I've heard about this mentioned briefly when reading about about the edge damage subject. Medieval battles were gruesome and long I suspect. How long did sharp or blunt medieval swords last when used in actual warfare? I have seen and heard about reproduction swords being broken by things as soft as bamboo. How long would a well-made sword last in real battle. If I were a noble fighting in the late middle-ages, and I had a very expensive and high-quality sword, I would definitely not be happy if I had it broken in a single battle.

A question that was been puzzling me for a long time is- How strong are they really? (If I am wrong with any of this, please tell me!) :)



I would appreciate any answer you can give me, Thanks!

Michæl F.

A high quality modern made sword, like an Albion or ATrim, is more than likely stronger than an actual historic weapon simply because of better quality steel and heat treating. I don't think anyone could really say exactly how long a sword would last in battle. I suppose it would depend on the person wielding it, and his (or her) knowledge of how to use it. If struck edge to edge too much, I doubt the blade would survive long. Yet, they must have been pretty darn durable....a lot of knights came home victorious....whether it be the result of a good sword or a good fighter is lost to history. I'd go so far as to say that if you took a good modern sword back in time and fought with it, you just might have an advantage over your opponent...depending on your skill with it, that is. All the best.....mcm.

Hey...good topic! I was thinking this over the other day and was wondering the same thing. I would think that swords had to be resilient, otherwise I don't see why they were used for so many centuries. From what I've learned, swords are pretty complicated to make (at least decently), so I wouldn't see why they would be used for only one or even a handful of battles. Weren't some (other than Japanese) blades handed down through generations? I'm sure that they needed some repair or at least touching up, any tool wears out and requires fixing. But how long was their expected life span?

Also remember that as a noble, your sword would not, in most cases, be your primary weapon. A Knight would use a lance and then an axe/hammer/mace before his sword. The sword was much like a handgun in the modern military. You can find many military pistols in good or better condition, whereas most rifles that saw service show thier use.

Aside from that aspect, I think the durability of swords would supprise you. Also note that much of the clash of swords popular in movies and books just did not happen much.

Just my 2 coppers

Cheers
Dave

There was some minor mention of this topic here http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...mp;start=0 (scroll down near the bottom of the page) . It may indeed have been true that an actual Medieval sword could have easily been "used up" in one particularly intense battle. :eek: Not a pleasant thought for the modern collector, but from a Medieval perspective, I guess if your sword got you through even a single battle alive, you couldn't have asked any more of it. :)

As for how long battles actually were on average, I haven't a clue, but I suspect that it would depend on the professionalism of the soldiery and a lot of personal factors of the individuals. I don't think most battles would last very long, however, because if one side started losing ground fast or taking losses.....I think somebody would run and it only takes one guy seen by others to start a rout.

Now, about a swords life expectance in battle. I'd look at what was generally expected of amour, one battle then repair or trash. I think a piece of steel with sharp edges wouldn't last very long. There are also period accounts of swords being made to resemble a saw. I'd think in a really heated engagement that could easily happen, as you would be more worried about staying alive and not worrying about damaging your killing 'tool.'

edit: hmm....That really didn't answer the question "How strong are they really"

I think that swords were pretty much used up in combat, rarely lasting for more than an intense battle or two. In the heat of battle you are not going to worry about the neat parry or deflection, you just want to get at the other guy or stop his weapon from hitting you and will use whatever means necessary even to the point of using up your sword. One on one combat is a different matter and you have the luxury of using refined technique. Swords designed for thrusting and piercing may be another issue.

If you look at period illustrations and documents you can find examples of supply for armies where swords and other weapons are ordered by the barrel full. Most soldiers were expected to show up already armed with their personal weapons and armour (except for peasant levys which would be lucky to get a spear and helmet). There had to be some sort of system in place to address the issue of broken or lost weapons, much the same as we see in the armies of today. The first and most prominent example that I can think of is the Bayeux Tapestry where you can see soldiers carrying swords down to the ships by the armload. Surely they weren't all meant for that one individual. There are other illustrations and lists out there but I would have to dig deeper to get the references.

I think that swords were fairly durable, while a sword would need maintainance and re-sharpign after a battle I have yet to see evidence that they were used up at the rate suggested. I base this on my own reserach into the issue of arms&armour to the Swedish armies of the 16th and 17th Centuries. Admittedly these documetns are from a later period but they do have the advantage of belonging to an army which issued the majority to the equipment to the soldiers enlisted in it. (Instead of the soldiers providign it themselves) Thus it is possible to trace how arms were 'expended' during decades of warfare.
On avergae new swords seems to have been issued every two or three years but it's ahrd to trace exactly due to the constant influx of new recruits needing new equipment.

Regards
Daniel

There is also the issue of what constitutes a "trashed" sword. I would guess that unless the blade was actualy bent or severly chipped, re-grinding the blade would be considered standard maintainance.

I suppose this is obvious, but for those who may be new to the forum it can't hurt to state it. A very skilled and successful swordman probably got much more use out of a sword than the average combatant.

A skilled swordsman would probably avoid parrys as far as primary tactics go, and certainly avoid edge against edge. I will theorize that when successful, he would possibly only impart full force thrusts and chops into soft unarmored areas. If an opponent was obviously going to block a strike, the general tactic "could have been" easing up on the force of a strike, avoidance (shield work and footwork) of the counterstrike, and concentrating on manuevering for a better strike.

An iterview with Oakeshott is on the ARMA website. He stated that in all of his years of examining swords, only 2 swords he saw showed signs of significant edge trauma. Theoretically, high middle ages squires begain sword training between 9 and 14 years of age, and did not become full knights until sometime near the age of 21. I would like to believe that the knightly class was skilled and knew how not to abuse their swords. Patrick Kelly posted some photos of destructive tests on an Albion sword earlier this year, and demonstrated the severe degree of bending it could withstand.

At least in fiction, stories exist of swords being handed down father to son. Can anyone validate an actual account of a sword being used by more than one generation in battle?

Jared Smith

P.S. I do have pictures of this sword and its blade is still in excellent shape !

Mac

I've actually owned antique swords that have been repaired (welded back together) and I have owned swords where the blade pre-dated the hilt by 200 years. Of course, I also have a sword that has an obvious replacement blade that was done during its working life. I suppose it would depend on how attached you were to the surviving elements of the sword if they did break in combat.

Anyway, my short answer is I would like to think that a swords life was a long one but i do not know. The surviving examples may not have been put to the test by the owner.

Yes, there is no doubt in my mind that many swords were used for long periods of time. Evidence: there are still a lot of them around and many have edge damage or have obviously been rehoned quite drastically, that being from fixing damage or the sword being used enough to have needed to be resharpened several times. I still think swords weren't, on average, expected to last a horribly long time for the people in the thick of it due to such things like the Bayuex tapestry and the orders for X amount of swords when there was only X amount of people. How many swords are still around and how many were there back then? There are so many factors contributing to a swords life. I don’t think it is possible to really put a finger on how long a sword would last, because there are many situations in which it could be used and there weren’t any geeks running numbers on these kind of things back then...or maybe there were? :wtf: I don't think this can ever really be answered.......

I am not really sure where I saw the previoius photo of an Albion blade in destructive bending, but Albion's web site presently shows both abusive cutting and bending test results here....http://albion-swords.com/sword-testing.htm.

I find the minor edge damage following several sucessful cuts into the rolled edge of a steel barrel to be quite convincing as to the possibility of a blade being durable in battle.

Jared Smith

As long as durable, still usable or reparable is not confused with unblemished and pristine.

A single major battle might trash one sword while an equal quality one might survive many generations of use through duels, minor battles or raids and even a few big battles: LUCK ! The same king of luck that means that one soldier might be killed in his first battle or an other might survive a long career of constant battle.

There are famed warriors who ended up dying of old age in spite of themselves.