Greetings, I'm a beginner to sword world, and I have some questions about history of sword because I'm so confused by many articles and essays on books and websites of worldwide . I found this forum and a lot of experts on this place, so I believe I can find answer here.
1. What is the correct definition of "long sword"? When and where it appeared?
2. The differences between "bastard sword" and "hand and half sword"? On length, size, or weight?
3. Does viking sword belong to long sword?
4. I've read "Dictionary of the Weapon" edited by the Japanese, depend on data inside it said the average weight of bastard sword and hand and half sword are from 2 to 3.5 kg. Lancelot Chan said they are wrong, is it real?
5. The same data source like no.4, about the combat style of hand and half sword. The grip of it designed for slashing with single hand wielding, piercing with 2-handed. Lancelot Chan said it is wrong and will misguide the readers. As far as I considered, there is not absolutely right or wrong to make what combat style of hand and half sword should be. It is just another thinking to introduce the data to those people who interested. Is it wrong?
I appreciate any answer or suggestion supported by your kind :)
1: Thanks to role playing games, a lot of people have the impression that a Long Sword is a one handed sword. This is not corect.
A long sword is a sword that is longer than a "standard sword", that is, the same as a Hand/Half sword or bastard sword.
The long sword, as defined by a sword with a long grip for two handed use, started to appear in the 13th century. These weapons where chopping blades, originaly for cavalry use; Blade Lenght about 90-100 cm, weight about 1,5kg or below.
They where sucseeded by narrower, stabbing blades, of roughly the same length, towards the end of the 14th century.
Check out the Spotlight series, for a few highlights on longsword development:
http://www.myArmoury.com/feature_spotxiii.html
http://www.myArmoury.com/feature_spotxv.html
http://www.myArmoury.com/feature_thames.html
2:Gee, I wish I knew. Unless someone who knows this better, consider them the same.
3: No. As stade above, the long sword is not a one handed sword.
4: The Hand and a half is seldom used in one hand; There is litte reason to do so, other than a slight increase in reach.
The hand/half is used for both slashing and stabbing against unarmoured opponents, and for stabbing, often in the Half Sword grip, against armour.
Have a look at this 15th century fighting manual for examples on how it was done™:
Long sword, against unarmored foes:
http://www.varmouries.com/wildrose/fiore/section5.html
Long sword, agianst armoured foes
http://www.varmouries.com/wildrose/fiore/section6.html
Hope this helps...
A long sword is a sword that is longer than a "standard sword", that is, the same as a Hand/Half sword or bastard sword.
The long sword, as defined by a sword with a long grip for two handed use, started to appear in the 13th century. These weapons where chopping blades, originaly for cavalry use; Blade Lenght about 90-100 cm, weight about 1,5kg or below.
They where sucseeded by narrower, stabbing blades, of roughly the same length, towards the end of the 14th century.
Check out the Spotlight series, for a few highlights on longsword development:
http://www.myArmoury.com/feature_spotxiii.html
http://www.myArmoury.com/feature_spotxv.html
http://www.myArmoury.com/feature_thames.html
2:Gee, I wish I knew. Unless someone who knows this better, consider them the same.
3: No. As stade above, the long sword is not a one handed sword.
4: The Hand and a half is seldom used in one hand; There is litte reason to do so, other than a slight increase in reach.
The hand/half is used for both slashing and stabbing against unarmoured opponents, and for stabbing, often in the Half Sword grip, against armour.
Have a look at this 15th century fighting manual for examples on how it was done™:
Long sword, against unarmored foes:
http://www.varmouries.com/wildrose/fiore/section5.html
Long sword, agianst armoured foes
http://www.varmouries.com/wildrose/fiore/section6.html
Hope this helps...
Hawk,
Welcome to the forums. I'll try to answer a few of your questions.
Long sword, bastard sword, and hand and a half sword refer to swords with room on the grip for the second hand. Some people now try to make each out to be a separate definition, even though the fine distinctions weren't always made historically. Some groups these days get very caught up in making distinctions between the three terms.
Bastard Sword was a term used historically for sure (epee batarde). Another historical term was Grete Swerde (big sword or great sword).
Typical Viking sword had single-handed grips, making them not "longswords". Some research in the last 50-60 years by Dr. Jorma Leppaaho showed some great swords in Viking-era graves, though they seem to have been uncommon.
2 - 3.5 kilograms converts to 4.4 - 7.7 pounds. That's very overweight. Typical examples of longswords will fall between 2.5 pounds and 4.5 pounds, depending on their purpose.
Sword design changed to meet the needs of its day. As armour improved, sword design changed to match. Sometimes slashing and cleaving were required and swords of that era/locale were designed for that. Sometimes the thrust was most important; sometimes both cut and thrust were needed. Blanket statements like "The grip of it designed for slashing with single hand wielding, piercing with 2-handed" are misleading. Some were designed that way, many were not.
Feel free to check out the articles for more info.
Again, welcome!
Welcome to the forums. I'll try to answer a few of your questions.
Long sword, bastard sword, and hand and a half sword refer to swords with room on the grip for the second hand. Some people now try to make each out to be a separate definition, even though the fine distinctions weren't always made historically. Some groups these days get very caught up in making distinctions between the three terms.
Bastard Sword was a term used historically for sure (epee batarde). Another historical term was Grete Swerde (big sword or great sword).
Typical Viking sword had single-handed grips, making them not "longswords". Some research in the last 50-60 years by Dr. Jorma Leppaaho showed some great swords in Viking-era graves, though they seem to have been uncommon.
2 - 3.5 kilograms converts to 4.4 - 7.7 pounds. That's very overweight. Typical examples of longswords will fall between 2.5 pounds and 4.5 pounds, depending on their purpose.
Sword design changed to meet the needs of its day. As armour improved, sword design changed to match. Sometimes slashing and cleaving were required and swords of that era/locale were designed for that. Sometimes the thrust was most important; sometimes both cut and thrust were needed. Blanket statements like "The grip of it designed for slashing with single hand wielding, piercing with 2-handed" are misleading. Some were designed that way, many were not.
Feel free to check out the articles for more info.
Again, welcome!
| Elling Polden wrote: |
| 4: The Hand and a half is seldom used in one hand; There is litte reason to do so, other than a slight increase in reach.
|
True hand and a halfs (according to most definitions) would certainly have been used with one hand, especially from horseback. "Hand and a half" most often refers to a sword that can be used with one hand or two.
Of course. I didn't include cavalry use when making the above statement.
Welcome to myArmoury! You've much to learn!
A long sword, by definition, is considered to be a half and a half or two handed sword averaging around 40 inches in length, 3 lbs 8 ounces in weight. The blades normally has a 2 inch wide base, then tapers to a point. Long swords were popular from the 14th century to the 16th century (someone correct me if I'm wrong here).
A hand a half sword is actually a category rather than a type of sword. Bastard swords were hand and a half swords. they normally average around 36 inches in length and 3 lbs (give or take a few ounces). Their build and design is basically a shortened version of the long sword.
Not even close. Vikings swords are normally one handed and designed with a thick blade for slashing. Long swords were a much newer design that was designed for thrusting and slashing (for fighting heavily armoured individuals).
They are more like 3 to 4 lbs.
Yes and no... Regarding long swords and bastard swords (I study the German school of long sword martial arts), they are normally wielded two handed while on foot unless using a buckler (very small shield that was sometimes used) and one handed on horseback.
On foot (without a buckler), you would normally hold it by the grip with both hands when fighting an unarmoured opponent. You would hold it in the half-sword when facing an armoured opponent. The half-sword stance involves holding the sword grip with your right hand (if you are right handed) and holding the blade at its mid-point with your left hand. This effectively turns the sword into a short spear making it easier to thrust into the gaps and weak spots in your opponent's armour.
If you are looking to learn more about long sword and bastard sword fighting, I'd suggest picking up "Fighting with the German Longsword" by Christian Tobler. It is published by Chivalry Bookshelf and averages $25. Get it from their website rather than a book store if you can so that the author makes more from the sale, rather than the bookstore taking the extra. Its important to support the authors and researchers who work so hard to publish these book for the public. :D
If you have more questions, we are always here to help! ;)
| Hank Liu wrote: |
| 1. What is the correct definition of "long sword"? When and where it appeared? |
A long sword, by definition, is considered to be a half and a half or two handed sword averaging around 40 inches in length, 3 lbs 8 ounces in weight. The blades normally has a 2 inch wide base, then tapers to a point. Long swords were popular from the 14th century to the 16th century (someone correct me if I'm wrong here).
| Hank Liu wrote: |
| 2. The differences between "bastard sword" and "hand and half sword"? On length, size, or weight? |
A hand a half sword is actually a category rather than a type of sword. Bastard swords were hand and a half swords. they normally average around 36 inches in length and 3 lbs (give or take a few ounces). Their build and design is basically a shortened version of the long sword.
| Hank Liu wrote: |
| 3. Does viking sword belong to long sword? |
Not even close. Vikings swords are normally one handed and designed with a thick blade for slashing. Long swords were a much newer design that was designed for thrusting and slashing (for fighting heavily armoured individuals).
| Hank Liu wrote: |
| 4. I've read "Dictionary of the Weapon" edited by the Japanese, depend on data inside it said the average weight of bastard sword and hand and half sword are from 2 to 3.5 kg. Lancelot Chan said they are wrong, is it real? |
They are more like 3 to 4 lbs.
| Hank Liu wrote: |
| 5. The same data source like no.4, about the combat style of hand and half sword. The grip of it designed for slashing with single hand wielding, piercing with 2-handed. Lancelot Chan said it is wrong and will misguide the readers. As far as I considered, there is not absolutely right or wrong to make what combat style of hand and half sword should be. It is just another thinking to introduce the data to those people who interested. Is it wrong?
|
Yes and no... Regarding long swords and bastard swords (I study the German school of long sword martial arts), they are normally wielded two handed while on foot unless using a buckler (very small shield that was sometimes used) and one handed on horseback.
On foot (without a buckler), you would normally hold it by the grip with both hands when fighting an unarmoured opponent. You would hold it in the half-sword when facing an armoured opponent. The half-sword stance involves holding the sword grip with your right hand (if you are right handed) and holding the blade at its mid-point with your left hand. This effectively turns the sword into a short spear making it easier to thrust into the gaps and weak spots in your opponent's armour.
If you are looking to learn more about long sword and bastard sword fighting, I'd suggest picking up "Fighting with the German Longsword" by Christian Tobler. It is published by Chivalry Bookshelf and averages $25. Get it from their website rather than a book store if you can so that the author makes more from the sale, rather than the bookstore taking the extra. Its important to support the authors and researchers who work so hard to publish these book for the public. :D
If you have more questions, we are always here to help! ;)
| Chad Sonderberg wrote: |
| A long sword, by definition, is considered to be a half and a half or two handed sword averaging around 40 inches in length, 3 lbs 8 ounces in weight. The blades normally has a 2 inch wide base, then tapers to a point. Long swords were popular from the 14th century to the 16th century (someone correct me if I'm wrong here).
A hand a half sword is actually a category rather than a type of sword. Bastard swords were hand and a half swords. they normally average around 36 inches in length and 3 lbs (give or take a few ounces). Their build and design is basically a shortened version of the long sword. |
It should be noted that these are modern definitions, not historic ones.
| Quote: |
| Vikings swords are normally one handed and designed with a thick blade for slashing. |
Actually, Viking swords had wide flat blades that were relatively thin. Your average later-period tapering longsword will have a blade thicker than an average Viking sword. Thickness usually translates to stiffness (if done properly), which is needed in the thrust. The thinner cross-section, like the fullered lenticular one often (but not always found) on Viking swords allows for flexibility and cutting efficiency. Flexibility is needed to handle the stress and torque of cutting/slashing/shearing. The thin, flat cross-section help reduce drag through the target, aiding the cut.
| Hawk Liu wrote: |
| Greetings, I'm a beginner to sword world, and I have some questions about history of sword because I'm so confused by many articles and essays on books and websites of worldwide . I found this forum and a lot of experts on this place, so I believe I can find answer here. |
Hi Hawk,
As you can see, many of us aren't entirely sure either-- those of us who practice the Western Martial Arts don't have the luxury of tradition passed down through the ages into our modern world-- we have to re-create them, since the Western sword arts were largely lost due to the advent of firearms.
| Hawk Liu wrote: |
|
1. What is the correct definition of "long sword"? When and where it appeared? |
"Long sword" is a pretty generic term used to describe a sword that was larger than the standard of the day. During the late-12th and early-13th centuries, when single-handed swords were the standard knightly sidearm, "long sword" was used to describe larger swords sporting a hand-and-a-half grip. They were also described by the English as "Grete Sverdes" and by the French as "Epee de Guerre", or "Sword of War". In the Oakeshott Typology, these were swords that fit into either sub-type XIIa or sub-type XIIIa.
The Long swords described in the German fight manuals are often of types XVII or XVIIIa. You can look at the Oakeshott Typology HERE!
Because terms like "long sword" and "bastard sword" are so broad, the Oakeshott Typology provides a much more meaningful means of classification-- it not only categorizes on size, but also on geometry and function.
| Hawk Liu wrote: |
|
2. The differences between "bastard sword" and "hand and half sword"? On length, size, or weight? |
"Hand and a Half" is a general category. "Bastard sword" is a little more specific, often referring to a light hand-and-a-half sword that possesses a complex hilt and is typically used as a civilian sidearm, or for judicial dueling. "Arming sword" is a better term for hand-and-a-half swords of a more military orientation.
| Hawk Liu wrote: |
|
3. Does viking sword belong to long sword? |
I doubt it. Swords of the Viking Age (this includes Vikings, Anglo-Saxons, and Franks) were virtually all single-handed, with broad, fullered blades. Definitely not the kind of swords I think of when I hear the words "long sword."
| Hawk Liu wrote: |
|
4. I've read "Dictionary of the Weapon" edited by the Japanese, depend on data inside it said the average weight of bastard sword and hand and half sword are from 2 to 3.5 kg. Lancelot Chan said they are wrong, is it real? |
2 kg is believable-- 3.5kg is grotesquely-overweight. I have no idea where these people got their examples from.
| Hawk Liu wrote: |
|
5. The same data source like no.4, about the combat style of hand and half sword. The grip of it designed for slashing with single hand wielding, piercing with 2-handed. Lancelot Chan said it is wrong and will misguide the readers. As far as I considered, there is not absolutely right or wrong to make what combat style of hand and half sword should be. It is just another thinking to introduce the data to those people who interested. Is it wrong? |
It's wrong, but not entirely so. Single-handed swords used during the Viking Age and the Crusades were often used in quick slashing that used quick wrist movement. The Long swords used in the German fight manuals in the 15th century are used 2-handed for both cuts and thrusts, though the style is itself pretty heavily-reliant on the accuracy and precision of the user's point placement.
There are probably a bunch of people who are willing to disagree with me on some of my points, but I hope I've at least given you some more to think about.
To further muddle things, there are some Renaissance references to the "long sword" as merely a long single hander.
In Roman times, I think 28 inch long Celtic blades were sometimes called longswords - they were certainly longer than gladii.
All bastard swords are hand-and-a-halfs, but not all hand-and-a-halfs are bastards. Earlier bastard swords didn't have compound hilts, the first being type XVa's - see Oakeshott's comment on the first page of the XV-XVa section of Records of the Medieval Sword. One of the main definitions of an epee batarde is that it can be used just as easily with one hand as with two. I'm not sure how many bastards live up to this ideal - most that I've handled favor two handed over one handed use.
All bastard swords are hand-and-a-halfs, but not all hand-and-a-halfs are bastards. Earlier bastard swords didn't have compound hilts, the first being type XVa's - see Oakeshott's comment on the first page of the XV-XVa section of Records of the Medieval Sword. One of the main definitions of an epee batarde is that it can be used just as easily with one hand as with two. I'm not sure how many bastards live up to this ideal - most that I've handled favor two handed over one handed use.
Welcome Hawk! I always appreciate someone who takes the step to seek the source and the answer, even it takes a foreign language to do so. You have my admiration. :) You know my opinions already, so I'll let other people do the answer but anyway....
Welcome!
Welcome!
| Hawk Liu wrote: |
| Greetings, I'm a beginner to sword world, and I have some questions about history of sword because I'm so confused by many articles and essays on books and websites of worldwide . I found this forum and a lot of experts on this place, so I believe I can find answer here.
1. What is the correct definition of "long sword"? When and where it appeared? 2. The differences between "bastard sword" and "hand and half sword"? On length, size, or weight? 3. Does viking sword belong to long sword? 4. I've read "Dictionary of the Weapon" edited by the Japanese, depend on data inside it said the average weight of bastard sword and hand and half sword are from 2 to 3.5 kg. Lancelot Chan said they are wrong, is it real? 5. The same data source like no.4, about the combat style of hand and half sword. The grip of it designed for slashing with single hand wielding, piercing with 2-handed. Lancelot Chan said it is wrong and will misguide the readers. As far as I considered, there is not absolutely right or wrong to make what combat style of hand and half sword should be. It is just another thinking to introduce the data to those people who interested. Is it wrong? I appreciate any answer or suggestion supported by your kind :) |
Thanks for all reply. :)
The world is wide, I really learned many from the answers of yours. And I will like here more than SFI forum because I asked the same questions at there but got 1 reply only. :confused: :p
The world is wide, I really learned many from the answers of yours. And I will like here more than SFI forum because I asked the same questions at there but got 1 reply only. :confused: :p
Page 1 of 1
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum