This one is a little different to my other posts. The title basically explains it; this is a compilation of accounts of Roman legionaries fighting outside of their "usual" manner, which for most of their existence was by charging by throwing pila, and then closing with swords, with shields in hand.
We very rarely see infantry in the 16th century with closed helmets; while this is likely not without reason, we do, however, read of them being commended in the military treatises of the time, particularly in the middle of the century.
This is a companion to my other post. Each battle listed here is a description of swords and sidearms being used en masse, detailed in a manner that I find sufficient (which I confess, is a little arbitrarily); while most accounts of battle describe the sword being used, few describe why or when the sword was being used in the engagement.
There's not a whole lot on the coustillier, both online and in modern sources, especially in English, so I will attempt to shed some light them. I have translated quite a few sources for this, so enjoy!
The Battle of Omdurman is particularly famed for a cavalry charge recorded by Winston Churchill (who was an officer who partook in the said charge). I have seen Churchill's recollection referred to frequently, yet only recently did I sit down to read it. It is quite enlightening, and confirms many of my suspicions. It is quite a famous account, and many of my conclusions are not at all hard to get to, but committing things to writing is good to form one's argument and knowledge, and I have seen opinions espoused that are contradicted by this account, so I will analyze it regardless, specifically to the end of understanding the Medieval and Early Modern cavalry charge better. You may read the full account of the battle here.
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, so enjoy!
This one will be a short one; I will be discussing infantry close-order tactics of the High Medieval (1000-1300 AD), with emphasis on the relationship with the shield-bearers and the archers (or crossbowmen). There will be some Islamic world sources to compare with the Christian European ones, so buckle up!
Hello and welcome to my first post! This will be a big one, so get comfortable.
Often it is said "We don't know how zweihanders/montantes/spadoni were used in war," but frankly, this is far from the truth. There is plenty of information as to their purpose and role in battle, but there is some piecing together to do.
Before I continue, it must be noted zweihander, schlachtschwert, slaugh sword, slaughter sword, montante, spadone, espadon, two handed sword, and sometimes longsword are one and the same. Even though some of these names are more common today, and perhaps more clear, I will use the term "two handed sword," as it is the most common term in period English texts.
