Shining Armor

Back in 2013 I wrote about my contempt for swordsmanship in a blog post called "The Pleasantry of the Peasantry," and what an improvement long weapons are over swords, especially when complemented with a good knife. While I generally still hold this opinion, I have learned more about one historical nuance: it's the armor that makes a knight (and I mean knight in the most culturally general sense, to include Samurai) tactically different from fighting a peasant, not the knight's sword, but the knight's armor.

First of all, this idea that "a sword is a symbol of nobility, so only a knight would carry a sword" is not actually historically accurate. Though new, high quality swords in ancient times were always valuable, the vast majority of swords were NOT both new AND high quality:

But considering how many sword-like weapons are out there - such as the cultural ubiquity of the machete for example - this isn't really surprising. The sword is essentially a self-defense weapon, which is why it is still so common in many martial arts. Like many other self-defense weapons, swords have their place on the battlefield, but when advanced armor is involved, swords are often only a back up weapon on the battlefield.

What was universally expensive was armor. It took resources to get armor and fit armor to your body. Armor had to protect you against swords and arrows, reducing deadly sword duels to friendly contests of strength and skill. Heavier weapons with armor piercing potential such as an arbalest, halberd or war hammer were too heavy to be carried around for self defense by people who would only fight unarmored attackers, these heavier weapons were primarily battlefield weapons.

As someone who has done some weapon sparring, I can tell you there is a world of difference between fighting with a safety stick with your hand protection, and sparring with a safety stick when you have forgotten that hand protection. Armor makes an extraordinary difference when being attacked with a weapon. I would go so far as to say that at close range, armor makes more of a difference than a sword does.

Let's say just for example, that a fully armored knight without a sword were to face a brawler with a sword in a pub. That knight is going to close the distance and get close to the swordsman. The swordsman is going to probably only get one stab at the knight, and it's not going to be a precisely aimed stab because of the knight's charge. The knight will then cave in the swordsman's face with his gauntlet. And it would be the same if it were a Samurai in armor against a brawler with a katana.

The cliche hero is not "knight with a razor sharp sword," it is a "knight in shining armor." Armor demonstrates even in today's world that you are a person with responsibility and that it is your job to take charge in that situation, on behalf of the powers that be, as in the case of law enforcement with a bullet proof vest or riot gear, or a soldier geared up for battle. The civilian known to dress up in as much armor was Pheonix Jones, real life superhero (estimated cost for version 2.0 = $250,000 with donations, $10,000 out of pocket to have it assembled.) But he isn't the only one responding to crime by wearing armor:

With emerging technologies such as carbon nanotubes making body armor stronger and lighter, it makes me wonder what roll armor will play in the future.

Update: A few days after this post I heard fight choreography experts Adorea put together a fictional short film to illustrate this point. It is considered to be a fairly realistic fight scene, consider how much armor improves this fictional knight's ability to fight multiple opponents: