I am under the impression that you give much importance to the swords, which I believe were not a primary weapon in those times, nor they decided the result of the battles. I also think cavaly and infantry used more the lance in this period. Also, you have to take on account that tulwars or shamshir were used in combination with shields, and fencing was not made mainly as among 19th Century european troops, or as in a civil fight with rapiers. I don´t believe a classic rapier is capable to stop heavy weapons without been seriousy damaged.
Regards

Gonzalo

Lances, classic swords, two handed swords (montantes), rapiers and even halberds, according to chronicles; each one was a primary weapon ,depending on the circumstances.


Correct.


I guess the concept of troops was rather distinct in earlier days :confused: .
I may be mixing things, but it seems as combat fencing (manouverable sword and rapier) was schooled among nobles, a lot much earlier than that :o .



I guess they wouldn't stop them with the rapier, but with their left hand dagger. Besides, warlike rapier blades were not so fragile as those from street fighting.

But don't hit me hard, Gonzalo; i wouldn't resist a serious test in the subject :eek:

Fernando

[QUOTE=Gonzalo G]I am under the impression that you give much importance to the swords, which I believe were not a primary weapon in those times, nor they decided the result of the battles. I also think cavaly and infantry used more the lance in this period. Also, you have to take on account that tulwars or shamshir were used in combination with shields, and fencing was not made mainly as among 19th Century european troops, or as in a civil fight with rapiers. I don´t believe a classic rapier is capable to stop heavy weapons without been seriousy damaged.
Regards

Gonzalo[/QUOTE


I think that the lance was indeed a key weapon in European vs. European warfare, and the rapier was certainly a primarily civilian weapon from what I understand. In military context, the heavier bladed arming swords were used, as combat with armoured combatants would find little use for the more delicate blades of the rapier. The deadly estoc, was the sword emplaced in these situations.
The lance was, if I understand correctly, used in primarily shock action, and typically was either broken, or thrown down as the melee ensued following initial shock action. It was of little use in close quarters combat with its typically extensive length.

I believe the Spaniards used the lance differently in most cases, particularly in colonial settings. It seems that in New Spain, the primary use of the lance was more a result of lack of ammunition and servicable weapons in many locations of the frontier regions. These lances were shorter than their European predecessors, and were used as thrusting and stabbing weapons to extend reach from horseback. The Comanche tribes and soon other American Indian tribes adopted the use of the lance from thier contact with Spanish using them.

With the Portuguese in India, I'm not sure that the lance would have had the same employment as in the more standardized inter-European combat. It would seem that battles were likely more often defensive with Europeans dismounted in many of the battles and combat interactions.
In the case of most colonial powers entering native environments, it was presumed that they had superiority over what were thought to be simpler and savage populations with little understanding of warfare. In addition to the presumption of superiority in the sense of warfare, the Europeans were typically also driven by religious concept, considering themselves intrinsically more powerful than the populations they perceived as merely heathen in nature.

These perceptions of course became quickly reconsidered as it was realized that these native populations were far more advanced than imagined, and their spirit far more powerful as they defended themselves from incursions into thier lands.

I think much of this is described in a number of titles which focus on the concept of 'the noble savage'.

In sum, I would say that the lance was not typically the key weapon in European vs. Native warfare, with the exceptions noted in Colonial New Spain.

I would also include, in just recalling, the instance of the lance by the British cavalry in India, with one of the premier episodes being the charge of the 16th Lancers against the Sikhs at Aliwal, I believe 1846. There were of course the famed 'Bengal Lancers' as well, but trying to use these examples would seem to throw the discussion of course, as these were native regiments in the service of the British during the Raj. The focus here is on European weapons and use opposed to native weapons in kind.

All best regards,
Jim

HI Gonzalo,

I understand your point.
I wish to discuss comparisons of like with like. My primary iterest is the sword, but I would happily try and add to discussions of lancers Vs Lancers etc.
What I do want to do if possible is focus on engagements where combat was in some way restricted so that close quarter weapons and individual comabt can be reasonably judged.

Is there a particular aspect of this discussion that interests you?

Regards
Gene

Hi Jim, my i dare making some coments?

As already mentioned, rapiers used in -India were not those with a sissy blade. Forget the term rapier; estoc is not a bad name for the thing ... thrusting was the business.


It appears that, in a general manner, at the first stage you had fighting starting from aboard ships where, apart from artillery (let to another issue), men used mainly crossbows, whereas locals used the bow and arrow. Amazingly the bow and arrow was never carried by Portuguese, to some extent a circumstancial handicap, whereas such thing in locals hands was the most responsible weapon for wounds inflicted to Portuguese during conflicts in India. Once landing, ranks used lances and their variants (pikes and so), while officers (nobles) used in the first impact the two handed sword and one or two used the halberd; the side sword later acting as close quarters resource.


More than one race was involved in battles in India, not just locals; plenty of Turcs, as also many other... and some sure knew how to handle weapons.
Also the Naires from Malabar were no sweet pear; Pyrard de Laval considered them the best in the world.


Yes, they seemed to have used such trick; but then again, the efectiveness of such 'hipnosis' depended on who you were facing each time.

Fernando

.

Nicely noted Fernando!
As you say, the rapiers did not have the narrow blades that became popular with civilian fencing in later years, though the often intricate hilt guards were becoming very developed. Thrusting was indeed the 'business', quite contrary to the slashing and draw cuts of oriental swordsmanship. The estoc was of course used primarily as a heavy thrusting sword in European warfare where heavy armour was used. Its premise became profoundly employed in the heavily reinforced armour piercing blades of many edged weapons in Persia, Central Asia and India.

The deadly bow and arrow certainly had become the primary weapon of many of the nomadic Turkic tribes of the steppes and influenced the warfare of India as certain of these tribes entered the subcontinent. The use of this weapon was certainly not confined to native warriors as obviously its use in medieval European warfare is well established.

The embarkation of the Portuguese into these deadly weapons would likely best compare to the landing of forces onto beachheads in Normandy into emplaced machine gun batteries. Once ashore the European use of thier conventional weapons against the Indian forces, and how this interaction would compare, is pretty much the goal here.
In most cases, contemporary narratives may describe the overall outcome of the event, but aside from descriptions with attention to individuals or action seldom address details on the weapons. What we look for is of course, the instances where the weapons are specifically noted, such as the accounts of the British against the Sikhs in the 19th century.

India has always been known as one of the most diverse continents in cultures, language, ethnicity and so on, and as noted, there were indeed many groups incorporated in the ranks of the forces there. Naturally these would vary widely depending on time, place and so on, and it takes very deep study of Indian history to truly understand these assimilations and alliances.

Moving forward again to 18th-19th century

Getting back to Genes topic, in trying to compare the effectiveness of European weaponry against native, and in doing so trying to remain in kind, in many cases it is difficult to do. The concept is well placed as it is interesting to consider how weapons from industrialized cultures stood against those of 'native' cultures.
It is well known that the beauty and excellence of wootz in the swords of the Middle East was highly desirable, and was never truly duplicated in the west. But it is my understanding that these blades were not particularly suitable for sword to sword combat, or against armor obviously. They were used along with a shield to parry, and not meant to use in the sense of European sword combat. With the Mahrattas, the thrust was unheard of, and slashing was the style dictated in thier combat.
While the katar was often perceived as a thrusting weapon, in thier use it was for slashing cuts. In Mughal India, it did become a thrust weapon or 'punch dagger'.


All best regards,
Jim

That is correct, Fernand. Excuse me, but I was writting about cavalry, but latter edited my words and the meaning changed inadvertly.

No, you are not mixing. It was schooled much earlier. I was trying to say that fencing encounters sword vs. sword like those on the 19th Europe were not the rule in colonial fighting, though they were also used. It is only my impression, as I have noted the presence of shields and lances, and yes, also bows and crossbows, in those fights. This, would change the meaning of the fencing analysis you have previously made, as the defenders would no use their swords to parry or thrust in the way europeans did with their swords.

I don´t believe a left hand dagger would stop a serious blow given with a heavy sword. Too short to make an efective lever aginst it. I was referring to a classical rapier because it is mentioned in previous posts in relation with the fencing style. But as you say, colonial european armies did not used the classic rapier (sissy blades? hahahaha).
Regards

Gonzalo

Atlantia, I think your comparison is very valid and interesting, since those encounters among local and european blades existed. I only tried to put those encounters in perspective, not to infere conclussions like "the superiority of european weapons and their fencing style caused the defeat of the locals". Or "the blades of the europeans were better than the local´s". In any case, I think the decisive element of superiority in those fights was the human element and his doctrine of war, the way he used his weapons and his resources, his political movements in the area among the locals, his spirit and sense of union, his motivation, etc. Not because the europeans had an inherent superiority due to their race or place of origin, but because they were more advanced in this way. It happens then and again along all history. Arabs were not culturally more advanced or had a superior civilization than bizantine or iranians, or had better weapons to decide any battle, but they stamped out everybody in their irrestible conquest of an empire. Neverthless, the comparison you have proposed is truly necessary and valid from a military and technological point of view, taking on account the relative importance of the sword among all the arsenal used in those battles. Not as the sword (and it´s fencing) being the king of battles and the decisive element of superiority.
Regards

Gonzalo

Jim, using your word, I believe the sword "was not typically the key weapon in European vs. Native warfare", but only an element in the whole european arsenal. Also, we must notice wootz was used against armour and european swords during the crusades, and we don´t have any reference from this times that this metal was unsuitable to figh against armour and other swords. There are many speculative elements in the analysis of wootz, as the blades made from it are not well studied. But I recall findings of wootz blades being too soft in terms or comparison with modern blades. Just as the european blades were in this time. Tough I don´t kow if the hardness was measured over the wootz´s perlite matrix, or if the hardness of the carbon dendrites was also measured. This last comment is only a speculation from my part and I don´t know if my point is valid from a metallurgic point of view. Furthermore, I don´t believe the european conquerors fought in the old fashion of armour made of single plaques, as shinning knights, but maybe for exceptions. And also, at least until the 16th Centiry they were also using shields, just as the defenders.

And I think we cannot speak about "industrialized" Europe until very late in history. Industrialization commenced in England and then diffused in different degrees to the rest of Europe. My belief is that swords were made in Europe the same artisan way than in the indian subcontinent, although with different methods. I don´t believe that Spain or Portugal were "industrialized cultures", but to the end of the 19th Century. No offense intended. And they were great colonist powers.
Regards

Gonzalo

Well noted points Gonzalo, and indeed the sword was but one element of the European arsenal in combat against native warriors, but probably the best way to define the key weapon in either of these contexts would be to distinguish place, period, and cultures involved. I'm pretty much on the same page regarding metallurgy, and cannot specify whether wootz would have been as effective as it has been said in battle, or whether it had inherent brittleness.t would seem that if it were that fragile, the Europeans would not have sought reproducing it for so long, and unsucessfully until relatively recent times.
I think 'industrialized' might better be termed commercialized, as you are right in that industrialization and machines were indeed much later.

In looking further for examples following the theme of the thread, I found the following in "Arming America" (Michael A. Bellesiles, N.Y. 2000, p.48):
"...the Spanish battle tactic was simple and effective, taking advantage of the psychological impact of a few guns to fire a single volley and then pursue their fleeing enemies with swords and pikes. The Spanish appreciated the advantages of thier metal weapons in trained hands. For instance, in 1694, a Spanish contingent in New Mexico was surprised by a large group of Ute, who attacked with arrows and clubs, quickly wounding six Spanish. But the Spanish fought the Ute off with thier swords, killing eight Ute and driving the rest into full retreat. Spanish metal was the technological advantage, thier poled weapons with metal tips and thier strurdy swords overwhelmed the Indians in the sort of battle where firearms were useless".

While the Indians were originally certainly frightened by the firearms, it seems clear they quickly learned to work around them, and though thier weapons were admittedly inferior, thier warrior spirit drove them to still attack. Even though they were defeated ultimately in many such instances, they did not stop attacking, and thier intent defense of thier way of life remained relentless for centuries. While intrigued by the firearms, and eventually acquiring them and learning thier use, they never adopted the sword, but certainly did the knives and axes which became the tomahawk.

In a notable irony, recalling the initial fearsome exposure to the firearms of the Spanish in the early contact, centuries later at a place called Little Big Horn in 1876....Col. Custers troops were decimated in a battle where they were not only outnumbered by American Indian warriors, but hopelessly outgunned. The single shot rifles of the soldiers maintained by austere military regulations were little match for the much advanced repeating rifles used proficiently by the ever spirit driven warriors.

I thought these were interesting instances in accord with the idea for discussion originally posed, and perhaps other parallels in other colonial context might be found as well.

Best regards,
Jim

Developing a modern army in Afghanistan
 

Another way to examine this is see how Adur Rahman, the late 19th century ruler of Afghanistan tried to create an army united in loyalty to not only himself but to the idea of a unified Afghanistan. He had to find ways to use old and familiar concepts to create framework to support an idea and create an army that would be modern, not old at all, and in an area split along clan and regional boundaries.

http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpresse...&brand=ucpress

All of this lies behind the weapons designed for and issued to soldiers and officers in this newly formed Afghan army--an army that was to serve an entire nation-kingdom, an army whose soldiers were to be paid through salary derived from a tax base.

In return, the soldiers and officers were to be content with this pay, not look or extort, and all were to remain primarily loyal, first and foremost to the head of state.

To see themselves as subjects, not as clansmen with local loyalties. One can read the whole chapter and see that this dream was not fully realized at the Emir's death in 1901.

That dream, as expressed in the proclamation quoted above, lies behind the swords some here have acquired, swords issued to officers and soldiers in the New Model Army of Abdur Rahman and his successors.

Interesting, especially in rereading the great discussions we had here on these topics several years ago. Its good to see old threads long forgotten brought up, and revisit old friends, some of whom have long left these pages.
the phantom

getting back on track, for discussion:

karl martell - tours - 732 stopped islam from advancing north into france.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...e_Poitiers.png

i particularly like that yataghan the grey bearded one is using.

siege of vienna 1529, battle of vienna 1683. kept the turks from advancing thru more of europe & eventually turned them back. dracula (vlad the impaler) fits in there somewhere too.

and spain (and the other colonial powers) conquered the new world mostly by biological warfare. smallpox wiped out 90% of their opponents. interbreeding with the survivors was also noted in earlier posts here, so i will leave that bit alone. ;)

Ottoman Turks
 

Hello,

A fascinating discussion, thank you everyone for such an interesting read.

The Ottomans won some pretty impressive campaigns against Europeans in the early 18th Century, I feel these may be worth a mention as this was a period when their technology and tactics were said to be in a state of decline. While it is arguable that the post 17th Century military technology of the Ottomans never quite matched that of the Europeans; it is commonly understood that great military reform efforts begin with Selim III (1789-1807) who made the first major attempts to modernise the army along European lines. Taking this into account, let’s have a look at some pre-reform victories that could perhaps be labelled a more than simply 'historical blips'. I won’t go into their 16th century victories in this post, but the Turks certainly enjoyed many of them. Although in regards to military victories, the 18th century would not be as successful for the Ottomans, there were some important successes.

During the 18th century, Europeans found themselves opposed by large armed forces of the Ottoman Turkish Empire. The Ottoman armies consisted of many different peoples who had an array of different arms and of course these arms differed both in quality and sophistication. The soldiers of these armies ranged from well-trained professional soldiers and semi-nomadic horseman etc, to armed peasants. Of course the European armies they faced were not always completely different in terms of quality, but one can perhaps suggest that they were most often better trained and armed. Nevertheless, the Turks won some important and noteworthy campaigns; in 1711, fast moving Turkish cavalry outmanoeuvred the Russian army under Peter the Great, the Russians had found the local peoples not as supportive as they had hoped and compounded their already poor logistical position by advancing as a huge singular force. The Turks found it quite easy to surround them and the Russians under fire from Turkish guns and being constantly skirmished, had to accept humiliating peace terms.

In 1715, the Venetians were driven from southern Greece by the Ottomans in what was arguably one of the most decisive campaigns of the century. In 1739 the Austrian army was driven back into Belgrade by the Turks in such a decisive campaign the Austrian generals surrendered in fear of more losses. While the Ottoman Turks would lose many campaigns due to poorer weaponry (and other reasons), particularly at sea, the size of their empire enabled the movement of resources and men in order to focus strength on a particular opponent, thus increasing their military effectiveness.

To fast forward history now, I have noticed there has been some discussion on Vietnam here: This has made me think about the Allied loss at Galipolli in 1915/16- I wonder if this may be a viable addition to this discussion. :)

Regards