Archery question

[Yogah of Yag]

My father used to compete seriously in archery tournaments in the 70's, but didn't make the Olympic trials. My father had a longbow, although covered in the dust of several years. IIRC, the brand is "Bear" or something to that effect. I remember him telling me the draw on it was 80 lbs. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the Mediaeval bows had draws still heavier.

*****
Sidebar: It is a shame that mounted archery is not an Olympic sport. What a sight that would be!

 

[Strom]

sorry,
but I couldn’t resist posting this again

http://www.stupidvideos.com/Default.asp?VideoID=1283

Thank you Belkregos! That is so funny - "I live in a world of cold steel and dugeons and mighty foes!"

Oh man - that is great:!: :lol:

 

[Harlequin Jones]

I don't know about Real Life, but the Bossonian archer in our game kicks butt. With Rapid Shot, he can dish out 2x(1d12+Str) damage each round. That's more than my barbarian can do, and my barbarian is a badass.


Harley

 

[Ltlconf]

Hello Folks,

For decades the estimations on poundage pull on longbow was guess-work and colored by many false assumptions about Medieval life (all peasants were oppressed half starved ect...). Then a few years ago a Tudor priod warship, the galleon "Mary Rose," was discovered in remarkable condition in the channel. On board were hundreds of bows, thousands and thousands of arrows, armour, weaponry, and full panoply for bowmen and infantry (aka, the guy's field kits). The bows were beautifully preserved as were the arrows. They were tested with the latest in archeological foresnsics technology and methods and they blew so many myths out the water that books are still be written about these bows (and the other weapons as well).
It's important to remember that this equipment was standard issue for HenryVIIIs regular troops, not for knights and such, while the bows were (according to logistical record for the period) for the crew and troops on board meant as relief and resupply for the Calais garrison.
The bows were of imported yew (all traders coming into England had to bring in a amount of yew by law), were bone tipped, often recurved (from the natural nature of the wood), and had a average pull of 90 to 120ibs. These last three features stunned the archeological community.
The arrows were found to have tips of cast iron (comfirming digs on French and English battlefields), made of softwoods (for ease of manufacture) and have fletching of goose feathers. These arrows also had all the earmarks of mass production, not of carefully crafted items, though were still well made (so adventurers could conceivably have much better).
The other items were a mix of standard issue and noble/officer equipment and so provided a good comparison of quality. Remember England in the Tudor period was relatively well off, so officers and nobles and even the middle class could afford good equipment ("men at arms" were non-noble middle and upper class men who could afford full plate. They now made up the bulk of the cavalry and heavy infantry!).
I would suggest reading any source you can on the wreck. Though Tudor period, much of European equipment and armor had changed little since the High Middle Ages (12th-15th cent.) though plate of course now dominated armor. Swords ect. changed in hilt styles ect. but rarely in substance, at least according to the Royal Armory.

 

[taylor]

Ltconf,
Another excellent post, but I've got one little quibble:

I would suggest reading any source you can on the wreck. Though Tudor period, much of European equipment and armor had changed little since the High Middle Ages (12th-15th cent.) though plate of course now dominated armor. Swords ect. changed in hilt styles ect. but rarely in substance, at least according to the Royal Armory.

The development of sword blades was actually fairly complex. In the mid 14th century the growing use of plate armour rendered the wide, relatively thin blades of the European sword far less effective. Whilst these swords were primarily cutters, many could also thrust fairly effectively against unarmoured, though it was always a secondary function. Here is Albion Armorers Knight, an accurate 13th century sword designed by the world's premier European styled swordsmith Peter Johnsson:

In the mid to latter part of the 14th century swords that were primary thrusters appeared. The cutting ability of each varied on the design as you can see below, though it is always a trade off between cutting potential and thrusting potential. It may be accurate to say that the more likely the sword was to be used against unarmoured foes (ie the grunts, the real backbone of any army ) the more likely it was to be focused on cutting.

Here is the Albion Crecy:

The Albion Poitiers:

I realise this is all very simplified, and it gets even more interesting in the 15th century when blades get to the point where they are useless against plate and go back to 13th century designs!

 

[Ltlconf]

Hello Folks,

I've have no quibbles with your point. In fact I agree completely. What my source from the RA was getting at was that the point (no not the physical point :wink: ) never really changed though steel quality did. Nor did the style of the blade except for a elite. The bulk of those found show that the narrow stabbing sword favoured by knights for fighting other knights was very much an uncommon weapon. Not odd really, unlike today nothing was thrown away and swords passed from father to son (after all it was the equivelent of the standard issue rifle today, and just as pricey). plus the point of the standard soldier was to kill other soldiers. The polearm is much better at killing a knoght as it is.
By the way, test done with accurate repros at the RAaL show that the actual cutting power of the later swords (late13th to 15th) actually wasn't to be sneezed at. Their cutting power was lower than the 13th century style, but not enough to make one care overmuch. I have a repro of a War of the Roses period blade and it holds up well compared to my 3rd Crusade period blade. The cut is harder to make, but then the hand-and-a-half hilt compensates well and thus makes the difference marginal when used two handed.
Stabbing difference is noticeable, but only when armour(especialy plate) is involved (as you pointed out). I've found the 12th Cent. will punch through mail when sufficiant force is involved (near impossible in fast moving fight) but has a hard time getting through an accurately made arming jerkin (good 'ol padded armor :shock: ). The later sword can handle both the chain and padding reasonably well. However, getting a good stab in a sword and shield fight, I have found, is hard to accomplish and a good slash/and or chop is either the killing blow or sets up the stab. But then I'm not a trained knight!
However, this all for another thread. We're here to talk bows ! :lol:

 

[Raven Blackwell]

Katherine Kerr, an author and noted Celtic scholar, once said in one of her works that for all the romantic ballads written about killing opponents in a single mortal armor most of the time you just used your sword to slowly beat a guy to death inside their own armor.

 

[Ltlconf]

Hello Folks,


Kerr is a brilliant historian on the Celtic culture. I wouldn't think to question her on most things Celtic truly (debate her maybe, but never say she was WRONG). But the one thing I've begun to notice is the difference between a cultural historian, and the military and weapons historian. That is, all have their blindspots and preconcieved notions. Not to mention a tendecy to bend facts to fit notions and not the other way around. Human nature I guess as we all do it and often.
Point is Raven: as a guy who's been whacked in the ribs by a wooden practice sword full tilt, while wearing chain and padding, and been put in the hospital for it (while a active duty Marine in top shape), I seriously doubt it took that long to beat someone to death when in flexiable armor. After that one blow I was helpless and ready for the coup de grace. When dealing with plate, we quickly figured out that you had to go for the joints, or threw your sword away and got a warhammer to pry him open (beak punches right through) or got your mace to tenderize (shattered organs and bone) him. If you got him prone and stunned (As I was), you could grip you sword in both hands (one on hilt, the other on the blade) and punch through. Polearms added a whole new level of difficulty!
The evidence now shows helmets wouldn't stop a square blow but were designed to deflect instead. Eek. So aiming for the head worked for a quick kill. All else fails, hamstring him. The back of the knees, armpits, neck, face (often), crotch and insides of the legs and arms were often exposed by necessity and all held major arteries(eek!:shock. If you think this is all that hard, think on how many cops and soldiers get a bullet past the body armor (armpit, neck ect.).
All this knowledge was long the purview of the weapons historian due to their interest in recreating period equipment to "try out" (play with really) and worked on from there. Research was and is based on the accepted premise that similar problems often lead to similar solutions. Not to mention reprints of contemporary manuals and other literature.
The different types didn't talk to each other and still don't at times. I've seen and read interviews with prominant historians who still spout off basic mistakes/myths refering to weapons or battles or to places and peoples. It goes both ways still sadly. Oh well :roll:.
So no offense Raven, Kerr isn't a military specialist as was Ian Hogg, but then neither was Ian Hogg a Celtic specialist like Kerr! I go to one for one subject, and to the other the other. That way my buttocks are covered well!
Question though, Ian Hogg died recently (a huge loss to the weapons historian and reenactor communities), is the good lady Mrs. Kerr still with us?

 

[Raven Blackwell]

As of a few years ago, yes. I haven't read anything of hers for that long so I haven't kept up with her and her works. I'd imagine that you could find a bio pretty fast on the 'net if you wanted to.

 

[Ltlconf]

Hello Folks,

Thanks for the info on Mrs. Kerr. I hadn't seen anything new from her in a while and was begining to wonder. Some of the other Celtic specialists disagree with her on points, but I've always found her the most readable of the bunch. Down right enjoyable in fact! Also, her take on the Celts is extremely roleplayable (is that a word?), though I make 'em as violent as some of the others theorize (not that Mrs. Kerr makes them all that warm and fuzzy :twisted.

 

[Raven Blackwell]

Did a brief check on Katherine Kerr on the net- she has a website www.deverry.com in which she says her next novel The Golden Falcon is coming out in 2006, so I'd say she's doing fine. Maybe she just took a break for a while.....

 

[Ltlconf]

Hello Folks,


Sweet 8) ! Seriously Raven, thanks. I've loved her works in the past and look forward to her new stuff.

 

[taylor]

Nor did the style of the blade except for a elite

This is simply incorrect. The munitions grade sword an early 15th century English longbowman would have used would have been a sharply tapering sword at least as effective for thrusting as it was for cutting. Just like a knight of the same era. After all, they would have been expected to face the same foes. In my researches into the European sword and fencing styles I can not think of a single example of a medieval European sword style that was attributed to a particular social class.

 

[geordiekimbo]

This is simply incorrect. The munitions grade sword an early 15th century English longbowman would have used would have been a sharply tapering sword at least as effective for thrusting as it was for cutting. Just like a knight of the same era. After all, they would have been expected to face the same foes. In my researches into the European sword and fencing styles I can not think of a single example of a medieval European sword style that was attributed to a particular social class.

I'm sure i remember some weapon expert saying that at the battle of Agincourt the archers went in with heavy falchions when they were required to go toe to toe with the enemy.

 

[Ltlconf]

Hello Folks,


Hello Taylor. Technically you are correct. I generalized concerning the style of sword under discussion (when did this drift into swords instead of archery :? ?). However, the sword in question was made of the finest steel: if you are going to punch through armour made of said stuff, you want something that can handle it. Thus, due to cost involved, you are going to see this sword in the hands of the elite nine times out of ten. On the the other hand, falchions are cheap, as were standard swords, mauls (a tool with a dual purpose), poinards, maces, warhammers, bills, pikes ect. These were the weapons of the masses of troops. Remember these are privately financed companies (nationaly subsidized armies didn't exist. Armies were "sub-contracted) and thus keeping cost down was a factor. On the "Mary Rose" the most common melee weapons were bills and pollaxes if memory serves (I'll double check tonight) with a batch of falchions. Daggers were privately purchased and the wealthy supplied their own gear (as most did, poor and rich, but the company captain or Crown often replaced gear for the little guy).

Fact is, many of the infantry weapons were BETTER at defeating armour. Makes sense in a way. Infantry's biggest threat are knights and alot of thought would go into can-opener research! Note, when I mean "defeat" I mean killing the guy inside efficiently, not neccessarily punching through. These don't need to go hand in hand. Most military historians now feel the polearm, pike and increasing proffessionalism of the infantry, best represented by the English billman and Swiss and Landsknecht mercenary forces, are what killed off the knight. A lifetime of training in melee combat simply didn't have the weight it used to on the new battlefield dominated by weapons that could shatter bone and organs even when armor held. And unlike the Samurai the knight couldn't cut his world of from the rest of creation to ensure his status.

Knights still indeed carried swords, but they were no longer his main business tool. Normally, when fighting another knight, a knight would more likely reach for HIS mace, hammer or, if on foot from the start, pollaxe to do his killing. By the days of full plate, the sword had become the back-up weapon :wink: . Battle remains from the late Medieval and early Rennaisance show that the most damage was done by the heavier weapons, with STAB (note the emphasis, it difficult to work out the origins of slashing wounds on such old remains) wounds from swords uncommon (but note earlier statement).

The swords WAS a symbol though and powerful as such. Hey, in these periods, style menat as much as substance (think on some of the clothing stuff they WORE! What was with those long, pointed toes?). In one on one combat in lighter armor or defending oneself off the battlefield, it also had few peers. Most importantly, to use a sword well took alot of training and skill and thus a point of status, pride and bragging rights 8) ! Heck, still is!

 

[taylor]

Hi Ltlconf,

However, the sword in question was made of the finest steel: if you are going to punch through armour made of said stuff, you want something that can handle it.

So are you saying then that swords primary designed to thrust need to be finer made than those designed to cut simply to fulfill their purpose? If so, can you tell me why?

Thus, due to cost involved, you are going to see this sword in the hands of the elite nine times out of ten.

But you didn't. The sword was just as common with the cited English longbowman as it was with the knight.

On the the other hand, falchions are cheap, as were standard swords, mauls (a tool with a dual purpose), poinards, maces, warhammers, bills, pikes ect. These were the weapons of the masses of troops.

Aside from the maul (which was primarily a tool as you said), and the bill and pike (which were employed as formation weapons) the knights of the 13th to 15thC used all these "mass" weapons. Infact, the primary weapon of the knight on the battlefield were the lance and the poleaxe. Swords were never a primary tool for any well equipped soldier on the middle ages battlefield.

Fact is, many of the infantry weapons were BETTER at defeating armour. Makes sense in a way. Infantry's biggest threat are knights and alot of thought would go into can-opener research! Note, when I mean "defeat" I mean killing the guy inside efficiently, not neccessarily punching through. These don't need to go hand in hand. Most military historians now feel the polearm, pike and increasing proffessionalism of the infantry, best represented by the English billman and Swiss and Landsknecht mercenary forces, are what killed off the knight. A lifetime of training in melee combat simply didn't have the weight it used to on the new battlefield dominated by weapons that could shatter bone and organs even when armor held. And unlike the Samurai the knight couldn't cut his world of from the rest of creation to ensure his status.

Actually the knight was "safer" in the 15th century with his plate harness fighting bill and longbow armed peasantry then his ancestors in the 13th century with their mail hauberks. IMO sociological reform and gunpowder killed the knight off.

Knights still indeed carried swords, but they were no longer his main business tool.

They never were.

The swords WAS a symbol though and powerful as such. Hey, in these periods, style menat as much as substance (think on some of the clothing stuff they WORE! What was with those long, pointed toes?).

lol, but I wonder how our descendants will judge our fashion sense...

 

[Hyborian Apeman]

I will leave the discussion of historical weapopnary to those more well read and intellegent then I.

But to the point of archery focused PCs vs melee:

I have run two decent lengthed Conan campaigns. One had a Shemite who was more focused on the bow, and another a Turanian focused on the tulwar (when he could get his hands on one) or a scimitar. Both were Nomads. These two where the strongest (in most senses of the word, not just the physical stat) characters in the campaign. They ended up splitting kills pretty closely in most encounters.

In my other campaign, the Bossianian soldier seems to get more kills with his rapid shot, d12 + 5 (17 str & Weapon Spec), and AP 8 then any of the other PCs.

So in my opinion, an archery focused character will fair just fine.

As a side note or two, the Shemite Nomad did just fine going toe to toe when enemies wanted to get personal.

Historical accuracy aside, I believe Howard detailed the Bossonian lonbow being able to penetrate Nemidian Plate mail in "Hour of the Dragon", which couldn't happen (save with a 20 str character within 80 ft) with the current game mechanics.

 

[Ltlconf]

Hello Folks,


Yes Taylor a stabbing weapon did in fact have to be of a better steel than a slashing sword due to the nature of the attack. As pointed out concerning the points of a arrow a soft, flexible point would bend when impacting on quality steel armour. To penetrate it must be as hard or harder than the steel of the armor, of course this means a somewhat inflexible sword as the steel is stiff and dense to facilitate penetration. This also makes a stabblng sword subject to being snapped.
A cutting sword needs a easily sharpened edge capable of great sharpness. This means a dense, hard steel along the edge with softer steel in the core to give flexiablity. A slashing sword needs great flexibality in order to not snap or be bent when impacting. Also, hitting a edge steel on steel will quickly destroy an edge. As most chain mail was made of softer iron through most of history, this was not a serious problem. As plate came along and was made of steel that improved quickly through the decades it did. Thus swords became primarily stabbing weapons of personal defense.
It's not that swords of the stabbing variety need to be of better quality over slashing swords, it's that slashing swords of certain types could be made cheaper. Falchions had cheaper, softer steel as their design compesated ("HASSAN CHOP!), plus the soft steel was easily resharpened (think machetes as a comparison). A top quality slashing sword would have been just as expensive, and did become such. Later on metallurgy reached a point that a stabbing sword could be quite flexible, but this was still in the future. Hence the sword catcher maine guache, a more flexible sword could be pulled out (in my experience).

The Longbowman rarely carried the QUALITY sword of a knight, unless he got one as booty. At least according to my sources, and they are pretty recent. Most longbowman who carried swords carried shorter weapons that could handle the armor of the knight as well as each other.

Never said these weapons were not used by knights. The debate was on the sword in question and it's status. My point was the same as yours: the sword was NOT the primary weapon of many soldiers. The knight by the 14th-15th centuries did prefer to use the mace and warhammer when mounted and the poleaxe on foot, the lance when charging. The lance however was a oneshot weapon while the poleaxe was used on foot only. The foot soldier fought with what he had or was equipped with.
However Taylor, up into the 14th battlefield forensics finds ALOT of sword wounds, particularly to the face (followed by axe and spear wounds). Knights practiced for hours a day with the sword, as much as with the lance. They PRIDED themselves on their swordmanship. When traveling they wore their swords and it was their weapon (along with the dagger) of daily self defense outside the home. Believe me as a vet, you will not train that hard on a weapon unless you intend to use it. It takes time away from the training with other weapons. The sword was their symbol and status, their first line of defense off the battlefield and, after the intitial charge until the 14th cent., on the field. Plus, once again as a vet, you NEVER wear or carry a piece of equipment you don't need.

Against the longbow the 15th century knight was safe. The bill was proving less effective as well. However, until the invention of the bayonet, no gun was effective without the pike to protect it. No charge could punch through disciplined infantry with pikes. His lance wasn't long enough and the mass couldn't push past the such a block of pikes and men. The infantry was also increasingly well equipped with armor and standard issue weapons. Training infantry to use pike was much simpler than traing a knight and cheaper than a musketeer. Even into the 16th century the largest chunk of any army by a mile were pikemen. They made the charge of the mounted knight useless. Due to reloading time, if a mass of knights were willing to take the hit, would face only one volley and then ride the musketeers down (Napoleonic cavalry did it rather often! With the soldiers having better guns and bayonets!). Socialogical reform is overated. The Knight still existed. He was what he always was. The richer were officers and generals, the poorer the rank and file of the fashionable cavalry regiments. He even wore his spurs well into the 16th in some countries! The knight, unlike the samurai, evolved. His original role rather became extinct.

The sword lost its battlefield utility (at least concerning other knights) from the Age Of Plate on true. But fashion is fashion and it returned and ruled as the primary cavalry weapon until the end of Napoleon. And far as fashion goes, I admit, I wore bell bottoms in the 70s. Get a funny bone Taylor :lol: ![/url][/quote]

 

[taylor]

Hello Folks,


Yes Taylor a stabbing weapon did in fact have to be of a better steel than a slashing sword due to the nature of the attack.

I'm sorry mate, but you are wrong. Can you dig up a single instance in any respected authority on the subject who agrees with you here? I've read nothing in any of Ewart Oakeshott's or Peter Johnsson's writings that back you up on this point. Swords made for thrusting and those made for cutting had different blade section types, different distal & profile tapers and in some instances, different edge types. But all good quality swords, in all cultures, were made as effective as possible.

As pointed out concerning the points of a arrow a soft, flexible point would bend when impacting on quality steel armour. To penetrate it must be as hard or harder than the steel of the armor, of course this means a somewhat inflexible sword as the steel is stiff and dense to facilitate penetration.

The reletive inflexibility of the sword you describe is a result of its distal taper, not the hardness of the steel. Also, for the vast majority of the middle ages, armour was not heat treated (ie hardened and tempered), whereas swords were. Hence all functional swords were harder than armour. This did change towards the mid 15th century, but it didn't matter because swords were never intended to penetrate plate square on, but instead to penetrate at the joints.

This also makes a stabblng sword subject to being snapped.

Not if its heat treated correctly. Despite being fairly thin, many thrusting swords are much thicker than pure cutting swords.

A cutting sword needs a easily sharpened edge capable of great sharpness. This means a dense, hard steel along the edge with softer steel in the core to give flexiablity.

No, it means a heat treat designed to compromise between edge retention and edge toughness, whilst, in conjunction with the distal taper, keeping to sword flexible, but not "whippy".

A slashing sword needs great flexibality in order to not snap or be bent when impacting. Also, hitting a edge steel on steel will quickly destroy an edge.

See above.

As most chain mail was made of softer iron through most of history, this was not a serious problem. As plate came along and was made of steel that improved quickly through the decades it did. Thus swords became primarily stabbing weapons of personal defense.

The reason swords shifted to thrusting weapons was because plate armour was all but impossible to cut, but as I wrote above, it might be possible to get through at one of the joints.

It's not that swords of the stabbing variety need to be of better quality over slashing swords, it's that slashing swords of certain types could be made cheaper. Falchions had cheaper, softer steel as their design compesated ("HASSAN CHOP!), plus the soft steel was easily resharpened (think machetes as a comparison).

A top quality slashing sword would have been just as expensive, and did become such. Later on metallurgy reached a point that a stabbing sword could be quite flexible, but this was still in the future. Hence the sword catcher maine guache, a more flexible sword could be pulled out (in my experience).

Mate you have totally lost me here. You don't want a thrusting sword to be too flexible, as it takes away from the primary function of the weapon. As for the guache, it was never considered a military grade weapon for a reason, and I'm not sure I see the relevence of it to this discussion?

The Longbowman rarely carried the QUALITY sword of a knight, unless he got one as booty. At least according to my sources, and they are pretty recent. Most longbowman who carried swords carried shorter weapons that could handle the armor of the knight as well as each other.

What I was saying though, was that the primary function, not always to length, of the noble and common weapons on the 15th century battlefield was usually the same. Or more accurately, one type of sword was not ascribed to a certain class.

Never said these weapons were not used by knights. The debate was on the sword in question and it's status. My point was the same as yours: the sword was NOT the primary weapon of many soldiers. The knight by the 14th-15th centuries did prefer to use the mace and warhammer when mounted and the poleaxe on foot, the lance when charging. The lance however was a oneshot weapon while the poleaxe was used on foot only. The foot soldier fought with what he had or was equipped with.

Ok, agreed.

However Taylor, up into the 14th battlefield forensics finds ALOT of sword wounds, particularly to the face (followed by axe and spear wounds). Knights practiced for hours a day with the sword, as much as with the lance. They PRIDED themselves on their swordmanship. When traveling they wore their swords and it was their weapon (along with the dagger) of daily self defense outside the home. Believe me as a vet, you will not train that hard on a weapon unless you intend to use it. It takes time away from the training with other weapons. The sword was their symbol and status, their first line of defense off the battlefield and, after the intitial charge until the 14th cent., on the field. Plus, once again as a vet, you NEVER wear or carry a piece of equipment you don't need.

Ok, you destroyed that straw man, since I'm not sure where I disgreed with any of that, suffice to say that the sword was not the primary weapon of the knight on the battlefield in any era.

Against the longbow the 15th century knight was safe. The bill was proving less effective as well. However, until the invention of the bayonet, no gun was effective without the pike to protect it. No charge could punch through disciplined infantry with pikes. His lance wasn't long enough and the mass couldn't push past the such a block of pikes and men. The infantry was also increasingly well equipped with armor and standard issue weapons. Training infantry to use pike was much simpler than traing a knight and cheaper than a musketeer. Even into the 16th century the largest chunk of any army by a mile were pikemen. They made the charge of the mounted knight useless. Due to reloading time, if a mass of knights were willing to take the hit, would face only one volley and then ride the musketeers down (Napoleonic cavalry did it rather often! With the soldiers having better guns and bayonets!).

Again, I'm not sure how this relates to anything so far in this discussion???

Socialogical reform is overated. The Knight still existed. He was what he always was. The richer were officers and generals, the poorer the rank and file of the fashionable cavalry regiments. He even wore his spurs well into the 16th in some countries! The knight, unlike the samurai, evolved. His original role rather became extinct.

I personally think the present day officer is totally unrelated to the knight of the middle ages, despite how highly most of the officers I know think of themselves. The knight of the middle ages had to work for a living!

The sword lost its battlefield utility (at least concerning other knights) from the Age Of Plate on true. But fashion is fashion and it returned and ruled as the primary cavalry weapon until the end of Napoleon. And far as fashion goes, I admit, I wore bell bottoms in the 70s. Get a funny bone Taylor :lol: !

Ok... :lol:

 

[Ltlconf]

Hello Folks,

Okay Taylor, we seem to agree on some point and disagree on others.

My point on the steel quality on the sword is not that a slashing sword was not made the best it could be IF ONE COULD AFFORD IT, but rather that a stabbing sword often had a larger amount of well fired quality steel due to both the nature of the weapon and the era in which they became prevelant i.e. the late 14th to 15th centuries.
The slashing sword had a softer steel in the core (yes due to the method of firing I know, I figured you knew that as well and thus didn't mention that) to give the flexiablity (not whippiness, once again I assumed you knew what I was driving at). Whatever the method of firing or construction the point was to give "give" to the blade. I used a accurate repro of a 12th century sword and you could bend it near 30 degrees and have it spring back. It didn't "whip" when swung nor when impacting on a shield head on, but when I cut through a target, you could see (if you had quick eyes) that slight "give" that kept the blade from being bent. My 15th cent. sword was well tempered steel through and through and did not have as much give (though still quite springy within it's tolerances) and would snap if bent over far (the other sword would have simply warped). To give point though, it did have "give," my point was it didn't have as much. True also many stabing swords were thicker than slashing weapons as a matter of function. But also due to the higher firing of the steel the steel was more brittle as well. Stabbing swords did become quite flexible later on, but by that time armor was nonexistant for all practical purposes so it was a matter of pointless debate (sorry couldn't help it)
My bad. True the maine gauche was not a main battle weapon, but then neither was the rapier. I used this as an example as these are weapons the layman is familar and the rapier the most specialised of stabbing swords. Likely a bad example, my apologies. I claim lack of sleep.
While it's true Oakeshott does not mention the points I brought up, but I'm also going by some of the most recent info coming out of the Royal Armory research, which calls into question some of the long accepted info on many things, including use and number of swords.
The wealthier knights could afford well tempered armor and drove fashion on and of the battlefield and thus weapons were developed to defeat THEM first, not the rank and file. You develop the weapon to defeat the best the enemy can throw at you, not the other guy. Their armor was able to defeat most weapons, including the sword. You needed something with heft to do the job, on that we agree. My point was in total agreement with you otherwise. Should have said that and I apologize.
As far as who carried what, I never said ONLY a knight could carry such and such by law (though in some countries at some times it was so). My ponit was that certain sword are going to be limited to certain CLASSES by virtue of ECONOMICS. I did point out that one could gain a better due to luck but the likelyhood of a footsoldier having a fine Milan or Regensburg blade made by the best is unlikely. It's like my cracker butt getting his hands on a firstclass Berretta shotgun or Mosenburg rifle. First question out of everyone's mouth would be "who'd did I kill?". The foot soldier going to have the best he can get, which won't be all that great (falchion ect.) the knight the afore mentioned custom made blade. Thus what class carried what sword can be GENERALY assumed based on quality and style. But like all human influenced events, there will be exceptions always.
As for the function of the weapons under debate: to kill the enemy of course :twisted:. The debate was on what sword did it in who's hand, not why they're doing it.
Actually I was pointing out that the sword was the primary weapon of the earlier Middle Ages knight (but not the foot soldier) up into the mid 14th. The lance was a point of impact weapon, sort of a shock weapon. Once the melee began the sword and to a lesser extent the axe became the prime killing tool. Battlefield forensics bear this out, for the foot soldier casualties anyway. However, the main killer of the knight was the foot soldier (The knight wanted to capture his opponent for ransom and glory. The foot soldier as well, but he put survival first!). My point was you are correct for the 1350 to 1500s, but before then the sword reigned as the favored weapon of the knight. After that we agree on its status on the large battlefield.
As to the "pike-thing" you pointed out that gunpowder and sociological factors doomed the traditional knight. I wanted to point out a recnt theory put out that challenges that. Rather that disciplined proffessional infantry combined with, and well drilled with, the 20 foot pike destroyed the knight's traditional dominance (in decline for sometime anyway due to the increasing discipline of infantry and their power on the defense already). I wanted to point out that I agree with this due to my years of using matchlocks. I find they are useless in the open against determined and disciplined cavalry without pikes or a solid entrenchment, fence or barrier of some sort. Without such you are DEAD :shock: .
As far as modern officers go, I was a Marine and my officers led from the front all the way to colonel so they worked for a living. After all, as the Duke of Wellington said "A officers' first duty is die well as an example to his men."
I will agree I was in no way talking of the modern officer class but rather of those from the 16th to 18th century who were exclusively drawn from the noble class, as were often knights at first and later their descendents as the title became all but hereditary(knights were once always made not born, you could be of noble birth and not be a knight. It was rare at first but by the 15th century it was becoming more common, at least in England, to dodge the draft so to speak.). My point was that the massing of superheavy cavalry for grand charges became pointless so the knight moved on to the other role he held: leadership of men. Those who couldn't afford to raise a company (later a regiment) became the elite cavalry, if of a lighter variety. These companies and regiments made up the armies of most countries well into the 17th century.
Personaly, I will admit I base my info on the opinions of researchers at museums and reenactors who actually have to use the stuff (and are sticklers for accuracy) as well as my own reenacting experience (1988-2003, quit due to injuries piling up). I have find what we often come up with ends up often proving true once the Museum researchers try out and research the info from the new perspective. Nothing proves a theory of how a sword works than to swing a accurate (as possible) replica, made the traditional way, at another person (or approximation of one), wearing full plate in a the closest thing we are ever going to get to a 15th century battle ! TO HELL WITH RATTAN, IT'S FOR WIMPS! I WANT STEEL!!!! :twisted: