Non European forces proving themselves Vs European military might

[Atlantia]

Originally Posted by fernando

I thought the revelation was more in the contrary direction .
Rigid wrist sword handling wouldn't proprerly be called fencing
Wasn't the advantage of malleable wrist fencing (recazo, thrust and all that) a score against talwar and scimitar rigid moves?
Oh, why should i, such an ingnorant, interfere in this discussion ?
Just forget it .
Fernando

You are certainly not ignorant, nor interfering Fernando, and as usual you make a good point.

LOL, I didn't word it very well I'm afraid.

I was envisioning battles on foot only, rather than from horseback as well.

I have often wondered how the two styles would 'clash'
In European fencing the correct distance is critical and the the wrist is key to many moves (in the up/down motion which is restricted by a sword with a large disk pomel). Being engaged by an opponent using a semi-rigid wrist style would (I assume) mean they would be constantly trying to move into 'your space' and in those circumstances the automatic response is to lunge for the kill, slash with the front third of the blade for a disabling wound or step back to maintain distance.
Sooooooo, if the Indian warriors defence is good, and an opening is not clear, then the British soldier would be constantly 'on the back foot' seeking to maintain distance and stab/slash, while the Indian Warrior would constantly be moving in to close the gap to their effective 'kill zone'.

I meant that (if my assumptions are right) having skilled opponents using these tactics which must have seemed both alien and very aggresive would have been a huge shock to the Brits (a revelation!).
I am of course assuming that both combatants are skilled with their weapon and using a practiced technique.


Hopefully someone can comment further on Tulwar fencing techniques, I've probobly got it all wrong!

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Atlantia

... I was envisioning battles on foot only, rather than from horseback as well

I was actually referring to infantry.

Originally Posted by Atlantia

I have often wondered how the two styles would 'clash'

According to certain sources, they didn't actually clash; that was precisely the aledged advantage of European swording.
Well i wasn't properly thinking Brits swords versus talwars, but more in line with the generic subject of the thread.
I was thinking of the discoveries period Portuguese (and immediate European followers) using swords provided with the ricasso, handling them with a 160º angle (second half XV century) and later rapiers opening at 180º (second half XVI century), able to blow a direct stab against the open chest of the 'Moor', busy brandishing his 'terçado' (talwar, scimitar) up in the air, for the viable slash.
In any case, we all know that actual fighting wasn't at all a swording procedure like they do in schools ... with all the catalogue gestures. In the heat of battle, if you could avoid clashing with all imaginable evasive moves and stab your foe by the side door, you would sure do it ... the hell with the catalogue.

Enough of bs.

Fernando

.

[Jim McDougall]

I'm glad you joined in Fernando, and nicely presented description of the earlier swordsmanship, which certainly does fall within the scope of this thread.....except the bs note The valued information you always provide is anything but! and as I have noted many times, your knowledge and sharing of historical material with keenly applied and important Portuguese perspective is outstanding. Thank you.

Thank you David, for the links to those threads, which really were interesting and apply nicely here.

Gene, I have more 'doh' moments than I can recall, and my little knowledge of fencing was more years ago than I care to admit, there was a guy named Cyrano hanging around
Regarding the military, again way back when, from what I can recall, in the other ranks, carrying out drill, inspections and all manner of military daily humdrum...guys did what they had to to avoid discipline or conflict, and avoided whatever they could get away with. In the times we are discussing, the 19th century, it was certainly the same from most accounts. The swords issued to troopers were an issued encumbrance, and were likely used in the field in all manner of utility as a matter of convenience, with little thought of dulling the blade as chopping a bit of firewood etc. They were then slid back into the unprotected iron scabbard, probably not oiled or especially cleaned off from whatever use they had been subjected.

Leaving for a moment, the complacency being described toward issued swords in the British ranks, we can look to the use of the sword in America in the 19th century. The cavalry tried to maintain the tradition of the sword, but firearms had established their superiority. One of the primary regulation troopers swords, though other forms had existed earlier, was the M1840 cavalry sabre. It is a well known collaquialism that these became termed 'the old wristbreaker'. The reason for this is that the men were so poorly trained in the use of these heavy sabres, that when they did try to use them, in the presumed fashion, they did not properly understand the dynamics, and thus probably did injure themselves.
During the Civil War, the few recorded wounds resulting from sabres were actually blunt force trauma, as the swords were so dull they seldom ever penetrated skin in the slashing blows.
The only reason for including this along with the European theme here, is to show that the regulation military apathy toward the issued swords in the 19th century was quite widespread.

All best regards,
Jim

[Gonzalo G]

I am under the impression that you give much importance to the swords, which I believe were not a primary weapon in those times, nor they decided the result of the battles. I also think cavaly and infantry used more the lance in this period. Also, you have to take on account that tulwars or shamshir were used in combination with shields, and fencing was not made mainly as among 19th Century european troops, or as in a civil fight with rapiers. I don´t believe a classic rapier is capable to stop heavy weapons without been seriousy damaged.
Regards

Gonzalo

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

I am under the impression that you give much importance to the swords, which I believe were not a primary weapon in those times, nor they decided the result of the battles...

Lances, classic swords, two handed swords (montantes), rapiers and even halberds, according to chronicles; each one was a primary weapon ,depending on the circumstances.

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

... Also, you have to take on account that tulwars or shamshir were used in combination with shields ...

Correct.

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

... and fencing was not made mainly as among 19th Century european troops, or as in a civil fight with rapiers.

I guess the concept of troops was rather distinct in earlier days .
I may be mixing things, but it seems as combat fencing (manouverable sword and rapier) was schooled among nobles, a lot much earlier than that .

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

... I don´t believe a classic rapier is capable to stop heavy weapons without been seriousy damaged.

I guess they wouldn't stop them with the rapier, but with their left hand dagger. Besides, warlike rapier blades were not so fragile as those from street fighting.

But don't hit me hard, Gonzalo; i wouldn't resist a serious test in the subject

Fernando

[Gonzalo G]

Originally Posted by fernando

Lances, classic swords, two handed swords (montantes), rapiers and even halberds, according to chronicles; each one was a primary weapon ,depending on the circumstances.

That is correct, Fernand. Excuse me, but I was writting about cavalry, but latter edited my words and the meaning changed inadvertly.

Originally Posted by fernando

I may be mixing things, but it seems as combat fencing (manouverable sword and rapier) was schooled among nobles, a lot much earlier than that .

No, you are not mixing. It was schooled much earlier. I was trying to say that fencing encounters sword vs. sword like those on the 19th Europe were not the rule in colonial fighting, though they were also used. It is only my impression, as I have noted the presence of shields and lances, and yes, also bows and crossbows, in those fights. This, would change the meaning of the fencing analysis you have previously made, as the defenders would no use their swords to parry or thrust in the way europeans did with their swords.

Originally Posted by fernando

I guess they wouldn't stop them with the rapier, but with their left hand dagger. Besides, warlike rapier blades were not so fragile as those from street fighting.

I don´t believe a left hand dagger would stop a serious blow given with a heavy sword. Too short to make an efective lever aginst it. I was referring to a classical rapier because it is mentioned in previous posts in relation with the fencing style. But as you say, colonial european armies did not used the classic rapier (sissy blades? hahahaha).
Regards

Gonzalo

[Jim McDougall]

[QUOTE=Gonzalo G]I am under the impression that you give much importance to the swords, which I believe were not a primary weapon in those times, nor they decided the result of the battles. I also think cavaly and infantry used more the lance in this period. Also, you have to take on account that tulwars or shamshir were used in combination with shields, and fencing was not made mainly as among 19th Century european troops, or as in a civil fight with rapiers. I don´t believe a classic rapier is capable to stop heavy weapons without been seriousy damaged.
Regards

Gonzalo[/QUOTE


I think that the lance was indeed a key weapon in European vs. European warfare, and the rapier was certainly a primarily civilian weapon from what I understand. In military context, the heavier bladed arming swords were used, as combat with armoured combatants would find little use for the more delicate blades of the rapier. The deadly estoc, was the sword emplaced in these situations.
The lance was, if I understand correctly, used in primarily shock action, and typically was either broken, or thrown down as the melee ensued following initial shock action. It was of little use in close quarters combat with its typically extensive length.

I believe the Spaniards used the lance differently in most cases, particularly in colonial settings. It seems that in New Spain, the primary use of the lance was more a result of lack of ammunition and servicable weapons in many locations of the frontier regions. These lances were shorter than their European predecessors, and were used as thrusting and stabbing weapons to extend reach from horseback. The Comanche tribes and soon other American Indian tribes adopted the use of the lance from thier contact with Spanish using them.

With the Portuguese in India, I'm not sure that the lance would have had the same employment as in the more standardized inter-European combat. It would seem that battles were likely more often defensive with Europeans dismounted in many of the battles and combat interactions.
In the case of most colonial powers entering native environments, it was presumed that they had superiority over what were thought to be simpler and savage populations with little understanding of warfare. In addition to the presumption of superiority in the sense of warfare, the Europeans were typically also driven by religious concept, considering themselves intrinsically more powerful than the populations they perceived as merely heathen in nature.

These perceptions of course became quickly reconsidered as it was realized that these native populations were far more advanced than imagined, and their spirit far more powerful as they defended themselves from incursions into thier lands.

I think much of this is described in a number of titles which focus on the concept of 'the noble savage'.

In sum, I would say that the lance was not typically the key weapon in European vs. Native warfare, with the exceptions noted in Colonial New Spain.

I would also include, in just recalling, the instance of the lance by the British cavalry in India, with one of the premier episodes being the charge of the 16th Lancers against the Sikhs at Aliwal, I believe 1846. There were of course the famed 'Bengal Lancers' as well, but trying to use these examples would seem to throw the discussion of course, as these were native regiments in the service of the British during the Raj. The focus here is on European weapons and use opposed to native weapons in kind.

All best regards,
Jim

[Atlantia]

HI Gonzalo,

I understand your point.
I wish to discuss comparisons of like with like. My primary iterest is the sword, but I would happily try and add to discussions of lancers Vs Lancers etc.
What I do want to do if possible is focus on engagements where combat was in some way restricted so that close quarter weapons and individual comabt can be reasonably judged.

Is there a particular aspect of this discussion that interests you?

Regards
Gene

[Gonzalo G]

Originally Posted by Atlantia

HI Gonzalo,

I understand your point.
I wish to discuss comparisons of like with like. My primary iterest is the sword, but I would happily try and add to discussions of lancers Vs Lancers etc.
What I do want to do if possible is focus on engagements where combat was in some way restricted so that close quarter weapons and individual comabt can be reasonably judged.

Is there a particular aspect of this discussion that interests you?

Regards
Gene

Atlantia, I think your comparison is very valid and interesting, since those encounters among local and european blades existed. I only tried to put those encounters in perspective, not to infere conclussions like "the superiority of european weapons and their fencing style caused the defeat of the locals". Or "the blades of the europeans were better than the local´s". In any case, I think the decisive element of superiority in those fights was the human element and his doctrine of war, the way he used his weapons and his resources, his political movements in the area among the locals, his spirit and sense of union, his motivation, etc. Not because the europeans had an inherent superiority due to their race or place of origin, but because they were more advanced in this way. It happens then and again along all history. Arabs were not culturally more advanced or had a superior civilization than bizantine or iranians, or had better weapons to decide any battle, but they stamped out everybody in their irrestible conquest of an empire. Neverthless, the comparison you have proposed is truly necessary and valid from a military and technological point of view, taking on account the relative importance of the sword among all the arsenal used in those battles. Not as the sword (and it´s fencing) being the king of battles and the decisive element of superiority.
Regards

Gonzalo

[fernando]

Hi Jim, my i dare making some coments?

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... In military context, the heavier bladed arming swords were used, as combat with armoured combatants would find little use for the more delicate blades of the rapier. The deadly estoc, was the sword emplaced in these situations...

As already mentioned, rapiers used in -India were not those with a sissy blade. Forget the term rapier; estoc is not a bad name for the thing ... thrusting was the business.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... The lance was, if i understand correctly, used in primarily shock action, and typically was either broken, or thrown down as the melee ensued following initial shock action. It was of little use in close quarters combat with its typically extensive length ... With the Portuguese in India, I'm not sure that the lance would have had the same employment as in the more standardized inter-European combat. It would seem that battles were likely more often defensive with Europeans dismounted in many of the battles and combat interactions....

It appears that, in a general manner, at the first stage you had fighting starting from aboard ships where, apart from artillery (let to another issue), men used mainly crossbows, whereas locals used the bow and arrow. Amazingly the bow and arrow was never carried by Portuguese, to some extent a circumstancial handicap, whereas such thing in locals hands was the most responsible weapon for wounds inflicted to Portuguese during conflicts in India. Once landing, ranks used lances and their variants (pikes and so), while officers (nobles) used in the first impact the two handed sword and one or two used the halberd; the side sword later acting as close quarters resource.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

In the case of most colonial powers entering native environments, it was presumed that they had superiority over what were thought to be simpler and savage populations with little understanding of warfare....

More than one race was involved in battles in India, not just locals; plenty of Turcs, as also many other... and some sure knew how to handle weapons.
Also the Naires from Malabar were no sweet pear; Pyrard de Laval considered them the best in the world.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

In addition to the presumption of superiority in the sense of warfare, the Europeans were typically also driven by religious concept, considering themselves intrinsically more powerful than the populations they perceived as merely heathen in nature. ...

Yes, they seemed to have used such trick; but then again, the efectiveness of such 'hipnosis' depended on who you were facing each time.

Fernando

.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fernando

Hi Jim, my i dare making some coments?


As already mentioned, rapiers used in -India were not those with a sissy blade. Forget the term rapier; estoc is not a bad name for the thing ... thrusting was the business.



It appears that, in a general manner, at the first stage you had fighting starting from aboard ships where, apart from artillery (let to another issue), men used mainly crossbows, whereas locals used the bow and arrow. Amazingly the bow and arrow was never carried by Portuguese, to some extent a circumstancial handicap, whereas such thing in locals hands was the most responsible weapon for wounds inflicted to Portuguese during conflicts in India. Once landing, ranks used lances and their variants (pikes and so), while officers (nobles) used in the first impact the two handed sword and one or two used the halberd; the side sword later acting as close quarters resource.



More than one race was involved in battles in India, not just locals; plenty of Turcs, as also many other... and some sure knew how to handle weapons.
Also the Naires from Malabar were no sweet pear; Pyrard de Laval considered them the best in the world.



Yes, they seemed to have used such trick; but then again, the efectiveness of such 'hipnosis' depended on who you were facing each time.

Fernando

.

Nicely noted Fernando!
As you say, the rapiers did not have the narrow blades that became popular with civilian fencing in later years, though the often intricate hilt guards were becoming very developed. Thrusting was indeed the 'business', quite contrary to the slashing and draw cuts of oriental swordsmanship. The estoc was of course used primarily as a heavy thrusting sword in European warfare where heavy armour was used. Its premise became profoundly employed in the heavily reinforced armour piercing blades of many edged weapons in Persia, Central Asia and India.

The deadly bow and arrow certainly had become the primary weapon of many of the nomadic Turkic tribes of the steppes and influenced the warfare of India as certain of these tribes entered the subcontinent. The use of this weapon was certainly not confined to native warriors as obviously its use in medieval European warfare is well established.

The embarkation of the Portuguese into these deadly weapons would likely best compare to the landing of forces onto beachheads in Normandy into emplaced machine gun batteries. Once ashore the European use of thier conventional weapons against the Indian forces, and how this interaction would compare, is pretty much the goal here.
In most cases, contemporary narratives may describe the overall outcome of the event, but aside from descriptions with attention to individuals or action seldom address details on the weapons. What we look for is of course, the instances where the weapons are specifically noted, such as the accounts of the British against the Sikhs in the 19th century.

India has always been known as one of the most diverse continents in cultures, language, ethnicity and so on, and as noted, there were indeed many groups incorporated in the ranks of the forces there. Naturally these would vary widely depending on time, place and so on, and it takes very deep study of Indian history to truly understand these assimilations and alliances.

Moving forward again to 18th-19th century

Getting back to Genes topic, in trying to compare the effectiveness of European weaponry against native, and in doing so trying to remain in kind, in many cases it is difficult to do. The concept is well placed as it is interesting to consider how weapons from industrialized cultures stood against those of 'native' cultures.
It is well known that the beauty and excellence of wootz in the swords of the Middle East was highly desirable, and was never truly duplicated in the west. But it is my understanding that these blades were not particularly suitable for sword to sword combat, or against armor obviously. They were used along with a shield to parry, and not meant to use in the sense of European sword combat. With the Mahrattas, the thrust was unheard of, and slashing was the style dictated in thier combat.
While the katar was often perceived as a thrusting weapon, in thier use it was for slashing cuts. In Mughal India, it did become a thrust weapon or 'punch dagger'.


All best regards,
Jim