(WIP) "They all hold swords, being expert in war" - The Sword in Combat

It is a common belief that swords were useless in war, or hardly used at all (or only used when the situation was not ideal). And these are not strawmen! I have personally seen all of these things (and more) said! Even the some of the most generous claims are still quite harsh and backhanded ("only good for duels", "great civilian weapon", etc.). But the fact of the matter is, the sword was a weapon of war, carried for centuries, sometimes in areas where they didn't have refined metallurgy either! So how could that be if swords were useless against armor and defeated entirely by reach? I have gathered up quite the collection for this one over the years (which I posted on the internet before, so you may find them out there), so enjoy!

The Reach Disadvantage

These ideas regarding the sword are largely based on (poor) logic (and HEMA tests done by those who rarely train with mixed weapons; or hardly use spears at all, and fencing skills naturally transfer from one weapon to another), so therefore, this will part will mostly be logic; largely the theorike of my own rather than the practike of the ancients. If you want to get to the quotes, they will be mostly further down, and if you are smart enough, you will be able to form a good opinion solely on the quotes. So feel free to skip the logic if you wish to!

The sword is generally short (the great two-handed ones being the exception rather than the rule), and when compared to longer polearms, the difference is obviously clear. But hafted arms are not without their disadvantages either! For because their haft is made of wood, they are more fragile than swords; and owing to their length, they very easily become overlong. None of these things contradict the initial presumptions, that swords were only used in less-than-ideal situations or rarely used, except that if combat was but a game of reach (or a game of chicken, wherein "morale" decided all affairs), then why would the sword ever be carried at all, let alone used? Only the first ranks do most (obviously not all) of the "initial" combat (I am referring to the time before the ranks break; plenty of combat occurs afterwards), even pikemen at most will only have 5 or so ranks at max aiding in combat, so if one of the front ranker's weapons broke, he could likely retire under the cover his comrades and retrieve a new weapon (or if he could not retire due to the density of the formation, he would die anyways, since reach decides all). And if reach was the most important thing, then the threat of an opponent closing would not be very high as the impetus to do so would not be either.

So with this logical argument, we can be sure that swords were never used in combat, at least against sane opponents who valued their own lives; or opponents who were smart and knew reach decided all. But of course that is obviously not true (as I will prove), so how can reach be so important, yet swords were still used? Because closing with the opponent, and then creating a gap for one's comrades to enter in was important for victory! For when the pell mell (that is, the chaotic melee, usually used in reference for the foot; melee being reserved for the horse) starts to become rare for the pikemen in Europe, the said pikemen start to stop carrying swords.

"It is both a grief, and a shame, to see how few Pikemen, in most of our ordinary Companies, have Swords by their sides, and the Musketeers seldom any; when a man looks not like a Soldier, without a Sword; and 'tis the Sword which does the chiefest Execution, either in the Battel, or after the Routing of an Enemy: The Greeks and Romans made it ignominious for a Soldier to lose his Sword, even in Fight; I wish we would make it the like for a Soldier to go to Fight without his Sword, or indeed so much as to see a Soldier without his Sword."

- Roger Boyle, A treatise of the art of war, 1677

Roger Boyle was a salty old veteran, who served in Ireland during the English Civil War, so his experience 20-30 years prior to writing giving to his opinion might very well be due to a shift in military practice; if you may consider this to be such a short period of time for such a drastic change, then you should know halberd and other short arms fell out of use within the battle/battalion of pikes within a similar time range; the authors who remarked upon it considered this due to the lack of pell mells, as one side usually gave way long before then, so the initial encounter was what decided the fights (and having more pikes is better for the clash).

"As few [halberds or bills] as might be, for in their steds farre better were so many armed Pikes, in mine opinion, considering that in set Battailes when men come to the shock, or push of the Pike, they sarrie close together, and the first three, fiue, or seuen rankes do beare the chiefe brunt; and entred so farre, men buckle Pell-Mell, close together, by which time commonlie the one side reculeth or swayeth, and a battell once reculing doth not lightlie hold long, so that ere the Center of the Battaill be touched one side must fall to disaray; men once disordered, they commonly fall to rout, the rout is pursued with slaughter and ruine. Against horse the like reasons are to be made: thus either to offend or defend, farre better is the Pike, then either Bill, or Halbard. 

[...] 

For who doth not know that if the enemy be like to be victor, the armed pikes will yeeld backward as they feele themselues distressed, so as when the pikes are in such maner crashed and clustred together, that they can no longer charge and push with their pikes, then will the throng or presse in the center be so great, that the halberds and bils shall haue little roome to strike; nay short swords will hardly haue rome at that instant either to thrust or to strike. I would thinke daggers would do more execution at that time, and in that presse vntill one side fall to flight: so I see no reason at all for halberds or bills to haue place in a battell or stand of pikes: Besides the vnseemely shew they make either by themselues in the center, or mingled among pikes."

- Robert Barret, The theorike and practike of moderne vvarres, 1598

Here we may see Robert Barret considered short weapons, such as bills, halberds, etc., as unprofitable amongst the pikes. And where in the early 16th century they were important (for often they held the third, fourth, or fifth rank; Philippe de Cleves in the early 16th century in his Instruction de toutes manieres de Guerroyer tant par terre que par mer prescribed two ranks of halberds after four ranks of pikes), by the 17th century, they were largely left to the protection of the shot (and often for the defense of the ensign, against the advice of Barret; in very low numbers, it should be said), or other actions outside of the stand of pikes.

"If any shall question why in this A, B, C, I set downe postures onely for two weapons, let him bee pleased to receiue this for satisfaction, all short weapons as Targateers, Billmen, or Holbardeers, are in these times meerely out of vse..."

- I. T. Gent., The A, B, C, of armes, 1616

But just over 10 years prior to Robert Barret's writing, we read of halberds, slaugh swords, and whatnot being commonly used in the manner contrary to his prescription, and you may read a couple such here.

The only logical conclusion, therefore, is that all short arms, including swords, fell out of use due to the lessening of the pell mells (whether duration, importance, or actual occurences); ergo, when pell mells were something important to consider, swords were both not only just carried, but used and useful. And the sources agree with such a position, although I must finish this discussion on reach first.

Reach, although certainly advantageous, is not the sole determiner of combat. And especially that of combat on the field when arrayed and wearing any sort of armor; for when one is arrayed, movement is constrained (even with three feet allowance to the flanks and rear that many orders had, although I will cover that another day); and armor makes reach not so overwhelming. In fact, full armor often encourages one to move forward and to fight with their weapons short (whether half sword or half axe), although we can probably say not always. But even lighter armor likewise prevents reach from being so dominating, as only more powerful blows will do any significant harm to maille or padded armor; and points are harder to be precise with the further away from the lead hand they are, and therefore there is a greater chance of missing. This is not to say you cannot accurately thrust at the throat with a pike, only that utilizing its full reach is riskier in such a case; and when we assume they will defend themselves, blows partially warded, where they might have been lacerated if they were without arms, the blow might become harmless if they only meet steel.

And although the file-leader in an array has comrades who may succor him in case of being charged by a swordsman who has "bridged the gap", so too does the swordsman have comrades to aid him in his assault! And as the men in the rear are inherently inhibited by the man in front, it is not as easy as "just stab him"; but the threat of the neighboring files being overwhelmed by such an assault is real (if we assume the men behind are keen and follow the file leader). But of course, such an assault might fail due to the difficulty in bridging the gap (many things are easier said than done!); or, the ones with polearms might draw their own swords or daggers and repel them (and we have already established that although it may be a less-than-ideal scenario for the man with the long arm, it is not for the swordsman, who has forced his opponent to give up his weapon!).

"And that there is no precise rule about the length of weapons is fittingly shown, since he who bears those a little longer has an advantage on the enemy, but not for when they are very closely joined, where one cannot move the arm freely to bring a blow. 

[...] 

... if both fighters know little, a weapon-length [difference] of three or four fingers more or less is of little concern, for they always enter to strike with the middle of the sword, and with a deliberate blow. But those who embrace great art [in arms] have a great advantage or security by one finger's weapon-length. And if they throw a point without the arms being abandoned, they go back to recollect the weapon to themselves and to strike many other blows. If one person is skilled and holds a weapon which is slightly longer, while the other has had little teaching and has a weapon shorter than the enemy's, the advantage to him who knows is great, and having art, even though a shorter weapon is taken hold of, a man can defend himself competently, especially against those who have little knowledge."

- Pietro Monte, Exercitiorum Atque Artis Militaris Collectanea, 1509

And Pietro Monte fully understands the power of reach; the length he prescribes for the pollaxe is about 7 feet long! He is quite realistic, but likewise note that he does not portray reach as something undefeatable; to him, it is a matter of skill (and particularly the skill of facing long weapons).

And further, regarding skill, people of "equal skill" do not always completely match one another: often one will be often better at certain things than their opponent. One may be better with a sword and the other may be better with a spear; and likewise, one may be better with a sword facing a spear than his opponent is with a spear facing a sword, or the reverse! For there are plenty of techniques that can be applied if the swordsman gets behind the spear's point, just as there are plenty of techniques that allowed the swordsman to get past that point in the first place. But it should be noted that the sword in most places in the pre-modern period was the weapon carried everywhere; and because of such, many would likely have more experience with a sword than with a polearm, even if they would customarily use their polearm first on the field of battle. Those well practiced in all skills pertaining to the art of fencing, the "martial classes", would therefore have the greatest advantage in combat because of this. But that same skill would likewise lessen (but not remove!) the drastic effect of reach seen in so many tests, as said by Monte.

And sometimes I have read that swords are better in duels than spears. I am unsure where this idea came from, since one can step anywhere they wish and move their weapon in any way they wish when not constrained by numbers; these things wholly aiding long weapons more than they aid swords or daggers or the sort. And because there are no other opponents that you have to watch out for, any chances for an opening (such as momentarily needing to defend yourself from another man) will be from the man directly opposing you or from your own fault. And although in an ordered formation, there is someone to aid the man with the polearm should someone attempt to close the distance; he is by nature inhibited in the actions he can do because of the man (or men) in front blocks both his vision and his own movements. And because armor is generally not being worn in such a scenario (that is, civilian life), light blows are more dangerous (such as sliding the haft through the lead hand), and the danger of missing is less. The sword is the one carried in the civilian world because it is easy to carry, not because it is most advantageous in that scenario. Perhaps it obvious now why polearms were not allowed to be carried throughout the city.

And to conclude this section, since it is quite long winded; reach is important and advantageous, but it is not the only factor that determines the victor; and its advantages are lessened by the common factors of war (defensive arms being worn and soldiers being in an ordered body). This is not to say the polearm is worse than the sword in battle; only that the sword is greatly important, even if the polearm is often the first weapon used.

With that out of the way, now for the fun parts!

The Sword Amongst the Horse

The horseman especially needs a sidearm; his horse does not perfectly respond to his commands, and the horse itself impedes the actions of the rider. These things make the lance (or other polearms; I will mostly refer to the lance but the problems inhibit all long arms) very often unprofitable. Lances likewise commonly break upon impact, and even with the fact that you can still use the remaining part (at least with speed), when in battle, the initial clash will almost immediately turn into a melee due to the speed of the horses driving the lines forward towards each other. And when charging infantry, the length of the weapon may become hazardous to hold onto as it may be grabbed by the footmen beneath. And so important are these sidearms, that many often carried two or three (the others often being worn at the saddle).

"The lances broken, at the encounter of whom fell to the earth on all sides, many men at arms, and many horses, each began to use with the same ferocity their iron maces, and estocs [stocchi], and other short arms, the horses fighting with kicks, with bites, with shock, no less than the men..."

- Francesco Guicciardini, , , Translation by Me

Monte explicitly writes that estocs are the most used weapon by men at arms when on horseback. So already we have something that directly disproves the idea that swords were rarely or never used.

"Since, when bearers of weapons are armoured in white and heavy armour and fighting on horseback, they use, above all other weapons, what is called stocchi [estoc] in the vernacular..."

- Pietro Monte, Exercitiorum Atque Artis Militaris Collectanea, 1509

The rest of the passage uses this information to explain why a strong horse is necessary for that kind of combat (which I have omitted for obvious reasons).

"The Grand Master began to strike at them with the tip of his lance. Hernando de Monrroy, who was also carrying a lance, did nothing but shove men over the parapet; and in view of the fact that the lance of the Grand Master, Don Alonso de Monrroy, did not last long due to the fact he was being pushed on, because in that area many people had charged, he laid hands on his sword and tossed his adarga shield, which was smashed to pieces, from his arm."

- Alonso de Maldonado

"And the knights on both sides, having lost their lances, drew their swords, and they were all tangled with each other, attacking each other so mercilessly that many of them, because they were fighting in such close quarters, were unable to avail themselves of their swords and fought with their daggers."

- Hernando del Pulgar

"But when he saw that the knights were filled with German fury – for his exhortation had injected a certain invincible courage in their hearts – he formed his lines and specified precisely which ones were to fight at first, which were to break into the fighting enemy forces from the flank, which ones were to bring help to those in trouble in the fight, while he himself took position where he could bring help with the most highly selected men. And now he moved into the fight against the Romans with raised banners and widely deployed cohorts, placing his hope in God. The archbishop of Cologne, however, armed himself and the garrison of the castle and all his men, a number estimated as 300 well-armed knights, in order to be able to give help under any circumstances, and he remained calmly in the castle until the start of the battle. After the battle had begun and the lances were broken at the first clash of the armies, the fight was carried on with swords, while the archers on both sides obscured the light of day with their arrows as if they were snow flakes. And behold, the archbishop of Cologne, breaking out of the castle with his eager knights, attacked the Romans from the rear and pushed against them courageously, so that they were surrounded on all sides, attacked from front and rear. While the Romans therefore were fighting only with the weight of their mass, Bishop Christian with his men penetrated their battle line from the flank, tore the middle of their formation apart, and covered with blows the enemy that was thus skillfully separated into three groups. After many had been killed and a number taken prisoner, the defeated Romans took to flight and, pursued by their conquerors up to the city, they were cut down in the bloodiest slaughter. After they had called back their knights from this butchery, the bishops returned to the battlefield and spent that night celebrating with the greatest joy."

- Otto of Sankt Blasien

"Thus with the Turks approaching, [and] the Christians advancing against, with great vigor they fought from here to there: the bow did nothing, the lance very little, the sword the most."

- Radulphus Cadomensis, , , Translation by Me

"After a while the Franks, having broken their lances against the bodies of the infidels, started in with their swords. How many bodies fell with their heads cut off and how many could be seen there with some of their limbs slashed, because the rear columns of the army were pushing the front columns onto the swords of their killers!"

- Robertus Monachus, ,

"It happened that the battalions were approaching the Germans, who were advancing at the front. They attacked the lord of Karytaina, and the lord of Karytaina, who was one of the bravest knights in the world at that time, gave them a hard fight. At the clash of lances, the lord of Karytaina attacked the duke of Carinthia, one of the noblest and most valiant princes of Germany. The lord of Karytaina struck the duke’s shield so hard, he knocked him and his horse over in a heap. From the fall he sustained, the duke broke his neck and died. Immediately afterward, the lord of Karytaina struck down two more German barons, who were the duke’s relatives. When his lance had broken, he seized his sword and began to inflict so much carnage that all those who saw it were amazed."

- , Τὸ χρονικὸν τοῦ Μορέως, The Chronicle of the Morea, 

"And the Lord King was now here, now there, now on the right, now on the left, and fought so hard with his sword that it broke all to pieces. And at once he seized his mace, with which he attacked better than any man in the world. And he approached the count of Nevers, who was chief of that company, and with his mace gave him such a blow on the helmet that he felled him to the ground."

- Ramon Muntaner, , 

"And the Lord Infante, who knew that they were coming specially for him, gave the first of them such a blow with his lance, that he thrust it right through him, so that he cast him dead to the ground. And then he seized his mace and rushed upon another and gave him such a blow on the helmet he was wearing that his brains issued out of his ears. What shall I tell you? With his mace he cast four men dead to the ground. And then the mace broke and he seized his sword, and cleared such a space for himself that nothing could resist him."

- Idem, , 

"Many of the French at the first clash fell and were cut down. For they carry shorter lances, therefore they felt the first blows; indeed, the French seemed more suited with the sword, for it is shorter, [and] it is considered [to be] more suitable."

- Alessandro Benedetti, , , Translation by Me

"And the masses together collided, committing to a bloody war. The crashing of lances, the ringing of swords, the sudden clamor of strikes, the cries of the dying, the lamentations of the wounded, [all] heard within the very clash, appearing to disturb the air. For an exceedingly long time they quarreled with swords ringing about their heads, and on both sides, the opposing parties were fighting courageously."

- Johannis de Trokelowe, , , Translation by Me

"On that same day, while I was with one part of the army locked in battle, I saw a cavalryman charge one of our own horsemen and thrust his spear in our comrade’s horse, killing it. Our man was now fighting on foot on the ground, but I could not make out who he was due to the distance between us. So I spurred my horse on towards him, fearing for his safety once that Frank had speared him. The Frank's quntariya was still stuck in the man’s horse as it lay there dead with its intestines spilling out. The Frank withdrew from him a short distance and, drawing his sword, took his position facing him."

- Usama ibn Munqidh, , 

"The way these Kanto warriors are, they just ride straight over a dead father or son and keep fighting. The enemy are many and our arrows few. When we run out of them, it will come to swords."

- , 保元物語, , 

"If you run into many horsemen as a group, do not fight with them after you entered into the middle of the group, [but rather] move at the edge [of the group] and fight all around [them], if you are equipped with a lance, because one who has a lance cannot perform in the crowd. Narrow places belong to the one who has a sword, only God knows better."

- , , Munyatu'l-ghuzat, 

"They kept this up for three days but the fighting intensified and they came to close quarters, abandoning lances and exchanging sword blows. As this continued, although both sides were exhausted, Khafāja's fresh ambushers suddenly appeared. 'Ubāda fled and Khafāja were victorious. Twelve 'Ubāda chiefs were slain and several men of Khafaja."

- Ibn al-Athir, , , 

"... everyone together shouting and throwing in their yari, [they] clashed [with the enemy] from side to side and front to back [十文字], pursuing in a spiral [巴の字], [both sides] mutually hewing and striking down [one another]. The noise of the tsuba of tachi [太刀の鍔音] [being struck], the cries of arrows, the noise of teppo, [all] resounding [throughout] Heaven and Earth, even in the vast Musashino; a great deal was heard."

- , 異本小田原記, , Translation by Me

"And against the heroic Bhagadatta in battle, Virata, the commander of a large division, rushed impetuously, O king, and then commenced [their] combat. Virata, exceedingly provoked, poured on Bhagadatta an arrowy shower like, O Bharata, the clouds showering rain on the mountain breast. But Bhagadatta, that lord of the earth, speedily enveloped Virata in that encounter [with arrows] like the clouds enveloping the risen sun. Kripa, the son of Saradwat, rushed against Vrihadkshatra, the ruler of the Kaikeyas. And Kripa, O Bharata, enveloped him with a shower of arrows. Vrihadkshatra also shrouded the infuriate son of Gautama with an arrowy downpour. And those warriors, then, having slain each other's steeds and cut off each other's bows, were both deprived of their cars. And exceedingly enraged, they then approached each other for fighting with their swords. And the combat which then took place between them was terrible in aspect and unparalleled."

- , , Mahabharata, 

The Sword Amongst the Foot

But although the horseman especially needs a sidearm, the footman as well entirely needs it, as discussed in the beginning. Closing the opponent is important for victory (since victory demands that one side must take it when a road to it appears), and although polearms do not break as often for the footmen than with the horsemen (since they do not have the speed of the horse to aid their strikes), we still read of them breaking. And likewise, they (and the horsemen, as seen above) will often throw their lances to make a path to charge (and then draw their sidearms). Likewise, swords were much more common amongst the commons than people think. While I won't go into too much detail (I have not saved a lot of the examples, so this is largely a "trust me bro"), the English 1242 Statute of Winchester, for example, required the second to last wealth range to own swords; the class under them were to bring sickles and "other lesser arms", and this group did not make up the soldiery. However, ordinances that do not mention swords does not necessarily prove the absence of the sword; in the same 1242 ordinance, none of the wealth classes are required to own spears; however, we can safely assume this is an assumption that they will have them (as spears were common), rather than proof that the mid-13th century English military was entirely made up of bowmen and swordsmen. Likewise, swords in the Late Medieval period and Early Modern period were extremely common, yet often they are omitted from the requirements. The frequency that the sword shows up in civilian life as well as accounts leads to the position that these are just omissions and they assume they have sidearms (in the same sense they assume they have clothes; the omission is not proof that soldiers did not wear clothes).

"The heavy infantry, who are drawn up in the front line, advance still closer to the enemy. If the men have darts or missile weapons, they throw them, resting their lances on the ground. If without such weapons, they advance more closely, then hurl their lances like javelins, take out their swords and fight, each man remaining in his proper position and not pursuing the enemy if they turn to retreat. The men to the rear keep their heads covered with their shields and with their lances support those in the front. Obviously, it is essential for the soldiers in the first line to keep themselves protected until they come to blows with the enemy. Otherwise, they might be hit by enemy arrows, especially if they do not have coats of mail or greaves."

- Maurice, Στρατηγικόν, Strategikon, ~600

"... in such sort as by the nearnes of the formost ranks of their enemies before them, they haue not spaceenough againe to thrust; nor that by the nearnes of their fellowes ranks next behind them, they haue any conuenient elbowe roome to pull backe their piques to giue a new thrust; by meanes whereof they haue vtterly loste the vse of their piques, they therfore must either presentlie let them fall to the ground as vnprofitable; or else may with both their hands dart, and throw them as farre forward into & amongst the ranks of their enemies as they can, to the intent by the length of them to trouble their ranks, and presently in the twinkling of an eie or instant, must draw their short arming swordes and daggers, and giue a blow and thrust (tearmed a halfe reuerse, & thrust) all at, and in one time at their faces: And therewithall must presentlie in an instant, with their daggers in their left hands, thrust at the bottome of their enemies bellies vnder the lammes of their Cuyrasses, or at any other disarmed parts..."

- John Smythe, 

"Then the raiding party of Norwegians, which had great spoils, attacked Cennétig. When they had heard those noblemen being slain, they had left their raid and their booty, and had come hard and actively against Cennétig. Foreign, barbarous cries were raised there, and the noise of many war trumpets, and a crowd were saying Núi, nú! Then many arrows were loosed between them, and short spears, and finally they took to their heavy and hard-smiting swords. Nevertheless, God was helping the son of Gáethíne and his troops; the Norwegians were overcome, and left the place of battle; they went in rout after their bloody defeat."

- Dubhaltach Óg Mac Fir Bhisigh, , 

"Almost at this time Rodolb came with his armies to plunder Osraige. Cerball son of Dúnlang assembled an army against them, and gave them battle, and routed the Norwegians. However, a large troop of the defeated people rode their horses up a high hill, and they were looking at the slain around them, and they saw their own people being killed in the manner in which they slaughtered sheep. Great passion seized them, and what they did was to draw their swords and take their arms, and to attack the Osraige so that they killed many of them; nevertheless they were driven back in rout. At Áth Muiceda that defeat was given. Then trouble occurred for Cerball himself there; that is, when the defeat was accomplished, and he was separated from his attendants, a group of the Norwegians came to him and took him captive. But through the Lord's help he was aided: he himself tore his clothes and the fetters that were on him, and he got away from them safely. Great indeed was the massacre that was made of the Norwegians there."

- Idem, , 

"And at first striking mutually with their spears, and by the frequency of the blows, the majority shattered, [and] they fell to the struggle of the sword."

- Diodorus Siculus, , , Translation by Me

"The whole affair being now a trial of strength between man and man at close quarters, as the combatants used their swords and not their spears, the superiority was at first on the side of the dexterity and daring of the mercenaries, which enabled them to wound a considerable number of the Romans."

- Polybius

"... Nakane Kizo [中根喜蔵] and the [Ikko] Ikki came together with yari [鑓を合す], [Watanabe] Moritsuna [守綱] rushed under his [Nakane’s] yari, wielding his tachi [太刀], [and] cut Nakane, Nakane [then] abandoned his yari, [and] unsheathed his tachi and crossed swords [切合] [with Moritsuna]..."

- , 寛永諸家系図伝, , , Translation by Me

"The Turk met him, sword in hand, and the Frank thrust his spear at him. But the Turk pushed the spearhead away from him with his shield and stepped forward to his enemy, putting himself in where the Frank’s spear had been."

- Usama ibn Munqidh, , , 

But not only was the sword important for the spearmen or halberdiers or whatnot, but likewise for the archers, for obvious reasons. Archers, crossbowmen, handgunners, and other shooters all frequently charged; charging even pikemen (like at Bicocca (1522), although there are other examples of such happening as well). The famous example of archers charging at Azincourt (1415) is more the rule than the exception (especially bows and crossbows, which have short effective ranges, especially when shooting heavy arrows). And even when the archers or crossbowmen have shield-bearers to protect them, the shooters will have to get involved in the fight eventually.

"... and also the long swords [longues espees] that our archers and servants had performed a great feat."

- Philippe de Commynes, , , Translation by Me

"After the formation is arrayed, the drum sounds, and when the crossbowmen are a hundred and fifty paces [~225m] from the enemy [贼, lit. bandit], at once, they loose their arrows, and when the archers are sixty paces [~90m] from the enemy, at once, they loose their arrows. If the enemy arrives within twenty paces [~30m], together, the archers and crossbowmen immediately abandon their bows and crossbows, and order the reserve [驻队人, lit. stationed team people] to collect them. The archers bind their arms [i.e., sleeves] first, and then carry their swords or clubs [刀棒] with them, and promptly join the front to fight vigorously together."

- , 通典, , , Translation by Me

"And on the other side the Lords Percy, warned of the coming of their enemies, ordered forward their vanguard led by the Earl of Douglas, and then when they came in sight of each other the archers dismounted uttering a loud and horrible cry which was dreadful to hear, and then began to march at a good pace in good order against each other, and the archers to draw so fast and thick that it seemed to the beholders like a thick cloud, for the sun which at that time was bright and clear then lost its brightness so thick were the arrows, and this was helped by the dust which new about together with the breath of the men who began to get heated, so that the air was quite darkened. After the arrows were exhausted they put their hands to swords and axes with which they began to slay each other, and the leaders of the advance guards striking their horses with their spurs and with lances couched struck each other."

- Jean de Wauvrin

"The battle did not last long, for the Burgundian archers were armed with great swords [grandes espees], per the ordinance given to them by the Duke of Burgundy, & after the shot had passed, they delivered such great cuts with those swords that they would cut a man through the middle of the body, & an arm, & a thigh, depending on how the cut landed [s'adonnoit]: and the Liégeois (who could not endure the strength of the archers) [began] to flee, & each one saving themselves, as best as they could [qui mieux mieux], & finding no refuge, except in the dark night (which soon became obscure) and the Duke of Burgundy wished to go after [and] pass the night, and continue the chase, but those who were in charge, did not support it, for the dangers that could arise from it."

- Olivier de la Marche, , , Translation by Me

"On the other hand, when hand-to-hand fighting began, a good part of the English archers, having quickly thrown away their bows as is their custom and taken up the daggers and the swords which they always had ready to hand, rushed at a great pace into the advancing enemy."

- Polydori Vergilii

"... I then spurr'd to them, where I began to remonstrate to Monsieur de Termes his Gentlemen, that it was not above nine or ten days since we had fought with the Italians, and beaten them, and now that we should fight with the Spaniards to obtain greater honor, must they escape from us? Who thereupon with one voice all cryed out, It does not stick at us, It does not stick at us. I then ask'd them if they would promise me to charge so soon as I should have made the Harquebusiers betake themselves to their Swords, to run in upon them, which they did assure me they would upon pain of their lives... and thereupon ran to my Harquebusiers, where being come, I told them, that it was now no longer time to shoot, but that we must fall on to the Sword. Captains, my Camrades, whenever you shall happen to be at such a feast as this, press your followers, speak first to one, and then to another, bestir your selves, and doubt not but by this means you will render them valiant throughout, if they but half so before. They all on a suddain clap'd hands to their Swords, when so soon as Captain Mons, who was a little before, and Monsieur de Cental, who was on one side, saw the first Troop shut down their Beavers, and saw me run to the Harquebusiers, and in an instant their Swords in their hands, they knew very well that I had met with Lads of mettle, and began to draw near. I for my part lighted from my horse, taking a Halbert in my hand (which was my usual weapon in fight) and all of us ran headlong to throw our selves in amongst the Enemy."

- Blaize de Montluc, , 

"We marcht straight up to them, and so soon as they were come up within arrow shot, our Harquebuzeers gave their volley all at once, and then clapt their hands to their swords, as I had commanded, and we ran on to come to blows; but so soon as we came within two or three pikes length, they turn'd their backs with as great facility as any Nation that ever I saw, and we pursued them as far as the River, close by the Town, and there were four or five of our Soldiers who followed them to the other side."

- Idem

"These orders being given, all of us both Foot and Horse march'd directly towards the Enemy, and when I expected their Harquebusiers should have thrown themselves into the hollow, so soon as they should see our men come full drive upon them, they quite contrary march'd straight up to our men, and all at a clap gave fire within less than four Pikes length of one another. Now I had given order to our men, that so soon as they had powr'd in their shot, without standing to charge again, they should run up to them, and fall to the Sword, which they also did, and I with the Pikes ran to the end of the hollow, and fell in desperately amongst them. In the mean time Ydrou and Tilladet charg'd Monsieur de Trinitat, and put him to rout, and our Harquebusiers and theirs threw themselves altogether into the hollow: but ours had the upper hand, and our Pike men had thrown away their Pikes, and were fallen to't with the Sword, and so couragiously fighting we came all up to the Wagons, Captain Mons, and all, which were all overturn'd in a moment, and all their men put to flight towards two houses which stood in the bottom of the plain, where, still pursuing our Victory, and the Horse still firing amongst them, very few of them reach'd the houses."

- Idem

"The Enemy seeing us come on with such resolution, and the Cavalry following in our Rear, thought it the wisest course to retire. I was by this time advanced where we were plying one another, with good round vollies of shot, at fifty paces distance, and we had a good mind to fall on to the Sword, when the Marquess, and another Gentleman with him, came himself on horseback to stay me. I think he did ill in it; for had we all passed thorough, we had certainly pursued them fighting up to the very Gates of Naples. There was in this place very many on both sides beaten to the ground, that never rose again, and I admire how I escaped, but my hour was not come."

- Idem

"I then immediately made fifteen or twenty Soldiers leap in after the four Captains, and as all these were within, le Bourg, Signior Cornelio, and the Count de Gayas passed and entred into the Fort. I caused the Torches to be set upon the Rampire, that we might see, and not kill one another, and my self entred by the same way Signior Cornelio had gone before me. Now neither Pikes, Halberts, nor Harquebuzes could serve us for any use here, for we were at it with Swords and Steeletto's, with which we made them leap over the Curtains by the same way they had entred, excepting those who were killed within. There were yet however some remaining in the Tower, when Captain Charry came up to us, though but eight days before he had received an Harquebuz shot in his head, and such a one as that thereupon we had given him for dead, notwithstanding there he was with his Sword and Target, and a Morrion upon his head, ever the Cap that cover'd his wound: a good heart will ever manifest itself; for though he was desperately hurt, yet would he have his share of the fight."

- Idem

"Have some of the ranks lie in ambush. Have the archers dismount, with yourself in the front line. And let many grizzled warriors be in the lead, for such are both battle-hardened and obedient. Younger men of lesser rank may be very keen for battle, but as soon as you turn your back, their ardor is extinguished. So put trusty men in the van and in the rear, and some also in the wings, both left and right. Then, as they approach the opposing force, let them meet them head on and raise a shout. They should let fly their arrows while yet at some distance; as they draw closer, attack with their spears; and when they engage in the fray, use sword and axe, grab hold of the collar, fight tooth and nail! Stand firm, never show your back to the enemy. Pierce him through, or else die fighting."

- Yusuf Khass Hajib

"On the 12th of the Seventh Month, at the Hour of the Horse, Nobunaga launched his attack toward the southeast. After some hours of fighting, the enemy was routed. As a man called Hayashi Yashichirō, a native of the village of Asano who was a famous archer, was fleeing from the battlefield with his bow, Hashimoto Ippa, the famous harquebusier, went for him. Since they were long-time friends, Yashichirō shouted to Ippa, “I’m not about to spare your life!” “Understood,” was the response. Yashichirō nocked a shaft fitted with an arrowhead about four sun [twelve centimeters] long to his bow, turned back, and sent the arrow flying deep into Ippa’s armpit. But Ippa, who had loaded his harquebus with a double charge, took aim and fired, too. Yashichirō fell to the ground. Right then, one of Nobunaga’s pages, Sawaki Tōhachi, rushed to the scene with the intention of taking Hayashi’s head. Still lying on the ground, Yashichirō managed to unsheathe his sword and strike Tōhachi at the left elbow, lopping off the forearm along with the gauntlet. But Tōhachi, far from giving up, kept at it and finally took his head. Hayashi Yashichirō was a great swordsman as well as an unparalleled archer."

- Ota Gyuichi

General Quotes

"Know that there is no weapon among weapons that is described with [such] nobility, and that is so valuable that its possessor is proud of it and that achieves victory with it, except the sword, because it has respect and superiority over all the weapons. [They] also beat the armies with its name. They say: We conquered it by sword. This is such a weapon that all the people use it; the one who knows [how to wield it] and the one who does not, young and old are protected by it everywhere. And it is [such] a good brother that it does not become inactive in wide or even in narrow places. One needs it on the sea and on the land and in a crowd. On a very windy day the lance becomes a burden for its possessor, but this never becomes useless. And on that day the archer can not shoot his arrow straight, no one can do without the sword. No matter how many weapons are at your disposal, you are certain to say: Among every class of people and in every land there is no weapon other than the sword with which they [can always] fight and that weapon is identified with them. Although they have many weapons, they would never be able to do without the sword, but those who have a sword can do without all the other weapons."

- , , Munyatu'l-ghuzat, 

"The sword dispenses with other weapons, but almost no others can replace it. Does it not always accompany the employment of all others? So says Yami al-Muharibi: When a sword strikes with a sword, there is no other option."

- Ibn Hudayl

"Whatever I say of the sword, in sum: it is the Sultan of weapons. Whatever is said about other weapons, like the spear, is vain boasting. For the roses of the sword are the shield of Heaven’s Garden. The sword’s hyacinths descend from Paradise’s lilies."

- Nasuh ibn Karagoz

As of writing this, this post is very unfinished. However, the core is good enough on its own and  expresses my opinions on the matter well enough. There will be lots of things added and finished, and perhaps more things fleshed out. Even this unfinished mess took me forever, so I hope I convinced you on this matter!

- William