6th century weaponry

[shadowbox]

I am looking for information on 6th century weaponry, particularly bows, armor, and swords.


Info please !

and thank you!

 

[ctg]

The Western Roman Empire has collapsed and Franks are becoming a dominant race, while Holy Roman Empire is rising from the Germanic barbaric tribes. I would say in weaponry, you can look anything that late Romans had minus crossbows and long bows. Swords are going to be relatively small in sizes and nobody hasn't heard about gunpowder in Europe (different story in China).

Hopefully that's going to give you a hint on where to go do your research.

 

[The Ace]

Well, as far as swords go, the spatha would dominate, basically a longer (3 foot) version of the gladius. Originally a cavalry weapon, it spread to infantry from the third century onwards. Armour would be chain or plate and there would still be descendants of late Roman helmets in use (The classic, 'Imperial,' helmets, the thrown pilum and the lorica segmentata (strip armour) together with the legionnary scutum shield had all disappeared by the 3rd century). Shields would be circular often with stowage for 3-4 darts on the inside as spears tended to be 7- 8ft long and used purely for reach.

Late Roman infantrymen also had a change in dress, tunics becoming long-sleeved, sandals replaced by closed boots and the old (and optional) knee-breeches replaced by ankle-length trousers tucked into the aforementioned boots.

Professional soldiers or those armed by rich patrons would probably stick fairly close to this until the early middle ages but they'd become fewer as the cost of such equipment increased.

Compound bows would become increasingly rare in Europe to be replaced by simple bows (made from a single piece of wood) or even by slings, which were simple to make and therefore cheap.

 

[David Gullen]

The book you need for swords is R. Ewart Oakeshot's 'the Archaeology of Weapons', which is definitive for European weapons.

Armour would be chain and/or leather in the main, again assuming Europe.

 

[Peter Graham]

To echo Ace, the remnants of the old Roman Empire would be using late Roman weapons and tactics. Ace would know far better than me what that actually involved, but there is some very tenuous evidence to suggest that the British and their Gaulish neighbours of the period relied on fast moving, small cavalry units. From the 5th Century on, shield designs started to show an increasing Christian influence.

By contrast, the Germanic peoples relied almost entirely on infantry. The favoured weapon was the ash spear or the axe. My guess is that only the leaders and their personal retainers would have had much by way of armour, but if you google the Sutton Hoo helmet, you'll get a very good idea of what they might have looked like. Swords were also limited to the warrior caste.

From the Germanic perspective, there would not have been any uniforms. Local warlords would have been surrounded by their war band (as would their Celtic counterparts), but otherwise their forces would have been made up of relatively poorly equipped farmer-soldiers.

As far as Britain is concened, my guess is that the respective methods of warfare basically ensured stalemate in those early years until Badon. The British were never likely to drive the Germanic Saxons out entirely, as although relatively small numbers of highly trained and well-equipped cavalry can win battles against huge odds and cause great confusion and fear into the bargain, they cannot hold large swathes of hostile country. On the other hand, the Saxons could never consolidate their earlier gains for fear of what might happen to their farms and their families at the hands of the British cavalry if they were campaigning too far from home.

Regards

Peter

 

[Pentagathus]

I doubt there would be much in the way of cavalry (in battle) as shield walls were used in this time and a horse won't charge a shield wall.
A few longbows were probably around but not enough of them to be relied on.
Spears and axes were much easier to make than swords so they would be the most abundant weapons.

 

[Peter Graham]

Hi Pentagathus,

I doubt there would be much in the way of cavalry (in battle) as shield walls were used in this time and a horse won't charge a shield wall.
A few longbows were probably around but not enough of them to be relied on.

You may have a point, but there are a number of tantalising clues to suggest that the British did rely heavily on cavalry. Most of the clues come from the old Welsh war poems, most of which were not written down until a few hundred years after the events they describe, but which are still generally regarded as being fairly accurate and true to the originals. Nearly all of them describe in some way the war horses of the British kings and their warbands.

Over and above that, there is an Armorican source that talks of a Celtic warlord raising a small cavalry force at his own expense and using it to devastating effect against the Germanic invaders.

Finally, some of the British kings gave themselves names that suggest how horses played a part in their success - the most obvious being Gwallauc Marchant Trim, who was one of the last independent Celtic kings of Elmet (what is now the western and southern bits of Yorkshire). His name translates as "Gwallauc the Battle Horseman".

You are right that a horse won't charge a shield wall (any more than it will charge a square of redcoats), but that wasn't the point of a cavalry attack in a set piece battle. The effect on morale of a line of cavalry thundering down on you nearly always ensured that the foot soldiers broke and ran, although that would never do in fantasy literature or the films! But if infantry managed to "hold the line", then, as you say, horses would rarely charge through them. This is exactly waht happened at Waterloo, 1,200 years later! The French cavalry were sent in, but the allied squares held firm and they just rode around them ineffectually for a while before being withdrawn.

Spears and axes were much easier to make than swords so they would be the most abundant weapons.

I rather agree.

Regards,

Peter Gul