Hand Held Weapons

Does anyone here like good old fashioned hand-held-weapons as much as me? I'm talking about swords, spears, scythes, maces, axes and aything else used before the age of gunpowder... Please share your pictures and discussion about such weapons here, if you own any collecters items please show us! I'd love to see them... I don't own any (can't afford 'em) and frankly am worried about being sprung for weapons possession, though I might try to get something off E-bay one day...

I am particularily interested in Renaissance European halberds and Indo-Persian daggers and swords

 

is there any advantage to a curved blade besides making it look wicked ?

 

You can use it to rip things out?

Personally I like crossbows
so compact-like and dangerous....

 

When you strike down with it, it naturally cuts along the arc of the blade without the need of a drawing or pushing action.

Curved swords were also popular on ships as they require less space to use properly and have a more compact action.

There's a famous novel in which Richard 1 cuts a table in half with his big heavy broadsword to which Saladin responds by tossing a silk scarf into the air an cutting it in half with his small, light, curved scimitar.

 

The Japanese katana was kind of like that. You used the whole blade to make a cut which meant you could cut an unarmoured man from throat to groin in a single stroke. :kill:

 

Personally,I love the broadswords used in Conan the Barbarian.I was able to check out a replica a friend has a few days ago.It was heavier than I expected.I believe my friend said it weighed in at 8 lbs.Supposedly the one Schwarzenegger twirled around effortlessly in the movies weighed the same.

 

Yes, I really like swords. Particularly ancient ones, as they tend to be smaller, more compact, and quite surprisingly more easily wielded and effective than more recent weapons.

I own a Celtiberian falcata sword, which is a recurve sabre. Its outward curve concentrates the power of the blow at 2/3 of the length of the blade; the thickness of the blade enhances the effect of this specific shape to create the most devastating hacking sword ever made. In tests this particular sword had twice as much penetrative power as a katana.

I also really want to have a Spatha and a Xyphos, both very effective and versatile short swords.

Siberian: It is quite hard to cut a man in half across his sternum. In fact I doubt that anything but a halberd could do the trick.

 

Just realized I had a typo. I meant shouder not throat.

 

By "xyphos" you mean the standard greek variants of short swords?
Also,is spatha a short sword??

Apart from that, i own a long sword used by the Templars,a spanish one of medium size(around 16th century), a typical medieval sword--no particular country--as well as a French 18th century variant, that mimics medieval swords a bit,only to be used in ceremonies etc...

PS;There was a spartan variant of greek short swords that was very similar to the falcata although only 30cm long.

 

Very much.

I particularly like the Viking/Saxon pattern-welded sword, the axe in all its forms (especially the 'Bearded Axe'), and the Bill.

 

while i prefer axes and maces, the yatagan always invokes a special feeling in me...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... taghan.png

also, pikes and lances (especially the long lances used by polish winged hussars)

 

This is my favorite!!!

 

As i remember favorite wiking weapon was long spear,not the sword,only holywood show wikings with hure swords,axes and hammers.Curved blade is indeed much betther then straight ones,but i personaly think that maces r betther and cheaper weapons then a sword (especialy VS armored knights)

 

Yes. Leaf-shaped blade making it essentially a hand-held, enlarged spear point.

Yes. In most variants it's only about 70-80cm long, which is a step down from Viking longswords and later Medieval European sword types.

This sword was not similar to the falcata, it was actually more like a smaller version of the xyphos. The Greeks had their own particular version of the falcata for cavalry, which was called the machaira and which had a straight (rather than pistol-shaped) grip.

 

The Spear was definately the most common weapon at the time, though this was largely a factor of economics - spears are much much cheaper than swords. Swords were a status symbol in the 9th Century - the requirements of being a thegn in Anglo-Saxon England was to own 5 hides of land and to have a sword (with a gilt hilt).

Maces are much better against opponants in plate armour, because they are ideal for bashing armour out of shape and thereby disabling your opponant. However, they tend to lack the reach of swords, and are relatively less effective against unarmoured or lightly armoured opponants who are vulnerable to sword cuts.

 

Pole arms were also more common in the ancient and middle ages because of their combat versatility... With a spear a soldier could fight cavalry as well as infantry... The sword was a better weapon in man-to-man combat but was no good at killing a mounted horseman, as it was simply too short to reach... A row of spearmen could form a hedge of spears to stop a cavaltry charge where a row of swordsmen would be cut down...

Thowing spears were popular in Homeric times but not in the middle ages, anyone know why this was? I would guess that advancements in armor quality, the larger size of armies in the middle ages, and the evolution of defensive tacts (i.e. the Phalanx) made throwing spears ineffective... As archers became fielded in greater numbers there really was no need for a thowing spear, which had less range than a bow and was shorter than a thrusting spear, thus less effective against horsemen...

 

Although in Viking & Anglo-Saxon warfare fighting horsemen was not an issue, as they did not fight on horseback. Ever*. They had mounted Infantry (infantry who ride horses to get them places) but did not fight from horseback.


* Well, once they did. Earl Ralph the Timid (a Norman lord brought in by Edward the Confessor) made his men fight from horseback against the Welsh. He only tried it once, because his men were decisively defeated.

 

I couldn't agree with you more!

 

Not just price,long spear was good charge weapon,first wawe.True,in the crown it was more-less useles,and there short weapons (swords,maces) done the job.My faworite mace http://www.armor.com/2000/Catalog/item193.html as u see,can be efectly used against unarmored infantry.Swords was just 2 expencive and not widely used.

 

You're right. I confused the swords of the following picture. My bad...

Actually, the phalanx was abandoned in the middle ages and the armies were more disorderly than in ancient times--an exception, i think, was Swiss pike formations of the Renaissance, but still could not match the discipline of Roman and Greek armies of the past.

About the Mycenaean times, i believe only the nobility used their spears as missile weapons--as for this purpose used javelins--because they commonly engaged enemy nobles in personal combat. So, this tactic would be something like "warm up"