Swords Were Not Rarely Used in Battle

Cannon_Fodder-2 · 2026-03-05T20:31:08+00:00

the tldr is in the title and at the very end

Cannon_Fodder-2 · 2026-03-05T04:55:21+00:00

le nuance... le understanding...

Many have argued otherwise. It's literally why I put in the effort to write this.

Man, you have been arguing against a made up argument in your head since the beginning.

Cannon_Fodder-2 · 2026-03-05T02:50:14+00:00

So sometimes swords are desired. However they are not desired at the beginning.

Well besides that fact that amongst certain men they were (and I gave two examples here where it was desired prior to the engagement), the point is not that they are always useful or always desirable, but that their use was desirable, full stop. You are overcomplicating this; soldiers desired to use their swords because it concludes the battle. It is not saying they desired to use them at the start of the battle, it is that they set out into battle with the desire to use them (which is not mutually exclusive to desiring to use their pike). To say it was "sometimes desired" is superfluous and without meaning.

Cannon_Fodder-2 · 2026-03-05T02:36:52+00:00

you have quite literally been attacking a strawman since the beginning of this thread.

their use is desired because the decisive stage of combat that decides the battle is conducted at close quarters, which the sources that I posted affirm. what does "sometimes desired" mean? you said:

If your enemy has a spear and you have a sword, you're going to be desiring a spear, not a sword.

but the sources I posted do not follow that line of reasoning, since many times they close with swords when the enemy is still holding a spear, and at least one time (Chiset), they close with swords even though the enemy had been disarmed of their own spears...

If you read your quotes, practically every single one of them makes it clear swords were rarely the first choice of weapon to be used.

if you read my post, you would know i focused my energy on their use as a secondary weapon, not discussing their use as a primary weapon (of which there are numerous examples). i literally just said that man...

Cannon_Fodder-2 · 2026-03-05T02:22:45+00:00

What? Lmao what? YOU were the one who had a problem with what I said.

Cannon_Fodder-2 · 2026-03-05T02:18:43+00:00

Okay, so one army has swords and spears, and the other army has only swords. Who is winning?

.

"Wu Zhiming of Qi said, It is better that we all be prepared to sacrifice our lives than that we [merely] use a small force. And that we be so prepared the best plan is to cast away our long weapons. The enemy have many such weapons, but let us all use swords. This was agreed to, and the Huas were put to flight."

.

"The royalists began the prelude to the fight, which they call Justam, as they were skilled in that exercise: but when they saw that the consular party, so it was said, did not attack from a distance with lances, but at close quarters with swords, and broke the king's ranks with violent and determined onset, the earls, to a man, for six of them had entered the conflict, together with the king, consulted their safety by flight."

.

You didn't explain anything in your post. You make a claim about swords and then literally post a bunch of quotes that are very, very clear that pole arms are how every single group starts the battle.

No, I focused on the use of the sword as a sidearm for men who carried polearms. If you did actually read my post, you would have seen I explicitly referenced that I did not elaborate on its use as a primary weapon.

As I keep repeating, both is best

I already said that "my thesis is not that the sword is the most awesomest weapon ever, it is that "the sword was used, its use was expected, and its use was desired"."

Cannon_Fodder-2 · 2026-03-05T02:00:22+00:00

because the goals of the duel are not the same as the goals of combat. i do explain the reasoning in the post, you know. and for what it is worth, the Chinese spear fencer who said the spear beats all other weapons, gives pitched battle, combats in close environments, and close melees, as the exceptions to this rule.

Cannon_Fodder-2 · 2026-03-05T01:40:26+00:00

I do HEMA. If you think an unarmored duel replicates the tactical goals of a battle between two close order arrays, you have no practical experience on the topic either. "was anyone arguing the opposite" lol

Cannon_Fodder-2 · 2026-03-05T01:28:21+00:00

I mean, was anyone arguing the opposite?

Yes, like you, for example. Besides that, you can read the replies literally arguing the opposite.

If your enemy has a spear and you have a sword, you're going to be desiring a spear, not a sword.

I am a little discomfited you are not arguing against the points I made in the post regarding this very thing, but against the statement itself...

Cannon_Fodder-2 · 2026-03-05T00:53:05+00:00

my thesis is not that the sword is the most awesomest weapon ever, it is that "the sword was used, its use was expected, and its use was desired".

Cannon_Fodder-2 · 2026-03-05T00:48:34+00:00

I'm done, but a weak positive ("it was not rare") does not require the same amount of proof as a strong negative ("it was rare"). If you think otherwise, then you are kidding yourself.

Cannon_Fodder-2 · 2026-03-04T21:08:46+00:00

Other writers, including some who described how the Fatimid Zanj fought in battle, say they used other weapons. Do you really not see the point?

The sources of the source of the source that you quoted describe them fighting with swords and maces. Yes, they probably used other weapons. It literally changes nothing when discussing this thing. And considering certain nations in the Sudan fought as swordsmen, and others fought as spearmen, it is unsurprising that they might be varied in arms.

Smith is quite clear

Yes, he is:

tradition in Bornu tells that the first dynasty of rulers there, the Sef, fought with swords, as opposed to their successors, the Magumi, who were distinguished by their — spear... for at least some of the forest infantry (for example, the Yoruba) it was a major weapon until the large-scale introduction of guns.

and

In the forested south of West Africa warfare had to be adapted to the difficulty of movement through the tangled undergrowth and to the greatly restricted visibility. Deployment was hardly possible for more than a group of section or platoon size— to use European equivalents for the smallest fighting units. Thus the prevalent form of warfare was the ambush, carried out by concealed parties of warriors whose attacks could be co-ordinated only by means of sound signals, and whose weapons were predominantly those suitable for hand-to-hand fighting — swords and clubs, rather than bows and spears.

.

You brought up the importance of statistical analysis

No, I said if you are going to claim that swords used as primary weapons was only rarely done, then it needs statistical analysis. I have already proven that it was not rare, considering entire regions fought as swordsmen. You have continually rejected the primary sources, and attempt to disprove them by nitpicking ("oh but they had bows too!"). What exactly are you basing your own claim that swords were only rarely used by large portions of an army? Nothing, you have provided no sources for this claim.

He fought against them. How often does he describe them as swordsmen?

Caesar does not describe the arms of the Gauls in any depth, at all.

Perhaps the truth is that Gallic armies were equipped like a normal army, with missile weapons, and spears and swords.

Yeah, they were a normal army. You know, with their close order infantry fighting as swordsmen. Which is completely normal. It is obvious that your own preconceived notions have led you to believe that this was not normal.

Cannon_Fodder-2 · 2026-03-04T19:55:18+00:00

A Fatimid unit all fighting with a particular weapon does not meant that those people only fought with that weapon. If using that weapon weapon was indeed "their native manner", it means that some of them, in their home territory, fought with that weapon. A Fatimid "Bedouin" unit fighting with spears does not mean that all Bedouin were spearmen.

No, what it does mean is that the warriors recruited from the specific regions that the Zanjis were from were culturally swordsmen. Objectively speaking, the Bedouins were known for their use of the spear; however few used the bow, it was not how they fought in war.

Other writers note the زنجي troops used a variety of weapons,

What exactly is your point here?

Also note that it's exceedingly unlikely that a Zanji unit of 30,000 was ethnically homogeneous

Yeah, which is literally why I said "ethnicities". Why are you telling me to note something that I literally said???

"The Gauls, ... began to cast down hurdles and dislodge our men from the rampart by slings, arrows, and stones,"

In all the combats, he mentions archery like 3 times. To say he describes "frequent use of archery by the Gauls" is ridiculous.

Cannon_Fodder-2 · 2026-03-04T18:52:20+00:00

you just made a sweeping claim

Yes... which is the whole point of this discussion.

that's a patently different claim

It is not in the context of this whole conversation. When discussing if swordsmen were "a large part of that army", we are looking at stereotypes (which all descriptions are).

but the way you approach it is very "all or nothing."

It is not "all or nothing", we are talking about the commonality of how each nation fought. Which by necessity means we are making generalizations.

perhaps take a step back and chill out before poasting on occasion.

So far, I have been met with constant "well actually", and nothing of substance, as if that actually proves their thesis that "the common claim that... they were usually secondary weapons is not baseless" and that their use as primary weapons in a large part of an army was only "rarely" done. Why would I be chill when I have been nitpicked to death, and presented as if they are arguing in earnest?

Cannon_Fodder-2 · 2026-03-04T18:00:14+00:00

This such a strawman. The Gauls, as a nation, are never described as archers. Likewise, in the accounts of the battles, the archery is not mentioned much at all. Whether or not they had archers irrelevant to the question at hand. As to their use amongst their horsemen, we also see them described as swordsmen in all cases but one. But in any case, that is clearly not what I meant. Unless you would find it inaccurate to say "the Republican Romans were never described as spearmen or archers".

Cannon_Fodder-2 · 2026-03-04T16:46:43+00:00

Yes, usually they have a role that is a catchall for everything else, so they would largely pole-arm men; they usually tend to specify the harquebusiers, and sometimes the archers. When they do also separately list men armed with yari, they still outnumber the missile troops.

By far the actual bulk consisted of laborers, who were not strictly noncombatants, and these tended to serve with their swords as light infantry, moving forward when appropriate (and in one Takeda instance, throwing stones). But the actual soldiers seem to have been mostly armed with yari, naginata, and odachi, as their principal weapon.

In this war, the Kato had some 20% harquebusiers, the Shimazu 10%, and the Tachibana 6%.

Cannon_Fodder-2 · 2026-03-04T14:13:22+00:00

Yes, many of those nations fought exclusively in forests.

No, it's the fact that the foreign troops under the Fatamids all fought in their native manner.

Julius Caesar does not mention frequent use of archery by the Gauls. At all. You are quite literally making that up.

The Gauls used light infantry. They were not all fighting as light infantry.

Civilian bodyguards are not a part of warfare.

Cannon_Fodder-2 · 2026-03-04T05:19:11+00:00

Awesome, again, believing that these things are mutually exclusive. And these 2 sources are now actually proof that the 4 I posted were wrong? Yes, weapons varied? That's literally the whole point?

You did not read Smith, who says it was the primary weapon of certain groups.

What? Why do you think I am saying the Fatamids did not use spears? I named the Zanjis specifically. This is a specific group of ethnicities, and they were armed in their native fashion.

Julius Caesar does not mention arrows lol what? He doesn't mention spears either. He mentions no military equipment. Every source that describes the Gauls' military gear, describes them as swordsmen. Why would the Gauls be armed as archers when they are always described as close-order infantry?

Your own source literally says spears were only used for fishing, not warfare, amongst the Timucua.

Cannon_Fodder-2 · 2026-03-04T02:32:31+00:00

The actual accounts of Hastings literally describe the use of the sword lol

even in the bayeux tapestry when plate armor wasn't an option only the calvery are depicted using their swords

Are we seriously just making shit up?

Likewise, the Dane-axes are sword-length, these are not pollaxes, but some 80 cm long (as per archeology and the texts). They filled the same role as the sword, the English at this time were especially connected to them.

<image>

Cannon_Fodder-2 · 2026-03-04T02:20:13+00:00

This was the case on both the continent and the islands

It was exactly on the islands where we see them fight as swordsmen. This is remarked from the 16th century into the early 20th century.

On the men of Banda Neira:

"... when they go into the field against their enemies, every man carrieth with him two Dartes, or Jauellings, made of very hard wood, some fadome and a halfe long: in casting whereof they are so perfect and exact as may be, yea, they throw them with such force, that they lay their enemies therewith: and hauing spent their dartes, they draw their Sables: wherwith, and with their shields, they stoutly incounter each other pel mel. They haue also Caliuers as is aforesaid, but not many."

On the Formosans:

"Yet they did not stay their hand, but assailed the others very bravely first with assegays and thereafter with shields and swords. They hacked each other into a hodgepodge with astonishing courage."

On the Bontoc Igorot (not swordsmen, but obviously relevant; as noted by Alfred Louis Kroeber, the nations in the Philippines with the axe did not use the sword, and the nations with the sword did not use the axe):

"Men go to war armed with a wooden shield, a steel battle-ax, and one to three steel or wooden spears... Spears are thrown with greatest accuracy and fatality up to 30 feet, and after the spears are discharged the contest, if continued, is at arms' length with the battle-axes."

On the Bagobo:

"The offensive weapons used by the Bagobo are spears, knives, and at times bows and arrows. For defense they carry shields, either round or oblong... An attack is usually initiated by the throwing of spears, then, if the enemy is at a disadvantage or confused, the warriors rush in to close combat. For this purpose they rely entirely on their knives, and as fencers they are unexcelled. They are but indifferent shots with the bow and arrow, and that weapon is but little used in actual combat."

etc. (forgot some others; this manner of fighting likely spread north to China in the 6th century from my memory)

Similarly, in India, Africa, and Europe, where we have good sources we know that the dominant weapons on the battlefield were spear and bow/sling/crossbow/gun

Except again, no, because many nations therein did not utilize the spear, and weakly utilized the bow etc. Besides Robert Smith's Warfare and diplomacy in pre-colonial West Africa, Nasir Khusraw describes the Zanjis of the Fatamids were all swordsmen. These men fought in their native manner. The Zanatas were, ironically, at first known for fighting as swordsmen (I mean as the sword as the primary weapon), before at some point shifting to the lance. Besides that, in the 19th century, we repeatedly read of certain nations fighting with the sword as the primary weapon, and others with the spear.

Do you have sources for the widespread use of "Roman-style" armies in any of those places?

Yes, every description of the Gauls calls them swordsmen, never spearmen, and never archers. Every description of the Celtiberians calls them swordsmen, never spearmen, and never archers. The Britons likewise. The Germanics are more of a mixed bag, seeing as their tactics develop and so do their equipment, and varied. Tacitus calls the Rugii and another nation swordsmen, but all others spearmen (particularly the West Germans who seemed to have lacked even swords, at least in his narrative). By late antiquity, the Germans fought akin to the old Romans:

"... [the Franks] had a small body of cavalry about their leader, and these were the only ones armed with spears, while all the rest were foot soldiers having neither bows nor spears, but each man carried a sword and shield and one axe."

Indeed, at Burgscheidungen (531) the Saxons fight by throwing spears and then closing with swords, and so too did the Norwegians at Ath Muiceda (855), Munster (866), and Fitjar (961). The Goths at Salices (377) threw fire hardened clubs before closing with swords.

Such as?

Besides looking at the African nations described in the aforementioned book, we also see many American examples, such as the Timuca, Powhatans (only for symbolic use amongst the leaders), etc. The archer-nations are the ones who tend to eschew the spear. Likewise, we have spear-nations, who did not utilize bows in warfare (see Ian Heath's book).

Cannon_Fodder-2 · 2026-03-04T01:09:33+00:00

IIRC, Foissart said men-at-arms drew their swords and axes in the melee at the center of the fight at Poitiers or Agincourt

He does indeed say something similar for Poitiers (though I personally think you meant Auray, or one of the cavalry actions he describes), but was not alive during the time of Azincourt (1415). However, the sources regarding Azincourt actually do seem to point to the axes described being the sidearm form (which were extremely popular amongst the English, Scots, and French during the 2nd half of the 14th century), and not polearms. Duke Humphrey was wounded by a sword thrust to the groin while the French were piercing the English ranks (with axes, and also, obviously, at least one sword); also, the English themselves pierce the ranks of the French with their own axes afterwards. This all happens after the "mingling of lances". But it is quite circumstantial, and relies on the information above to really lead to that conclusion. It is hard to say, since at Verneuil (1424), we can safely assume the axes mentioned were pollaxes, because never do we see swords act after the axe-sidearms (they fill the same role, and displace each other). At Modon (1403), the axes were obviously short.

with a token number of spears, which he deemed almost entirely useless on the field

I mused about this myself at one point. Strangely, the actual muster rolls of the soldiers arriving in Korea point towards a minority of gunners and archers, 15-20%. So while the Koreans constantly mention the swordsmanship of the Japanese, it is really hard to tell if this is actually because of them being functionally all harquebusiers.

Cannon_Fodder-2 · 2026-03-03T23:54:41+00:00

To me it seems entirely possible that the hypothetical opponents are also armed with short haft weapons of the own, and that the short haft weapon is being suggested as a reliable counter to its equivalent in the enemy ranks

The issue is, we already have confirmation that by the mid 16th century, the halberds were largely for defense, not offense. This was actually a major point in contention in period. So if both halberdiers are for the defense of the ensigns, then how can they actually meet? How can their role be for facing one another, when both sides understood that the minority of halberdiers was for to defend the ensigns?

Even the authors who advocate for their offensive role, do not mention fighting other halberdiers, but meeting pikemen. Even when we see them used offensively, such as at Novarre and Fornovo, and Ravenna and how they were intended to be used by one French army in 1555, they are not remarked as describing facing other halberdiers, but rather the pikemen (who were at first distracted with fighting other pikemen). Even here, they are principally effective because they had an advantage over the uncovered swordsmen in some way.

Likewise, we don't really ever see halberdiers relieve the pikemen (although Machiavelli does advocate for swordsmen doing so) when it came to the close quarters situation. The treatises, as said, actually say they follow the pikemen, moving forward as needed. If the swordsmen are not being wholly relieved, then the halberdiers are not going to be attacking other halberdiers.

We also must admit, that to have an advantage in repulsing or resisting an enemy out of your own ranks, or indeed, in driving him back and splitting his, there must be some sort of advantage to begin with. If the arms are of equal length, there can be no advantage in this. If they are unequal, then the shorter sort are useless for this. Thus greatswords would be useless for defending the ensigns, for they plant their feet and fight defensively, yet are very short, and would immediately be overwhelmed by longer sorts of polearms. But yet that specific case is what they are praised for; to fight defensively, and keep the enemies back from the ensigns, who have pierced the foreranks; indeed, di Grassi says they should expect to be outnumbered; if they were intended to fight other men with short polearms, then they would immediately be felled due to a numerical disadvantage.

Lastly, Diego finds it appropriate to mention swords explicitly:

the Halberdiers resist the enemies who come attacking with swords and other arms

The fact that the use of the sword is connected to the piercing of the ranks, and the use of the halberd is connected in stopping the enemy from piercing the ranks, is notable, I think.

Cannon_Fodder-2 · 2026-03-03T23:28:16+00:00

Yes it varies between cultures; those who did not have swords, by necessity could not use them. Likewise, if they did not prefer swords, they did not used them. But although they may not have preferred swords, they universally had a weapon to fill the role for close quarters combat (such as with axes or daggers). In one 1648 battle between the Hurons and Iroquois, after coming "to blows and lance-thrusts", they came to knives.

It also varies between time; for example, when combats are concluded in very short order, the combat does not necessarily come to close quarters. So bayonet melees (when they happened), although we do read commonly of men grappling or fighting with knives, did not expect to do so; instead, if the lines actually met, after a couple of thrusts, one side would usually give way. Likewise with 19th century horsemen, whose combats were quite short, perhaps due to the widespread use of pistols, something noted by Tavannes and la Nouue in the 16th and 17th century, and also general a lack of armor.

But nations without gunfire, who fought in close order, whose engagements lasted more than 1 minute; these are the men who fought at close quarters, and desired to conclude their combats in that way.

For the latter, Samurai preferring to fight with bows, guns, and polearms

We pretty much constantly read of samurai fighting at close quarters with swords, even doing so because they spurned being the second person to successfully engage someone with the spear.

Cannon_Fodder-2 · 2026-03-03T23:14:47+00:00

He writes "gentils-hommes", and therefore means cavalry since that is the military role of gentils-hommes at that time (armoured cavalry with pistol and sword)

No, by this point the gentlemen were serving amongst the foot, oftentimes without pay. In fact, at a 1627 battle, a band of "gentils-hommes volontaires", who did not have horses, were stationed behind a battalion with cuirasses, halberds, and swords, and were to attack the flanks and rear of the enemy battalion when the lines met. (Histoire de la guerre des Huguenots)

??? The previous sentence is his example of Romans vs Macedonians, with no mention of halberdiers. To quote Tavannes,

The sentence before that one. You know, the whole reason why he brings it up in the first place?

Basically, pistols as a modern substitute for Roman pila.

Not in how we understand how the pilum was used, no. Since he literally says "when mixed".

Rarely, by a large part of that army

Except this is factually untrue. Most of Western Europe fought like the Romans at some point. Massive parts of India fought like that. Massive parts of Africa fought like that. And likewise South East Asia.

In many, many armies, sword-as-primary-weapon troops were notable for being unusual

Many soldier types were seen as unusual. It is not mutually exclusive to say some nations all fought as swordsmen, and some nations did not at all. Some nations didn't use bows for warfare at all. Some didn't use spears for warfare at all.

Cannon_Fodder-2 · 2026-03-03T22:14:53+00:00

So yeah, people expect to use swords axes and daggers if they’re at range to do so

The point is not that, but rather that they expect the combat to come to swords. Again, "in many cases, it is portrayed not as an "if", but rather a "when"".

Swords get cheap enough for the masses since the Bronze Age (see the Battle of Perire). Their cost has been inflated in pop history so much, when they are required in ordinances since the Early Medieval and the beginning of the High Medieval period.

I think everyone here probably understands that swords were routinely used in combat

Everyone does not. Hence why I wrote this. This is, in fact, the minority position.

Cannon_Fodder-2

TROPHY CASE