The Armour Archive

So how accurate is Froissart? I see an awful lot of sword and shield being used against plate (particularly from horseback), yet many people have claimed that one-handed swords weren't much good against plate. Thoughts?

http://www.bnf.fr/enluminures/manuscrits/aman1.htm

------------------
The defining characteristic of fanaticism is the inability to understand why everyone else is not a fanatic.

Noe

Froissart did his work on the mid-late 15th century but is depicting the 100 years war [img]http://forums.armourarchive.org/ubb/smile.gif[/img]. So it is 14th century history done with 15th century art.

Now to the issue of shields and swords. Swords were a person’s side arm, if you look at the images you see most on horseback with a lance, and with a lance you use a shield. We also know men on horse used maces and warhammers but never see them in his art.

You also you see men on foot with large shields with swords or short polearms, often in the Froissart chronicles they are charging the position of archers, or an open gate.

Swords were not useless but there is no evidence that they cut through armor. A lightly armored civilian or striking a man in the open face would be devastating. Fighting manuals also show you to go for thrusts too the lightly armored parts such as the underarms protected by maille. Many men on the field are not in full armor.

In the book blood red roses there are helms penetrated by bec de corbin’s. Don’t recall seeing armor failing from a sword.

In a written ordinance from Louis XI this is said about the 25 to 30 layered cloth Jack:
Thus shall the wearer float, as it were, within his jack and be at his ease; for never have been seen a dozen men killed by stabs or arrow wounds in such jacks, particularly if they be troops accustomed to fighting.

Also no one can tell how much artistic license is used. Could be overly dramatic like a comic book for all we know.

Flonzy



------------------
Cheap garb is as bad as plastic armor.
http://home.armourarchive.org/members/flonzy

What Flonzy said.

The single-handed sword is not useless against plate. It will not penetrate plate, but it can thrust to gaps in the plate, it can be used as a lever in half-swording techniques, it can deliver a solid buffet (not to be underestimated, look at how much force we can deliver with a rattan stick against armor which is generally *thicker* than the standard in the Middle Ages), and it is generally more manueverable in the press than an axe, spear, or pole-axe. Fiore teaches the use of the sword held in a single hand for mounted men against mounted men in armor. It largely involves grappling/levering intended to throw your opponent to the ground.

Also consider the circumstances, I see the single-handed sword in use in mounted combat after the initial clash (look for the discarded lances beneath the combatants). I also see the single-handed sword in use on foot. For the foot combats, notice how many of the men do not have any hand protection. To my mind this indicates someone who is partially armored. They may or may not have plate under those garments. The same techniques used in unarmored combat (particularly the thrusing and grappling) can be applied to armored combat (as they are on horseback).

The use of the sword, in the era of plate, is an interesting subject for debate. When you consider the nature of life and warfare in the time period, however, things start to make more sense. Single-handed swords will not penetrate plate. So why did people continue to use them? I've touched on some possible reasons above. Consider also possibilities outside of the realm of the pitched battle.

A pole-arm, particularly one of the shortened polearms (5'-6' long) would seem to be a better bet for an armored man afoot. But that same weapon will be useless to the mounted combatant. How useful would that weapon be in an unarmored (civilian) context? Depends on your point of view. For my part, I see unarmored hands grasping high up on the shaft that beg for a simple stroke of the sword. If the polearm user keeps his hands far down the grip, then he is using a blunt and very heavy sword. Since a medieval noble probably spent 99% of his life unarmored the sword would be a better overall choice of weapon in general, if not specifically in battle. So why use it in battle? Well, that's the weapon they would have been most familiar with, and it wasn't completely useless. So why not?

Just for the record, I've always considered plate pretty much proof myself -- as a matter of fact, I just wrote an article mentioning that fact -- but I was looking over Froissart again and realized how many people were weilding one-handed swords. Of course, in several cases, itis apparent that the weapons are being depicted as being shorter than actual size. I think someof those one^handed swrods may be longswords.

You are right that charges with sword and shield generally seem to be lighter armoured troops charging archers (who in turn seem to be focussing their energies on lighter armoured troops).

------------------
The defining characteristic of fanaticism is the inability to understand why everyone else is not a fanatic.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Froissart did his work on the mid-late 15th century but is depicting the 100 years war . So it is 14th century history done with 15th century art.</font>

Possibly there's some confusion between the writer and the illustrating artist. Froissart lived from the 1330's to the first decade of the 1400's. His famous Chronicles were begun in the 1360's and revised during the rest of his life; he was describing events from his own lifetime, many of which he witnessed.

You don't often read about members of the nobility killing each other outright; maybe they were more interested in ransom. On the other hand, a one-handed sword works fine for opening up some unarmoured peasant.