborites or superdense formation of 5-6-meter peak. And then, only because the horse saw an obstacle and often slowed down himself. But it’s impossible to pursue the enemy in such a way. Taking the fortress by assault on horseback is also unproductive.

          A separate question on infantry. Reasonably hired is obviously stronger than light in direct clash. But it also loses in a maneuvering war in the east in large open spaces. Therefore, in Europe, with the quite limited scale of theaters of operations, the packaged Landsknechts of the TRU, and in the Mongolian steppes, are NOTHING.
          But then again, an armored infantryman is not a knight rider at all. Packed in iron, but not as much as the second.
      2. Ghenxnumx
        Ghenxnumx 12 February 2014 18: 34
        0
        I will complement perhaps hi
        Rapier (rapier) - a relatively thin and sharp sword, used mainly for stabbing, common in Europe in the 16-17 centuries.

        Rapier Description

        The rapier has a relatively long blade with a characteristic hilt of complex shape, designed to provide protection for the hand holding the sword. While the blade could be wide enough to be sharpened to some extent (but nowhere did its width come close to the width of the blades of several heavier swords used in the Middle Ages), the main property of the rapier is the ability to deliver piercing blows. The rapier blade could be sharpened along its entire length, it could only be sharpened from the center to the point (as described by Capoferro), or it could have no sharpened edges at all, like the estock Pallavicini, the rapier fencing master who in 1670 strongly defended the use of double-edged swords. A typical rapier weighed 1 kilogram and had a relatively long and thin blade 2.5 cm wide or less, with a length of 1 m or more, which ended with a sharp end.

        The term “rapier” generally refers to a stabbing sword with a blade longer and thinner than the so-called “side sword” (Italian, “spada da lato”), but heavier than the epee, the lighter weapons that appeared in the 18th century and later, but the exact form of the blade and hilt often depends on who describes it and when. “Rapier” refers to the early spada da lato (similar to espada ropera), through the heyday of rapiers throughout the 17th century, and refers to swords and dueling weapons, so context is important for understanding the meaning of the word “rapier”. (The term "lateral sword", used among a small number of modern reenactors of historical martial arts, is a translation of the Italian "spada da lato", a term coined much later by Italian museum watchers, and does not apply to the thin, long rapier, but only to the early Italian sword 16th century with a wider and shorter blade, which is considered both his ancestor and contemporary).

        It is important to remember that the word "rapier" was not used by Italian, Spanish, and French owners during the heyday of this sword, instead the terms "spada", "espada" and "epee" (or "espee") were used - as general terms for the word "sword". Because of this, as well as due to the large number of variations of swords in the 16-17th centuries, some, for example Tom Leoni, simply describe the rapier as a one-handed double-edged sword with a straight blade, which is self-sufficient for both attack and defense, without requiring related weapons. To avoid the confusion of mixing all types of swords together, some categorize swords according to their function and use. For example, John Clements categorizes piercing swords with poor chopping characteristics as rapiers, and swords with good ability to both prick and chop, like cut and thrust swords. Some researchers, however, examine rapiers throughout their lifetime, and conclude that rapiers never fit into a single definition. To a large extent throughout Europe, weapons varied depending on the culture and prescribed fighting style; be it Italian, Spanish, or some other fencing school, so the length and width of the blade, the hilt options and even the absence or placement of the blade (or blades) were different at the same time. Some wore a rapier with a wicker hilt and blades, while others at the same time had a rapier with a cup-shaped hilt and missing blade.
        1. Ghenxnumx
          Ghenxnumx 12 February 2014 18: 36
          0
          The rapier began to evolve around 1500 as the Spanish espada ropera, or "sword for dress" (that is, not for armor). The Espada ropera was a civilian thrust and slash sword for self-defense and dueling, while the earlier swords were primarily intended for the battlefield. During the 16th century, many new one-handed civilian weapons emerged, including the German Rappier, another thrust-cutting sword used for recreational / training fencing, as described in Joachim Meyer's 1570 Fencing Guide. 1570 was also the year in which the Italian gunsmith Signior Rocco Benetti settled in England, and promoted the use of thrusting foils as an alternative to chopping and cutting during duels. However, the English word "rapier" generally refers primarily to thrusting weapons, developed in the 1600s as a result of the geometric theories of masters such as Camillo Agrippa and Ridolfo Capoferro.
          Rapier has become extremely fashionable everywhere in Europe among the wealthy sections of society, but also had its critics. Some, such as George Silver, disapproved of the technical potential of the rapier, and their dueling purpose.
          The etymology of the word rapier is unclear. Charles du Fresne, Sir du Cange, in his work Glossarium mediae and infimae Latinitatis, refers to the Rapperia form in Latin texts from 1511. He mentions the etymology of the origin of the Greek word “to strike.” However, Walter William Skeat suggested that rapier could come from raspiere (poker), and that it could have been an arrogant term coined by senior fencers on chopping and cutting swords for this new sword. The most likely root of the term “rapier”, however, probably comes from the Spanish “ropera”, which comes from “elegant dress”, so rapier literally meant “sword for the dress”.

          Combining quick reaction with great reach, the rapier was well suited for civilian battles in the 16-17th centuries. While military chopping and cutting swords continued to evolve to meet the new needs on the battlefield, rapiers evolved to suit the needs of civilian fights, eventually becoming lighter and shorter. Subsequently, the rapier began to give way to a sword.
          By 1715, the rapier was largely replaced by a lighter sword in most of Europe, although it continued to be used, as follows from the treatises Donald McBane (1728), PJF Girard (1736) and Domenico Angelo (1787).
  5. DZ_98_B
    DZ_98_B 8 February 2014 09: 58
    +2
    Very interesting article. But let the sword remain the sword. and the rapier is the rapier! Holes were made in the dish guards so that the tip of the enemy’s weapon stuck in them, and did not slip off when parrying the blow. In duels, rapier was more often chosen. it is a rapier! In order not to disfigure the appearance of the enemy, well, his own. That is, you understand. what will happen to the face. if you apply a chopping blow to the face.
  6. DZ_98_B
    DZ_98_B 8 February 2014 10: 01
    0
    Very interesting article. But let the sword remain the sword. and the rapier is the rapier! Holes were made in the dish guards so that the tip of the enemy’s weapon stuck in them, and did not slip off when parrying the blow. In duels, rapier was more often chosen. it is a rapier! In order not to disfigure the appearance of the enemy, well, his own. That is, you understand. what will happen to the face. if you apply a chopping blow to the face.
    1. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 10 February 2014 10: 24
      0
      In order not to disfigure the appearance of the enemy, well, his own. That is, you understand. what will happen to the face. if you apply a chopping blow to the face.
      Least of all the 16-17th century nobility was concerned not to disfigure the corpse of the defeated enemy. Just to instantly kill the enemy by cutting, you need to sooooo much cut. A wounded man before dying may kick back in response while you pull out a stuck blade. It’s easier to puncture an enemy before death. It is enough to stick a blade at 5-10 cm and stay at a distance. And in a duel (or in case of an accidental skirmish on the street, for example, when trying to robbery), armor was not worn.
  7. alex-cn
    alex-cn 8 February 2014 10: 19
    +1
    "And some researchers call swords or rapiers and estoks with konchar - exclusively thrusting swords (although this is simply ridiculous - the sword appeared when the armor began to disappear, and konchar or estok appeared to pierce this very armor), and ancient narrow Irish swords made of copper and bronze. "
    The sword itself, and came from the estok, which, by the way, allowed a chopping blow, it was only facilitated, and made a little more flexible, transitional "models" of the sea. And although the armor was reduced to a cuirass, it lasted almost until the end of the 19th century. And the helmet, the helmet, is still alive.
    But nevertheless, it is believed that the rapier is intended for fencing more targeted at the injection, and the sword allows for wider variations of action.
  8. CHILD
    CHILD 8 February 2014 11: 26
    +3
    well, they confused everyone .... I’ve counted the rapier for all my life, the sword also cuts ..... but no, it hurts and everything cuts ..... then what's the difference ??? no, it's better how it was, how that is more clear)))))))))))
  9. svp67
    svp67 8 February 2014 12: 22
    +1
    The sword, the hallmark of the magnificent Spanish infantry, and where there were cramped conditions, it contributed in every possible way to its success, after the firearms were used and the infantrymen converged "tete-a-tete", but in more "spacious" conditions, the swords and sabers of the infantry enemy were preferable ...
  10. Captain45
    Captain45 8 February 2014 12: 46
    +5
    In Prosper Mérimée in "The Chronicles of Charles 9" there is an episode when one noble, challenging another to a duel, says that he is still young and the scar will disfigure his face, so he will take a rapier, since a small hole is better than a large scar from a sword. Something like that, as far as I remember. Those. Merimee also made distinctions between the epee and the rapier, and in R. Sabatini's "Scaramouche" the fencing teacher makes the distinction between the epee and the rapier precisely in terms of the technique of strikes - chopping and stabbing.
  11. vkrav
    vkrav 8 February 2014 13: 00
    +3
    Paradoxically ... The design of the blade and the technique of fencing are also different ... Radically with it. And "call it what you want" (c). Something is not right here ... Let the author thinks as he wants. Opinion of a stupid shopkeeper, accepting weapons for scrap, I'm not interested.
  12. dpurpur
    dpurpur 8 February 2014 13: 45
    0
    Reading the comments, I’m very glad that we still have literate and well-read people.
  13. cth; fyn
    cth; fyn 8 February 2014 14: 09
    +2
    Only Flamberg! Only hardcore!
    1. vkrav
      vkrav 8 February 2014 14: 56
      +2
      What kind of flamberg is it? An ordinary two-handed sword ...
      Rutger Hauer, "Flesh and Blood", 1985
    2. anarky
      anarky 8 February 2014 19: 32
      +3
      This is zwainhender (guess how it is translated :)). Flmberg is a type of blade. T.N. "flaming blade". I mean, winding. It cuts through pieces of iron more effectively and, most importantly, inflicts lacerations, which at that time were almost fatal in the absence of antiseptics and antibiotics.
      1. Kir
        Kir 8 February 2014 19: 36
        0
        By the way, the wave is still used now, it seems that on the Wasp metal fixture in the series for the pros, such a sharpening took place, but on a flame like this I don’t remember only as a blade with a length of about 1200 mm and a guard + peculiar protrusion on the blade.
      2. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 10 February 2014 10: 31
        0
        This is zwainhender (guess how it is translated :)). Flmberg is a type of blade. T.N. "flaming blade". I mean, winding. It cuts through pieces of iron more effectively and, most importantly, inflicts lacerations, which at that time were almost fatal in the absence of antiseptics and antibiotics.

        1. Zwei - two, hand - hands. That is a two-handed sword.
        2. No sword, even straight, even wavy, even curved (count the saber) nifiga is not effective for cutting armor. Almost completely. Unless the enemy is tied, laid down and called to strike a particularly outstanding ambal who knows how to correctly chop. But for a weakly hospitable or, even less so, armorless opponent, everything is much more fun for a flumberberg.
        1. anarky
          anarky 12 February 2014 18: 16
          0
          Well, it depends on what kind of sword and KIKI armor. A small-lamellar brig can be knocked out. Somewhere in the shoulder or neck, a chopping blow is also quite effective. How a weapon penetrates armor depends primarily on the hardness of the weapon's metal and the area of ​​contact. In one "tooth" of a flamberg it is much less than that of a straight blade or even a saber (the radius of curvature is smaller). But the main thing, of course, as I wrote, is charming lacerations.
  14. Luga
    Luga 8 February 2014 14: 25
    +7
    I was always confident that the sword was a combat weapon and was a lightweight sword capable of delivering both stabbing and chopping blows. The rapier, in my opinion, is a purely duel weapon capable of delivering only stabbing blows. Not only fiction writers of the Merimet type convinced me of this (the dialogue between de Merge and Komenge described by Captain 45 a little higher hi), but also a purely special literature. Some time ago I was actively interested in historical fencing and got acquainted with a number of sources (in translations, of course), which describe the methods of training, fencing positions and techniques, the weapons used. "And his immortals passado, his punto reverso, his hai!" (Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet). smile So, everywhere and everywhere the rapier was defined as an exclusively piercing weapon, and a sword was a piercing and chopping weapon.
    The philological research of the author did not convince me, or rather, they convinced me that at the time of the birth of fencing as a science, the terminology was completely not systematized, the same subjects could be called this way and that. It (terminology) was established only in the 19th century.
    So, in my opinion, the discussion is pointless.
    1. Al_lexx
      Al_lexx 9 February 2014 00: 44
      0
      +100500
      Totally agree.
    2. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 10 February 2014 10: 36
      0
      All right. In addition, the sword became a fairly light weapon only after the armor became obsolete (except cuirassier). That is quite late. An early sword in the heyday of armor is quite a heavy, comparable to one and a half, long narrow battle sword with a developed guard.
  15. Kir
    Kir 8 February 2014 16: 35
    +1
    It’s interesting, but what does the people from the Maghreb and Asia Minor regions have to do with this? since forgive the roots of Toledo Not European! then in the firstfruits of the peoples who gave the Culture of Spain there should be ancestors of these blades. With regard to the sophisticated guard, if I remember correctly and with two-handed swords, tricks of this type When there were iron gloves in the presence of a warrior, it may be worth looking for a basis in combining protection and shifting balance to improve fencing capabilities. About His Majesty the Broadsword, it’s so ancient enough, as well as the Saber, it’s enough for the German to recall the ceremonial Germanic (the latter still existed at the time of the Reich) and the Swedish Broadswords, I am silent about Scotland, just Rob Roy should read from the Great Scotsman-Walter Scott. there is an episode with chopping a sword. Then, as far as I remember, the swords had a diamond-shaped blade, and with regards to the hexagonal hmm, any blade with double-sided sharpening can be brought under this where the blades do not touch and there is no dol.
  16. Obscurantism
    Obscurantism 8 February 2014 16: 39
    0
    Sadness, sorrow, how to live on, if everything is so complicated? I thought that with a sword and a rapier you can chop and chop (diamond-shaped cross-section), but the rapier is lighter, shorter and more suitable for piercing punches.
    1. Kir
      Kir 8 February 2014 17: 10
      +1
      And you will acquire a broadsword and all the sadness like the wind ....... And besides, the author himself discussed it. that opinions on this question are different. or rather, not different opinions, but the translators very "competently" translate, and the confusion has gone.
  17. anarky
    anarky 8 February 2014 19: 34
    +2
    With the scales a little is not clear. If the swords are up to 1,5 kg, then why would they be easier than swords? Most one-handed swords were up to the same 1,5 kg. A sword, by the way, is very effective against armor weapons. The same cuirasses were used on the battlefields for a long time and it was necessary to open something.
    1. Kir
      Kir 8 February 2014 19: 38
      0
      So there probably one defense weighs, and so the broadsword by weight was not much more.
      1. anarky
        anarky 8 February 2014 19: 52
        +1
        Well, a well-developed sword guard is a complex construction, but not much heavier than a sword guard (which was much more massive than a sword). I think the numbers are just messed up here. It should be at leisure Oakeshott will look.
        1. abrakadabre
          abrakadabre 10 February 2014 10: 55
          0
          Well, a well-developed sword guard is a complex construction, but not much heavier than a sword guard (which was much more massive than a sword). I think the numbers are just messed up here.
          The balance point of a 50/50 fencing-friendly sword is about a palm above the guard.
          The balance closer to the tip is more powerful than a chopping strike, but it is more tedious to quickly fence.
          The balance closer to the handle is the convenience of fast fencing with feints with a reduction in the power of the chopping strike. That is, knocking (hacking) at the enemy can be quickly and often, but it is more difficult to inflict significant harm.
          The balance below the guard, that is, inside the handle is the high maneuverability of the blade, but with a powerful chopping strike or while parrying the opponent’s blow, the vibration of the blade is very strongly given to the hand with a relatively weak effect on the enemy.
          1. anarky
            anarky 19 February 2014 12: 41
            0
            What does balance have to do with weight? And the sword is not intended for particularly graceful swordsmanship, as Dartagnan waved with that chief guard. Swords of the same period had approximately the same balance (as did the swords themselves). Swords of the Carolingian type and swords of types X-XIV according to Oakeshott have a pronounced chopping function. Further, starting with type XV, there is already an emphasis on the prick (a pronounced point and a rhombic section). What is the point of knocking with a sword "often and a lot", except at tournaments in history? The enemy is either in chain mail / padding - then he can be hacked strongly, or in a brig / cuirass / lamellar - then if his reptile, a chopping blow practically does not take such protection. For direct cutting of the enemy, the sword is generally not a good unit. For this, axes / falchions / klevtsy and others like them were invented.

            About vibration in general lol.
    2. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 10 February 2014 10: 44
      0
      The average size (full, not just the blade) and the weight of the battle, and not ceremonial:
      - one-handed sword - 0.8-1 meter, 1200-1400 grams (less often up to 1.5 kg);
      - one and a half sword - 1-1.3 meters, 1400-1600 grams;
      - a two-handed sword - 1.4-1.8 meters, 1600-2200 grams (occasionally up to 2.5 kg, everything that is heavier is not military, but ceremonial, that is, for show-offs).
  18. Kir
    Kir 8 February 2014 19: 55
    0
    Here the main advantage was done or the type was transferred the old to the new, so Our Pud lost as much as 380 grams with copecks, and the same measures were taken.
  19. homosum20
    homosum20 8 February 2014 20: 59
    0
    It is very important. I will think. I don’t know what I would do without this information. Thank.
    By the way, in today's terminology, foil is a stabbing weapon.
  20. Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 8 February 2014 22: 40
    +5
    Typical philologist. A person who knows how to chat professionally is often full of confidence that he understands everything that he carries. Well, then the words are familiar ...
    No, armor has not ceased to be relevant "with the advent of guns and rifles." Like all the other statements from the first part - nonsense. What is only the incomparable statement that armor could be pierced with a sword! Yearning...
    The author, as befits a philologist, is a practically meaningless creature, since it is completely armless. The talkers on the pay only think they know something. In fact, a person cannot learn to think if he has not learned to do something with his hands - simply the necessary neural connections in the brain are not formed. He looks at the blades and sees ... words.
    In general, a sword and a rapier. The difference is in fencing technique. Epee is a metal strip. It can bend only in one plane, in another it is a rigid rib suitable for cutting. The rapier is not suitable for felling. Instead, it bends in any direction, allowing "lines", spirals, subtle "play" of the blade, sword or saber inaccessible. Epee - strength, power. The rapier is a delicate and precise art. Instead of looking at weapons and at least asking those who know how to use them, the author got into ... dictionaries. It’s bad if a cake-maker starts to make boots, and a shoemaker bakes pies ...
    And, by the way, Kayuzak got his naturally. These modern sports "blades" have practically lost their distinction. A person who has a sword as his main weapon will not stand up to an equal duel with a rapier in his hands. A completely different tool, you know ...
    1. anarky
      anarky 8 February 2014 23: 13
      +1
      What is only the matchless claim that armor could be pierced with a sword!

      I don’t touch everything else (deal with the author of the article), but what kind of armor and with what sword?
    2. Al_lexx
      Al_lexx 9 February 2014 00: 41
      0
      Quote: Mikhail3
      A person with a sword as the main weapon will not stand in equal fight with a rapier in his hands. A completely different tool, you know ...

      On the whole, I agree, but the last statement is not entirely true. Receptions yes, they differ, but the main thing is competent battle tactics and the level of training. If the fighters are equal in level, then regardless of whether one of them has a sword or rapier, the chances in a duel are almost equal, but the fencer has a little more, since he can put sliding / chopping blows and thereby simply take him to death. Also, it is easier for him to fend off the blow, for this he needs less effort, since the sword is harder and harder, but not so much that the fencer is tired faster than the rapier. Those. the fencer still has more options for attack and defense, and he inflicts more severe wounds.
      1. Al_lexx
        Al_lexx 10 February 2014 02: 23
        +1
        Interestingly, the one who put the minus, at least once in his hands holding a real sword, converged in a duel? laughing
      2. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 10 February 2014 11: 10
        +1
        The 16th century rapier is also not so flexible and light. Not the zweihander of course, but still not the modern sports fencing misunderstanding.

        And if you take the combat sword and the realities of its application ... then the fencer will enter the battle in half-armor or in a 3/4-ton. And even in full. And even with all its slowness ... A lot of options.
        For example, stupidly beat off the rapier by sliding off the armor to the side and rush into the clinch with a blow from the guard in the face, throat or chest of the unprotected rapier. With subsequent finishing.

        The rapier, unlike the epee, for all its ingenuity, was therefore not used in battle, because its chances against the homosexual are doubtful.
  21. Savl
    Savl 9 February 2014 00: 05
    +1
    We read Dumas 20 years later (recently re-read). Aramis, in a confession with King Charles, put on armor under a robe. And comrade coadvisor did not disdain this.
  22. Al_lexx
    Al_lexx 9 February 2014 00: 29
    +3
    Somehow everything is a little strange drawn up ... As the previous speaker noted - it is purely literary.
    The epee appeared not because firearms appeared, but because Spain developed the perfect tactics of destroying Destreza when the fighter, with light weapons and the ability to keep the circular perimeter, became more effective than light or heavily armored, with heavy blade.

    Those. solely due to mobility. They cut it rather stupidly with a sword and of course with its mass it did not allow equally skillfully parrying attacks and striking people with different complexities. The epee allowed even the relatively puny but gymnastically developed and enduring swordsman to prevail over a more heavily armed and physically more powerful opponent. In a sense, a sword can be considered a cold firearm, which is equally effective, regardless of physique.
    Sword or rapier ... again, weirdness. The difference in mass is minimal, but as the author noted, the sword allows you to make sliding chopped shots, there is no rapier. In addition, the rapier, as lighter, is parried by the fencer more easily than vice versa. That is, the difference in weight between the sword and the rapier is no longer as significant as that between the sword and the rapier. But the design ... In a real battle, of course, a sword. At the ball, the rapier is more convenient.)))

    In fact, a sword is a logical development of the stylet, for which the power of the armor did not matter. Skillful fencer easily put the chained man from foot to head, while the man does not even have time to make a second attack.

    ZY
    He was much interested in sword fighting techniques and, in particular, destresa. Much of this school was adopted by the Japanese, despite the fact that their main was a chopping strike
    At school I went to the CSKA fencing club. There were three classes. Firmen, fencers and saber fencers. The fencers were the most difficult prey. Saberists, as a rule, took pressure (larger guys and heavier weapons), rapiers were on equal terms only among themselves. Moreover, a sports saber is, in a sense, a heavier sword.
    1. CHILD
      CHILD 9 February 2014 14: 34
      +1
      at first the technology allowed to create a narrow and light blade)))) and then the technologies for using this blade were pulled .... and the fact that the sword was considered one of the deadliest types of knives is very understandable ... I think the transition to the sword was not a wish, and survival ....
      1. Al_lexx
        Al_lexx 10 February 2014 02: 22
        0
        Quote: KIND
        at first the technology allowed to create a narrow and light blade)))) and then the technologies for using this blade were pulled .... and the fact that the sword was considered one of the deadliest types of knives is very understandable ... I think the transition to the sword was not a wish, and survival ....

        There is nothing to do with technology. This is not an atomic bomb. )))
        It was the development of the battle technique and the understanding that the armor could not oppose anything to the thin / narrow stylet and led to the appearance of a sword, and the heavy (and not so) armor died out as a class. Those. by the time of the appearance of the sword, it was not necessary to develop any special and new technologies. They just made a very long stylet. That's all.
        1. abrakadabre
          abrakadabre 10 February 2014 11: 43
          +1
          the latnik cannot oppose anything to the thin / narrow stiletto and led to the appearance of a sword, and the heavy (and not so) armor died out as a class.
          Not certainly in that way. Not every armor-piercing strike is fatal or does serious damage. But any massive blow to the unsuspected is fatal, if not immediately, then taking into account disorientation from the wound, even for a moment and then the next finishing blow, for sure.

          It’s too expensive to simply arm all the infantry into high-quality bulletproof armor. Such armor is only on order and not every rich man can afford it. A cheap mass infantry from the widespread at that time firearm did not save.

          High-quality bulletproof knights at that time were ruined by the banal economy. A knight must be trained from 5-7 years and a lifetime. And still an unimaginable bunch of grandmas to spend on ultra-high-quality individually tailored equipment, a specially trained war horse. And he is killed if not from an arquebus or a musket at point blank range, from a cannon canister certainly and very quickly. Despite the fact that it is incapable of breaking through and crushing the system of pikemen.
          And ordinary pikemen or musketeers, if a couple of hundreds die, is not so scary. They can be replaced by recruits in 2-4 weeks. And the equipment on them can be not so high-quality and relatively cheap to spend.
          Why do you think the late muskets had a caliber of 20-24 mm and a weight of 7-12 kg? Bullet on an unsuccessful infantryman? Now these characteristics have large-caliber machine guns and even more impressive. All this is not from the shittyness of knightly armor. And just so that the power of the shot revealed this terrible crazy monster called the knight attacking you. And so that the return of a shot of such a portable gun doesn’t ditch you, you also need massive weapons and a bipod. In the meantime, you will reload this monster pikemen cover you. After all, if you didn’t hit or kill the knight, he’s plagued. And it will be sooooo angry with you.
          Now, too, bulletproof vests of even a high class of protection save far from all the weapons that can be found on the battlefield. But body armor can be stamped in the thousands by the factory and worn on anyone without a radical fit.
          And with knights and armor it is not so simple.
          1. Al_lexx
            Al_lexx 10 February 2014 17: 10
            0
            Quote: abrakadabre
            Not certainly in that way. Not every armor-piercing strike is fatal or does serious damage. But any massive blow to the unsuspected is fatal, if not immediately, then taking into account disorientation from the wound, even for a moment and then the next finishing blow, for sure.
            <...>

            Write everything correctly. There are no objections, with a few exceptions.
            You just miss the moment that I clearly outlined in previous posts.
            In heavy armor, the protection is armor and partly maneuver. The fencer has a maneuver squared. For a latnik, a fencer is like a fly followed by a sledgehammer. )))
            And of course, regarding the fact that the Latnik should be trained from an early age, it doesn’t make him stand out among other fighters with melee weapons. A good fencer, too, from childhood and for several hours a day should train to be in shape.
            At the expense of the cost of armor - I completely agree.

            Pikemen and musketeers, this is a little about something else. The image of the musketeer is also a little literary. His main weapon is just a musket, not a sword. I spoke only about the duel between the light and moving fencer and the heavy armor with a sword. Moreover, it is latnik, with a two-handed. Not a knight without a horse, but with a one-handed and a shield.

            By the way, the "mill" was the strongest reception among the men at arms. This is when, almost in a half-squatting stance, the two-hander is spinning over the head, with great speed. This is both defense and attack at the same time. These are the "helicopters" and cut through the ranks. A good soldier should have been able to rotate a two-handed sword for a long time ...

            In any case, plus you, for an interesting and detailed answer. smile
            1. Kir
              Kir 10 February 2014 17: 16
              0
              Well, the Assyrians had a mill with only two short swords, we had the same thing, by the way, somehow my friends (Rodnovers) at one of the Holidays saw a master working in this technique with all the squats, rolls and so on from the Hedgehog !
              1. abrakadabre
                abrakadabre 11 February 2014 10: 23
                0
                I spoke only about the duel between the light and moving fencer and the heavy armor with a sword. Moreover, it is latnik, with a two-handed.
                It is still worthwhile to decide whether a latnik is with a sword and a shield or a latnik with a two-handed sword.
                wink
                The "mill" was the strongest reception among the men at arms. This is when, almost in a half-squatting stance, the two-hander is spinning over the head, with great speed. This is both defense and attack at the same time. These are the "helicopters" and cut through the ranks. A good soldier should have been able to rotate a two-handed sword for a long time ...

                Well, the Assyrians had a mill with only two short swords

                I would like to get acquainted with historical sources on the above-mentioned receptions of the mill.

                I don’t know what the Assyrians had, but even the medieval dopplersolders (foot soldier with a two-handed sword on a double salary) did not preserve absolutely reliable sources on the tactics of their use in battle. The mass of armor and two-handed swords, both military and ceremonial, has been preserved. A lot of engravings are also available. But in the military treatises there is no detailed description of their actions in the infantry orders.
                There are about musketeers, about pikemen, too, about cuirassiers, gendarmes, and reitars. And about them, alas. Only the assumptions of later authors of varying degrees of scientificity.

                For the phalanx of pikemen with peaks 5-6 meters long, the continuous two-handed mill is roughly on the drum. Especially in a rather tight space of the first line, where it is more convenient to use a short dagger or gladius of the Roman legionnaires. Such a mill can strike the imagination of a crowd of peasants, and not battle-hardened latniks. They just wait until this one gets tired of waving his two-handed sword, and then they slaughter him in bulk.

                at one of the Holidays, the craftsmen working in this technique with all the squats, rolls and other things were seen by the Hedgehog!
                Acrobatic exercises with a sword also apply to combat fencing. as well as formal Wushu or karate kata for real combat in these martial arts.
                laughing
                All these extremely energy-consuming and amplitude freaks end where a real battle begins with the non-fake ability to cripple or die. And even in armor and even more so, this is all extremely tiring. So wasting luxury luxury.
                Here 2 minutes of modern battle in armor for glasses and not for life is difficult to actively sustain. Even with training.
                How approximate (without piercing and wrestling equipment) looks like a real duel with two-handed swords can be viewed on Youtube, for example, here:
                And these are not amateurs at all.
            2. abrakadabre
              abrakadabre 11 February 2014 09: 30
              0
              For a latnik, a fencer is like a fly followed by a sledgehammer. )))

              1. For an infantry soldier, a "naked" epee fencer is a virtual phenomenon. They are separated by about a century. But suppose. The epee is a target, approximately 160-180 cm in height and 30-60 cm in width (depending on the stance), absolutely hitting anywhere with damage unacceptable for actively continuing the battle. The epee player also knows this and therefore moves a lot all the time, which means he gets tired quickly, attention is scattered.
              Latnik - vulnerabilities:
              lat plate joints - it is possible to penetrate, but only with a strong blow at an angle, since the plates overlap 0.5-1,5 cm, the target size is a few centimeters;
              elbow - it is covered with a petal or a full shell of a plate arm, it is additionally covered with a chain-link insert or a whole sleeve sewn on the under-armor - it is punched with a strong blow not from all angles, for example, when the armor is attacked or swung, the target size is about 3-4 by 10-12 cm;
              armpit - the same as with the elbow - covered with a plate shoulder with large petals and chippers, a mail insert on the armor or a full sleeve (image: [media = http: //upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0 / Giovanni_Battista_Moro
              ni _-_ A_Knight_with_his_Jousting_Helmet _-_ Google_Art_Project.jpg]), the size of the target is about 10 by 15 cm, breaks through with a strong shot from the bottom up or from the side if the armor strongly waved with his left hand;
              groin area - covered with a plate skirt with additional tapes-tassets and a plate codpiece, chainmail "shorts" -bre and / or a chainmail skirt almost to the knees are worn under them (this is an option for foot combat and landing in the saddle, for purely foot combat the plate skirt does not have a cut on the groin), breaks through with a blow from the bottom up from the knee (with a short blade) or from the ground (with a long blade), the size of the target is about 15 by 20 cm but from an uncomfortable angle;
              popliteal cavity - on the outside of the leg is covered by a petal of the knee with a semi-coverage back, on the inside by a small protrusion of the plate knee, the size of the target is 5 to 12 cm from the back to the outside;
              inner back of thigh and butt - it is covered by the back half of the plate skirt and the hanging chain skirt, the size of the target is relatively large, but you can strike only from the bottom up;
              helmet eye slots - the size is 1-1.5 cm by 12-14 cm, it makes its way easily, but it’s hard to get in, it is surrounded by profiles and bevels so that the blow near it slides past the slots, and not into them.
              All of the above are very difficult targets, since the latnik resists and some of the targets are covered with chain mail. So, for breaking through it is necessary not only to hit, but with considerable effort even for a sword.
              2. The fencer, in view of the complete vulnerability of his body to any blow, has a forced amplitude of displacements from half a meter. For a latnik, centimeters of a turn in any direction are enough for this.
              3. The fencer is armed only with a sword blade. And even for him it makes sense only stabbing technique with ultra-high (because the enemy is mobile and motivated to interfere) accuracy. Blows with a guard or an apple, a fist, a head, an elbow, a knee and kicks are ineffective at all and can only injure the fencer himself. It is possible to use jerks and throws.
              Latnik also can and will always use all of the above with maximum efficiency.
            3. abrakadabre
              abrakadabre 11 February 2014 09: 54
              0
              musketeers, this is a little about something else. The image of the musketeer is also a little literary.
              When I mentioned the musketeers, I did not mean the elite noble unit from the encirclement of the king of France and the number of companies described in the famous novel by Dumas, but ordinary combat musketeers. The former were musketeers only in name. And if it came to the battle, they attacked the cavalry system with pistols and a blade, were dressed in cuirassier or raider armor in three quarters. And most often they were just honorary bodyguards and retinue of the king. For the noble nobles and the number of units for the battle about anything.
              The second is just the real musketeers. Armament: musket, sword. Armor: from half-armor at the beginning (Morion helmet or cabasset, cuirass, shoulders and / or bracers, hip protection) to its complete absence at the end). Tactics of application: the main battle formations of the infantry, friendly successive salvos of lines with a departure for reloading muskets under the guise of pikemen. When attacking the cavalry, volleys over the covering pikemen, thrusting the peaks towards the attacking outflows into the ground in two or three lines.

              By the way, unlike the Dumas novel, the real historical guardsmen of Cardinal Richelieu regularly gave stars to the musketeers of the king.
              Since the musketeers were staffed according to childbirth from the extra offspring-majors of the most noble and influential births. And Richelieu guardsmen recruited, although from the nobles, but the main was personal professionalism.
              All this was very depressing for both the king and the musketeers themselves. After all, the most "elite" noble ones were snowed by the less noble ones. And then it was very strict with this
              laughing
  23. Beck
    Beck 9 February 2014 01: 58
    0
    The author’s conclusions are ambiguous, this is how to look. There is a version that the sword came from the finisher.

    The Turks had three types of knives. The saber is ordinary. Samser - a heavy, wide, curved saber, such as a crooked broadsword. Conchar - a long, narrow, straight sword with three or four faceted blades. Konchar was intended to defeat the enemy through chain mail rings and in the slat of armor.

    The saber was undoubtedly brought to Europe by the Turks. Konchar-epee, in the light of the article, requires discussion.
    But the Slavs definitely borrowed the finisher from the Türks.

    Here is the Polish finisher. Most likely improved. The blade seems flat, the hilt suggests that such a cutter can be cut.
    1. Kir
      Kir 9 February 2014 03: 14
      +3
      Blades similar to sabers were known even before the Türks, then a little earlier you already defended the blade with pronounced Saksky motives as an indigenous Türkic, and they said the same from the Aryans themselves, so what do you still nominate the Türks as discoverers? Then the Slavs borrowed from the Türks, well, given how you and Us have a history of Westerners and lr cooked up questions more than answers, and then forgive me, but Spain took place as a power thanks to the Omeyad dynasty, and this fact is clearly familiar to you, as representatives of which peoples brought culture in Al Andalus.
      1. Beck
        Beck 9 February 2014 13: 59
        0
        Quote: Kir
        Blades similar to sabers were known before the Turks


        This is for sure not. Ancient Chinese swords are straight swords. Sabers originated in the Turkic Kaganate of 6-7 centuries. And precisely because it is most convenient for them to chop at full gallop. In addition to the cutting action, the saber also has a cutting one, so she herself slipped out of the cut. A straight mea could slip out of his hand and get stuck in a cut.

        Quote: Kir
        You have already defended the blade with pronounced Saksky motifs as an indigenous Turkic


        You read and did not understand my comment. Then I wrote that the Saks had no sabers, and the curvature of the sword presented then was very doubtful and there are many reasons for this, including time. The Saks had straight swords, akinaki, of medium length. And the Turkish-speaking Huns of the 4th century also had straight swords, similar to the Akinaki. Sabers are 6-7 centuries.

        Quote: Kir
        Well, given how you and Us have a history of Westerners and LR have cooked up questions more than answers,


        I do not accept the terrible thing that the West is to blame for everything. And I did not read their overseas works, I don’t speak languages. I read the works of Gumilyov, professors of the St. Petersburg University of Klyashtorny and Sultanov.

        Quote: Kir
        and then forgive me, but Spain took place as a power thanks to the Omeyad dynasty, and this fact is clearly familiar to you, as well as representatives of which peoples brought culture to Al Andalus.


        The Arabs began their conquests in the 7th century with a straight sword, evidence - the surviving swords of Damascus steel of those times, they are all straight. Arabs adopted sabers when, under the green banner of a ghazavat, they invaded Central Asia and collided with the Turks.

        And I did not state in my top comment, but said that the question of the origin of the sword is debatable. It is quite that a long narrow sword was born in Spain and it is quite that the konchar came, at least to Eastern Europe, from the East.
        1. Kir
          Kir 9 February 2014 16: 55
          +1
          Why did you get Gumilev? Forgive me, he is rather ambiguous. With regards to Sakov, I'm talking about a broadsword with elements of a clear Saxon origin, then what did I remember China? Look at MV Gorelik "The Weapon of the Ancient East", then moreover, here is akinak, by the way it is known even before our era, and its shape is, let's say, a triangle.
          1. Beck
            Beck 9 February 2014 17: 42
            0
            Quote: Kir
            Yes, that Gumilyov was given to you, forgive me, it’s quite ambiguous


            Why so nervous, we are discussing it. I also do not perceive everything in Gumilyov, especially his theory of passionarity - it arises when it wants to, lasts as long as it pleases, it ends with no idea what. But his works mean much more than the works of some in particular such as the Fomenkovs.

            Quote: Kir
            See M.V. Gorelik "Weapons of the Ancient East",


            There will be an opportunity to see. But first of all, the question of dating arises - when did one weapon or another appear - BC, in the 1st century, in the 7th century, in the 10th century. After all, the 10th century can also be attributed to the Ancient East.

            "then what does akinak have to do with it",

            Well, this is on your attributed to me - "As a native Turkic, you have already defended a blade with pronounced Saka motives,"





















































































































































            Quote: Kir
            then with akinak here,

            Quote: Kir
            then with akinak here,
            Quote: Kir
            You have already defended the blade with pronounced Saksky motifs as an indigenous Turkic
            1. Kir
              Kir 9 February 2014 17: 52
              0
              Dating by akinaki from the 8th century BC, and even postorayt academic publication to find there the most complete list of sources. only one minus the second volume for the same period but with the consideration of "cavalry" did not seem to come out, he also has on the Mongols. With regards to the Huns, what is tense with the kagans is from the Jews, they are something the same in the words of one of the anonymous Azerbadzhan authors. like the Khazars, true Jews? (maybe not one to one, but the essence is just that). to put it simply, some of the Turks before Islam professed Judaism?
              1. The comment was deleted.
              2. Beck
                Beck 10 February 2014 09: 48
                0
                Quote: Kir
                Akinak dating from 8c BC,


                I gave you a detailed answer, BUT. Moderators or admins deleted it.

                DOES THE ADMINISTRATION DO NOT EXPLAIN WHAT REASON WAS REMOVED MY COMMENT? WHAT REGULATIONS AND RULES DO I VIOLATE?

                WHAT WAS NATIONAL INTOLERANCE, MAT, INSURANCES OF A RELIGIOUS CHARACTER IN MY COMMENT? OR DO YOU HOLD POINTS OF VIEW THAT THE OPINION ON THE SITE SHOULD BE ONLY ONE CONSENTING WITH YOURS?

                EXPLAIN ME, AT LEAST IN THE LIKE. IF IT IS A MODERATOR AND HE DOES NOT AGREE TO MY COMMENT, HE COULD RESPOND TO MY COMMENT DISAGREE, AND NOT SILENTLY SIMPLY DELETE MY COMMENT.

                RESPOND, EXPLAIN.
                1. Beck
                  Beck 10 February 2014 09: 53
                  0
                  Quote: Beck
                  RESPOND, EXPLAIN.


                  In addition, I already wrote similar in other topics and then this was not deleted.
                  1. Beck
                    Beck 10 February 2014 17: 37
                    0
                    Quote: Beck
                    RESPOND, EXPLAIN.


                    They don’t want to explain. So there was nothing illegal in my comment, but there is only the moderator’s voluntarism. Like I do not like this point of view, does not coincide with mine therefore I will delete it.
                    1. Beck
                      Beck 10 February 2014 18: 15
                      +1
                      Quote: Beck
                      Like I do not like this point of view, does not coincide with mine therefore I will delete it.


                      Therefore, I will repeat for Cyrus.

                      Quote: Kir
                      Put simply, part of the Türks before Islam professed Judaism?


                      From the very beginning, the Türks professed faith in the Eternal Blue Sky - Tengri. When the Silk Road was formed, not only merchants but all sorts of missionaries from Europe and Byzantium wandered along this path. Thanks to them, the Turkic tribes of Naimans and Kereits living in the west of present-day Mongolia and in the east of present-day Kazakhstan switched to another faith, namely, Nestorian-style Christianity. And they were Christians until the middle of the 14th century. The Uighurs also switched from Tengri to another faith - to Manichaeism, it later became Muslims.

                      The Turks of the Khazars were also Tengrians. In the five hundred years of our era, a civil war broke out in Iran. The community of Iranian Jews was on the side of the vanquished and the Jews fled for the Caucasus Range, for the Terek and settled near the Khazars. at the end of the 7th century, the Khazars and Jews jointly repulsed Islamic-Arab expansion over the Caucasus Range.

                      Living together. naturally mixed marriages between the Khazars and the Jews took place. But there was one subtlety. Children from a Jew and a Khazark seemed to find themselves neither there nor here. They were not Jews since among Jews the nationality is determined by the female line and at the same time they were not pure Khazars and could not move up the administrative ladder. Children from the Khazar and the Jewish woman were considered Jews in the Jewish community and they received the full support of the community. And at the same time, they were considered Khazars and their fathers, Beks and Tarkhans, contributed to the advancement of their sons along the administrative ladder.

                      So gradually, the sons of the Khazars and Jews, took the highest posts in the Khazar Khaganate and eventually seized power (the Jew Obadiya). Having made the kagan a puppet and showing it to the people once a year. That is why Judaism, Jews, as well as Tengrianism, Khazars professed in the kaganate. When the Pechenegs and the Russians defeated Khazaria, the Khazar people dispersed, the Jews disappeared somewhere, and part of the Khazars, most of them from the marriage of Jews with the Khazars, fled to Crimea, and settled there. They began to be called Karaites and they spoke the Turkic language and professed simplified Judaism. At the end of the 14th century, Lithuanian Prince Vitovt relocated the Karaites to the Baltic states as a source of replenishment of light cavalry. And until now, a few Karaites live in the Baltic states.

                      In the middle of the 14th century, the khan of the Golden Horde Uzbek, under the influence of Arab mules, converted to Islam as a state religion. But this concerned only the nomadic population and did not concern the farmers. That is why the Russians retained their Orthodoxy. Those nomads who did not want to accept the new faith were persecuted by the Khan Uzbek severely. Not one Sultan and Bek, not to mention commoners, lost their heads defending Tengri. It was then that Naiman with Kereits from Christianity converted to Islam.

                      Quote: Kir
                      Akinak dating from 8c BC,


                      The question is that the 10th century is also a weapon of the Ancient East. And if the Chinese crooked sword is dated to the 10th century, then it may well be that it is borrowed from the Turkic saber of the 6th century.
                      1. Kir
                        Kir 10 February 2014 18: 54
                        0
                        Thank you very much for the clarification, but here is the question "Beacon of the eye" (Karaite grammar) with what letters is it written? And what about the Karaites themselves, so they served in Russia, and quite often they were baptized, but I honestly did not know about Vitovt, by the way I heard from Orthodoxy that before Nikon we had Orthodoxy, and after the reform Orthodoxy appeared. The Jews are not alone about the transfer on the female line, but as I heard from the physician, preservation only up to the third generation (grandchildren). According to Manichaeism, the same well-known story, they still live somewhere.
                        But on the blade there is a question, there is such a narrow blade with a double kink, it is he who has its roots exactly shine through BC. Across China, are you talking about KwanJi Dao chtoli- Curved Secant Sword? or something else, by the way, if I remember the halberd correctly, it is also defined as a kind of heavy sword, and not as an ax.
                      2. Beck
                        Beck 10 February 2014 22: 33
                        0
                        Quote: Kir
                        Thank you very much for the clarification.


                        And thank you.

                        Quote: Kir
                        but the question "The light of the eye" (Karaite grammar) is written in what letters?


                        I do not know. Somewhere, something, once flashed, but somehow did not penetrate.

                        Quote: Kir
                        And what about the Karaites themselves, so they served in Russia,


                        They served it for sure. And one of them rose. By its appearance, this Karaite looked like southern Europeans. And in 50 years, as an employee of the KGB or the GRU, he had already forgotten his surname, worked illegally for several years in France and Italy. Khrushchev in 60, reducing the armed forces, reduced and intelligence agencies. In 60, many successful illegal immigrants were recalled home to the USSR, including Karaite.

                        Quote: Kir
                        in Orthodoxy I heard that before Nikon we had Belief, and after the reform, Orthodoxy appeared.


                        Faith is so faith. I just meant Christianity.

                        Quote: Kir
                        But on the blade there is a question, there is such a narrow blade with a double kink, it is he who has its roots exactly shine through BC. Across China, are you talking about KwanJi Dao chtoli- Curved Secant Sword?


                        A narrow blade with a double kink - I don’t know about this, I know for sure that the Türks did not have such blades with a double kink. And I don’t know about the secant sword. And in general, I did not deal with knives coldly, so that I fell into my hands.
                      3. abrakadabre
                        abrakadabre 11 February 2014 10: 58
                        0
                        halberd is also defined as a kind of heavy sword, and not as an ax.

                        The sword is a blade weapon for cutting, cutting, and stabbing.
                        Halberd is a polearm for piercing and chopping strikes.
                        Ax - for chopping and crushing (butt) strokes. It can be considered as short-tree.
                      4. Kir
                        Kir 11 February 2014 11: 45
                        0
                        Halberd Sword-ax, this is especially evident in the example of China, then I'm sorry, but where is the indication of the throwing axes? Then double-edged kudy delhi.
                        I’m still interested. whether you looked at the broadswords or not, everything is located from the first call. Yes, and that before guest98 they were not? (there is a suspicion that the guest was written for certain purposes. As well as all GOSTs, but did not reflect completeness), or what then determined the definition, the criterion is what is a broadsword.
                        And the question of backfilling is personally from memory (I look close to the topic of historical fencing) what is the tomahawk? (I myself know how it really is)
                        Regards Castor.
                      5. abrakadabre
                        abrakadabre 11 February 2014 13: 56
                        0
                        The sword can also be thrown. And the halberd too. And even a brick or a log from a wood shed. But this is not their main function.
                      6. Kir
                        Kir 11 February 2014 14: 53
                        0
                        A metal ax is a very specific class of battle axes, and if you follow your line of thought and pitchforks and sickles, you can do the same, but this does not mean that this is their purpose. And even then the tomahawk has no answer.
              3. FRIGATE2
                FRIGATE2 11 February 2014 17: 43
                +1
                Quote: Beck
                Put simply, part of the Türks before Islam professed Judaism?


                Quote: Beck
                From the very beginning, the Türks professed faith in the Eternal Blue Sky - Tengri. When the Silk Road was formed, not only merchants but all sorts of missionaries from Europe and Byzantium wandered along this path.


                In general, all Europeans, getting acquainted with the history of Turkic peoples, are amazed at how saturated it is and how much the European himself does not know about it, be Russian, even be German.

                I believe that monotheism developed among the peoples of the Middle East, the Arabian deserts, when people professed Idolatry or polytheism in the forests of Europe and Russia.
                The prototype of Judaism was born even before Judaism, and even more so before Christianity. It originated in Babylonia or, more precisely, in the Sumerian kingdom, where ancient Jews were referred to as slavery, where there were traders of different cultures, and all this developed Sumeria.
                The ancient nomads were in close contact with Sumeria, it was a cultural alliance and symbiosis, the nomads were hired to protect caravans, the Sumerians were engaged in trade and craft, later it was possible under their influence and the influence of the ancient Jews, and new teachings were created and spread that one must be more civilized than the Polytheists and hence the roots in Judaism, in Tengrianism, these two ancient religions were one of the first on Earth to strive for the Oneness of God.

                Decipherment of Sumerian clay tablets, where their god indicates such a transcription as Dengir, Dengri, which is consistent with the Turkic Tengri, Tengir, indicates unity.

                That is, during the prosperity of the Great Silk Road, formally, two main classes lived in society: these were warriors and generals, the kings - Turks (Turk), and the artisans and merchants - these are sedentary people, we will collectively call the Sumerians.

                The name of this state, Shu-Mer, was translated as Water-Earth, hence the name Sibir (b) or Su-Ver or Su-Ber or Shu-Ber - this also means Water-Earth.

                You see, civilization is where there is water and fertile land in the first place.

                So Turks and Jews are connected more than you can imagine, nomads and merchants are one of the ancient symbiotic folk groups.

                Most likely, many Türks professed the Torah, and those who professed by the book and religion were called Türks (closer in pronunciation to Torks or Turks) from the word "Tora" or "Tore" comes the upper class (nobles) among the nomadic tribes - this is Tora.

                Tore is the ruling dynasty. When a guest comes to a Kazakh, he will ask him to sit on the Torah or Torg, that is, to the highest place, and the guest takes a seat of honor.
              4. Kir
                Kir 11 February 2014 17: 52
                +1
                You say monotheism, but what about the Gods of Babylonia, the same Mabruk (the Winged Bull with the head of a Man), and by the way Zaroast was excuse me from the Aryans! (Of those that the oldest Monotheistic Cult-Zaroostrism is now known) so do not occupy fabrications and new myths. it would have to be raked up old deposits, but about a God-chosen one a different story altogether.
              5. FRIGATE2
                FRIGATE2 12 February 2014 12: 10
                +1
                Quote: Kir
                You say monotheism, but what about the Gods of Babylonia, the same Mabruk (the Winged Bull with the head of a Man), and by the way, Zaroast was excuse me from the Arians! (Of those that the oldest Monotheistic Cult-Zaroostrism is now known)

                I did not say that Judaism and Tengri were the very first, I just wanted to say that they are one of the very first monotheistic cults (imagine how from a religion with at least 10 gods people preferred a religion of 5 gods - that is, there is a desire for monotheism) Christianity - trinity (Holy Spirit, father and son), do you want to say that the same Slavs, Germans, Celts professed a more monotheistic cult than the ancient Jews? no, that’s why the merit of the Jews, the ancient Persians, was that they were one of the first to switch to monotheism, than other peoples and their knowledge and teachings began to assimilate local local beliefs, hence the wild spread of Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism in their own eras. Or do you think that the Slavic gods in the person of Perun, or the Scandinavian gods in the person of Thor seized religious leadership in those centuries?

                Religion is also a kind of information, a code of conduct for society, a law. Of course, religions are far from objectivity now, when there is science. The difference is that science was before religions and before the big bang, just science was not understood for a long time by humanity, and even in the 21st century, science is lame.

                And religion is such a mixture, as mentioned above, and they also have a bit of history. Therefore, I propose to relate to religions purely historically, for reference, that's all.

                Monotheism developed in the Middle East and Central Asia. New ancient knowledge flocked from these regions before the birth of Christ. Whether you want it or not, the truth is that religions such as Christianity with the help of the Roman Empire and Islam with the help of the Saracens have emerged and developed from Judah. This is the story and it was.

                Trying to make Jews undeserving of their history and religion, you will not change anything.

                Quote: Kir
                so do not take up inventions and new myths

                Why myth making? Am I really moving away from the concept of history? like your Fomenkovtsy. Am I saying lie substitution? do I exalt Jews and Turks? as the Slavs like to do now, especially the Russians. I just adhere to the fact that when studying history, people give each people their importance in the development of mankind in various aspects. In the aspect of religion, the creators of Judaism were the ancient Jews, which then spread Christianity and Islam, the last of which until the 14th-15th centuries reached such a high level that almost all scientific terms from Islamic civilization. Of course, there is no direct merit of religion, but there is an indirect merit, that is, due to the unity of faith, many peoples ceased to fight, but began to trade, culturally exchange, and no development of science took place. Later, after geographical discoveries, the European Christian Center began to dominate, and just as many peoples did not recognize the power of the Pope, now it is developed England, Germany, Sweden, all three of them were the first to leave the power of the Pope.

                Quote: Kir
                but about God's chosen people a different story altogether.

                The fact is that Christianity and Islam took away history from Judaism, constantly exposing the Jews unjustly, after the persecution of Jews around the world, for what? Yes, because in those days a Jew was smarter, more cunning, single and economically more surviving than other Christian and Islamic peoples, therefore envy appears, like hatred, Jews leave my land from here, although these peoples themselves do not even use their lands, that is, ignorance .
              6. FRIGATE2
                FRIGATE2 12 February 2014 12: 13
                +1
                how to check that the Jews are more productive and smarter than other nations? yes, simple evidence is the 1940s. When finally, officially, Jews got a country, land, and all the diasporas began to move to Tel Aviv in a country called Israel and now look at their level of development, at least number 1 in medicine in the world, of course militarily will not give change The United States, but it piles on its neighbors properly, and even Iran, if they do not play with nuclear weapons.

                Could the Jews be bad, "Jews", goats and all sorts of stigma from different peoples from the Germans to the Russians could achieve such a development?

                Maybe you need to recognize their abilities and learn from them?

                In science, too, a lot of Jewish scientists made great discoveries.

                we need to think about the question, maybe the Jews wrote about their God's chosen people based on relations with their neighbors? that is, they were driven by Christians and Muslims, they wandered to different countries, the kings of these different countries, even if they built them, imported Jews to undeveloped places, after the development of this place, the kings drove the Jews to sit on the ready. Maybe they looked at indigenous peoples and thought what kind of fools they were? Why? yes because indigenous peoples did not use anything.

                How fashionable it is in post-Soviet countries
              7. Kir
                Kir 12 February 2014 18: 20
                0
                And you look at how many of them sat and sits in patent offices, notaries and archives, so note went through the patent office and Einstein, the roots of his theory are also visible to others, and the legend that benefited the world T. Edisson, forgive of course, but is it not which does not indicate, and even if you follow your logic, then forgive the number of geniuses per unit of ethnos among the Jews is extremely high, and maybe all is much easier they are more united and help each other including information, not hesitating to hold for others. So do not overestimate, or else humiliate yourself.
                As for the stigma, forgive their sponsoring coups, on the one hand, but on the other, you should know who is yelling the most "beat the Jews", eh? ......, yes, their fellow tribesmen (see the pogroms in Kiev, allegedly "Black Hundred")
              8. The comment was deleted.
  • family tree
    family tree 9 February 2014 02: 25
    +2
    konchar or estok appeared to penetrate this very armor)

    Well, nafig, if stabbing, so quickly, to find a hole in the armor. They were not made of roofing iron, these armor, if they were invented to break through a pick (maiden name "chisel"). The killing blow is stronger than the piercing one.
  • From
    From 9 February 2014 03: 53
    0
    In the episode "Ivan the Terrible vs. Hernan Cortez" (ep 7) of the Deadlist Warrior project (season 3), it is shown that the espada ropera "like Hernan Cortez" can be held with two hands and delivered with chopping blows. But the cuirass and helmet of the morion cannot be cut with it (here you need a broadsword or a one and a half-handed sword of the "bastard" type). You will also break the blade ... It would be interesting to hold in your hands a lightweight narrowed (as far as possible) broadsword (or bastard) - with the length of the thickened blade like that of the Espada "Cortes" from "Deadlist Vorrior" and a hilt with a hilt that allows you to fence with both hands ...
    1. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 10 February 2014 12: 03
      0
      In the episode "Ivan the Terrible vs. Hernan Cortes" (ep 7) of the project Deadlist Warrior (season 3)
      Do not remember the dregs that are shown there. The "Xperts" there ... deserve nothing but curses. No matter how many of their performances I have watched, I have never shown something intelligible.

      here you need a broadsword or one and a half-handed sword of the "bastard" type
      It is pointless to chop a cuirass or morion with the gizmos you listed. And just a sword, a saber, a saber or something else. Just annoy the enemy. Latnik can and should be stabbed into the joints of armor, piercing the armor with a racket from the swoop or klevets from a good swing. Or a halberd. And you can stun with a hammer or a shestopop without breaking armor.
  • From
    From 9 February 2014 09: 41
    +1
    rapier sword
  • From
    From 9 February 2014 09: 42
    +1
    Reitschwerth (reitschwert - German: “horseman's sword”) - direct heavy sword of Reitar, hired equestrian shooters of the XNUMXth-XNUMXth centuries
    1. Kir
      Kir 9 February 2014 12: 36
      +1
      Given the guard, it’s more likely that you’re approaching the broadsword, if not already.
      1. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 10 February 2014 12: 05
        0
        Given the guard, it’s more likely that you’re approaching the broadsword, if not already.
        Not a broadsword. Broadsword always with a single-blade sharpening. Not even one and a half. Just the German version of the early combat sword.
        1. Kir
          Kir 10 February 2014 14: 51
          0
          Not forgive the fact that the broadsword with one-sided sharpening is classic. Yes, But it’s Indian and Russian, where, apart from the saber handle and guard, nothing indicates it, but the blade of the sword.
          1. abrakadabre
            abrakadabre 10 February 2014 15: 34
            0
            If you delve into metaphysics, you can go to anything.
            According to GOST R 51215-98: Broadsword - contact blade chopping and stabbing weapon with a long straight single-blade blade.
            laughing
            1. Kir
              Kir 10 February 2014 15: 41
              0
              No metaphysics, just look at Our old and Indian broadswords, but GOST has fixed the definition for a particular species, by the way it’s also questionable, since not all broadswords had piercing properties, then direct? But what about one of the species of the sea with a small curvature of the blade? Then the guest was 98, it’s one thing with the USSR (I don’t take the catastrophe as an example), but this is a misunderstanding. My mother worked in the Gosstandart system, as the requirements decreased from year to year.
  • Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 9 February 2014 10: 05
    +2
    Since in this case I am not Copenhagen, I will not argue. But I had to read articles where the authors explain in detail the difference between a sword and a rapier. So: ,, double-edged sword ,, ,, ,, what do you call a boat, so she and .... ,,
  • Yorgven
    Yorgven 10 February 2014 05: 47
    0
    Late Flumbers:
    The flaming sword inherited almost all the advantages of a flumberberg (it cut through chain mail, did not get stuck in the victim’s body, allowed to block the enemy’s blade, etc.).
    However, in addition to these advantages, the wavy-blade swords received one more. The design of the sword, in principle, made it possible to grab the enemy’s blade with a leather glove in battle and inflict an unblockable blow on it. But in the case of the wavy saw blade, such a technique threatened with serious wounds. A practical blade has become widespread as a weapon of assassins and professional duelists - shoulder straps, although such swords were not mass produced because of the complexity and high cost. Wavy blades were used until the beginning of the XVIII century, when they finally became obsolete.
  • FRIGATE2
    FRIGATE2 12 February 2014 12: 15
    +1
    I did not say that Judaism and Tengri were the very first, I just wanted to say that they are one of the very first monotheistic cults (imagine how from a religion with at least 10 gods people preferred a religion of 5 gods - that is, there is a desire for monotheism) Christianity - trinity (Holy Spirit, father and son), do you want to say that the same Slavs, Germans, Celts professed a more monotheistic cult than the ancient Jews? no, that’s why the merit of the Jews, the ancient Persians, was that they were one of the first to switch to monotheism, than other peoples and their knowledge and teachings began to assimilate local local beliefs, hence the wild spread of Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism in their own eras. Or do you think that the Slavic gods in the person of Perun, or the Scandinavian gods in the person of Thor seized religious leadership in those centuries?

    Religion is also a kind of information, a code of conduct for society, a law. Of course, religions are far from objectivity now, when there is science. The difference is that science was before religions and before the big bang, just science was not understood for a long time by humanity, and even in the 21st century, science is lame.

    And religion is such a mixture, as mentioned above, and they also have a bit of history. Therefore, I propose to relate to religions purely historically, for reference, that's all.

    Monotheism developed in the Middle East and Central Asia. New ancient knowledge flocked from these regions before the birth of Christ. Whether you want it or not, the truth is that religions such as Christianity with the help of the Roman Empire and Islam with the help of the Saracens have emerged and developed from Judah. This is the story and it was.

    Trying to make Jews undeserving of their history and religion, you will not change anything.

    Quote: Kir
    so do not take up inventions and new myths

    Why myth making? Am I really moving away from the concept of history? like your Fomenkovtsy. Am I saying lie substitution? do I exalt Jews and Turks? as the Slavs like to do now, especially the Russians. I just adhere to the fact that when studying history, people give each people their importance in the development of mankind in various aspects. In the aspect of religion, the creators of Judaism were the ancient Jews, which then spread Christianity and Islam, the last of which until the 14th-15th centuries reached such a high level that almost all scientific terms from Islamic civilization. Of course, there is no direct merit of religion, but there is an indirect merit, that is, due to the unity of faith, many peoples ceased to fight, but began to trade, culturally exchange, and no development of science took place. Later, after geographical discoveries, the European Christian Center began to dominate, and just as many peoples did not recognize the power of the Pope, now it is developed England, Germany, Sweden, all three of them were the first to leave the power of the Pope.

    Quote: Kir
    but about God's chosen people a different story altogether.

    The fact is that Christianity and Islam took away history from Judaism, constantly exposing the Jews unjustly, after the persecution of Jews around the world, for what? Yes, because in those days a Jew was smarter, more cunning, single and economically more surviving than other Christian and Islamic peoples, therefore envy appears, like hatred, Jews leave my land from here, although these peoples themselves do not even use their lands, that is, ignorance .