Would like to talk to someone knowledgable about swords

Hello,

A broad sword is basically a hacking weapon (like a machete). When the French introduced foils the entire style suddenly changed. The foil is a stabbing weapon, totally different from the broadsword.

Defending against a broadsword is relatively simple. A shield, usually made of wood with leather overlays, is used to block the attack. Body armor, either of layered leather or chainmail, is used to keep the defender's body parts from being amputated. Most of the time that worked but sometimes it didn't.

The Romans had an ingenious sword called a shortsword. Not as large as the broadsword, it could be used in close quarter combat both as a hacking weapon and a stabbing weapon. The Romans used either leather, chainmail, or plate armor.

When I was a lad in college Hank Reinhardt, may he rest in peace, loaned me his chainmail and helmet to wear when I bought some donuts at a local Krispy Kreme. I can tell you that, although I was a husky and healthy young man, the chainmail damned near wore me out just walking across the street to the donut shop. The chainmail weighed about fifty or so pounds but all of the weight was on my shoulders, pressing down on my chest to the point I could barely catch my breath. That tells me that anyone who fought in these outfits had to be extremely fit.

Glen T. Brock

Go down to...

Genres and look in Historical Writing and check out the stickies at the top of the board. There are some references for resources re swords there.

I practice longsword and other weapons at the Academy of European Medieval Martial Arts, which is an organization that tries to reconstruct the contents of early fifteenth century fighting treatises. I'm also working on a Ph.D. dissertation about medieval trial by combat. Feel free to PM me with any questions you have. I may not be able to supply all the answers, but I can probably show you where to find them.

Ariella said:

I practice longsword and other weapons at the Academy of European Medieval Martial Arts, which is an organization that tries to reconstruct the contents of early fifteenth century fighting treatises. I'm also working on a Ph.D. dissertation about medieval trial by combat. Feel free to PM me with any questions you have. I may not be able to supply all the answers, but I can probably show you where to find them.

Click to expand...

That's pretty cool. Unfortunately, I live near vancouver. Do you know of any such organisatoins out my way?

There's an AW member here named Zornhau, who's pretty knowledgable about swords and even maintains a blog about them, I believe.

Mike, Academie Duello is in your neighbourhood. Their focus is on a somewhat later period, but they teach longsword as well as rapier. Their website is here: http://www.academieduello.com/

Swords are expensive weapons and most people would not use them by default as they could not afford them, spears, axes, clubs, knives, would be used more often.

Mail is not worn totally on the shoulders but is also held up by a belt spreading the weight of the mail.

Most blows of swords would not penetrate mail, only a strong blow would and when wielding a sword you would try for little blows until you could get a strong blow in to kill/seriously hurt your enemy (unless they had no armour). When fighting full plate a sword would be very unlikely to hurt the guy inside so use a mace, or other bludgeoning weapons.

Other way of stopping swords is parrying or blocking swords with your sword.

One last little comment the fighting style in big battles would be different than one-on-one or little

Swords are expensive weapons and most people would not use them by default as they could not afford them...

Click to expand...

I think that's a common misconception. I keep finding medieval references to common people owning swords. The twelfth century schoolmaster Alexander Neckam lists a sword and a guisarme among the tools that a well equipped peasant should own. There are also Chaucer's yeoman and miller, who both set forth on their journey carrying swords and bucklers.

When fighting full plate a sword would be very unlikely to hurt the guy inside so use a mace, or other bludgeoning weapons.

Click to expand...

It's true that plate armour makes minor sword blows irrelevant, but that doesn't mean that people gave up on swords entirely when fighting a man in full plate. Fiore dei Liberi's 1410 fighting treatise, the Flos Duellatorum, has a whole section devoted to longsword techniques in armour. (See here: http://www.aemma.org/onlineResources/liberi/contents.htmhttp://www.aemma.org/onlineResources/liberi/contents.htm )

Armour did change sword technique considerably. The fight could be described as less of a fencing bout and more of a grappling match with crowbars.

Ariella said:

I think that's a common misconception. I keep finding medieval references to common people owning swords. The twelfth century schoolmaster Alexander Neckam lists a sword and a guisarme among the tools that a well equipped peasant should own. There are also Chaucer's yeoman and miller, who both set forth on their journey carrying swords and bucklers.

Click to expand...

I have not done much research into medieval weapons, what I was referring too (maybe I should be clearer ) was earlier weapons (9th century and before). But as I have noted, I have not done much research...

Ariella said:

It's true that plate armour makes minor sword blows irrelevant, but that doesn't mean that people gave up on swords entirely when fighting a man in full plate. Fiore dei Liberi's 1410 fighting treatise, the Flos Duellatorum, has a whole section devoted to longsword techniques in armour. (See here: http://www.aemma.org/onlineResources/liberi/contents.htmhttp://www.aemma.org/onlineResources/liberi/contents.htm )

Armour did change sword technique considerably. The fight could be described as less of a fencing bout and more of a grappling match with crowbars.

Click to expand...

That's a good point. This is why I think eastern and western swords can be so different--the differing use and fighting style of the people.

Neither style of swords are better than the other.

efreysson said:

If someone history or combat arts buff, or something of the kind, would be willing to communicate with me through PM's or email, or give me a link to a great online source, I would very much appreciate it.

If it makes any difference, my characters mostly use European-style longswords, slightly curved scimitar-like blades and scramsaxes, and generally wear little armor.

Click to expand...

I'm a keen exponent of German Longsword, and have rather battered full armour, enough swords to liberate Narnia, and a sword scar, so perhaps I can help. What follows is my humble advice:

First off, pick a period and milieu and steal the technology from it. Don't be tempted to mix and match - new tech has a way of driving out the old. And please don't think that the Middle Ages is one period in terms of tech. Having picked a period, go buy the Osprey publication relating to it. http://www.ospreypublishing.com/ The books are designed for wargamers and living history recreationists, so will tell you everything you need to know. Pay attention to why people use weapons. A sabre, for example, is intended for a particular kind of horse combat. A longsword, for foot combat in an earlier era, but not generally as a first choice for a plate melee!

Second, ignore everything anybody tells you unless you're sure they are familiar with real weapons and techniques. This includes LARPers, most SCA people unless they use steel, sports fencers (pah!), battle reenactors (who have very odd traditions and even odder combat rules), and anbody who is basing what they know on e.g. the AD&D Players Handbook (a dead giveaway is the use of the term "platemail".)

Lastly, look at some contemporary accounts of combat, and perhaps some actual manuals - yes, even in the Middle Ages, there were formalised martial arts. See e.g. http://www.schielhau.org/

Some minor corrections....

Some minor corrections

Glen T. Brock said:

A broad sword is basically a hacking weapon (like a machete).

Click to expand...

What do you mean by broad sword? There was no such thing in the Middle Ages. There was a primarily hacking weapon, known as a falchion.

Medieval swords were often very much designed for the thrust:


I mean, look at this blade:

I challenge you to characterise that as a crude hacking weapon.

When the French introduced foils the entire style suddenly changed. The foil is a stabbing weapon, totally different from the broadsword.

Click to expand...

Different yes, but largely because a foil is a practice weapon, which later evolved into sports fencing equipment. Between the demise of the Medieval sword, and the foil - or perhaps you mean civilian smallsword? - you have a whole cornucopia of co-existing cold steel; sidesword, rapier, sabre, Highland broadsword, spontoon, backsword...

Defending against a broadsword is relatively simple. A shield, usually made of wood with leather overlays, is used to block the attack. Body armor, either of layered leather or chainmail, is used to keep the defender's body parts from being amputated. Most of the time that worked but sometimes it didn't.

Click to expand...

Can't overly argue with that, except that - reading the Norse sagas - relatively simple is a bit optimistic. Also, there's the minor matter of somebody coming at you with a polearm and breaking your shield.

The Romans had an ingenious sword called a shortsword. Not as large as the broadsword, it could be used in close quarter combat both as a hacking weapon and a stabbing weapon.

Click to expand...

You mean the gladius. It has its drawbacks, which is presumably why it was superseded by the spatha.

The Romans used either leather, chainmail, or plate armor.

Click to expand...

Lorica wasn't really plate.

When I was a lad in college Hank Reinhardt, may he rest in peace, loaned me his chainmail and helmet to wear when I bought some donuts at a local Krispy Kreme. I can tell you that, although I was a husky and healthy young man, the chainmail damned near wore me out just walking across the street to the donut shop. The chainmail weighed about fifty or so pounds but all of the weight was on my shoulders, pressing down on my chest to the point I could barely catch my breath. That tells me that anyone who fought in these outfits had to be extremely fit.

Click to expand...

Yes, mail is heavy and you need to be fit. However, much modern mail from a few decades ago was made of spring washers and 200% too heavy! It also helps if it fits and you wear a sturdy belt.

It's probably worth noting that plate armour is generally lighter and easier to wear. It also absorbs impact... for a while...

I collect fantasy blades. Wounds depend on the blade shape/size. A cutlass, claymore or sabre etc. slices, an epee/foil punctures. Bladed swords can weigh 4-8 lbs depending on the length & material. Quality Oriental swords actually can bend/curve without breaking. Serrated blades cause nasty damage but can also get stuck in armor or bone.

efreysson wrote:
Could you perhaps elaborate on the most important differences between using a straight sword and a curved one?

Click to expand...

I'll take a stab (or a slash) at that question. Curved blades have advantages when you're slashing, while straight ones are better at stabbing. If you drag a slash across something, a curved blade will maintain constant pressure on the target while a straight one will tend to snag at the tip. On the other hand, it's easier to stab someone with a straight blade. Both blade types seem to work equally well for chopping cuts.

Curved blades usually have one edge, while straight ones have two. (There are, however, exceptions to the rule.) The back, or false, edge lets you make sneaky cuts that wrap around your opponent's defenses.

One of my MC's is not a horseman, but does use a curved blade (he looted it off a battlefield). Is there any reason he wouldn't be able to use it to deadly effect against longswordsmen?

Click to expand...

Not really, but it would depend partly on the relative length of his blade. The person with the longer blade might have a range advantage.

I've so far used the word 'saber' to describe his sword, but what I really have in mind is more similar to the Chinese Dao than the 19th century cavalry thing.

Click to expand...

Falchion might be the word you're looking for.

Also, two other MC's wield straight-bladed swords that can be used with one hand a shield, or held in both hands. Is there a specific term for such swords, as opposed to the purely single-handed ones, like viking swords?

Click to expand...

You could call them 'arming swords'.

HeronW wrote:
Bladed swords can weigh 4-8 lbs depending on the length & material.

Click to expand...

That would be heavy for a medieval European sword. The specimens in museums usually weigh from 2.5 to 3.5 lbs.

Quality Oriental swords actually can bend/curve without breaking.

Click to expand...

European swords do that too.

Ariella said:

You could call them 'arming swords'.

Click to expand...

I am not sure, but I think he refers to something like a bastard sword. Arming sword is one handed. The bastard sword has a slightly longer hilt and allows a use of two hand although not like the longsword

dmytryp wrote:
I am not sure, but I think he refers to something like a bastard sword. Arming sword is one handed. The bastard sword has a slightly longer hilt and allows a use of two hand although not like a longsword

Click to expand...

This is true. My thinking was that an arming sword would be a more appropriate weapon because it's less awkward for one-handed use and you can still use it with two hands by wrapping the lower hand around the pommel. Also, I think efreysson mentioned somewhere that he was trying to keep his technology at approximately the level of the year 1000 AD, and bastard swords are later medieval weapons.

At any rate, the technical terms are probably more important to modern sword enthusiasts than to their medieval ancestors. Medieval people tended to just call everything a 'sword' and leave it at that.

efreysson wrote:
Can a limb or head really be chopped off in a single attack? Does anyone know of historical accounts of gruesome injuries inflicted in real battles?

Click to expand...

Amputation definitely seems possible. Sharp swords go through things like wet rolled-up straw mats with shocking ease and the internet is full of videos of people hacking at slabs of meat with various degrees of skill and success.

Historically, the example of Thomas Beckett's death comes to mind. If one eyewitness is to be believed, he was killed by a sword stroke that took off the top of his skull. However, he seems to have been lying prostrate when that happened, so the floor would have offered a lot of resistance.

There's also the body that was dug up at the site of the fourteenth-century battle of Wisby. It has both femurs severed in the same place, likely by the same stroke. That too may have happened when the victim was lying on the ground.

More notes

Just to chip in some final thoughts:

If single-handed swords are the norm, then everybody will call them "swords", and save the tags for the odd weapons.

"Bastard sword" is a 19th century collector's term. It's not clear what the Medieval term would have been, but - IIRC - "War Sword", or "Sword of War" is probably right for something you can use one handed, but has a two handed grip. It certainly sounds cooler and less AD&D.

"Longswords" are most definitely two handed weapons. Great Swords are similar, but have a much longer grip, roughly to your armpit. Two Handed swords - generally you can kiss the pommel. Weights vary. My longsword is 2.5 lbs. My two hander 5.5 lbs. I can handle both one-handed, but don't have the leverage to fence with either unless gripped two-handed.

Most swords wielded in two hands are terrifyingly fast, since it's possible to whip them from side to side with a simple push pull action. A single handed sword is actually slower to fence with, and much much harder on the muscles.

As for relative damage - I'd guess at the extreme, they're both about the same, since you step when you cut, thus turning your whole body into a weapon if you do it right (weight of sword negligable compared to armoured body). However, I'd suspect the bigger swords do more damage more often.

Wave edged swords were - historically - found in late medieval/early ren pike battles. Our experience suggests that the edge is probably useful for gathering in weaponshafts. No idea whether it would have made for better wounds. The funny little teeth near the grip - they're sword catchers designed to protect your fingers when you cut into other people's cuts.

Shields are not a passive defense - you can trap people's weapons with them, or even break open their guards.

Final thought: Weapon choice is not arbritary.

As modern examples of nutters with blades show, it's actually quite hard to cut with a sword. They tend turn as they hit, especially if you're not striking correctly.

It took nearly half a dozen blows to finish off the Becket, presumably because the knights were pissed and nervous. Conversely, Don Pero Nino - whose technique must have been perfect - once clove a man's shield, helm, coif and skull with a single blow from a single-handed sword.

So, swords are not a nube weapon - training, mentality, and technique are all.

Blade heavy weapons like clubs, falchions and axes, and later some kinds of heavy saber, seem designed to make it easier for less trained or more frantic people to strike with. The payoff is, they're harder to fence with and rely - generallising wildly - on getting in a single well timed first or second attack. Shields or bucklers are advisable for defence.

Some blade heavy weapons really only belong on the battlefield. One-handed axes, picks, hammers, maces all trade reach for armour breaking. If you're not facing armour, you're better with a sword or club.

Generally rule: a weapon only has to do enough damage to disable the enemy.

I'll cross post this to my LJ to see if any of my sword buddies have anything to add...

zornhau said:

"Bastard sword" is a 19th century collector's term. It's not clear what the Medieval term would have been, but - IIRC - "War Sword", or "Sword of War" is probably right for something you can use one handed, but has a two handed grip. It certainly sounds cooler and less AD&D.

Click to expand...

Nevertheless 'Bastard sword' is the common term today for it, so I'd use it (I actually, do use it) if you want people to understand immediately what you're talking about.

This is by the way an interesting question -- do you go for absolute accuracy when you create a world parallel to some part of Earth's history, or do you go for something most readers would understand without additional research?

efreysson said:

Another question that has occurred to me is: Just how much damage can you do with a single sword stroke? The Icelandic Sagas have several instances of men getting chopped in half. While I'm preeetty sure that's an embellishment, what about limbs? Can a limb or head really be chopped off in a single attack? Does anyone know of historical accounts of gruesome injuries inflicted in real battles?

Click to expand...

With the right sword, its almost like cutting butter. And if your angle is correct, you barely feel you've hit anything. If your angle is wrong you stick and barely penetrate. My personal experience is with two rolled mats (think thigh). I've seen seven mats done (think torso), but without bamboo or something harder inside to simulate bone. But there is video out there on YouTube and stuff if you can wade through all the backyard ninjers trying to carve watermelons with their wall hangers. Search for tameshigiri. Oh, wait, here's one that is a good combat parallel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RS2YcBbubs8

As regards information on swords in general, yes. But my experience is limited to the Japanese sword arts.

zornhau said:

As modern examples of nutters with blades show, it's actually quite hard to cut with a sword. They tend turn as they hit, especially if you're not striking correctly.

Click to expand...

I'll mention the botched ritual beheading at MISHIMA Yukio's seppuku as another example of how the untrained can't cut.

It's not so much that the blade tends to turn, as that you have to train any turning out of your motion so that you always strike straight. That's fairly easy to do with a big overhead finishing cut, but much harder in a horizontal or diagonal cut, and even harder in nukitsuke. If the blade is impacting straight on, it will not turn. Semantics, I know, but important for describing what's going on. At least in JSA.