How different is Knightly sword combat compared to modern fencing?
Louis
sabre). I was wondering how close or different the sport of modern
fencing is to knightly sword combat.
I believe modern fencing is primarily based on the French style.
Where the swordsman always squares up (faces) his opponent and only
takes forward/backward steps. The swordsman mainly uses parries and
thrusts. Rarely employing cuts or circular movements.
Knights, I believe, employed a heavy straight "broadsword". Watching
the movies. Knights either (a) charged like a bull and employed giant
cuts (b) they performed ballet type moves and waved their swords as if
they were magic wands. I guess reality was somewhere in between.
Can anyone provide more details? TIA.
William Black
"Louis" <louisdu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:55756e6d.04082...@posting.google.com...
> Watched the Olympics fencing. I had taken fencing in school (foil and
> sabre). I was wondering how close or different the sport of modern
> fencing is to knightly sword combat.
Completely unconnected.
The modern sport of fencing is descended from formal duelling with the
smallsword, that itself descends from the rapier. The rapier was a
revolutionary form of weapon never designed as a war fighting weapon.
The knight's 'broadsword' (the term encompasses a huge range of weapons
across five hundred years of development) is primarily a war fighting weapon
and badge of status. In theory the modern sporting sabre derives from this
family of weapons, but in reality it doesn't for a variety of reasons
relating to how the rules for sport fencing are managed.
--
William Black
------------------
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(William Black) wrote:
> The rapier was a
> revolutionary form of weapon never designed as a war fighting
> weapon.
Well in most cases armoured knights would not use swords at all,
especially in the later period with plate armour. The preferred
weapons seem to have been pole arms and concussion ones. Even in the
earlier period hand and a half (bastard sword) or two handed swords
seem to have been commoner.
As you point out the small sword and or rapier would never be carried
by an armoured knight. This sort of sword was worn when in 'civilian'
clothes. Early rapiers were comparatively heavy and therefore slow, as
a result the fighting style associated with them was sword and dagger
with the combatants more or less square. As the rapier got lighter the
dagger or main gauche was dropped. However while epee is closest to
the old duelling tradition, fencing and sabre are highly stylised with
limited target areas, none come that close. Smallswords had an edge as
well as a point.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion
Arkadiusz Bugaj
Użytkownik <ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk> napisał w wiadomości
news:cgv0q9$kbb$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk...
> In article <cgsatd$39c$1...@news.freedom2surf.net>, ab...@hotmail.com
> (William Black) wrote:
>
> > The rapier was a
> > revolutionary form of weapon never designed as a war fighting
> > weapon.
>
> Well in most cases armoured knights would not use swords at all,
> especially in the later period with plate armour. The preferred
> weapons seem to have been pole arms and concussion ones. Even in the
> earlier period hand and a half (bastard sword) or two handed swords
> seem to have been commoner.
Medieval swords changed significantly during medieval ages. Earlier when
mail
armour (in Poland X-XIII century) was common they were shorter with wider
blade and not that sharp, most
often triangular ending. They were used as a head weapon crushing bones
rather than cutting flesh. After introducing plate armour and when its
popularity grew more new kind of swords were introduced. These included
types you have mentioned: hand and a half two handed sword, but even one
handed swords had narrower and longer blades with sharp ending. Similarly
to later and even lighter estocs they were used for piercing plate
armour (cuirass) rater than for cutting, although it seems that
they were too employed as cutting/crushing weapon. Of course taking into
consideration significant weight of all medieval swords fencing techniques
were very limited, especially in case of those piercing swords. It looks
like a weight and force were factors that counted, plus, I think, some dose
of shrewdness of a fighter
Cheers
Arkadiusz Bugaj
Kel Rekuta
Arkadiusz Bugaj wrote:
>
> Medieval swords changed significantly during medieval ages. Earlier when
> mail
> armour (in Poland X-XIII century) was common they were shorter with wider
> blade and not that sharp, most
> often triangular ending. They were used as a head weapon crushing bones
> rather than cutting flesh. After introducing plate armour and when its
> popularity grew more new kind of swords were introduced. These included
> types you have mentioned: hand and a half two handed sword, but even one
> handed swords had narrower and longer blades with sharp ending. Similarly
> to later and even lighter estocs they were used for piercing plate
> armour (cuirass) rater than for cutting, although it seems that
> they were too employed as cutting/crushing weapon.
And so the misinformation continues. Steeply pointed stiff blades became
popular to exploit the joints of plate armour where plate articulation
and secondary mail defenses could be breached. In addition, less than
ten percent of combatants on the field had significant plate harness,
especially in the 14th and 15thC when such harness was most common.
Do a web search on Fiore dei Liberi, Sigmund Ringeck, Johannes
Liechtenauer, Peter VonDanzig or Hans Talhoffer. You might learn that
western European martial arts weren't all about hacking and bashing like
in the movies.
Of course taking into
> consideration significant weight of all medieval swords fencing techniques
> were very limited, especially in case of those piercing swords.
Ugh. Medieval swords, on average, were no heavier than their ancient
counterparts or for that matter early modern swords such as the
backsword and schiavona. Compare 6thC Saxon, 9thC Scandinavian, 14thC
arming swords and 17thC riding swords designed for use in one hand.
Although they are fanastically different in shape, balance and
construction, they all weigh between 1.5 and 3 lbs. Visit a museum and
read the cards beside the artifacts, or check out the Wallace catalogue.
Perhaps read Oakeshott's numerous books on swords. Get rid of the
outdated concepts about swords that you cling to. Really. :-(
It looks
> like a weight and force were factors that counted, plus, I think, some dose
> of shrewdness of a fighter
>
Or perhaps a lifetime of training in the profession of arms?
TTFN,
Kel Rekuta
Arkadiusz Bugaj
Arkadiusz Bugaj
Uzytkownik "Kel Rekuta" <kre...@sympatico.ca> napisal w wiadomosci
news:413FF028...@sympatico.ca...
>
>
. I'll chceck it
Cheers
Arkadiusz Bugaj
>
Alex
> Arkadiusz Bugaj wrote:
>
> >
> > Medieval swords changed significantly during medieval ages. Earlier when
> > armour (in Poland X-XIII century) was common they were shorter with wider
> > blade and not that sharp, most
> > often triangular ending. They were used as a head weapon crushing bones
> > rather than cutting flesh. After introducing plate armour and when its
> > popularity grew more new kind of swords were introduced. These included
> > types you have mentioned: hand and a half two handed sword, but even one
> > handed swords had narrower and longer blades with sharp ending. Similarly
> > to later and even lighter estocs they were used for piercing plate
> > armour (cuirass) rater than for cutting, although it seems that
> > they were too employed as cutting/crushing weapon.
>
> And so the misinformation continues. Steeply pointed stiff blades became
> popular to exploit the joints of plate armour where plate articulation
> and secondary mail defenses could be breached. In addition, less than
> ten percent of combatants on the field had significant plate harness,
> especially in the 14th and 15thC when such harness was most common.
BTW, IIRC, a type of a strictly piercing sword, "konchar" (sp) existed
in rather early medieval period in Central Asia. AFAK, plate armour was only
marginally popular in this area at this time: Mongolian armour sometimes is
referenced as "cuirass" but my understanding is that it was predominantly a
scale armour or combination of mail and metallic plate, not a western-style
"full plate".
> It looks
> > like a weight and force were factors that counted, plus, I think, some dose
> > of shrewdness of a fighter
> >
>
> Or perhaps a lifetime of training in the profession of arms?
>
IIRC, there were/are numerous manual-type engravings showing a rather
complicated technique of the fencing with the one- and two-hand swords
by the combatants in a full armour.
BTW, Bayard, who was one of the most renown fighters of early XVI, did not
(judging by his portrait) look like Arny so probably skill was more important
than a brutal force.
Arkadiusz Bugaj
Uzytkownik "Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:f8e58188.04090...@posting.google.com...
I don't know much about it but I remember reading about heavy Mongolian
cavalry. How heavy it was in comparison to western cavalry I cannot figure
out. Supposedly they used some plate armour elements (similar to a Teutonic
Knights' _platte_ armour?) or mail armour. I do know that estocs were
popular weapon among Turkish heavy cavalrymen sipahi and it seems that from
there they were accepted in Polish cavalry. It suggests that the Turks had
to fight with armoured enemy
, some dose
> > > of shrewdness of a fighter
> > >
> >
> > Or perhaps a lifetime of training in the profession of arms?
> >
> IIRC, there were/are numerous manual-type engravings showing a rather
> complicated technique of the fencing with the one- and two-hand swords
> by the combatants in a full armour.
Examples? And there always is a question of what word _complicated_ mean.
Its use can be subjective.
>
> BTW, Bayard, who was one of the most renown fighters of early XVI, did not
> (judging by his portrait) look like Arny so probably skill was more
important
> than a brutal force.
People of centuries ago are generally suppose to be stronger than
contemporary average man. Their life was far harder in categories of
physical load their bodies had to bear. They were generally shorter, more
stocky, but their muscles were more efficient than artificially pumped
today's mountains of muscles. All in all, they didn't aspire to theMister of
Universe but had to litteraly work hard to survive. Only few were
exceptions.
Cheers
Arkadiusz Bugaj
Alex
To start with the end,
AFAIK, the "konchar" piercing) type of a sword already existed in pre-Mongolian
Central Asia, which means (if I'm correct on this), not too much "plate" of
any type, mostly mail.
Regarding the Mongolian armour, the contemporary pictures routinely show
riders in the various types of scaled armour or mail (a lot of Chinese and
Central Asian equipment). However, some of the contemporary reports
give impression that they had been using some type of the cuirasses as well.
It quite easily can be a scaled armour.
Taking into an account that there was not too many "full" plate around in
the early XIII, the Mongolian heavy cavalry was probably quite comparable
in heaviness with their Western counterparts: horses in leather or metall
armour and riders in an armour.
>Supposedly they used some plate armour elements (similar to a Teutonic
> Knights' _platte_ armour?) or mail armour.
I strongly suspect that this changed over the ages.
I do know that estocs were
> popular weapon among Turkish heavy cavalrymen sipahi and it seems that from
> there they were accepted in Polish cavalry. It suggests that the Turks had
> to fight with armoured enemy
Of course, they did: Serbs, Bizantians, Hungarians, Poles, Germans, etc.
>
>
> , some dose
> > > > of shrewdness of a fighter
> > > >
> > >
> > > Or perhaps a lifetime of training in the profession of arms?
> > >
> > IIRC, there were/are numerous manual-type engravings showing a rather
> > complicated technique of the fencing with the one- and two-hand swords
> > by the combatants in a full armour.
>
> Examples? And there always is a question of what word _complicated_ mean.
> Its use can be subjective.
>
It is, indeed, subjective. Let's say as "more complicated than simply
kicking each other on the heads"
> >
> > BTW, Bayard, who was one of the most renown fighters of early XVI, did not
> > (judging by his portrait) look like Arny so probably skill was more
> important
> > than a brutal force.
>
> People of centuries ago are generally suppose to be stronger than
> contemporary average man. Their life was far harder in categories of
> physical load their bodies had to bear. They were generally shorter, more
> stocky, but their muscles were more efficient than artificially pumped
> today's mountains of muscles. All in all, they didn't aspire to theMister of
> Universe but had to litteraly work hard to survive. Only few were
> exceptions.
Well, Bayard and the people of his social group did not have to "work hard"
to survive, unless you mean "fight hard". Bayard's _skill_ with the
different types of a weaponry (as opposite to a brutal force) was widely
known (IIRC, Guizot wrote a lot on this subject in his history of France).
And B's portrait I mentioned, shows a rather frail person (by the standards
of his time).
Arkadiusz Bugaj
> "Arkadiusz Bugaj" <arca...@gazeta.pl> wrote in message
news:<chqj39$mui$1...@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>...
> > Uzytkownik "Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
<snip >
>
> To start with the end,
> AFAIK, the "konchar" piercing) type of a sword already existed in
pre-Mongolian
> Central Asia, which means (if I'm correct on this), not too much "plate"
of
> any type, mostly mail.
> Regarding the Mongolian armour, the contemporary pictures routinely show
> riders in the various types of scaled armour or mail (a lot of Chinese and
> Central Asian equipment). However, some of the contemporary reports
> give impression that they had been using some type of the cuirasses as
well.
> It quite easily can be a scaled armour.
> Taking into an account that there was not too many "full" plate around in
> the early XIII, the Mongolian heavy cavalry was probably quite comparable
> in heaviness with their Western counterparts: horses in leather or metall
> armour and riders in an armour.
I think it had to be relatively lighter as written sources emphasize
excellent maneauverability of Mongolian cavalry. Second premise for this
assumption is that
eastern horses are shorter and smaller than those used by the Europeans. May
be there are some races of bigger Asiatic horses but I don't know about any
of such kind of horses.
>
>
> >Supposedly they used some plate armour elements (similar to a Teutonic
> > Knights' _platte_ armour?) or mail armour.
>
> I strongly suspect that this changed over the ages.
>
> I do know that estocs were
> > popular weapon among Turkish heavy cavalrymen sipahi and it seems that
from
> > there they were accepted in Polish cavalry. It suggests that the Turks
had
> > to fight with armoured enemy
> Of course, they did: Serbs, Bizantians, Hungarians, Poles, Germans, etc.
> >
> > , some dose
> > > > > of shrewdness of a fighter
> > > >
> > > > Or perhaps a lifetime of training in the profession of arms?
> > > >
> > > IIRC, there were/are numerous manual-type engravings showing a rather
> > > complicated technique of the fencing with the one- and two-hand swords
> > > by the combatants in a full armour.
> >
> > Examples? And there always is a question of what word _complicated_
mean.
> > Its use can be subjective.
> >
>
> It is, indeed, subjective. Let's say as "more complicated than simply
> kicking each other on the heads"
Could you quote a source of reference for this?
I still think that those techniques must have been limited by weight of
swords. They had to emphasise balancing of body techniques mote than manual
operations.
> > > BTW, Bayard, who was one of the most renown fighters of early XVI, did
not
> > > (judging by his portrait) look like Arny so probably skill was more
> > important
> > > than a brutal force.
> >
> > People of centuries ago are generally suppose to be stronger than
> > contemporary average man. Their life was far harder in categories of
> > physical load their bodies had to bear. They were generally shorter,
more
> > stocky, but their muscles were more efficient than artificially pumped
> > today's mountains of muscles. All in all, they didn't aspire to
theMister of
> > Universe but had to litteraly work hard to survive. Only few were
> > exceptions.
>
> Well, Bayard and the people of his social group did not have to "work
hard"
> to survive, unless you mean "fight hard". Bayard's _skill_ with the
> different types of a weaponry (as opposite to a brutal force) was widely
> known (IIRC, Guizot wrote a lot on this subject in his history of France).
> And B's portrait I mentioned, shows a rather frail person (by the
standards
> of his time).
Using a word (although I didn't use it) "work" in this context one didn't
have to have in mind a classical meaning of
the word. I simply wanted to point out that life a few hundreds years ago
without
modern inventions demanded more physical effort even from people living in a
realtive luxury, unless they were sybarytic monarchs the kind of some
eastern moslem rulers. You mentioned that Bayard was well trained in use of
different kinds of weaponry. It was honourable activity to exercise use of
weaponry but it was BTW a hard physical training. Think also about
communication. How many hours of their life those people spent in a saddle
just moving around etc.
Alex
> > "Arkadiusz Bugaj" <arca...@gazeta.pl> wrote in message
> news:<chqj39$mui$1...@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>...
> > > Uzytkownik "Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
> <snip >
> >
> > To start with the end,
> > AFAIK, the "konchar" piercing) type of a sword already existed in
> pre-Mongolian
> > Central Asia, which means (if I'm correct on this), not too much "plate"
> of
> > any type, mostly mail.
> > Regarding the Mongolian armour, the contemporary pictures routinely show
> > riders in the various types of scaled armour or mail (a lot of Chinese and
> > Central Asian equipment). However, some of the contemporary reports
> > give impression that they had been using some type of the cuirasses as
> well.
> > It quite easily can be a scaled armour.
> > Taking into an account that there was not too many "full" plate around in
> > the early XIII, the Mongolian heavy cavalry was probably quite comparable
> > in heaviness with their Western counterparts: horses in leather or metall
> > armour and riders in an armour.
>
> I think it had to be relatively lighter
Can you, please, provide your definition of "light/heavy"? I'm not
sure
that we are talking about the same things.
>as written sources emphasize
> excellent maneauverability of Mongolian cavalry.
Does this mean that inability to maneuver is one of the definite
qualifications
of <whatever passes for> a "heavy" cavalry? I thought this this mostly
describes a level of organization and training.
AFAIK, all types of a cavalry in the army of Friederich the Great
could maneuver quite well. OTOH, Russian feudal militia of XVII hardly
could
maneuver at all, regardless its "lightness or heaviness".
Closer to the subject, the Mongolian cavalry of XIII had a level of
training
(arguably) considerably higher than what was typical for it western
and
eastern opponents. As a result, it is not a big surprise that they had
a
much higher ability to maneuver. Qualifications of the "born horsemen"
were of only limited importance because quite a few of their opponents
had
the same background. Neither were "western" nomads, like Polovtsy
(Kipchaks)
serious opponents for their settled neighbours (besides purely looting
capacity). The same Kipchaks, with Mongolian leadership and training
became
(as "Tatars") a major regional military factor and remained as such
for
few centuries.
> Second premise for this
> assumption is that
> eastern horses are shorter and smaller than those used by the Europeans.
Well, AFAIK, Russian army had problems with getting the big horses
until
second half of XVIII. Does it automatically qualify ALL their cavalry
of
the late XVII - early XVIII as a "light" one?
Heavy cavalry of the european armies of the late XVIII-XIX tended to
have
bigger horses but it also was (or at least supossed to be) somewhat
different in tactical training, deployment, etc.
In other words, is size of a horse the _only_ factor in determining
"lightness"
or "heaviness" of a cavalry?
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
am...@hotmail.com (Alex) wrote:
> In other words, is size of a horse the _only_ factor in determining
> "lightness" or "heaviness" of a cavalry?
As an ex-wargamer, I find it is easier to define light cavalry. I.E.
cavalry whose main function is to skirmish, preferably with missile
weapons. Heavy and Medium cavalry were expected to get in close and
personal. Unfortunately this comparatively neat definition falls apart
between the introduction of the wheel lock and Gustavus. During that
period all cavalry has been described as relying on what was described
as the "ponderous" caracole, which actually bears a resemblance to
formations used by javelin cavalry.
By WW1 cavalry were expected to act both as shock troops and
dismounted infantry. WW1 cavalry units usually had a MG section.
Lance use was very different from the medieval period for the 18th
century and later. Without armour the couched lance was no longer
used, in fact lance pennons were intended to stop lances penetrating
deeply.
Yusuf B Gursey
: "Arkadiusz Bugaj" <arca...@gazeta.pl> wrote in message news:<chvbmn$37v$1...@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>...
:> > "Arkadiusz Bugaj" <arca...@gazeta.pl> wrote in message
:> news:<chqj39$mui$1...@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>...
:> > > Uzytkownik "Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
:> <snip >
:> >
:> > To start with the end,
:> > AFAIK, the "konchar" piercing) type of a sword already existed in
:> pre-Mongolian
:> > Central Asia, which means (if I'm correct on this), not too much "plate"
:> of
:> > any type, mostly mail.
:> > Regarding the Mongolian armour, the contemporary pictures routinely show
:> > riders in the various types of scaled armour or mail (a lot of Chinese and
:> > Central Asian equipment). However, some of the contemporary reports
mail armour is old amongst Turks etc.
both the Tu"rk and the Danube-Bulghars (if Pritsak's linguistic
reconstruction is correct) had the same word for it - ku"pe .
essentially it denoted a type of ring and in turkish it has now
become "earring".
also a cognate word for "helmet". the Chinese thought that the ethnonym
Tu"rk came from it because the mountains in their domains looked like
helmets. it is now better known in its mongolain form, tolga. in ottoman
turkish it came to be the name of the headgear of the Jannisaries.
:> > give impression that they had been using some type of the cuirasses as
Sheila J
>:> > give impression that they had been using some type of the cuirasses as
>:> well.
>:> > It quite easily can be a scaled armour.
>:> > Taking into an account that there was not too many "full" plate around
in
>:> > the early XIII, the Mongolian heavy cavalry was probably quite
comparable
>:> > in heaviness with their Western counterparts: horses in leather or
metall
>:> > armour and riders in an armour.
>:>
>:> I think it had to be relatively lighter
>
>: Can you, please, provide your definition of "light/heavy"? I'm not
>: sure
>: that we are talking about the same things.
>
>
>:>as written sources emphasize
>:> excellent maneauverability of Mongolian cavalry.
>
>: Does this mean that inability to maneuver is one of the definite
>: qualifications
>: of <whatever passes for> a "heavy" cavalry? I thought this this mostly
>: describes a level of organization and training.
I am thinking in the case of cavalry light vs heavy that there are a range
of attributes needed to define each, much the same way these terms are used
with application to the infantry.
In both the Canadian and British army, light infantry means to have the man
'lightly' equipped, and as a result, he can move quicker (I think the
standard was 180 paces per minute); cover more ground in a shorter period of
time, and as a consequence, be sent out for quick and brief 'recce' type
missions. He is also highly dependent on his logistic train as only so much
can be carried with him.
'Heavy' infantry (which has probably become obsolete to a certain extent)
is a soldier that has more substantial supplies and weaponry, but moves at a
much slower pace and cannot cover as much ground without running into
logistic issues.
Isn't the role of the cavalry to seek and close with the enemy and to defeat
him using firepower, mobility and protection? Again a combined
mentaility......
But, of course, EVERYONE knows that the armoured/cavalry corps was God's
idea of a joke......
In the beginning, there was chaos, and the chaos was the Infantry, the Queen
of Battle. However, the Queen was alone. And fear was with the Infantry, so
she cried out unto the Lord saying, "Lord, save us for we are afraid!"
And the Lord heard her grunts and set some of the Infantry on beasts of
burden, and these He called Cavalry, and the Cavalry became Armour. And when
the Lord saw what He had done, He laughed saying, "Well, you can't win them
all!"
As time passed, the Infantry and the Armour again cried out unto the Lord
saying, "Lord, save us, for we are afraid." The Lord heard their cries and
decided to end their weeping.
The Lord said unto them, "I shall send unto you a race of men noble in heart
and spirit." And the Lord created the Field Artillery, and named them the
King of Battle. And the Lord said unto the Infantry and the Armour, "When it
is dark, the King shall light your way. And when you need smoke, there shall
be smoke, and when you need it to rain down death and destruction upon the
enemy, you shall have it."
And the Lord gave the King big guns and big bullets. And the Infantry and
the Armour were jealous, for they had none. And the Lord gave the Field
Artillery rockets and missiles and nukes. And when the Infantry and the
Armour saw this, they fell to their knees in awesome wonder, saying surely
the Lord is on the side of the Field Artillery, the King of Battle.
And the Lord said, "CHECK!"
And now abide Infantry, Armour and Artillery, but the greatest of these is
the FIELD ARTILLERY!
Alex
> In soc.history.medieval Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in <f8e58188.04091...@posting.google.com>:
> : "Arkadiusz Bugaj" <arca...@gazeta.pl> wrote in message news:<chvbmn$37v$1...@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>...
> :> > "Arkadiusz Bugaj" <arca...@gazeta.pl> wrote in message
> news:<chqj39$mui$1...@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>...
> :> > > Uzytkownik "Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
> <snip >
> :> >
> :> > To start with the end,
> :> > AFAIK, the "konchar" piercing) type of a sword already existed in
> pre-Mongolian
> :> > Central Asia, which means (if I'm correct on this), not too much "plate"
> of
> :> > any type, mostly mail.
> :> > Regarding the Mongolian armour, the contemporary pictures routinely show
> :> > riders in the various types of scaled armour or mail (a lot of Chinese and
> :> > Central Asian equipment). However, some of the contemporary reports
>
> mail armour is old amongst Turks etc.
>
> both the Tu"rk and the Danube-Bulghars (if Pritsak's linguistic
> reconstruction is correct) had the same word for it - ku"pe .
> essentially it denoted a type of ring and in turkish it has now
> become "earring".
>
Indeed. However, AFAIK, the Mongols were also using the "national"
scaled armour: metal or bone pieces fixed on the leather.
William Black
"Sheila J" <wols...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:dBC1d.428014$gE.182871@pd7tw3no...
> Isn't the role of the cavalry to seek and close with the enemy and to
defeat
> him using firepower, mobility and protection? Again a combined
> mentaility......
Horsed cavalry has essentially the same atributes as modern cavalry, but
some cavalry isn't armoured. then and now.
The primary function of 'light cavalry' is scouting and forraging, except
today modern armies don't forrage. Light cavalry doesn't usually have the
arms and equipment to engause anything but other light forces.
Heavy cavalry is armoured and is used for mobile fighting.
Medium cavalry does both tasks, neither terribly well...
To an extent form follows function, so heavy cavalry tends to be armoured
and heavily armed, which means that horsed heavy cavalry tends to have
loads of gear and rides big horses. Light cavalry tends to need fast horses
and carries just enough equipment to keep the locals in check and fight an
engagement against similar forces, or check a stronger force coming up.
The way they are organised and ride in formation tends to define cavalry
type rather than any look or equipment scale.
Modem light cavalry tends to run around in either soft skins mounting
machine guns and wire guides or teeny weenie tanks made of aluminium. The
US Army does not, as a matter of doctrine, have any light cavalry. It
uses tanks for everything... The British army has a number of light cavalry
regiments who have a range of specially designed vehicles and people like
the HAC and other light recce forces who roar around in special V8 powered
Land Rovers...
Alex
> In article <f8e58188.04091...@posting.google.com>,
> am...@hotmail.com (Alex) wrote:
>
> > In other words, is size of a horse the _only_ factor in determining
> > "lightness" or "heaviness" of a cavalry?
>
> As an ex-wargamer, I find it is easier to define light cavalry. I.E.
> cavalry whose main function is to skirmish, preferably with missile
> weapons. Heavy and Medium cavalry were expected to get in close and
> personal. Unfortunately this comparatively neat definition falls apart
> between the introduction of the wheel lock and Gustavus.
Actually, this definition falls apart when you are trying to apply it to
the Mongols: they were BOTH skirmishing AND "getting close" cavalry
put together. To make things even more confusing, they had the armoured
(both people and horses) units which were doing both functions.
>During that
> period all cavalry has been described as relying on what was described
> as the "ponderous" caracole, which actually bears a resemblance to
> formations used by javelin cavalry.
Well, during this period you can find the cavalry units attacking with
sword in hand (Poles and even Russians, with quite different quality),
which were not necessarily "heavier" than their Western contemporaries.
BTW, I'm not sure that the French "national cavalry" of this period
(high percentage of a nobility as opposite to the professional
raiters) always prefered caracole to a direct attack.
a.spencer3
:-))
But, Lo, the Lord sayeth 'Give them wings' .......................
Surreyman
a.spencer3
Surreyman
Alex
> "Sheila J" <wols...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:dBC1d.428014$gE.182871@pd7tw3no...
>
>
> > Isn't the role of the cavalry to seek and close with the enemy and to
> defeat
> > him using firepower, mobility and protection? Again a combined
> > mentaility......
>
> Horsed cavalry
As opposed to unhorsed one? :-)
>has essentially the same atributes as modern cavalry,
You mean to participate in the official ceremonies and to guard places
of no interest besides a purely historic one? Those are "attributes" of
a modern cavalry (or at least of the cavalry units that exist now).
> but
> some cavalry isn't armoured. then and now.
But some is. In UK and France.
>
> The primary function of 'light cavalry' is scouting and forraging,
You have to define army and time because most of the time and in most of
the places what passed (in western understanding) as a 'light cavalry'
was also doing most/all of the fighting due to an absense of any other
cavalry and often due to an absense of an infantry.
> today modern armies don't forrage.
And except that today's modern armies don't use cavalry in the wars.
A motorized unit called "hussars" or even "cavalry" by the historical reasons
is not a real cavalry.
> Light cavalry doesn't usually have the
> arms and equipment to engause anything but other light forces.
>
Errrr..... David Read recently brought a number of quotations about
the Cossacks in 1812-14 that are in a contradiction with what you
wrote.
You are more than welcomed to point out which pieces "of arms and equipment"
did not allow hussars and lancers to attack the troops that would not
qualify as "light forces" and how such attacks actually did not happen. :-)
> Heavy cavalry is armoured and is used for mobile fighting.
>
Sorry, but was there "immobile" fighting? :-)
Do I understand you correctly: an armoured cavalry capable of fighting
hand to hand is a "heavy" one? "Armoured" means strictly cuirasses or
any type of a protective armour?
> Medium cavalry does both tasks, neither terribly well...
>
> To an extent form follows function, so heavy cavalry tends to be armoured
> and heavily armed, which means that horsed heavy cavalry tends to have
> loads of gear and rides big horses.
Let's see. A typical cuirassir of XIX century had pistols, sword, probably
carbin. What is a rest of his "gear"? a cuirass?
>Light cavalry tends to need fast horses
> and carries just enough equipment to keep the locals in check
A lancer would have a lance, sword, pistols. A hussar would have sword,
pistols and often carbin. A cossack would have a lance, carbin, pistols
and a sword. Not too much difference in a "gear" comparing
to a cuirassir. Sometimes, even more weaponry.
Alex
Beautiful. What about a heavily eqipped (protective armour on people and
horses, lance, sword, couple bows, some extra equipment) cavalry that could
move fast?
> Isn't the role of the cavalry to seek and close with the enemy and to defeat
> him using firepower,
Sorry, which century and which geographic area are you talking about?
Surely, the medieval knights did not posess any noticeable firepower.
> mobility
... and regarding mobility, they were not the fastest guys on a block.
>and protection?
Does it mean that a cavalry without "protection" can' fight?
>Again a combined
> mentaility......
Or completely disjointed from an issue in question... :-)
>
> But, of course, EVERYONE knows that the armoured/cavalry corps was God's
> idea of a joke......
AFAIK, quite a few people considered Mongolian armoured cavalry as Devil's
not God's creation and very few considered it a joke... :-(
Paul J Gans
>"Sheila J" <wols...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>news:dBC1d.428014$gE.182871@pd7tw3no...
>> Isn't the role of the cavalry to seek and close with the enemy and to
>defeat
>> him using firepower, mobility and protection? Again a combined
>> mentaility......
>Horsed cavalry has essentially the same atributes as modern cavalry, but
>some cavalry isn't armoured. then and now.
>The primary function of 'light cavalry' is scouting and forraging, except
>today modern armies don't forrage. Light cavalry doesn't usually have the
>arms and equipment to engause anything but other light forces.
Sure. But in the Middle Ages.....
I don't think that we have any record of a distinction being
made among kinds of cavalry. We do have records indicating
that foragers were out with cavalry protection, etc., but sadly
no more detailed information.
Actually, my suspicion is that the same individuals could
act in a number of different capacities. It wasn't fun wearing
full armor (and worse once plate came in). So unless there was
real need, cavalry was only lightly armored or not armored at
all (often on the march).
>Heavy cavalry is armoured and is used for mobile fighting.
>Medium cavalry does both tasks, neither terribly well...
>To an extent form follows function, so heavy cavalry tends to be armoured
>and heavily armed, which means that horsed heavy cavalry tends to have
>loads of gear and rides big horses. Light cavalry tends to need fast horses
>and carries just enough equipment to keep the locals in check and fight an
>engagement against similar forces, or check a stronger force coming up.
Well, this applies to the Middle Ages as well. One of their major
problems was a certain hidebound negativity to new ideas. That
persisted for a long time. Think of what might have happened
if the British squares had *not* stood there against Napoleonic
cannonading. What if they'd been trained to lie down in position
or at least crouch. No danger of cavalry attack since that could
be seen in enough time to stand up and check formation.
But no, they stood there and took casualties.
The idea was known. If I recall correctly Wellington sheltered
reserve troops behind the brow of a hill at Waterloo. But I was
young then and my memory might be imperfect.
>The way they are organised and ride in formation tends to define cavalry
>type rather than any look or equipment scale.
>Modem light cavalry tends to run around in either soft skins mounting
>machine guns and wire guides or teeny weenie tanks made of aluminium. The
>US Army does not, as a matter of doctrine, have any light cavalry. It
>uses tanks for everything... The British army has a number of light cavalry
>regiments who have a range of specially designed vehicles and people like
>the HAC and other light recce forces who roar around in special V8 powered
>Land Rovers...
----- Paul J. Gans
David Read
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ci8e05$gfo$4...@reader1.panix.com...
>
> Sure. But in the Middle Ages.....
>
> I don't think that we have any record of a distinction being
> made among kinds of cavalry.
Yes we do.
> We do have records indicating
> that foragers were out with cavalry protection, etc., but sadly
> no more detailed information.
Yes there is.
>
> Actually, my suspicion is that the same individuals could
> act in a number of different capacities. It wasn't fun wearing
> full armor (and worse once plate came in). So unless there was
> real need, cavalry was only lightly armored or not armored at
> all (often on the march).
That too.
>
> Well, this applies to the Middle Ages as well. One of their major
> problems was a certain hidebound negativity to new ideas. That
> persisted for a long time. Think of what might have happened
> if the British squares had *not* stood there against Napoleonic
> cannonading. What if they'd been trained to lie down in position
> or at least crouch. No danger of cavalry attack since that could
> be seen in enough time to stand up and check formation.
>
> But no, they stood there and took casualties.
No, they often did lie down when being cannonaded.
>
> The idea was known. If I recall correctly Wellington sheltered
> reserve troops behind the brow of a hill at Waterloo. But I was
> young then and my memory might be imperfect.
And where possible, front line units did retire behind the ridge during
sustained periods of artillery bombardment.
--
cheers,
David Read
a.spencer3
"David Read" <davi...@dreadful.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ci8itb$hfb$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
Well, my memory is going, too! :-))
But I thought Wellington's infantry was always behind the ridge until
revealed - not only as protection but also for surprise. They didn't
'retire'. Not reserves, but the main army.
It was the French cavalry coming upon those squares that was at least one of
the turning points.
Surreyman
C A Candy
Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
>Sure. But in the Middle Ages.....
>
>I don't think that we have any record of a distinction being
>made among kinds of cavalry. We do have records indicating
>that foragers were out with cavalry protection, etc., but sadly
>no more detailed information.
Sorry, Paul, but there are, at several different instances, particularly
in England. By the 14th century, definite distinctions were being made
(in England) both in terms of equipment and pay for men at arm (standard
knight-types) and hobelars, light horsemen with much less armour and
heavy equipment. The differences were enough that wardrobe books usually
grouped the hobelars in with foot soldiers rather than with the other
cavalry, though that is a reflection of class status as much as functional
differences.
Cheers,
Chris
------------------
Christopher Candy
Department(s) of History
University of Durham
Virginia Commonwealth University
Randolph-Macon College
C.A....@durham.ac.uk
Paul J Gans
>In article <ci8e05$gfo$4...@reader1.panix.com>,
>Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
>>Sure. But in the Middle Ages.....
>>
>>I don't think that we have any record of a distinction being
>>made among kinds of cavalry. We do have records indicating
>>that foragers were out with cavalry protection, etc., but sadly
>>no more detailed information.
>Sorry, Paul, but there are, at several different instances, particularly
>in England. By the 14th century, definite distinctions were being made
>(in England) both in terms of equipment and pay for men at arm (standard
>knight-types) and hobelars, light horsemen with much less armour and
>heavy equipment. The differences were enough that wardrobe books usually
>grouped the hobelars in with foot soldiers rather than with the other
>cavalry, though that is a reflection of class status as much as functional
>differences.
>Cheers,
>Chris
I stand corrected on that point. Indeed, I should have known
better.
---- Paul J. Gans
William Black
"Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f8e58188.04091...@posting.google.com...
> "William Black" <ab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<ci6u9r$af8$1...@news.freedom2surf.net>...
> > "Sheila J" <wols...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> > news:dBC1d.428014$gE.182871@pd7tw3no...
> >
> >
> > > Isn't the role of the cavalry to seek and close with the enemy and to
> > defeat
> > > him using firepower, mobility and protection? Again a combined
> > > mentaility......
> >
> > Horsed cavalry
>
> As opposed to unhorsed one? :-)
Modern English usage for 'cavalry' means mechanised or motorised military
elements equipped to fight while in their vehicles..
Alex
> In article <ci8e05$gfo$4...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >Sure. But in the Middle Ages.....
> >
> >I don't think that we have any record of a distinction being
> >made among kinds of cavalry. We do have records indicating
> >that foragers were out with cavalry protection, etc., but sadly
> >no more detailed information.
>
> Sorry, Paul, but there are, at several different instances, particularly
> in England. By the 14th century, definite distinctions were being made
> (in England) both in terms of equipment and pay for men at arm (standard
> knight-types) and hobelars, light horsemen with much less armour and
> heavy equipment. The differences were enough that wardrobe books usually
> grouped the hobelars in with foot soldiers rather than with the other
> cavalry, though that is a reflection of class status as much as functional
> differences.
>
AFAIK, the countries bordering with the "east" (for a lack of a better
definition) often had special light cavalry troops. Either foreign mercenaries
or the local border people if available. Friederich II cultivated his
"Saracen" cavalrymen, Venetians often had the light troops recruited on the
Balkans, etc.
This, of course, happened mostly outside BT and, as such, did not REALLY
exist. :-)
C A Candy
Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>AFAIK, the countries bordering with the "east" (for a lack of a better
>definition) often had special light cavalry troops. Either foreign mercenaries
>or the local border people if available. Friederich II cultivated his
>"Saracen" cavalrymen, Venetians often had the light troops recruited on the
>Balkans, etc.
>This, of course, happened mostly outside BT and, as such, did not REALLY
>exist. :-)
*grin* I know that, but wanted to point out that even within the BT and
the 'classic' medieval model most people are most familiar with, the
differences were there.
Michael Kuettner
"William Black" <ab...@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:ci9tad$5ef$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
> "Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f8e58188.04091...@posting.google.com...
> > "William Black" <ab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<ci6u9r$af8$1...@news.freedom2surf.net>...
> > > "Sheila J" <wols...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> > > news:dBC1d.428014$gE.182871@pd7tw3no...
> > >
> > >
> > > > Isn't the role of the cavalry to seek and close with the enemy and
to
> > > defeat
> > > > him using firepower, mobility and protection? Again a combined
> > > > mentaility......
> > >
> > > Horsed cavalry
> >
> > As opposed to unhorsed one? :-)
>
> Modern English usage for 'cavalry' means mechanised or motorised military
> elements equipped to fight while in their vehicles..
>
Cheers,
Michael "Hippo moi ennepe, mousa" Kuettner
Michael Kuettner
"David Read" <davi...@dreadful.fsnet.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:ci8itb$hfb$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:ci8e05$gfo$4...@reader1.panix.com...
> >
> > Sure. But in the Middle Ages.....
> >
> > I don't think that we have any record of a distinction being
> > made among kinds of cavalry.
>
> Yes we do.
>
Could you be a little more precise, please ?
Has C.A.Candy summed up the answer to my question ?
Cite :
"
Sorry, Paul, but there are, at several different instances, particularly
in England. By the 14th century, definite distinctions were being made
(in England) both in terms of equipment and pay for men at arm (standard
knight-types) and hobelars, light horsemen with much less armour and
heavy equipment. The differences were enough that wardrobe books usually
grouped the hobelars in with foot soldiers rather than with the other
cavalry, though that is a reflection of class status as much as functional
differences.
"
Or do you have more ?
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
PS : How were the Byzantinian Kataphractoi regarded in their times ?
Was there a difference between light and heavy cavalry in Byzantinian
times ?
David Read
"a.spencer3" <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:iCT1d.37$fg4...@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>
> But I thought Wellington's infantry was always behind the ridge until
> revealed - not only as protection but also for surprise. They didn't
> 'retire'. Not reserves, but the main army.
> It was the French cavalry coming upon those squares that was at least one
of
> the turning points.
Not always. In any case, the "typical" Wellingtonian defensive tactics of
concealing one's forces behind a ridge were not static. At Waterloo, for
instance, we find brigades advancing and retiring during the course of the
battle. Units moved forward from their sheltered positions behind the ridge
to engage the advancing enemy infantry once the enemy had masked their own
artillery which had thus been forced to cease fire, That way, the advantage
of the high ground was not surrendered to the enemy, the British leveled
their muskets, fired one or more volleys, then charged. The charge was meant
to be closely controlled, so that the troops would not advance too far and
risk counter-attack from enemty reserves, and, if necessary, as was
frequently recorded in memoirs, letters, etc., the infantry would then
retire whence they came when they were once more came under sustained
artillery bombardment. Almost needless to say, the effective use of
combined arms could make such retirements both dangerous and difficult, so
that during the course of battle some units were exposed for longer periods
than others to heavy artillery fire. Where any given unit was during a
cavalry attack largely depended upon how closely the enemy infantry were
supported by cavalry in its particular sector of the battlefield.
--
cheers,
David Read
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Kuettner) wrote:
> PS : How were the Byzantinian Kataphractoi regarded in their times ?
> Was there a difference between light and heavy cavalry in
> Byzantinian times ?
Yes but the majority of light cavalry were hired steppe nomads. Huns
to start with then Pechenegs. Byzantine light cavalry did exist, but
the heavies seem to have predominated.
Alex
These Brits are too tricky for a simply Johnny the Foreigner to understand...
David Read
>
> "David Read" <davi...@dreadful.fsnet.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:ci8itb$hfb$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > "Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
> > news:ci8e05$gfo$4...@reader1.panix.com...
> > >
> > > Sure. But in the Middle Ages.....
> > >
> > > I don't think that we have any record of a distinction being
> > > made among kinds of cavalry.
> >
> > Yes we do.
> >
> <snip>
> Could you be a little more precise, please ?
>
> Has C.A.Candy summed up the answer to my question ?
> Cite :
> "
> Sorry, Paul, but there are, at several different instances, particularly
> in England. By the 14th century, definite distinctions were being made
> (in England) both in terms of equipment and pay for men at arm (standard
> knight-types) and hobelars, light horsemen with much less armour and
> heavy equipment. The differences were enough that wardrobe books usually
> grouped the hobelars in with foot soldiers rather than with the other
> cavalry, though that is a reflection of class status as much as functional
> differences.
> "
>
> Or do you have more ?
Hobilars are the obvious example from England, but there are others. For
example, Irish skirmishing light cavalry are well-attested, even being
recorded and described by foreign chroniclers in English service during the
Hundred Years War. But particularly, where kingdoms of western Christendom
had as close neighbours Islamic states, which themselves employed a wide
variety of cavalry types, light and heavy, then those Christian states also
imitated or reflected such practices. Christian Spain is a good case in
point where skirmishing light cavalry, such as the javelin-armed jinetes,
were common in the armies of the Christian states. Likewise in eastern
Christendom, where those states bordered Islamic states generally, and the
light-horse military cultures of the western steppes in particular, light
cavalry were to be found in some numbers.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Michael Kuettner
>
> PS : How were the Byzantinian Kataphractoi regarded in their times ?
> Was there a difference between light and heavy cavalry in Byzantinian
> times ?
While kataphraktoi, of whatever flavour, were the commnest native cavalry
tpe of the Byzantine Empire for much of its existence, lighter native
cavalry could also be found, such as trapezetoi.
It's all relative.
--
cheers,
David Read
Michael Kuettner
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner