Thanks Keith! Yup, the truth is, despite what we'd like to think, the sword was basically a weapon that most of the rank & file would loved to have had, but most emphatically did not have access to. The ruling figures and their retinue did not purchase, issue or in any way supply anything for the forces they commanded...they were primarily 'cannon fodder'.
The plebian masses were from simple walks of life, farmers etc. which was why most of their 'weaponry' was primarily tools and agricultural implements.
In many cases of course, there were mercenary forces hired who of course supplied their own arms, but even in such forces, there was a great deal of emphasis on pole arms, lances, pikes, axes and swords typically were used in degree along with these.
A good example of mercenary forces (landsknechts, who were actually German, not all Swiss as commonly thought)....has to do with the famed Passau in Germany. This was actually a city where mercenary forces converged to be available as required, thus a center for armorers, who supplied not only armor but all types of weapons to these warriors.
War was the stock and trade of the mercenary, so they furnished their own kit......while those of station, rank and means also were the ones who indeed acquired swords, but they were by no means held and used by the majority of those from the regions from which the embattled army came.
The idea of 'militia' is an interesting one, and it seems in Europe there were the 'town guards' which was sort of in this line. I think of Rembrandt's "The Night Watch" depicting one of these types of units, and though mostly reflecting guns, the general notion was that the men of these units indeed supplied themselves with all manner of obsolete and heirloom arms.
That concept was quite typical through centuries prior to the development of standing armies of nations rather than city states and principalities.
|