\Clay"more`\, n. [Gael. claidheamhmor a broadsword; Gael. claidheamh sword + mor great, large. Cf. Claymore.] A large two-handed sword used formerly by the Scottish Highlanders.

\Sling"er\, n. One who slings

Medieval swords

The Rapier

Educational Links

Medieval Combat

It is a fair assessment to say that the study of Medieval combat, is the study of armoured combat. Those who fought did so with weapons designed to injure flesh by defeating armour. Those who could afford armour wore it and those who couldn’t, wanted it.

Also, as one who has fought in a variety of armours, as well as without anything more than a helmet, I can assure the reader that once mail or plate is added to the equation, the impact on technique can be profound. Certain strikes and actions simply cannot work against certain armours, and the lightly equipped combatant can quickly find the danger of closing with a steel-clad juggernaut. Likewise, the armoured combatant finds that his own movement, perception, and technique needs to adjust to the extra gear. Plus he can find that the fine harness of the mounted knight when fighting against a lightly armoured foe who understands how to keep their distance, can often be as much of a hindrance as a help.

Medieval masters like Fiore Dei Liberi, Hans Talhoffer, and Pietro Monte distinguished between armoured and unarmoured fighting. They included entire chapters of "harness fighting" to address exactly these issues. To the student of the Renaissance school of personal defence, armour and its effects on combat are not particularly relevant or important. But for the would-be Medievalist, to say you study the longsword, the hache (polaxe), or the sword and shield, but do not ever train in armour, is to completely misunderstand the nature of Medieval combat. Regardless of whether your interest is in foot or mounted fighting in the Age of Mail or the Age of Plate, the factor of historically accurate armour must be considered.

A Brief Lesson in "pseudo-history"

Discussing any martial art is difficult, and often infuriatingly so when that art corresponds to almost a thousand year time period. Therefore, to try and insure that author and reader are speaking the same language, following are founding principles of the basis for my discussion.

Firstly, by "Medieval," I am speaking of the period roughly measured from the fall of the Western Roman Empire at the end of the 5th century to the second half of the 15th century AD. By the latter 1400s, the militaristic technological and cultural innovations of the Renaissance were already well underway, and combat styles and philosophy had begun the transformation into the methods so well recorded by the 16th century masters. This does not imply a disconnection between the two schools, especially in the armours worn or the use of two-handed weapons, but it does signal the shift in focus on melee weapons, particularly the sword, from that of the battlefield, to that of "personal civilian defense."

Secondly, from an armour standpoint, the Medieval period can be further divided between the Age of Mail, and the Age of Plate. The Age of Mail begins with the lightly armoured Germanic tribes that would create new kingdoms from the old Roman Empire, and ends with the High Middle Ages of the 13th Century. This is a huge period, which begins with warbands of lightly and unarmoured men, with only a small elite core of "professional" warriors. The sword was invariably the property of a champion, a noble, or a king, and body armour was generally held only by the wealthiest of warriors. But this same "age" ends in an era where the mounted knight was clad head to toe in mail, and the professional, armoured "serjeant" and footsoldier had become commonplace figures on the battlefield. In this feudal period, the mounted knight came into his own, bringing with him specialized accoutrements, such as the lance, the heater shield, and a longer bladed slashing and stabbing sword.

The Age of Plate, begins roughly in the 14th century, with the further rise of professional infantry, be it the English longbowman, Genoese and Flemish crossbowman, or the vaunted Swiss pikeman. This century marked a pronounced "arms race" which began with the supremacy of the mail clad knight, and ended with the same figure, now clad head to toe in steel plate, struggling (often failing) to maintain his dominance on the battlefield.

Furthermore, a whole specialized subset of the armourer’s craft was developed to reduce casualties in the ever more fanciful, and less martial, tournament and joust. These heavy, often ponderous harnesses never intended for battlefield have helped lead to the popular misconception that the plate armoured knight was a clunking, shambling, Medieval "Tin Woodsman."

It has been debated that, with the increased invulnerability of armour, actual weapon skill declined, particularly in use of the sword, and did not really revive until armour began to fall out of fashion in the later 16th century. It is interesting that 15th century longsword manuals often show one set of tactics when the combatants are fighting unarmoured and then show a simpler, but just as brutal set for fighting in plate armour. The armoured style relied on greater thrusting while also usually resorting to grappling and wrestling. The student of the longsword was also advised to forego his edge all together when facing armour, for it was considered useless in such a fight.