[Richard Hare]

I have a question, and wondered if anyone here had an answer for me?

We hear on double edged swords of a "strong and weak edge" or some such term.
It is often stated that the "front' edge is termed "strong" and a cut with the back edge is said to be with the weak edge.

I can well see that cutting with the back edge would be less effective, because of the way arm muscles work, but have been wondering, Does "weak" and " strong" actually refer to the way the two edges are ground?

I have never read anything on the blade being ground this way, but it seems to make sense to have one edge stronger, ...sharpened at a more acute angle, for battering away at shields or against maille. (i am thinking particularly of Viking-age blades.)

Why I raise this question, is in re-reading Hilda Ellis Davison's book, "The sword in Anglo-Saxon England".
On page 200 is mention of a fight between Offa,and two advereries, (Must be mid 8th century)
With his famous sword Skrep, he cuts one oponent clean in two, and kills his second opponent by a similar cutting blow after apparently turning his sword so the other edge comes into use:

"He turned the other edge of his sword to the front, fearing that the thin side of his blade was too frail for his strength, and smote with a piercing stroke through the princes body"

This sounds very like the edges were ground differently. Can anyone please shed more light?

Does anyone dress their blades in this manner?

Thank you in advance!

Richard.

[Jan H.]

Richard,

I asked myself this question, too, when I got to know that the very same thing was done to the old doubleedged felling-axes.

In the axemuseum at Gransfors & Bruks, AB in Sweden they had examples of these kind of axes and the blade-geometry at the edge was always so, that one edge was far more developped and better honed. The opposite edge was ground to a much wider angle and was thus used for cutting into harde wood or felling trees at bottom height, were sometimes stones ore anything else might get into the way of the blade and damage it.

http://www.gransfors.com/htm_ger/index.html
when you go for the double axe on this link, they cite something similar.

Me too, would appreciate any existing examples of such treating on swordblades.

On the one hand I think this treatment might sometimes be of some use, as long as one does always know which edge is heading where at the moment, on the other hand I wonder if this might affect blade-dynamics (assymetry!) in a negative way.

Jan

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

Interesting thought...

However 'weak' and 'strong' do not refer to each edge, but to parts of the blade. The strong is the part closer to the hilt, the weak is the part closer to the tip. I think there is evidence that these two parts were indeed not sharpened in the same way; the edge geometry certainly varies as the sword is ordinarily thicker at the strong anyway.

The edges themselves are called 'true' and 'false'. So far I have not seen anyone mentionning that they would be sharpened differently on double edged swords. Other blade forms can have something like that, many single edged swords still have a portion of the false edge sharpened. The fact that I have not seen it is hardly a proof, however

[Martin Wallgren]

The edges are in some manuals refered to as the long edge (langen schnide) and short edge (kurtzen schnide). This I been told refers to the reach you have with them.

[Steven H]

[Curt Dunham]

If you hold your sword in say Pflug and have someone try to move it by pressing on the blade near the hilt (the strong of the blade) and then try to move your blade by pressing on the blade near the tip (the weak of the blade), you'll see immediately where the names come from. The strong of the blade is strong for you, and the weak of the blade is weak for you.

As for sharpening, I sharpen my blade (both edges) from the middle to the tip, where I do most of my cutting, and leave the strong of the blade from the middle to the hilt "relatively" unsharpened, where I do most of my parrying or perhaps grab in half swording.I have seen in the Metropolitan Museum of Art swords of all types very sharp on both edges from tip all the way to the hilt or ricasso.

Curt Dunham

[Richard Hare]

Thank you for all the comments,

Jan,
I sharpen my double-bitted axe this way, and keep one edge for good cutting, and the other edge for rough work, it makes much sense to do so.
I dont think it would affect sword handling much, to have one edge with a little secondry bevel, or more pronounced "apple-seed" finish.

I do believe I confused the issue, through using incorrect termology, so I will re-write the quote I seek comments on, and please forgive my earlier incorrect terms.

here is the quote;

"....He turned the other edge of his sword to the front, fearing that the thin side of his blade was too frail for his strength, and smote with a piercing stroke through the princes body...."

Any comments?
Thank you again,

Richard.

[Dan P]

[Richard Hare]

Hi Dan,

Thanks for your thoughts on this.
I'm really in the dark about context, as just short quotes are made, but as this fight was in the mid 700's most likely the sword would be the standard double -edged blade.
The only other likely type would have been a seax, but I do not recall ever hearing of the sword "skrep" (sharp) as ever being described as such.
Re. armour or maille,
It is mentioned that Offa cut his first oponent in two, and this is not likely if he had been wearing armour....Or using a seax for that matter.

Here is the quote;
" Wermund asked on what particularpart he had dealt the blow.
The retainers answered that he had gone through no one limb but the man's whole frame."

In the quote you kindly commented on, the blade must have been double-edged, as although he turned the other side forward, for fear the thin side of the blade wouldn't stand up to the anticipated blow, he still apparently cuts right through his second opponent:
In part, it reads;
"................penetrabili corporis seccione transverberat"
(p 200, footnote)

From the above, I can't help but come to the conclusion that one edge was finer then the other, but if this was the case,why is it not more widely known?

I can see that on found swords from this age that even on good examples, it would be very difficult to see now if one edge had been more keenly honed or finer than the other, as most have suffered significant corrosion, and the thin edges eaten away.
So where does this leave us?
Have we missed something here?
This is something I have not heard of before, but think it demands further investigation.

Thanks again!

Richard.

[Chad Arnow]

[Greg Coffman]

[Martin Wallgren]

[Lafayette C Curtis]

I'm in favor of Dan's interpretation--despite the blade's double-edged construction, it is by no means inconceivable that Offa had been using one edge more than the other, which I think would be quite normal in battlefield situations. This more heavily-used edge would have been sharpened more frequently, and thus its shape might have become somewhat thinned down and not as robust as the other (less frequently used) edge.

I don't know whether it would be plausible for Offa to have noticed the difference, though, especially in the heat of a life-or-death encounter, so Chad's and Greg's interpretations may be quite correct as well.

[D. Nogueira]

This I'm about to write is just my humble and inexperienced oppinion, but at least speaking of the kind of swords I think we are discussing, I would favor both edges to be sharpened in the same way (And more specifically, both in a way capable of "eventually" withstanding a hit to tough materials, such as bone, wood, etc.).

I also think that if I had been an extremely successful warrior (Quite unlikely), and managed to survive many fierce combats (Even more unlikely), I guess there would have been some points in my career where one edge of my sword would have been duller, and the other one sharper, of course.
Thus, although not willingly, I might have found myself with an unevenly sharpened sword at hands.

Returning to the original question, I have never heard or read about deliberately different true or false edges... though it is an interesting question.