Hey there everyone. I had a question regarding the sharpness of blades.

Iv been studying the manuscripts of Hans Talhoffer and Sigmund Ringeck, and within the manuscripts it shows several ways to wield a sword.

I was told that for armored combat purposes the edge of the sword was dull and that it had a sharp point, and it was about making a heavy enough blow to injure the man inside. Sending violent shock waves through his body and causing all sort of nasty injures such as internal bleeding, unconsciousness, exc.

But as far as unarmored fighting went. Would that have been the same? Or would they have been sharpened towards the tip or even fully sharpened?

I wouldn't make much since for me to have a blade fully sharpened, considering how versital it could be.

Were the one handed broadswords fully sharpened and the long swords partially sharp?

I'd recommend you begin by going to the Features section and reading the profiles of all the Oakeshott types, or by buying Oakeshott's books. Different swords were designed with different uses in mind. If memory serves, only the Type XVII fit your description, and even that wasn't exactly "dull". Many blade types are an effort to compromise between various tactical potentialities that a man might encounter in battle.

Fiore talks about the "best" sword being only sharp nearer the tip if memory serves. The problem is that none (I believe) have been found as Fiore described. One also has to consider that some of the sharpness on originals may be different then when they were new, some over enthusiastic curators in the 1900s re-ground and re-sharpened many original swords destroying their original cross section and sharpness. That said their are many other swords that have not been re-ground etc. and (I do not think) their are any swords like Fiore described.
Personally (my own opinion) it sounds almost like Fiore was talking about a hunting sword. :wtf:

On the first page of Fiore's Getty manuscript is where Fiore is holding this type of weapon. My opinion on the hunting sword comes from the Pisani Dossi manuscript, carta 17B fig. 6. It looks like a boar hunting sword.
In Fillipo Vadi's Di Arte Gladiatoria Dimicandi he shows a picture of a only tip sharpened longsword designed "for use against an armoured opponent"

Thanx for all the info! That question has been bugging me for the longest time.

In the German system of Lichtenauer, we have three kinds of attacks listed: cut, thrust, & slice.

In other words the swords had to be sharp enough to slice. Just like a carving knife in your kitchen. Try cutting steak with that carving knife without a slicing, drawing action - just press the blade downwards. You'll fail. A very sharp knife can still be held by the blade safely. I've done it. I've seen a demo where a sword is swung two-handed by the blade and then used to cleanly cut paper.

As to defeating armour it most certainly was not about delivering a heavy blow to hurt through the armour. As described in Ringeck the targets in armoured fighting are the portions not covered with plate and you use the point of the sword to puncture the gaps.

The search function here will also provide plenty of info.

Cheers,
Steven

Sirs-I would remind you of the fact that during most of the Middla Ages knights carried two swords in battle, the short arming sword, (which was also used in traveling, cruizing the street, and so on) and the long war sword or broadsword The shortsword was used in tight, face to face fighting like climbina a seige ladder, boarding a ship etc, while the longsword was used for the mounted, fast moving cheauchee(sp?)

Certainly a gentleman in the late medieval period may have owned several swords. Swords came in all qualities and prices by the 14thC and could be bought for as little as 3 pence or as much as £2000.

There are only a couple of sources that I know of referring to the carrying of a second sword on the saddle during this period in Western Europe (carrying two swords was quite common amongst 15th-17thC Eastern European cavalry though - usually a sabre and an estoc), and Oakeshott quotes these sources. From those couple of sources we can't really say whether the practice was common in 13th-15thC Western Europe or not, or for how long it was fashionable.

As you say though - servants may have carried optional weapons for their boss - after all, many English and Burgundian 'knights' switched from lance to pollaxe when they dismounted, and you can't very easily carry both a lance and a pollaxe yourself while riding a horse. :) One must presume that when they dismounted their servants brought them a pollaxe and took their lance away.

Matt

I knew about striking for the openings and articulated sections of armour... I left out a few things when I first posted :P

I know that most knights and men at arms started turning more towards blunt weapons to pierce and deliver a more heavy blow, but still carried a longsword because of its versatility.


But wasn't it cheaper and took less time to produce a weapon that was designed more for defeating armour?

Hi Reece,

Reece Nelson wrote:

but still carried a longsword because of its versatility.

One thing we have to be clear about is that in most parts of Western Europe (and remember there was regional/cultural variation) the single-handed sword was always more common than the longsword - at least if we trust the period art. The longsword seems to have really come into vogue in the 1370's. But 'longsword' is itself a vague term - although hilts on lots of swords seem to have got longer in the late-14thC, blades don't seem to have got universally longer (some 13thC swords with short single-handed hilts have really long blades - up to 40 inches). Is a sword with a 34 inch blade and a 8 inch hilt a longsword? Well... that's a matter of perspective :) Medieval people weren't as wild about making categories as we are - in the vast majority of textual sources a sword is just described as a sword, regardless of what Oakeshott type it may be :).
So, what we can say is that from the late-14thC until the late-15thC lots of armoured men carried swords that could be used in one hand or two. Swords with long hilts and long blades - swords more likely to be used most of the time in two hands - were never actually very common in most of Europe. At least from what we can tell from surviving examples and period art work. What we might call 'bastard swords' seem to have been more common, and as you say, this was probably because of their versatility in use on horse or foot. Plus they are a lot easier to wear and carry - a very important factor when you will do most or all of your fighting with a lance, spear or pollaxe.

Quote:

But wasn't it cheaper and took less time to produce a weapon that was designed more for defeating armour?

How long is a piece of string? :)
A basic bill is cheap to make yes, but a fancy bill or pollaxe can take just as many man hours to make as a sword. And remember that there were lots of second-hand weapons in circulation - wills and inventories are full of 'old rusty swords', valued at very little.
So really it's a bit like asking how much a car is worth. It depends on a lot of factors - age, condition, make, quality etc etc etc.

Regards,
Matt

Fiore dei Liberi describes fighting 5 unarmoured duels, wearing "nothing but" an arming jacket and leather clothes.

Having said that, in relation to this discussion, I consider halfswording with no gloves to be perfectly safe.

Matt