I just got back from a business trip to Worcester MA. While there, I realized I was staying about 4 miles from the Higgens Armory and made a visit. There are two figures of knights in mock foot combat on the third floor. I studied the hand and a half swords very carefully, without touching, for a good 15 minutes. The actual swords were definately no more than 3/16" thick anywhere, and generally thinner than my Albion Crecy Grete (1st generation.) The profile of the swords and the simple hilt designs are very consistent with the Albion Crecy.

This is consistent with my memories from viewing actual swords in roughly a dozen surviving castles along the Rhine river (about 10 years ago I made a pretty complete circuit from Koblenz to the South as well as a few castles near Luxembourg where I worked for about 4 months.) Although I have not carefully catalogued and measured swords, I would say that hand and a half longswords of German influence where typically not significantly wider than 1.5" at the hilt, generally were slightly under 3 lbs mass, and had profiles very similar to the Albion Crecy. All actual surviving examples that I remember seeing were lenticular cross section and fullers were not particularly deep or significant in width.


Jared Smith

Higgins Armoury photo's

Mac

I forgot to mention that I also studied hilt length of all of the swords in the Higgens Armory.

Only two swords obviously exceeded the 6-1/2" length hilt length of Albion's Crecy Grete. One was described as a Bearer's Sword (roughly 7' long massive blade on the temporary Shakespearean Exibit on the 2nd floor), described as a non functional sword to be carried along side a king during parade) and another had roughly a 10" long grip on the combat floor. Otherwise, most "hand and a half" swords appeared to have a roughly 5" long grip.

Jared Smith

Remind me, were the swords in the hands of the mannequins actually orignal pieces or reproductions. As I recall most of the swords on the walls were not antiques.

I may have over generalized here. I was somewhat dissapointed by the fact that most of the Higgens collection really emphasizes about 1550 to 1700 time period, and the artistry to which armor making had been elevated at that point. I did enjoy seeing the weights of most complete suits stated at 40 to 60 lbs, with one jousting suit listed at close to 90 lbs. I am more interested in the 1000 to 1350 time frame. I do have to admit that the iron leaf blade dated 1300 to 800 B.C. and the very nicely shaped Corinthian helmet dated around 600 B.C. were fantastic to see in such great condition on the 4th floor balcony.

There is one display of a mounted French crusader wearing chain mail, great helm, leather gloves/boots (appropriate to the time frame that I am interested in), and it holds a sword very similar to the Crecy (thin in cross section as I have suggested may have been more common based on sheer numbers of antique examples) but with a shorter 5" grip. I really only saw a few European swords dated in the 1400's. Obviously the class of armor on display is more appropriate to the highest nobility, rather than the mercenary or more common foot soldier. I had expected that foot soldiers would use single handed sword and shield, while this nobility class would have had more hand and a half type swords for one on one dueling. I was under the impression that texts and illustrations studied by ARMA (I have not read them myself) seem to imply that one on one dueling was a common method of settling legal disputes and grievances, and was often done with a hand and half long sword, unarmored.

Perhaps my concept of medieval combat is inaccurate. I have always assumed it would have begun on horse with lance, or on foot with mace/axe/hammer... After wasting shields and initial weapons, I would assume that the swords would have been a final weapon, and that long reach and two handed use would have been typical during final phases of battle. Anyone have any insight here?

Jared,

You're in the ballpark in very general terms in regards to medieval combat, but I would argue against the concept of "wasting shields and initial weapons". Some weapons are used and then discarded, example being a lance after one has made the last possible pass, broken it, or been forcibly removed from the horse. Some weapons may be used (but to clarify, not wasted), example perhaps being an axe driven hard into a wooden shield and left there - the additional mass and unbalancing nature of the thing throwing the shield all but out of the fight.

Specifically, then, my point being to suggest putting the sword and shield in with the "primary weapons" (mace/axe/hammer as suggested) because sword and shield techniques (and by extension, perhaps, shield and [insert other single-handed weapon]) appear to be the bread-and-butter of infantry combat throughout your focus time period. Might I suggest I.33 as an outline to understanding the techniques.

Lastly, might I suggest my humble interpretation in a "common sense" fashion of the closing of a medieval battle. Whatever I have handy, be that sword, dagger, mace, hammer, whatever happens to be lying on the ground next to me, my shield alone, somebody else's equipment, all the way down to my gauntlets and fairly easily removed kettle hat is my weapon of choice. I figure that assuming one survives the initial push and confusion, when it comes to "round peg, square hole" time in combat, I'll make due with whatever "peg" I can get my hands on.