So, would this be the right choice for him to make? Or would a quarterstaff be just as effective, or more so, against a better-armored foot-soldier wielding a long sword? He has minimal armor, mostly made of wood and leather, though with some metal. The enemy has metal breastplates and greaves, at the least.
Conversely, should he just take a spike or a spear, which could arguably be used as a quarterstaff, and would also be effective against the horses? They don't commonly fight against armed enemies.
If not the phalanx, how about the more flexible maniple?
Don't forget the lessons of Sun Tzu, Myamoto Musashi, Leonidas at Thermopylae (the Hot Gates), or Pausanius at Plataea: use their surroundings as a weapon!
[This message has been edited by InarticulateBabbler (edited September 21, 2007).]
Edit: however, if he wants to play it safe give him a ray gun
[This message has been edited by Zero (edited September 21, 2007).]
Keep reading the Sharpe novels. 1) They're great; 2) They're great tutorials on Napoleonic war strategy.
In Sharpe's Eagle (I think), there is a great description of how unsupported calvary and unsupported infantry are, if well-led, incapable of harming each other. Well-led infantry can make itself invincible to unsupported calvary using a hedgehog-type hollow square formation and reserving fire. If they fire at anything but a direct charge, however, the calvary will sweep in while they are reloading and destroy them.
On the other hand, the calvary will never be caught by the infantrymen, and the infantry won't dare to fire at them unless they attempt to charge the square. If they do try a charge, the infantry can wait until extreme short range to blast them with concentrated volley fire and then take bayonets to dazed and confused calvarymen and their horses.
Edited to add: I'm not sure how accurate this is, but the Sharpe novels also has the main character dismounting individual charging calvarymen by smacking the horses in the teeth with his sword, which is described in the book as a "heavy calvary sword" unusual for an infantry officer. http://www.militaryheritage.com/images/1796%20heavy%20cavalry%20sword_1.jpg
[This message has been edited by J (edited September 21, 2007).]
Imagine turning in the wrong direction with a spear in hand. If you don't knock the next warrior down you'll poke his eye out at the least. The spartans used spears to fantastic effect but they trained for years to do it. You don't just "switch" weapons without a lot of work.
Different weapons use different muscles and different sets of skills. And a quarterstaff is a fine solo weapon. I don't think it was ever used in a troop situation.
You didn't say how this character of yours is fighting, but if it is a troop then they better work on working together. As usual when talking about battles, I recommend reading Moon's Deed of Paksenarrion. She didn't do the "they magically know how to use weapons" think that I find so silly.
Edit:
quote:Not only is it not accurate, it's downright silly. Do you have ANY idea what a few tons of warhorse would do to you if you "smack it in the teeth"? Geesh...
I'm not sure how accurate this is, but the Sharpe novels also has the main character dismounting individual charging calvarymen by smacking the horses in the teeth with his sword,
If you're on foot and close enough to "smack it in the teeth" it's already ridden over you anyway. That's what they did and did quite well.
Spears were quite effective against horses but don't look to the movie Braveheart for realism. I like the movie, but it was about as historically inaccurate as you can get. It took a LOT of practice to manage to work that well together with spears.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited September 21, 2007).]
Depending on the societal restrictions you will probably be best having him stick to a quarterstaff. If he has a background as a campaigner or other professional soldier then maybe a sword would fit.
For taking down cavalry a spear would work, but a pike is really preferable. A spear will generally be under 8' whereas a pike typically reaches 14-17'.
As to smacking horses in the teeth, though I don't remember that from the Cornwall books, they said he stipulated individual charging cavalry. A horse under full charge can be sidestepped and swatting it across the muscle with a blade is not too farfetched. Horses charging in rank cannot be sidestepped, you would be run down. The Cornwall Sharpe novels are very good reads and give a good account of tactics and weapon usage during the Napoleanic Wars.
A quaterstaff is going to be fire hardened to temper it, so it will deflect most swords strikes, so long as you don't block the blade straight on, which could split it, but swords are not great for chopping wood, give it a try if you don't believe me :-)
Quartertaff has better reach, it requires less skill to use it effectively and has a faster recovery, for defense or follow through, than a sword. It is less lethal though, a glancing blow from the staff might result in some bruising or soreness, a solid hit could break a bone, but probably won't. A sword even on a glancing hit, will cut tissue and create bleeding, which will become worse as you extend yourself.
Historically spears are the weapon of choice, they provide good reach, can be used similar to a staff, can be thrown if required, are very effective when used in ranks, just a great weapon.
I'm inclined to favor something with reach, like a pike or quarterstaff, where the piker might bring the fight to an end before the swordsman got unlimbered.
(Actually it was a buck-and-a-quarterstaff.)
I wrote a long heroic fantasy story that I still think ought to find a market somewhere, and in it I'm careful to set a scene where the main character is practicing with his weapon. Good fighters practice constantly. Which is why I think the answer to the original question that started this thread is, don't switch weapons. Instead, find a situation where a quarterstaff will be the weapon of choice -- thick forest would fill the bill. While your oponent is hacking away with his sword, cutting leaves and branches, you poke him with the quarterstaff, and keep on poking.
There is a flawed but still great film with Sean Connery playing Robin Hood where the Sheriff together with several of his men confront Robin. They don't dare even try to capture or kill him. They know one good fighter can wipe out many run-of-the-mill fighters with ease.
quote:One of the more amusing myths. While that amazing super fighter is wiping the floor, one of the group of "run-of-the-mil" fighters gets close enough to smash him over the head with a club. End of fight.
There is a flawed but still great film with Sean Connery playing Robin Hood where the Sheriff together with several of his men confront Robin. They don't dare even try to capture or kill him. They know one good fighter can wipe out many run-of-the-mill fighters with ease.
But it makes a good scene in a movie.
quote:Actually, a quarterstaff was a formidable weapon. However, if you are fighting in a group, you and the people around you had better all both know how to use one but know how to use one in a group or else it is more likely to be your friend you're smacking in the groin. Also quarterstaves were more likely to break and lacked both a cutting edge and a point. They were, however, cheap to make. So they had some serious disadvantages and were rarely used in warfare, but only as individual weapons.
A quarterstaff is a stout pole 6 to 8 feet long according to www.dictionary.com. Sounds like a formidable weapon to me.Used proficiently it could trip up a charging horse or knock a rider out of the saddle by ramming the chest armor or whacking the back of the head. A quarterstaff man could hold a swordsman at a distance, crack the knuckles of his sword hand followed by a quick reverse strike to the groin before finishing him off with an overhead blow to the skull.
It would be nice if that swordsman stood 8 feet away and let you smack him around. However, a smart one went in close and slashed you across the belly. That's what people do when they have less reach than their opponents. I've startled more than one larger man in swordfights doing exactly that.
The trick to winning is frequently NOT to do what your opponent WANTS you to do.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited September 23, 2007).]
the type of sword you were up against would matter a lot too. A sword designed for stabbing will be dealt with differently than a hacking sword.
The japaneese and chineese would use their pole weapons from the end, while a quarter staff is generally used from the middle.
A hero trained with the quarterstaff could do well with a battle ax or spear. Spears had points that could cut and that most battle axes and the heavier spears generally had metal tips on the bottom for damage too. The only real difference would be to learn to make sure the cutting edge is leading in each strike. The training with a battle ax or spear would be more a minor transition.
Learning to fight with a daggar or knife, especiailly a long one, would be a good skill to have, and he might be practicing with that.
In reality, if you are good with unarmed combat, preferably japaneeze martial arts styles, you will likely be able to fight with a weapon by using it to extend your reach and the effects of your blows.
By the way "thrusting swords" were a very late invention. The foil, for example, are basically sport "weapons" and weren't even invented until mid 16th century. The rapier came to be used around the same time. These are dueling or sport weapons and were never used in warfare.
In battle they would be a joke. It is important to understand that when you are talking about sword fighting that fencing and sword fighting are generally two very different things. (Although at one time fencing meant the same, it has acquired a very different meaning.)
As far as breaking a metal sword with a wooden one-- yeah, sure. I'm sure that happens a lot. That's why people always used wooden swords to fight.
A sword carved out of peachwood with a silver-lined runnel -- what would be its weaknesses? This one is wielded by a magic user, but still, the real sword...how hard would it be? If fire hardened? I know really nothing about peachwood versus oak.
[This message has been edited by arriki (edited September 24, 2007).]
quote:
I think it is Debbie KW who knows a LOT about battle/weapons use. Check with her. Or zoom down the Hatrack experts list. I just remember being really impressed with Debbie's knowledge on another thread. She was awesome.
Thanks. I needed that ego-boost. It's been a bad day. Sorry for disappearing on everyone for a couple of weeks.
People have already covered most of the points that I would. First, learning to use a sword effectively in a combat situation takes some time. Your character (if given the option) would be better served to stick with his quarterstaff. I'd give him an edged weapon as a back-up in case his quarterstaff is broken, though.
Second, if his people aren't used to fighting cavalry, then they'll all be at a disadvantage (no matter the weapon) until new tactics are discovered that work effectively. He'd be safer sticking with a weapon her knew really well. Also, a man on the ground with a sword is at a very bad disadvantage when dealing with cavalry. In the situation you describe, a good bet is for his army to arm a group of people with crossbows and station them behind a bunch of posts that have their ends sharpened and are pointed at the charging cavalry. Or by having them hide in the forest and set up traps that will disable the horses (holes to break horse's legs, trip wires, crossbow bolts shot into the horse's body, etc.). Note that cavalry really aren't effective in battles in forests and mountains. They are at their best when charging at the enemy formations or charging back out of range of enemy weapons. Forests and steep terrain make that difficult.
You say that he is also fighting against a better-equipped infantry. A quarterstaff will work well if he's not fighting in formation (and it sounds like he isn't). It gives him the reach on a man using a long sword and can injure the enemy even through armor, though generally we're talking bruises rather than death-blows. Probably his best bet would be to hit the opponent in the head (which can kill, or at least knock the helmet askew so that the opponent can't see well) or knock his opponent to the ground (where that armor might actually work against him) then take a dagger to his throat.
If your fellow used a pole-arm about the size and weight of the quarterstaff but with a spike or blade on the end, he'd be even more formidable. Learning to use it might be a little tricky due to old habits that no longer work or that might even injure him, but he'd be able to learn it much more quickly than starting with a sword he's never used before. Yes, a pole-arm would be more effective against horses as well. I'd suggest, though, that he be smart and stay out of range of the horses when at all possible. Unmounted men not in formation are at an extreme disadvantage when faced with a warrior on horseback.
Hope this helped.
quote:
A sword carved out of peachwood with a silver-lined runnel -- what would be its weaknesses? This one is wielded by a magic user, but still, the real sword...how hard would it be? If fire hardened? I know really nothing about peachwood versus oak.
Maybe I'm missing something, but "what would be it's weakness"? Well, it doesn't have an edge that will cut effectively. I grant that a wooden edge would break skin and would still stab effectively. However, a hoe would have a metal edge, and probably a sharp one, too. It'd be more dangerous than just a wooden staff.
I do know that I don't get the significance of the "silver-lined runnel." Than sounds purely like decoration to me. Even if he had a silver-lined edge on the sword, silver isn't that hard of a metal in the grand scheme of things. Another problem would be keeping the metal attached to the wood and finding a way to keep that edge sharp, since traditionally one sharpens metal by filing away existing metal.
Okay, I'll shut up now. You just got me thinking about how that might work. 
.I checked out your CDs from Wind Shadow Media Production--they look pretty cool. I think I might order a couple. It's been way too long since I've been around horses, and I've never been an expert, so I've been looking for a good way to educate myself on them.
Thanks. Happily, yesterday is gone, and today was a good day. 
I'd be thrilled if you bought some of my CD-ROMs. My sales drop every summer, so it's nice when fall comes around and people start buying them again. Though the CD-ROMs do have basic material and are used by Pony Clubs and such, I probably should warn you that they also go into a great deal of detail. They were originally designed to be used in university classes. Luckily, my publisher discovered that horse owners all over the world are also interested in buying them and now make up the majority of the people who purchase the CDs. Heck, even painters and sculptors have bought my Gaits CD-ROM so that they can accurately portray a horse in motion.
*sigh* Now if only a publisher would buy my fiction. At least I'll always have my non-fiction fans.
[This message has been edited by DebbieKW (edited September 25, 2007).]
(i havent read all the replies but)
staff would be the ideal answer to mounted calvery. they are cheep and effictive. they could be sharpened at one end to thrust into the belly of a horse to through therider from it, then used to defeat the rider.
Rommel Fenrir Wolf II