Non European forces proving themselves Vs European military might

[Gonzalo G]

Originally Posted by Atlantia

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

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

[Gonzalo G]

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

[Jim McDougall]

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