Hi all

I have added my two pennenth to others posts for long enough so I feel its my turn to pose a question how sharp is a long sword blade. By long sword I mean any sword barsted or above in length.

I have seen a lot of repros which have the whole blade sharpened if not razor then certainly very sharp something I have a problem with. The long sword is by intent designed to add power to blows against armour there is little benefit in developing it simply to attack bare flesh any broard sword would do as well. Hit plate even ring mail with a razor sharp blade the edge will simply fold not cut which leaves the question how sharp is sharp. Add to that half swording which by default requires the blade be gripped a process not recommended if the blade is sharp.

One of the Italian masters specifically states that a long sword blade should be razor sharp for the front 6-8'' the rest having a chisel edge ideal to split plate without any folding. Plus the chisel edge would take a blade on blade strike without chopping up it also allows the blade to be used freely in half sword fighting without danger to hands.

One last point many of the long sword techniques make use of the tip or front few inches of the blade in cutting moves this would perfectly support the sharp tip idear. I await the flak with interest.

Hi Robin,
This is unfortunately not a question that has a simple answer. It will depend on the type of longsword, since there are so many variations. An Oakeshott type XIIIa, for instance, will likely be sharper than an Oakeshott type XVII. If you haven't done so, I'd strongly recommend checking out the Oakeshott articles on this site.

Robin Palmer wrote:

The long sword is by intent designed to add power to blows against armour there is little benefit in developing it simply to attack bare flesh any broard sword would do as well.

This is a misconception. Longswords were not designed to hack through armour. A sword needed to pierce where the armour wasn't: The joints, the face, the palms, and any other gaps. As such, a sword designed for armour tended to be geared more towards thrusting. Period fencing masters were very clear about these techniques.

Quote:

Hit plate even ring mail with a razor sharp blade the edge will simply fold not cut

Very true. This is exactly why you didn't want to cut at the armour. :)

Quote:

One of the Italian masters specifically states that a long sword blade should be razor sharp for the front 6-8'' the rest having a chisel edge ideal to split plate without any folding.

I assume you're referring to Fillipo Vadi, though you are misrepresenting what he said. He said that the sword intended *for armoured combat* (as opposed to one that wasn't designed specifically for armour) needed to be sharpened four fingers from the point. He says nothing about a chisel edge, and he definately doesn't say anything about splitting plate. Vadi's treatise, like every 15th century manuscript that we know of, advises thrusts to the openings combined with arm locks, hip throws and the occassional battering with the pommel or guard (which then easily lead into aforementioned arm locks and hip throws).

Quote:

One last point many of the long sword techniques make use of the tip or front few inches of the blade in cutting moves this would perfectly support the sharp tip idear.

They certainly do. But they also make use of slices to the hands or face, and these techniques are often done with the half of the blade that is closest to the guard.

So coming back to the original question: If the sword is designed more towards armoured combat, then it will likely have less of an edge due to the fact that the edge is less often used (something like an Oakeshott Type XVII). If it is designed more towards unarmoured combat, it will likely have more of an edge (something like an Oakeshott Type XIIIa). If it is designed to blend the two styles of combat, it likely will be in between (something like an Oakeshott Type XVa).

Hi Bill

I am not sure who it was I don't think it was Fillipo it is some years since I read it I remember another recommendation was that the pommel be of a sharp design so as to make a weapon. I agree that swords develope over time and the edge would varie but I stand with several points. The tecniques I mentioned and saw a few years ago specifically use the point for the cuts the other point is half sword still needs a blunt blade or you risk cutting your hand to bits.

Hi michael.

I have read enough of Bills posts for it to be obvious that he knows his subject and I in no way mean disrespect to him. Arms are a subject which I have been interested in for over forty years and the one thing I have learned is how little I know so I am always ready to listen. Over the years I have handled a lot of different weapons sadly lack of finances have limited the formal training I have been able to get. Plus when I started thirty years ago Western Martial Arts didn't exist I learned a lot by trial and error and reading plus fighting people who have had training. So many of my statements are based on my own experience observations and reading. Some of my conclusions may be wrong but they are at least honestly held.

Agreed on the golden age bit but I would add one key feature the internet. Thirty five years ago finding a copy of silver or De Grassi was a major achievement in fact most people I trained with had never heard of them when we did their books might as well have been on the moon. We considered ourselves dead lucky that one of the men who founded our group had done sabre fencing and passed on the basics. The net has changed all that information is now freely available as are the schools. In my case a little to late to be much help on the fighting side but I keep trying.

Your point on the cutting and clothing is a good one and I agree with bill that the ideal was to attack the joints and groin yet I have yet to find the ideal in a fight. While perhaps not up to the standard of bill and his pupils I have spent thirty years doing Dark age and medieval re-enactment. Using a mainly Barsted or falchion plus fighting with and against dane axe spear sword and shield sword buckler two swords sword and dagger pole Axe and glaive. The one thing I have learned is that the ideal is rarely achieved in a battle line you take any shot you can get armour or not a good strike to helm or neck can buy you space to deliver the kill shot. I would also point out there are numerous medieval illustrations which clearly show blows cutting armour open delivered with swords used two handed. I may be wrong but that is what they appear to show to me I stand ready to be corrected.

Yours R Palmer

They really do, I have noticed that also, and until recently I believed that armour can be cut, but this and few other pages convinced me that it can't be. These pictures were obviously exaggerated. Mr. Edelson's test on mail also convinced me that good mail also can't be cut, which is the second myth I believed in.

Dear Sirs-I may be wrong again, but it is my experience that longswords meant to be half-bladed had a 6-8 in ricasso. Of course I'm not into longswords that much. My greatest experience is far eastern and I have the utmost respect for those gury, I had a 5' 3'' instructor who taught me to to examine the floor and ceiling from very interesting positions.Hs also taught handweapons, and he agrees with Mr Steve Tarani that a small handweapon used with all the speed visciousness and will to kill you have is best. That's why I'm in love with unclassified sword no 4 on page 237 0f Mr Oakshott's RMS. It's also why arming swords were so popular in all these time periods, Longswords were specialized weapons,arming swords were tear him up amytime weapons But I'm starting another topic,sorry.

Michael summed that up nicely. To add to this, though, there are indeed some two handed swords that have an unsharpened ricasso area. There are techniques that do involve grabbing this part of the blade, but the vast majority of 14th and 15th century swords do not have this feature, and half-sword techniques definately existed in that time period.

[ Linked Image ]
From the 1459 edition of Talhoffer's manuscript

The longsword really isn't any more specialized than any other sword. Consider that seemed to be one of the central weapons of many fencing systems, used as the learning tool for all other weapons.

One thing I know for sure, there is a lot I need to know! Although, the longsword, bastard sword, is my favorite sword, especially the German Longsword, as well as the German style of fighting with the longsword, which is why I have every book that Christian Henry Tobler has written, including "In Service of the Duke" (the showpiece of my library).
Though I don't know which longsword is supposed to be the sharper, I keep all 6 of my Arms & Armor longswords
(I include my Edward III) sharp and I wear my regular no frills Windlass leather gauntlets when I practice because I do a lot of half swording, even the murder strokes, thus taking this precaution I have yet to cut myself.
I don't practice with anyone "as of yet" so I keep all my swords sharp, because I am a reality Nut :lol:, it's just one of my many neurotic quirks.

Interesting topic, especially to me, because of my favor of the longsword, though I do like single grip swords and rapiers very much indeed! I'd be miserable without my A & A 3 Ring Rapier!

Thanks for this Thread!

Bob

Hi Luka.

Mail - ring mail is almost impossible to cut through it is flexible and simply gives under any blow which soaks up the cutting enegy. As anyone who has worn Mail in combat will tell you this ability to resist cutting comes at a price the impact is transferred to the material / padding underneath then the wearer. Anyone who has had the pleasure of a few hours training in mail with a few enthuseastic friends beating the hell out of you will have the bruises to show for it. There is a post on test cutting pole Axe against mail the Axe in fact ripped the links apart rather than cut them.

Interestingly if we discount most of the illustrations showing mail being cut and I am sure that at some time someone did cut through mail so we cant discount them all. That still leaves a very large number showing plate being cut open and plate can be cut hit it hard enough with the right blade in the right spot and it will split. Plate is rigid and as such once you reach critical mass it will either fold or split open. Many of the pictures I recall seem to indicate that the blows were delivered to helmet which by default cannot be to thick a war helmet cannot be to heavy or it will become a liability. During the 1880s there was an ex Sargent of horse who used to do demonstrations in London cleaving cavalry breast plate down the middle. The blade was a specially made Falchion style cleaver the breast plates were cosha issue pieces. He would cleave the plate single handed not two handed as with a barsted.

Despite the lack of perspective most medieval artists drew or painted what they saw around them in daily life armour weapons and battles. I do not believe we can discount them because the picture does not match what we believe? The artists may have used a degree of artistic licence but the basic elements are probably correct.

Its not that plate can't be damage, or even cut. Obviously someone had to cut it into shape in order to make it. :)

Its that aiming for the plate is simply a very poor tactic. It is much easier and more efficient to attack where the plate does not cover.

And regarding the original question, there are a number of longswords in museums that reportedly still have very fine edges. There are also those which have less of an edge. Once again, I recommend looking at the Oakeshott typology articles on this site, as they show the incredible diversity of blade designs that can exist even within a single type of sword.

Robin-

The instruction from the Medieval period for defeating armour did not include damaging plate with swords. It just didn't. This is the single biggest reason to doubt depictions of such.

That being said a hard hit to the head can kill without penetrating armour.

An artist given the task of painting a single scene that depicts a hero defeating his nemesis can depict it realistically (with dented helm and implied lethal head trauma) or depict it artistically (with head and helm cloven). Which is more clear to the audience? Which is more effective artistically?

A broad generalization that the art of this period was realistic is just as problematic as a similar assertion for any other art.

And a helmet can be plenty thick and heavy. Helmets are normally the thickest part of armour, with four and five millimeters not uncommon. Helmets ranged in weight from ~4 lbs to ~12(!) lbs.

Cheers
-Steven

Oh. That art thing again. Remember that even in the modern age, with the profusion of accurate and easy-to-access information, art still remains guilty of many gross misrepresentations of the realities of combat. Like all those movies showing people being thrown back several feet by the impact of a tiny pistol bullet. Do we have any solid evidence to say that medieval art is guaranteed to be more meticulous and accurate than our modern popular culture?

Medieval art was done using a formulaic approach - often using a style/guide book for how to depict different subjects.
I would not seriously expect the depiction to do more than "tell the story" using whatever symbology and imagery it took to do that... otherwise, one would have to believe that everyone during the medieval period walked around on tiptoe and lived in miniature-sized buildings.
And artists of the period were really no more special than stone masons, goldsmiths or any other tradespeople.

Gentlemen, in Records of the Medieval Sword, Mr Oakshott shows a type Xa on page 37 of which he says quote," the edges are as sharp as a well honed carving knife". As we all know, the typeX and Xa were basically cutting swords. I don't know how it would do on mail, but against heavy clothing,textile armour etc it should be a winner. He also points out on the page that Celtic smiths made swords as good or better.