Rise and Fall of the Longsword as a Battlefield Weapon

[Anwyl]

For those of you that are interested. A good friend of mine wrote up a fairly comprehensive essay on the battlefield application of the longsword. It's a pretty informative read.

The rise and fall of the longsword as a battlefield weapon 1333-1450 (Give or take!)
By Richard Marsden

I will first and foremost say that I am not a professional historian. While I teach history for a living and hold an MA in land warfare, I don't have any history books under my belt-just fiction! Many WMA folk produce far finer quality work than I ever will. The only primary documents I spend much time with are books on swordplay throughout the ages. Thus the theory I am working on is derived from a collection of mostly secondary sources with my primary texts being instructional fight-books. Additionally, my sources revolve around the use of weaponry in Britain, France, Italy, but lack in some German developments and is sadly devoid when it comes to the longswords' history in Eastern Europe. Time and research by myself and the WMA community will rectify this and either lend to my proposal or alter it. Specific challenges would need to be addressed in the first use of the longsword as a primary battlefield tool (IE historians referencing its use or actual text doing the same in a battle) and its decline (IE- the same). Counters are welcome to the proposal and I'll probably not comment right away as I gather input, material and so on. I believe terminology will be a contentious point, but we'll try and work ahead despite it. My end goal is to add this to my website and perhaps peddle off the final product to one of the magazines I'm occasionally accepted into, or to 'can/alter' the proposal should enough evidence indicate that's the best course of action.

Proposal
My proposal is that as a military weapon the longsword was developed in England in the early 1300’s and gradually discarded for longer, heavier two-handed swords from 1400 onwards by Europeans. By 1450 the longsword was less and less a battlefield weapon and instead utilized for tournaments, civilian defense, and judicial duels.

It is from England that the longsword established itself in its wars with Scotland in the early 1300's, then was used in France and the rest of the continent during the Hundred Years war. My proposal is based off certain tactics that the English developed in the early 1300's which specifically mention the longsword. This does not mean the longsword did not exist in other parts of Europe at the time or prior, it certainly did, but it was not a document primary tool of war until the English chose to utilize it as such in 1333.

What is a longsword?
First, what is a longsword? Categorizing longswords as any bladed weapon requiring two hands will not do and the weapons I am focusing on are the Oakeshott typology XV, XVI and XVII blades which were popular from 1300-1500 and can be categorized as having a handle long enough for two hands, and blades that were long and over the years grew steadily longer and heavier in nature until they became something different than the longswords favored by the likes of Fiore and Liechtenauer.
Alfred Hutton, a Victorian historian and a forerunner of today's Western Martial Arts, had in his possession, or access to, a considerable amount of swords, which he in turn categorized. In particular, of the two-handed varieties Hutton mentioned a 'bastard sword' that could be used in one hand or two. Specifically, he described the use of this type of bastard longsword in a judicial duel fought in 1549 (1).

Hutton also mentioned two-handed swords and cited their use in The Vse of the Two Handed Sworde, or MS Harley 3542 dated to the 14th century, George Silver's Paradoxes of Defense of 1599, and Joseph Swetnam's treaties of 1617. In the case of Silver and Swetnam, the weapon is long and heavy enough to not be a longsword used in the same manner as Fiore or Liechtenauer and thus being something I propose as different than a longsword (2). In the case of MS Harely 3542, Brandon Helsop and Benjamin Bradak firmly place the verses in the realm of the longsword as I see it (3).
This means between roughly 1300-1500 the longsword saw its inception and gradual evolution into something different. This transition is not easy to pin-point because Europeans developed at different rates for different reasons. Additionally, while the longsword saw its decline on the battlefield, it still remained in European culture as a civilian, judicial, and 'sport' weapon. Meanwhile, larger blades replaced the traditional longswords on the battlefield, but not everywhere at the same time.

Who used the longsword?
The longsword is assuredly knightly in nature, (although it was quickly adopted by non-knights and especially mercenaries) but curiously it is not designed for mounted warfare. The grip length of the longsword can accommodate two hands, but as a result they are more unwieldy for use by mounted men. There are no melee-based, two-handed weapons used for mounted warfare for obvious reasons. With one hand being necessary to maintain control over the reins of the steed and possibly a shield, that leaves only one hand to wield a weapon.

There are some examples of mounted weapons that could be used one handed on horseback and two-handed on foot. The lance could be used on foot, and there is indication that this was a common practice in Renaissance Italy by the English mercenaries operating in the region who used a short, six-foot long lance (4). However, I propose that the longsword was not such a weapon, and was rather used exclusively on foot. Knights, who were well-outfitted for war, could have a variety of tools at their disposal including, a lance, sword, longsword, dagger and so on to meet their needs.

Art of the era shows a difference between the swords used by mounted men and those on foot in terms of the grip-length. Medieval art, of course, is not a solid means of determining the dimensions of the medieval and early renaissance weaponry. In the case of artwork depicting the Hundred Years War some paintings were created many years, even a century, after the events they portrayed. Still, it is an indication that, combined with typology and historical accounts, puts forth the notion that the longsword was designed to be used by knights on foot. The question is, why?

The longsword as a foot soldier’s weapon (English longsword)
Knights, by their very nature, were men who did not like to walk into battle. Possession of a warhorse was as much a mark of their station as their armor, heraldry and swords. Knights and nobles even began to wear footwear that prevented walking as proof of their literally lofty status. Why would a knight choose to use a weapon that required them to give up their prized horses?

Evidence indicates that the decision to have knights fight on foot arose during the 1300's in Britain. Scotland was a vassal of England at the time according to the English. The Scottish thought of themselves as independent. This difference of opinion led to a series of struggles that de-facto ended with Scottish independence. The wars of the early 1300's between England and Scotland led to critical tactical developments in warfare.

In 1314 King Edward II of England's army met Scottish forces led by Robert Bruce at Bannockburn. During the two day battle the English knights were confounded by their inability to win a decisive victory. Poor choice of ground and the Scottish use of spears thwarted the heavy cavalry of England- something thought impossible ever since the triumph of mounted Norman knights over foot-based Saxons in 1066. Meanwhile, English longbowmen, famed for their rate of fire and their great range in battle, were scattered from the field by Scottish cavalry before they could be effective. Bannockburn led to Scottish independence for a time, and in England new military developments in the wake of their defeat.

By 1333 the English confronted Scotland again under a different king, Edward III, and with different and revolutionary tactics at Halidon Hill. Traditionally, the English used their archers to punish their foes, then swept in with their knights to claim the field, using their men-at-arms to provide support as needed. Edward III instead ordered his knights to dismount and provide protection for the English longbowmen, who were placed on the flanks of the army (5). These knights were armed with longswords and a variety of heavier armor that limited their mobility. However, in this case they didn't need to go anywhere- the Scottish were coming to them. Additionally, the position of the English foot soldiers, men-at-arms and knights alike, were not tightly compressed. The knights with their longswords and the men-at-arms with cleaving pole-weapons needed room to operate.

In the ensuing battle the tightly ranked Scottish schiltroms, armed with shields and spears, had no cavalry unit which to set themselves against. Meanwhile, the Scottish knights were scattered under a storm of English arrow-fire, perhaps due to a lack of armor themselves, or under-armored horses (6). When the Scottish army broke due the continual rain of arrows, the English knights mounted their horses and gave chase. I propose that once mounted their tool of choice would have been the lance, followed by their traditional one-handed swords used in conjunction with a shield. The longsword was designed for a specific role- knights on foot. There is no reason to believe that knights would not retain their traditional weaponry on the saddles of their horses, or in the hands of their squires or on their belts in scabbards.

Flushed with victory, Edward III raised an army to make a claim in France. The English army was outfitted as a professional fighting-force with men under contract. Knowing exactly what they carried is difficult, but 'by the book' there were rules about what a man needed in order to be paid, or given the right to plunder in France. Knights required horses, a sword, and secondary weapons. Their armor by the time the Hundred Years War started was considerably better in terms of protection as well as mobility, and this trend only continued for the next hundred years (7). Given their success in Scotland the knights went to war with longswords as well as variety of other weaponry.

Three major battles during the Hundred Years war led to further use of the longsword. Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt. In all three cases, French knights mounted, or on foot, attempted to close with their English adversaries, and in all three cases were disorganized by English longbowmen and defeated by English counter-attacks by their knights who could advance on foot, or remount their steeds. It is to be of note that the French after their loss at Crecy did place their knights on foot at times mimicking the English. There is every reason to believe they would have chosen similar weapons as well, such as the longsword, in their attempts to copy English tactics.

The battlefield longsword of Fiore (Italian Longsword)
The Hundred Years war led to English and French tactics and counter-tactics, including weaponry advances that spread throughout Europe. This was most keenly felt in northern Italy where English, French, Gascon, Breton and German mercenaries freely mingled while there were truces between England and France.
John Hawkwood from England crossed into Italy with a German mercenary commander, Albert Sterz, in 1362. They brought with them a wave of mercenary soldiers that flocked to the rich Italian city-states in search of war and profit (not necessarily in that order). The English brought with them the dismounted form of combat they had learned in Scotland and France in which a foot-lance was the primary weapon as well as a sword- presumably the longsword (8). Supporting these English mercenaries were squires and bowmen. In essence, the English 'lance' as it was called, was a mini-representation of their field armies operating in France.

It was in this melting pot of mercenaries that Fiore de Liberi learned his trade and later created his Flower of Battle, a book designed for primarily military purposes and self-defense. In his work, created in 1410, Fiore dedicated his fifty-years of knowledge in mercenary-laden northern Italy to Niccolo D'Este. D'Este was to command Papal forces against the Visconti. John Hawkwood had done this before his death in the 1390's. He died peacefully and quite wealthy. Fiore noted that D'Este did have an extensive library of military manuals, but nothing complete.

Fiore's instructions are telling. They are for men in or out of armor and his techniques are simple, fast and entirely appropriate for the battlefield (9). While there is no reason to say Fiore's techniques could not be used in a judicial duel (he himself fought five duels), the audience the book was written for was a military commander, a man who would be more interested in training his men than seeing haughty nobles fight over issues of honor.The longsword could be used in one hand, two, or in a position known as half-swording where the blade itself was gripped to help direct thrusts. This technique marks a sign of the longsword's decline. Why shorten the range by half-swording? The answer is one of armor.

By the time Fiore's book was published it was in many ways obsolete. The longsword, a primary tool of the dismounted knight, by 1400 was being replaced by other weapons to contend with the more effective armor. The changes in armor from 1350-1400 was dramatic, including the use of more plate, and lighter more mobile armor despite the added protection (10). These upgrades were in a direct response to the English longbow, powerful crossbows and early gunpowder weapons that would inevitably make armor all-but obsolete.

Fiore depicted tactics to deal with stronger forms of armor- namely half-swording. This means his other techniques of cutting and thrusting would be more effective out of armor than in, or against opponents in lighter armor. In Italy this was entirely possible as the mercenaries were slow to adopt new ideas and technology after the initial influx of Hundred Years War veterans. Over a century after Fiore's death, Nicolo Machiavelli repeatedly warned his patron of the folly of using mercenaries and their outdated methods (11). This was mildly ironic given Milan was producing some of the most advanced suits of armor at the time and shipping them abroad to those who would later cross the Alps as enemies.

The longsword had other issues to contend with as well besides upgrades in armor. Mercenary companies from Switzerland, and later Germany, were utilized the pike in conjunction with moderately armored men to great effect during the 1400's. These 15th century innovations of armor and pikes steadily made the foot-based knight with his longsword obsolete. By the time Fiore's manual was in the hands of its patron, Swiss soldiers were already offering a superior and cheaper alternative to the knight.

With the ascendance of long, thrusting pole-weapons the longsword was becoming outdated as a battlefield weapon. Thus, to meet the conditions of the changing battlefield the weapon became something 'different'. Weight and length were increased and the two-handed sword became one meant to be used within pike formations where room was limited. These weapons were designed to defend the unit's standard by men paid extra for their efforts and their great strength needed to wield their heavy swords (12). This was no longer a knightly weapon and knights, like their longswords, were being replaced.

The larger two-handed swords led to manuals such as those of Achille Marazo in 1536 and Alfiere in 1653. In these manuals the two-handed swords are too long to deliver cuts as seen in the Fiore tradition, but they can be used much like a pike for the thrust, or to batter away incoming strikes, which would be appropriate within a pike-formation. They are also too long to carry in a scabbard, and so are clearly designed for military, or potentially judicial, purposes only (13).

The battlefield longsword of Liechtenauer (German Longsword)
Johannes Liechtenauer was born in the 1300's and produced a textual description of using the longsword in 1389, twenty years before Fiore de Liberi. Unlike Fiore's manual, which had rhyming couplets and extensive images, Liechtenauer's work was more esoteric in its nature. It is theorized that while Fiore's work was for a military commander, D'Este, Liechtenauer's writings were for his students and their art was to be a secret.

This makes sense in the context of the time. Skilled craftsmen jealousy guarded their trade secrets during Medieval and Renaissance Europe. There was no capitalism, no desire for competition, and no sharing of ideas if it could be helped. The craftsmen of this era attempted to set up monopolies or guilds with the blessing of their local governments in the form of a charter. Example, in England the colonists heading to the New World did so as a company with a royal charter. They were (in theory) guaranteed a monopoly to settle a region. England continued the practice of state-sanctioned monopolies into the nineteenth century. There is no reason to think that a master, such as Liechtenauer, wouldn't wish to do the same and create a fencing guild that could be maintained by himself, his students and their students and so on. The potential customers would be the aristocracy of the Holy Roman Empire and potentially mercenaries who were plentiful and sometimes wealthy thanks to looting.

Liechtenauer's longsword would have been a viable battlefield tool in 1389, though due to better armor technology and newer weapons and tactics it would have found itself less useful in a span of twenty years. While Fiore taught a complete system to be used in or out of armor, Liechtenauer and his followers divided longsword combat into two categories- in harness (armor) and out of harness. As a battlefield weapon, it would be good to know how to use the longsword, armored or not, but as the 1400's progressed and other masters from the Holy Roman Empire expounded on Liechtenauer's ideas, they were using a weapon that had an increasingly limited use on the battlefield.

Despite this change the longsword remained popular in the Holy Roman Empire well into the Renaissance, but not necessarily as a battlefield weapon, but rather one for civilian defense, judicial dueling, and sport fencing. Joachim Meyer for example taught the use of the longsword in the context of a school in the mid-to-late 1500's. While Meyer's longsword techniques would be relevant in sport-play, civilian defense, or in a judicial duel, its battlefield practicality would be in question given the weaponry at the time ranging from pikes to firearms.

When did the longsword cease its battlefield role?
Weapons do not become obsolete necessarily quickly. In the early 1300's the dismounted knights of England used their longswords to great effect in their battles with Scotland and France. However, by 1450 when the War of the Roses broke out, English tactics revolved around heavy cavalry, the pike and archery. Armor at this point was to such a level of protection that the longsword would be less useful than a pole-axe or other bludgeoning weapon. Cuts would fail against the plate and thrusts would need to be aimed precisely, no easy feat in the press of combat. Meanwhile, lances, hammers, and pole-weapons would require less skill and could be used from a greater distance and thus be easier to use.

In Italy the situation was much the same. Advances in armor and tactics made the foot-based knight (or mercenary) outmatched. The wealthy Italian city-states were overrun by France and the Holy Roman Empire respectively by 1500, with both nations utilizing pike-formations, heavy cavalry, and gunpowder.

However, the sword, including the longsword, was as much a status weapon as it was a tool for the battlefield. Though outdated, it certainly continued to be used during the entirety of the Renaissance and its cousin, the two-handed sword flourished, while single-handed swords remained popular, for foot and mounted soldiers.

Henry VIII for example had a longsword of such size and power that he wasn't allowed to use it at a the Field of Cloth of Gold where he and the King of France tried to stage a tournament and party of epic proportion to show their mutual love for one another in 1520 (seeking source- I can't find where I read this). By 1521 they were about to go to war with one another over issues in Italy. While this incident was in a tournament setting, it does show how the longsword endured as a weapon of war (both kings saw themselves as warriors), even if its practical use was diminished.

While Henry VIII clearly enjoyed owning a monstrous longsword, it would not be his choice of weapon for his armies. By Henry's time the feudal-system of warfare had long ago collapsed. Even when the longsword was popular, the cost of training someone to use it was astronomical. John Gaunt, brother to the Black Prince participated heavily in the Hundred Years War, and though one of the wealthiest men in England, he never had a financially successful role as commander. It was simply too costly to pay for trained men and knights (13). Worse, knights were inefficient having only to serve for short durations and likely to leave if loot or glory was not to be found. Veteran men-at-arms were less expensive and mildly more reliable so long as the received steady pay. Meanwhile, ranged-weapons, such as the English longbow which so demonstrated its value throughout the Hundred Years War, and the cheaper and easier to train crossbowmen, offered a more affordable and more effective solution to winning battles, and pike formations offered yet another.

An easy comparison to make is the manuals of Fiore compared to pike-drills of the 1600's. Fiore's book would require intensive study and practice, in and out of armor, for a person to call themselves competent with a longsword. Such training would take considerable amount of time and not be possible for everyone. Meanwhile, pike-drills are relatively simple affairs of how to hold the weapon with mass formations making up for individual skill, which is why marching increasingly became important to post-Medieval armies and not individual weapon expertise. The time to train a pikeman probably borders on weeks opposed to the years of study knights no doubt put into their craft.

Conclusion
The longsword was a unique weapon that gave knights a new way to fight on foot which gave them extra power and range compared to their swords used for single-handed mounted combat. The longsword was first used in a major battlefield role by the English to augment their archers and counter Scottish tactics in 1333. The weapon required room to maneuver and was lethal to the armor worn during the 1300's.

So successful was the weapon, that English knights continued to fight on foot during the Hundred Years War in France throughout the 1300's, keeping their horses close at hand for sudden charges or retreats as needed. The veterans of the Hundred Years war traveled throughout Europe and created a boom of mercenaries, many of which ended up in northern Italy. It is during this time that the first longsword manuals appeared. However, no sooner had the masters written down their techniques, that technological advances threatened the longswords' role in a warfare setting.

Rapidly increasing protection offered by armor with retained mobility, coupled with the use of massed pike formations from 1400 onward made the longsword difficult to use on the battlefield because it could no longer cut an armored foe due to a lack of gaps in the armor. Nor could the longsword be used to thrust an armored opponent without reducing its reach by half-swording due to the nature of the gaps. Against pike formations the longsword was no match because of the room required to maneuver the weapon made it a poor match against a literal wall of ever-marching spears. Additionally, ranged weaponry, much to the annoyances of the knights, was taking on an increasingly important battlefield role.

While the longsword remained a status symbol, and certainly a viable weapon in tournaments, duels, and for unarmored civilians, after 1450 technological changes made the two-handed sword the longsword's replacement, where the weapon's increased reach and weight could be used within the pike formations that dominated the battlefields until the development of the musket and bayonet in the 1700's.

Sources
1 = The Sword and the Centuries by Alfred Hutton, pg 31.
2 =The Use of the Two Handed Sworde by James Hester.
3= Lessons on the English Longsword by Brandon Helsop and Benjamin Bradak.
4= The Devil's Broker by Frances Saunders, pg 65-66.
5= A Brief History of Medieval Warfare by Peter Reid, pg 49-56.
6 = Ibid, 55.
7= Ibid, pg 75.
8= The Devil's Broker by Frances Saunders, pg 65-66.
9= Flower of Battle by (4 versions) Fiore de Liberi.
10= A Brief History of Medieval Warfare by Peter Reid, pg 216.
11= The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli.
12 = The Sword and the Centuries by Alfred Hutton, pg 35.
13 = The Last Knight by Norman Cantor, pg 93-94.

Linky to actual post:
http://hemaalliance.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=1249&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

[Bobthehero]

Same as the one you posted on taleworlds right?

Its a great essay.

[Anwyl]

Same as the one you posted on taleworlds right?

Its a great essay.

Yep same one. People seemed interested, but the historical interest community at TW is kind of small.

[Overdriven]

Yep same one. People seemed interested, but the historical interest community at TW is kind of small.

Which is kinda ironic 

An interesting read to be sure.

[Dunecat]

Nice essay indeed.

[_JoG_]

Good work indeed, even though the hypotheses about the development of the longsword and the circumstances around it are kind of questionable. I would rather think about the longsword (appeared ca. 1300), i.e. a more powerful one-hander as the initial answer to the introduction of plate elements into the suit of armor (first depiction of the coat of plates is dated to ca. 1250, but such armor became widspread not earlier than the late 13th - early 14th century). The added protection has allowed to use more powerful weapons, like the longsword or the poleaxe. On the other hand, one-handed swords that were effective against mail hauberks have became less and less useful against solid metal plates. Thus, need for more powerful sword has arisen, and the longsword was the answer for it.
Moreover, I guess the role of the longsword in the battles of the Hundred Years War is a bit exaggerated. I do believe that in Europe poleaxes, maces, and picks were the weapons of choice for a foot combat since mid-14th century while short thrusting one-handers were used in close quarters. Generally, the longsword still remains a paradoxical weapon for me: fast and powerful, capable of both thrusting and cutting and having an aesthetically appealing shape, it looks like an ultimate Medieval sword design, yet its battlefield use in the age of plate armor remains pretty questionable.

[Neostralie]

Take a look at that weapon that made britain.

It's a really good video (in 8 or 9 parts )

[Siiem]

lances, hammers, and pole-weapons would require less skill

Tru dat.

[Earthdforce]

Take a look at that weapon that made britain.

It's a really good video (in 8 or 9 parts )

Link fixed.

CLICK IT! CLICK IT NAOW!

[Tears of Destiny]

Code: [Select]

[quote author=Neostralie link=topic=11712.msg171877#msg171877 date=1312074427]
Take a look at that [url=http://"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEMwcSGauY8"]weapon that made britain[/url].

It's a really good video (in 8 or 9 parts :D )
[/quote]
You can see that he did the URL "http" twice and put in some weird quotes, silly silly mistake...

Try this:

Take a look at that weapon that made britain.

It's a really good video (in 8 or 9 parts )

EDIT: Earthdforce you beat me to it! hehehe

[Earthdforce]

EDIT: Earthdforce you beat me to it! hehehe

Hoy, I finally ninja'd you.

[Tears of Destiny]

Hoy, I finally ninja'd you.

Craaaaaazy! That never happens, how did this happen?! I must be slackin' need to post moar! Silly saturday distracted me...

[Earthdforce]

Craaaaaazy! That never happens, how did this happen?! I must be slackin' need to post moar! Silly saturday distracted me...

Well you still have 190 pages of posts at 15 posts a page.. o.O

[Tears of Destiny]

Well you still have 190 pages of posts at 15 posts a page.. o.O

Yeesh... Last I checked I was barely over two thousand... :/
Looking at the stats, almost every forum I range from one out of 50 to one out of 30 posts is made by me... I think I need to slow down...

[Earthdforce]

Yeesh... Last I checked I was barely over two thousand... :/
Looking at the stats, almost every forum I range from one out of 50 to one out of 30 posts is made by me... I think I need to slow down...

The fact you've been on the forums for nearly a month and you signed up 162ish days ago is pretty sad mate..