Greetings,

something of a "showerthought";

as seen in pictorial depictions and read in textual descriptions, medieval swords were used against helmets and armor just as they were against unarmored targets.

Is there any evidence of double edged swords having one edge sharpened for cutting and the other either blunt or not as sharp for the purpose of hacking/cleaving hard surfaces?

Meaning, the swordsmen would flip and switch to whatever edge seemed more suitable for that strike?

Perhaps even differences noticeable in the cross section?


Best regards,

Mario

No. You can't cut armor with a sword, no matter what your edge is like. A more robust edge is less severely damaged by contact with the opponents' arms and armor, of course, but will still not cleave through helmets or anything. There are plenty of helmets in museums pierced by the points of maces, hammers, bolts and such things, but not a single one I know of cut by a sword - lots of dents and such, sure, but no penetrating cuts. Plenty of modern tests with swords and helmets, too, documented on YouTube and other places and freely available for viewing, and you never see a helmet cut through like in the Maciejowski Bible, awesome as it looks there. It just doesn't happen in reality.

Remember, according to the vast majority of our own textual and pictorial sources, shotguns can launch a man-sized target clean off the ground and several yards back. :)

And no, there isn't any historical or archaeological evidence for purposely different sharpening on the different edges of a two-edged sword. Doesn't mean it never happened, but it certainly wasn't a trend.

Most double bladed swords eg arming sword, longsword are very agile and are designed to be used long edge or short edge, they are not the clumsy sharpened metal bar that most movies and television shows love to show.

They are quick, agile and a high degree of skill involved to transition form the various guards into the attack, and the follow through. Where you hold the hilt, with what grip, moving the balance and immediately moving your hands on the sword combined with you correct footwork is off critical importance. Both long and short sides of the blades would have been employed to attack. I advise you check out H.E.M.A. to gain a better understanding or just how advanced european martial arts were, there are plenty of highly skilled and knowledgeable trainers out there.

Armour is very effective against swords, thats why it was used for so long, you dont try hit the opponents armour you try to bypass it to target unarmored or at least the targets weak spots. Hitting plate armour with an arming or long sword is likely to blunt or damage your sword, so you target his weak spots or less armoured spots eg behind his knees, his bend in his elbows, visor slot, groin. These areas have to be less armoured to allow the person to move, even so they were still armoured by padding and maille, but could be damaged by a thrust, especially the slender point of the 14th and 15th centurys sword design. Special techniques such as half swording were indeed developed for this very reason.

You dont try to hack at a targets shield, to try to by pass the shield to attack the opponent, its exactly the same with an armoured opponent. you try to bypass the armoured parts of your opponent, of course in combat plans dont always work out so you take advantage of any chance you can.

Swords generally speaking were secondary weapons on the Medieval battlefields. Pollaxes, longspears, halberds, bills etc were the main weapons against armoured especially plate armour.

As for the art of the time, its about as reliable as todays media is - sometimes accurate - sometimes not - and sometimes twisted to suit the views or propaganda of the persons interests.

Oh, you're talking high medieval? My mistake.

Well I'm not as familiar with that particular context. However, note the following:

--The technique of battle for people who wore armour in the High Medieval era was largely mounted combat. Basically, if you were on a horse, you were going to be wearing armour. If you were on foot, chances were good you weren't wearing armour. Thus you were an easier target for a sword.

--The majority of soldiers in battle would have not worn armour, or if they had any, it would only be a helmet. Shields were more common. Padded fabric armour is possible, but it's obviously not quite as effective as metal. Again, easier target for a sword, especially with the momentum imparted by being on horseback giving extra force to a cutting blow.

--One of the earliest fight-books we have, I.33, does not portray *any* armoured combat-- it's sword-and-buckler work without any armour. It supposedly originates from the late 1200's-- 13th century-- and can be solidly placed within the 14th with ease.

--John de Joinville describes a battle where apparently the (I want to say) Germans were wearing specially tough armour; I can't recall whether it was early plate or reinforced mail. Anyway, he mentions that the way they defeated their opponents was to take their swords and thrust into their armpits, where the armour was weaker. That supports my assertion that they were using their swords for more precise attacks. Certainly they could have been more coarse with their use of the sword, but they had the training and ability to use them in a more innovative fashion.

Firstly, Mike loades at to use two hands on the weapon it order to pull that off percussive hit and he telegraphed, allot. Second, swords are very easy to wear in everyday life, maces, axes and flails aren't. Most people don't go to war all the time and most of war is scouting, raiding farmland for food, guard duty and walking around. Thirdly, lances were used to target infantry as well as fellow horsemen and you actually see it the late high medieval period the most well off infantry wearing mail shirts, along with a open face helmet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qHpoeYyfl0&list=PLCpYM0jg1d5MgDe30tjs7JhPDc7f7RC_j&index=5 In the mid to end of the high medieval period, a well off Knight could afford to wear a coat of plates over there mail, protecting them from lance blows to the chest.

The edge with bigger angle could be strong，but that just makes
Sword not so easy to be damaged.It would not be very effective when you use it against armour. :)

A lot of European sword's one edge is sharper(or slightly sharper) than another edge,but that's not because one of them would be used to cut armor.

Many modern settings especially on youtube tend to give an inaccurate or at least a highly distorted recreation in respect of melee weapons against armour.

Sometimes the maille is butted or made or inferior materials, only partial segments of armour, the armour is braced against a hard unyielding object eg tree, and my absolute favorite a full force two handed swing at the armour.

A target would have been moving, and most connected blows would have been glancing blows, much of the force would be diminished as the target would be dodging. The only full force that would be used would have been grounded targets or flanked targets that did not see the attack coming, many scholars believe today that is why they fought as a team, virtually back to back to protect against this for this very reason.

Again I recommend you search for HEMA and study even some of the vast amount of info and videos online. A full force baseball bat type swing is usually ineffective, it usually takes a lot of energy, is quite easy to parry or dodge, and once it misses is easy to take advantage off and counterattack the target, as it leaves the person open and vulnerable. This type of attack is typical of untrained novices. Again medieval swordmanship was quick, agile and above all highly skilled.

In respect of blunt trauma damage I think you over estimate its effectiveness. One only has to look and modern ballistic body armour, many modern troops or police officers have been shot and both soft and hard B.A. has contained the rounds, they continue to function and carry on the fight. They may have a huge bruise, broken ribs or other damage but the point is many continue to function and fight on. A modern 9 mm, 357 or even 7.62m round delivers a huge amount of energy.

Whilst we are on the subject, if you know a soldier is wearing kevlar,, you dont aim for the armour hoping to blunt trauma hit to death, you aim for an unarmoured target, eg head, hips arms etc. The same does for medieval warriors, you BYPASS the armour.


Finally re the effectiveness of the mace v a sword. Lets look at the cons and pros of the two weapon systems in a general setting.

1. A mace is usually shorter than most sword - evening an arming sword usually had a blade of 30", a large advantage, a longsword typically had a 37" blade - an even bigger advantage .

2. A mace case swing - a sword can cut, slice, thrust, parry, riposte, or attack with the pommel - all with a high degree of skill and much faster than a lumbering swing of a mace.

3. A sword has many grades of workmanship - distal taper, balance, steel quality all geared towards once of the most advanced weapon systems of the medieval period. A mace was unbalanced (it had to be tip heavy to function properly), slow, ineffective to parry and incapable of effectively thrusting.

4. Arming sword, longswords, messers etc have crossguards to protect the hands and most of the training in these weapons emphasis e protecting your hands , a mace has no protection. If your enemy cant hold their weapon all they can use if harsh language.

Maces and clubs were used in medieval times - but I believe for a specialist role. They were cheap, carried usually as a secondary weapon once the target was incapacitated or at least at a great disadvantage. A trained swordsman against a trained person person with a club, I know who I would put my money on.