Egyptian vs European Vs Saracen

[Puncha]

Just saw "Kingdom of Heaven" the other day and it got me thinking? How do the following 3 schools of swordplay compare to seach other?

1) European sword play (1100s - 1300) using hand and a half swords + shield
2) Saracen (moorish) swordsmanship with arab style sword and shield
3) Egyptian (during the time of ramses) "CQC" with shield and the type of sword as portrayed in the "prince of egypt".

All things being equal, which warrior would prevail in a fair contest with the others?

[Devonai]

All things being equal, the warriors would either kill each other or fight to a stalemate.

All things are never equal. All the training, desire, and skill in the world can't negate bad luck.

[Joejojoba111]

I don't want to sound racist, but I'd be against the Europeans. The ill-trained ill-equipped under fed and unfortunately fatalistic feudal levy left much to be desired. Like the morale, training, equipment, supply... Sure, some had swords, but some had clubs...

As for Ramses' time, I thought they were using soft copper or bronze implements? As well as the reliance on massive numbers of troops, and extremely limited annual time period for campaigning. (correct me if I'm wrong but I think I remember them only fighting in the seasons when they didn't have crop duties)

Compared to fanatical zealots armed and trained with lust for combat, I'd pick the latter.

If it's just weapons, Egyptians still have major qualitative set-backs, as their blades won't hold an edge for long in combat.

The two remaining combatants, of roughly equivalent time periods were equipped to combat their own, not each other, as armies often are. As such It would appear that the weapon with the greatest reach wins, that being the European great-sword type.

But that's only for individual combats, 1-on-1. If you have two armed masses converging on each other the advantages of shorter, more manageable weapons and the flexibilty in tactics derived therefrom are decisive. Just a guess.

[Llywelyn]

Greetings,

um, I think for this sort of argument(and it really isn't one you can come to a final answer on) you have to assume that your three "warriors" are going to be of the warrior class. So, knights in the European context, and whatever the equivalent was in the other two.

From my study, I would say the Egyption is out first thing. Lack of quality weapons and armour put it at a serious disadvantage. The other two did come up against each other often(think Crusades). While many would argue that the Saracens are better( I mean they beat the Crusaders didn't they) that was mainly the Crusaders own fault.(internal politics, illness, lack of understanding of how to fight in that climate) In a pitched fight, the Crusaders won. They had superior armour, their swords are made for blows and thrusts. The Saracens (because of the climate) didnt wear metal armour, it tended to be made of cloth. Not really great at stoping sword blows. And their "style" is one of slashes and cuts, rather than blows or thrusts. Sorry, but slashes and cuts don't work on metal, period.

This is pretty brief, but basicly I would say the European would mostly (barring a lucky shot etc) wipe the floor. Remember fighting was the knights job, and he was trained very well for it.


In Service,
Llywelyn

[HankB]

My own opinion (and I'm NOT an expert on antique weaponry or warfare) is that if you matched 100 well-trained and equipped European knights against a similar number of Saracens, the knights would win handily.

Put 500 knights against 2500 Saracens, and the outcome isn't so clear.

Throw internal squabbles, politics, men-at-arms, archers, cavalry, sieges, more politics, etc. into the mix, and ?????

Note that Europeans eventually DID expell the Moors from the Iberian peninsula, and initially had great success during the Crusades.

[Daniel Flory]

Being that no one really knows too much about the specific techniques except some European methods such as Fiore and Talhoffer, it is impossible to say. Even if we did know, it is impossible to objectively analyze the outcome of a fight based on styles since there are too many variables. Even great fighters with great styles/ability lose.

[Joejojoba111]

Battles of armies were completely different than battles of individuals. In an army you sometimes want to concentrate a mass, and break a wing, or overlap a flank, and stuff like that. A knight, in what I take it is armour made for riding a horse (?), will not be able to move around like medium or light infantry. They'll be of little value.

Also if you have a long sword that's great, for 1 on 1. If you have a long sword and you have 500 other long swords with you, you're going to hit each other, or you won't have the space to use it properly. OR you will have to spread out, and this means that the enemy will have a numerical advantage on the front, and you'll be over-run.

Also, if we just consider the swordsman to wear halberk or chain mail sort of thing, then I would NOT want to be in the way of a swipe from a 5-10 lb cutlass, I have not 100% faith in it's protection. Maybe a cuirass over it, though.

[Llywelyn]

Greetings,

I completely agree that the more people you add to a conflict the more variables you add to the outcome, but, the begining question and the hypothetical conflict in question is a one on one fight. So therefore multiple opponents is a different discussion altogether.

While most knights rode horses in battle, and in later periods(think 16th centuries) jousting armour was very heavy and not as easy to manuver in, it was not uncommon for knights to dismount and fight or when dismounted to continue to fight. The English won a number of the battles during the Hundred Years War in France by doing just that. They placed their archers in wedges. Inbetween the wedges they placed their dismounted knights and men-at-arms. when the French charged, the masses of archers broke up the charge with their showers of arrows and if any of the French knights mannaged to get close, the english knights and men-at-arms would advance and finish off.

I fight in armour modeled after what a knight circa 1350 would have worn, and I can(and have) done somersaults in my armour. btw I wouldn't want to be in the way of any sword that weighed that much. Most european single handed swords wieghed no more than 3-4 lbs. max. a swipe from a cutlass in my opinion is a slashing blow. maille protects very well against it. A direct blow hurts(trust me), but a it wouldn't cut the skin. Maille was worn for that very reason, it protected against cuts and limited piercing. But without rigid protecting it would still hurt, and could break bones etc. That is why it wasn't long before leather or a Coat of Plates was worn over the maille. Absorb the blows, but still keep the cutting peircing protection of maille...of course then they made the bodkin arrow point....but this is getting off topic.

Also on the topic of swords. Greatest reach doesn't always win. If you have a lot of reach it is that much easier for somebody to kill you if they get inside your range.(case in point, at our last practice I killed a guy who had a 7ft polearm, I only had a daggar. and I went on in the next couple attacks to kill two more people, again just with my little dagger) They had better weapons(think more range and power) but I got inside their guard and threw attacks that they were not used to.

In Service,
Llywelyn

[20cows]

I don't want to sound racist, but I'd be against the Europeans. The ill-trained ill-equipped under fed and unfortunately fatalistic feudal levy left much to be desired. Like the morale, training, equipment, supply... Sure, some had swords, but some had clubs...

If you are refering to European knights, they were neither ill-trained nor ill-equipped. They were professional soldiers and paid the same kind of attention to their martial arts as professional soldiers do today. They were not incompitent baffoons. The jousting tuornaments filled the same roll as the practical shooting matches do today, to provide a place to display individual martial prowess. There are a few remnants of training manuals that indicated a high degree of sophistication. Excellent training and superior armor made the European knight the ultimate fighting machine until the prominance of projectile weapons made it all for naught.

[Don Gwinn]

He's referring to "levies," which means conscripts, mostly peasants. The knights would be the guys one station higher in the feudal system, responsible for raising forces known as "levies" made up of the peasants from "their" lands.

However, the idea that the average Saracen was trained, equipped or treated much better than the common European levy is doubtful. And if the Europeans were logistically so bad and the Saracens so good, why were they so evenly matched when the Europeans had immensely long supply lines while the Muslim forces were relatively closer to supply?


JoeJojoba, who on Earth used a 5-lb. cutlass, much less a 10-lb. piece? I'd feel pretty good about facing an opponent with a 10-lb. cutlass if I were wielding the typical cruciform sword--much longer, better thrusting, and weighing 3lbs or less. A guy with a shorter weapon that weighed three times as much would be as close to a sure thing as swordplay gets in terms of weapons alone.

Also, why don't you trust mail against cuts? Ever tried it?

[Bart Noir]

Hope you post more about your knowledge of that era. OBTW, is that spelling of "mail" an Old English, or Old German version? Or French? It seems like most armor components had French names.

Question: do you think fighters trained to make a piercing upward stab at scale armor? I always thought that scale armor had a weakness in that a blade could maybe go upward under the scales. Am I even close?

Bart Noir

[Llywelyn]

Greetings,


Well, scale armour is one type that spans a large number of periods and cultures. From what I have read, it seems that there were two ways to make it. One was with the scales overlapping upwards. This would be used by horsemen, seeing as most of their blows would come straight in or from below them, overlapping the scales upwards, ment that blows(expecially cuts) would have a much much better chance to glancing off. For footmen who wore scale, the opposite was true, they would face more attacks from level or above them, so they would want to wear scale that would deflect shots down.

did they train to make upward shots against that sort of armour. That is hard to say, I think they probably would have trained in many different ways to exploit the weaknesses of any armour they faced. so if that ment their opponant had a weakness it thrusting attacks from below, than they would want to take advantage of that. some Chinese( I think) scale armour was shaped and creased in such a way that even if you got a blade under it you would face another ridge of metal. It all interlocked together in a flexable, but yet very strong(because of the creases) scale. I can't remember the name of it at the moment though.

I am not sure what the root of the word maille is. chainmaille is sort of a modern term. But I am not clear on all the background to what language it came from. You are right, there is a good chance it is French.

Don Gwinn- my understanding is that Knights would not often call on the "peasant" class to fill ranks. Under the feudel system a knight had to provide so many soldiers if his lord called apon him. These would probably have been men-at-arms and archers. Men trained for the purpose and kept at hand. I mean, a knight would have to keep soldiers to guard his castle/house all the time and these would have been the basis of his force. This is not to say that the "common people" didn't fight. They would have been used often in defence of a castle or a town, but they probably wern't trained like the garrison. Remember, serfs were the economic basis for Mideval society, you didn't want to get them killed. If you had no serfs you had nobody to grow food, etc. That is why the feudel system collapsed when serfs gained more freedoms.

There are some examples of levies in history. The Saxons used levies in defence against the Normans. And in Scotland's fight against England a large number of the soldiers were from the common class. I am sure there are more examples, but that is all I can think of.

In Service,
Llywelyn

[RevDisk]

Wearing chainmail and armor in the middle of the desert? That's major weight problem. You suck up more water, and have less room in which to carry water. Armor and water are both very heavy when you're dragging either through the desert.

Great soldiers with poor leaders will get killed all the time. Warfare is a rather complicated operation. Generally speaking, the locals have the home court advantage. They tend to know the land better, understand the climate, etc.
I'd bet on the locals. They were adapted to their environment, and faught well within their environment.

[Joejojoba111]

"Also, why don't you trust mail against cuts? Ever tried it?"

You have your logic reversed:) In my world I try and prove something, then trust it.

Oh yea, plus I never even said what you claim I did;)

For the 10lb sword, just a guess, I heard some larger swords were 20 25 lbs, so I figured 10lbs for a medium. Maybe a bad guess, but I believe that metallurgy is highly refined today, so what can be done with steel alloys required more mass for true 'Cold Iron'.

[Risasi]

"Also, why don't you trust mail against cuts? Ever tried it?"

You have your logic reversed In my world I try and prove something, then trust it.

Oh yea, plus I never even said what you claim I did

For the 10lb sword, just a guess, I heard some larger swords were 20 25 lbs, so I figured 10lbs for a medium. Maybe a bad guess, but I believe that metallurgy is highly refined today, so what can be done with steel alloys required more mass for true 'Cold Iron'.

Joe,

It is clear you know not of what you speak when if comes to bladed weaponry. The swords of that time were far lighter and far superior to the stuff you see in Sheels or the Remington store.

I have studied hand weapons for roughly 15 years and I know enough to tell you I am no expert. But I do know how to use a few swords. Like the cut and thrust sword, some mounted saber techniques, and the Rapier. I also know how not to use a Katana. They are not like the movies.

As for the superior fighter it is clearly the paid European warrior of that time period. This of course didn't mean they were always the victorious. You might find this link interesting:

http://www.thearma.org/

These you could say, are geeks of the bladed weapon world. There are some here that have studied (and tested on each other) bladed weapons, wasters, blunt weapons of all sorts, from all kinds of civilizations. Your questions would best be directed toward them. But they have taken up the discussion of "what if" in one on one battles between Samurai, knights, Rapier armed civilians circa 17th century. I'm sure you will find it very interesting.

Strangely enough I just got into a discussion this morning about the same thing. Go figure. What is it with hand to hand anyway? For those that have studied blades to any reasonable degree will tell you that the original question posted is simply not this easy to answer. I think Daniel Flory put it best:

Even if we did know, it is impossible to objectively analyze the outcome of a fight based on styles since there are too many variables.


P.S. The Last Samurai, The Princess Bride, Highlander, Braveheart, any Star Wars movie, any Conan movie. Certainly not Kill Bill. All of these, and many others do not depict realistic sword play.

[LawDog]

For the 10lb sword, just a guess, I heard some larger swords were 20 25 lbs, so I figured 10lbs for a medium.

*blink, blink*

The two-handed swords that we can find in many museums around Europe average from five to seven pounds, with a length of between 60 and 70 inches. Now, these are specialized weapons, utilized by professional soldiers who were paid considerably more than the guys carrying your average sword.

Your average medieval one-handed sword weighed between two and 3-1/2 pounds.

The hand-and-a-half, or 'war' swords, which a great number of knights would be carrying, rarely weighed more than 4-1/2 pounds.

This actually doesn't mean a whole lot, because anyone who gets to pick-up a real sword -- not a replica, not a reproduction, but a real blade -- is usually amazed at how light and agile they are.

It's wierd, but a true sword feels 'alive' and considerably lighter than the numbers would suggest.

For further information, go here:
http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm

LawDog

[Checkman]

Risasi-

I'm a history buff, but not very knowledgable about blades. Out of curiosity how does Rob Roy (1995) measure up to a realistic depiction of fighting with edged weapons? Personally I like the movie Master and Commander with Russell Crowe. At the end ,when they're fighting the French crew, they're hacking at each other. Not pretty and probably not technically satisfying, but it's bloody and violent.

I must admit that when I watch the fencing competiton in the Olympics I find myself yawning at times. Of course I understand that this sport is very formalized. Am I correct is comparing the Olympic sport to IPSIC? Basically ISPIC has as much in common with real gunfighting as Fencing does with a life and death sword fight?

Incidentally it's always been my impression that the military/religious orders of knights (Templars, Teutons, Hospitallers) were some of the best swordsmen and horsemen around. And why not? Unlike their secular counterparts they weren't concerned with running estates,caring for families, managing castles for their lords etc. They exsisted to fight for God. Lots of time to train and fight. That was their job/life and they were pretty good at it.

[Greg L]

All things being equal, which warrior would prevail in a fair contest with the others?

I'm not sure about equal but I'll put my money on Indiana Jones :evil: .

[Risasi]

To be honest. I am not sure about Scottish blades. I've never even held one. And I haven't seen Rob Roy. But I would venture to guess they handle like an over sized cut and thrust. What with the straight long blade they have.

I would suggest The ARMA again. Those guys go out of their way to read old texts, figure out how their made. And test those blades on each other. Everyone has gotta have a hobby I guess. :D

As for sport fencing, it's NOTHING like Rapiers and thrusting swords of some 300 and 400 years ago.

This is something else that is a misnomer. Rapiers and the like were typically civilian, urban weapons. Commonly used for duels or self defense. They were also commonly used with another small bladed weapon or cape, or some other instrument used for blocking attacks, or binding the opponents weapon.

The weapons used by the military were far different beasts. These are guys better armoured, having support from large units able to fire volleys. That's why you have those short chopping swords depicted in Master and Commander. There are so many blades, made for specialized reasons it's amazing.

I can think of a good example. One of my great-grandfathers was WWI cavalry. His old sabre was roughly 34" of blade, single edged. Slight curve, heavy. I never weighed it, but it must have been close to 4 or 4.5 pounds. This blade is made for fighting from a horse. Imagine a mounted soldier flying by you with 34" of nasty. One properly place swing will slice you in half. And with proper technique you can also use the horse as a weapon too. This is why heavy cav was so devastating. Right up until the tank.

Okay, now throw a cavalry soldier on the ground. Take his horse away. He's lost every advantage he has. Not only that but suddenly that heavy sword has become a liability. I'd bet on the guy holding a bolt action. Even if he's run out of ammo. BTW This is also why they extended the wood forearm of those long bolt actions back then. To block sword attacks.

Anyway, we could go on and on. But there are guys far more qualifed for this stuff than me. I've only studied a few weapons, and just have a general overall picture of the rest.

--------------

[EDIT] Okay Checkman, I stopped by Blockbuster and bought Rob Roy. This better be good... :D

BTW I also stopped off to see Kingdom of Heaven on my way home. It was merely okay. One thing that bothered me a lot was the edge on edge hits. This just didn't happen back then, at least not a properly trained soldier. Okay, it did happen, but the egde was intentionally not used for blocking an attack.

That would be like shooting an M14 full auto only. It doesn't score you that many more hits, and it prematurely wears out your equipment. You might be surprised how quickly you can turn a blade useless. Another many of my recent ancestors had an occupation that I would rather not mention. Six generations in a row. Anyway, more often than not a blade was good for one swipe and then it would have to be sharpened again. And their target would be unarmed.

[Joejojoba111]

That's cool! looks like my guess was high, I never would have imagined swords so light. I'd just heard things about these Scottish and Gallic swords, and I thought, damn if they need 2 hands that's a heavy sword! Then I though "hmm 2-3 pounds for a short sword, I guess I just multiply..." But damn 5 pounds for a big sword, nice.

[1911 guy]

of saracen (arabic) and european armament in the crusades. Both were effective against each other. The truly deciding factor was indeed level of motivation and leadership. Some of my VERY distant relations on the maternal side had some part in these battles, notably at Acre, so I have had some interest in the subject. One on one, my bet would be the armoured Knight. Armour is heavy, but a well fitted suit is distributed so mobility is not limited as much as would be expected. Knights did not have to be lifted onto horses, and I have personally seen a man in armour do cartwheels. Not so titilating as a cheerleader! :)

[Mr Kablammo]

Two interesting books that touch on the Western compared to the Eastern methods of fighting are:

The Western Way of War by Victor David Hanson

Tactics of the Crescent Moon by Poole

Both books emphasise the interplay of weapons, culture, and tactics. For pure fighting fury the money is on the Europeans. But for victory by attrition or duration the Saracens are the best. Let it be a warning to the troops now in the Middle East.

As I remember, Mr. Poole uses an example of a Roman Legion that was worn down by harrying Saracens. The Saracens did not fight a pitched battle but did break the legion by exhausting it.

[InfernoMDM]

I got to watch a russian guy spin a sword. Looked like the silent drill team going nuts, or the yoda fight from star wars. The swords were long heavy as hell but he could block and attack in many directions. He would swing then use his body to whip the sword around in odd angles.

[AechKay]

Alright.

Its important for you all to understand, that although these styles do differ in culture, but they're all the same. There are only so many ways the body can move, and it's unfair to say that one style or system is better because they can do this or another group is better because they do that. This question is hard to answer because it depends on the warrior. I watched that movie as well, thought of my Iaijutsu as soon as I saw the high guard Liam Neeson went into. It looks strikingly similar to my Jodan no kamae stance. The cuts all share the same principles. If we're talking about actual blade quality...like I stated in the non firearm forum, a blade will cut with proper technique. I'd call this convo a stalemate.

[Risasi]

Hi Aechkay,

Welcome to the forum.

I don't think that anyone is really arguing for or against a specific fighting doctrine. It's more like we are making observations of the way things were.

As I have mulled it over I think you could actually stereotype the eastern vs western thinking a bit more. Regardless of the "who is better" scenarios.

Obviously when it comes down to it, all other things being equal, or the various advantages and disadvantages basically it boils down to who wants to win more than the other one. And sometimes the human spirit can overcome unfathomable odds.

Anyway I thought the eastern vs. western thinking generically speaking boils down to; The western thought structure is basic fighting skills, and a vague fighting principle, but then a heavy reliance on tools. Whereas the eastern thought, (including but not limited to Japan, China, Korea, Philippines, India) is not about the tool being the limited factor, but the human spirit, the internal and external discipline, and that a living warrior class in many cases is just part of their lifestyle. Whereas the western thought wasn't so much a lifestyle, but a caste system. Where the nobles ruled, and they were too complacent to fight. So you could argue the eastern philosophy would have won over western civilization simply because they would have wanted to win more.

------------

As an analogy I'll give you the average worker. You have the old school guy, who still uses a slide rule, knows every mathematic law inside and out. Prefers a non-electric typewriter. Eats, breathes, poops knowledge, and has been around the bend. He doesn't "need no stinking technology". He can "make do without". This would be a way of life. Much like our eastern disciplines.

Then you have the math guy who uses a computer, the internet, and has AutoCAD loaded on it.
:D
Here's your western thinking...


Obviously I think you could argue the "better" guy is the old school guy. Then again maybe not. I would argue the guy with the computer has the undeniable advantage, regardless of who is better. The computer geek just looks up what he doesn't know. Look what happens in our offices when our computers break. I know some offices I do work in if they aren't functioning their workers are useless...except the old ones, who don't need a "crutch", they'll type, or even write tickets out by hand if they have to.

If you take either guy out of their environment and put them in the other's I don't know that either one would function well. They would have to relearn practically everything. Though the old school guy would have an advantage. He just has to have the will to understand that new technology.

I also believe Kablammo made a valid point about our current fight in Iraq. We do well to look at civilizations who developed heavily on technology for warfare. We seem to have balanced technology with discipline, but we should still take note lest we become weak in spirit. An opponent with a will to fight is a real threat. What if suddenly we have a problem supplying our troops with ammo? Just ammo alone. Right now we fight a very uneven match. I know at one time we were burning through something like what 4 million rounds of ammo a month? Imagine if the bad guys were able to expend that much ammo. Our fight might be going a bit different.



One other thing I'll make mention of is the fact that up until the gunpowder age, warfare did not have all that many casualties until one side would take flight.
Most battles would start out with each side beating on each other and making a bunch of noise, with minor casualties, until one side would back down due to the surmounting fear. Then the winning party would reap carnage on the fleeing party. That is why cavalry was so deadly. They would quickly strike defenseless multiple targets, who were running away from them.

[EDIT]

Okay now who's ready for the next scenario;


What if it was Samurai vs. American Indian, say Apache? Obviously the technological advantage goes to the Samurai. But I doubt they would win that battle. :scrutiny: away... :D