Did soldiers that used swords have any technique, or did they just wildly swing their weapons?

by strongerthenbefore20
BlueStraggler

It kinda boils down to the type of sword they were kitted with, and whether it was a primary or secondary weapon.

Let's consider the secondary weapons first. Swords were a common secondary weapon throughout history, from the Greek phalanx right through the early modern period, and even into the 20th century if you're willing to accept that certain types of bayonet were basically repurposed short swords. Swords issued as secondary sidearms were typically short and practical single-handed weapons. Examples include the Hoplite sword, the Roman gladius hispaniensis, the medieval cultellus and falchion, the Renaissance katzbalger, and the 18th Century cutlass.

"Short and practical" here is code for anyone can use it in a pinch, without having to take a ton of fencing lessons. And what that really meant is that if you didn't know what you were doing, you could just use it like an axe, and still f--- someone up pretty bad. If you knew what you were doing, so much the better, but either way you could do some damage even if you were a mook when it came to fencing.

As a secondary weapon, its job was not to win battles--that was the job of your primary weapon, which was probably something like a spear, pike, bow, or even cannon. The job of the sword was to help hold your unit together when everything went sideways and the primary weapons were not useful anymore. Without a versatile, all-purpose sidearm to fall back on, unit discipline could collapse pretty quickly, and then your comrades are all running for their lives, and you've been routed.

So yes, under those circumstances, you could expect that a fair number of soldiers might just start hacking without much regard for the finer points of technique. Unit commanders and other experienced soldiers might have more knowledge to fall back on, and may or may not attempt to impart it to the lower ranks when there's time to drill, but that type of training would always be a secondary consideration to the unit's primary arms.

If your primary weapon was a sword, however, that was another matter. But the thing was, swords were actually pretty uncommon as primary weapons. The later Romans (esp. late republic, early empire) had a very sword-centric military organization, and also had a rigorous training system with specialized equipment (rudis and palus). Most importantly, swordsmen were taught a variety of strikes both in terms of the target and the technique. Thrusts were particularly important, and were regarded as the expert killing blow. Less-skilled rivals were mocked for their tendency to chop and slash. (The Military Institutions of the Romans, Flavius Vegetius Renatus) So for Roman legions at least, you definitely did not just wildly swing your weapon.

But after the Romans, the sword declined as a a primary sidearm of the common soldier. They remained prestigious weapons among the elites, of course, but elite swordsmen were much more likely to be well-trained in their usage,. The hallmarks of an "elite" sword were length, price, and how well they worked from horseback. (Knightly swords, scimitars, tachi and katanas all fit into this category.) The more these factors came into play, the more skill you needed to use these weapons without accidentally cutting your own bits off, the more fencing lessons you could afford, and the less likely you were to just wildly swing them if you got into a hot spot. But in the end these were weapons of the aristocracy, not the common soldier.

Come the Renaissance, we start to see the resurgence of rank-and-file soldiers who use swords as their primary weapon. But not entire units of swordsmen, rather we see them re-appear as specialists. For example, the great two-handed swords of the 16th Century were wielded by specialist landesknechts, who were probably tasked to soften up pike formations and received double pay for taking on this dangerous job. The funny thing about these swordsmen is they also carried a secondary weapon, which was also a sword (see for example the guy on the left). This raises an interesting question: they were double-pay specialists in the big sword, which they presumably used with special techniques and comparative finesse, but how good were they with the little sword? If things went badly, and they had to drop their two-handed sword and fight their way to safety with their katzbalger, were they still experts, or were they just hacking away like every other common soldier in a pinch?

The profession of fencing master starts to become better documented around this time, so we have some hints. The 16th Century master of arms had to be proficient (to the extent connoted in the title "master") in a variety of weapons, and there were several ranks to be advanced through (free scholar, provost, then master in the English system), each with public tests in multiple weapons. The full repertoire included the great (2-handed) sword, bastard (hand-and-half) sword, long sword (which some people confuse with the bastard sword), back sword, sword and buckler, sword and dagger, rapier, pike, halberd, quarter-staff, battle axe, and other regionally-specific folk weapons (like the single stick in England and the dusack in Germany). (The English Master of Arms, J.D. Aylward)

So multi-weapon proficiency was increasingly normal by this time, amongst the sort of citizenry from whom armies would be raised. The sort of person who might get hired as a zweihander specialist may very well have come out of a training program involving several other swords before the student progressed to the great sword. Specialists like that would be more likely to be skilled with their backup sidearm as well.

wotan_weevil

The short answer is that, yes, they had technique. Some probably did wildly swing their weapons in the stress of battle. Consider modern infantrymen: they train to shoot accurate, and use technique when shooting, but some soldiers will wildly fire their weapons without aiming in the stress of battle.

Having a certain level of technique is important. There is a big difference between a basic level of technique and zero technique! A soldier who doesn't know how to use his weapons is unlikely to be an effective soldiers. For some weapons, such as bows and slings, it's fairly obvious that some minimum level of skill is needed. This applies to other weapons, too, including "simpler" missile weapons such as crossbows and javelins, and hand-to-hand weapons such as swords, spears, and other polearms.

Does a soldier need to be an expert? No. Some skill/technique is necessary, but being an expert is not. Discipline and being able to fight in formation were very important. To quote myself from a past answer in https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ebya8k/did_a_soldiers_swordsmanshipskill_really_matter/

Did skill matter on the Ancient/Medieval battlefield? Yes, but not as much as in one-on-one duels. The basic skills - being able to hit effectively with one's weapons (including being able to shoot bows, load and shoot crossbows, load and shoot guns where appropriate), move in armour, use one's shield - were essential, but relatively easy to teach and learn. More important was discipline and courage - holding formation in the face of the enemy, advancing to attack when commanded to, etc. Battles have rarely, if ever, been lost due to one side not knowing how to use their weapons, and many battles have been lost due to one side's lack of discipline and determination.

(and see also the past related answers linked by u/Glusch in that discussion).

How did soldiers learn these basic skills with their weapons? There are three main options:

  1. The army can teach weapons skill to recruits, either formally (in some form of basic training) or informally (e.g., experienced soldiers training recruits assigned to their unit).

  2. Potential soldiers can actively seek to learn skills. E.g., learn from former or current soldiers, pay an instructor, etc.

  3. Young children, youths, and adults can learn weapons skills through play, hunting, and sport.

For most soldiers, it will be 1 and/or 3. Modern practice is usually 1, formally. Modern training typically includes a great deal of formation drill. As noted above, discipline and being able to fight in formation were very important. Typical parade-ground drilling is less important today than in the 18th and 19th centuries - firepower has done away with fighting in close ordered formations on the battlefield (but we still see it in fighting in riots, and both riot police and those who expect to fight riot police will train for formation fighting) - but still serves ceremonial purposes, and is argued to instill discipline. Modern infantry training isn't just parade ground drill and marksmanship - an important component is practicing the modern style of fighting as a team. Once a sufficient basic level of proficiency with weapons has been achieved, this kind of training to fight as a team is important for success in battle.

Noting that swords were used as serious battlefield weapons well into the 20th century, and the bayonet is still taught as a hand-to-hand weapon, we can look at the level of skill being aimed at in film/video showing training. Some examples:

All of the above training makes use of mass drills, i.e., a group of soldiers/sailor on the parade ground or deck going through the same basic moves. This kind of training only really serves to impart the most basic of skills. However, it is simple, and can be used to train large numbers at once.

To these examples, we can add:

An alternative is to provide more expert instruction, but this is unsuited for properly training large numbers. Expert instruction can be used to demonstrate skill/techniques to a large group, but individual practice is needed to acquire the skills. (This is why martial arts are "arts" - skill acquired through practice. This is the ancient ars vs scientia divide - scientia is knowledge, stuff you can learn from a book, while ars is skill learned through practice.) Some demonstration style training:

and training films can be used instead of or in addition to live instruction/demonstration.

As noted above, play and sports can be methods to learn/teach fighting skills:

Militaries don't ignore this! Sport has been used both as a military training method and as an encouragement for training:

Training like this can develop more sophisticated skills, beyond simple handling of the weapons and basic strikes and parries. Unchoreographed fighting like this against a resisting opponent develops skills in timing, distance, judgment of the opponent's intent, the use of feints, etc. Training doesn't always include this! The more basic level - knowing simple strikes and parries - is sometimes judged to be sufficient. While a high level of skill might be nice, it certainly wasn't seen as essential. (And see u/Iphikrates on Classical Greek attitudes to weapons skills in https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5zca4h/how_did_the_greeks_in_the_classical_or/ )