[Jeremiah Swanger]

I think Joachim might be able to answer this one, but for those who have any idea, how were XIIIa's used? They have this annoying tendency to pre-date all the widely-studied fight manuals...

They're really cool swords, their cutting ability is great, from what I've heard... but how do you use one? What if you encountered someone else with one? What if you encountered someone with a spear and shield?

Just wondering, because it's a question that's been bugging me for some time...

Thanks in advance!

[Shawn Mulock]

[Don Stanko]

That is a good question and I think there are several arguments, however I tend to see the logic of Oakeshott. He explained it as a weapon that delivered a great slashing blow. Type XIIIa's had really long handles (6-8") capable of being used with one or two hands. They may seem large and bulky but the are quite manageable, this partly due to their blade length which could range anywhere from 32-40". Type XIII swords dont have good points and their edges tend to run parallel, great for slashing. I have attached photos of two type XIII swords, one is a XIIIa and the other is a XIIIb. Notice the size difference of the handles. Both functions are simlar but the XIIIa is much easier to handle.

That however is just one viewpoint, there are probably several that are credible. As you say, not much in the way of script is available.

Hope this helps. Don

[Bill Grandy]

Well, the short answer is that no one really knows. Oakeshott's observations are very valid and make sense, but even he is speculating.

Personally, I've always gone with the approach that Shawn said, which is that the techniques of later longsword masters didn't just spontaneously appear in a vacuum. I think it's reasonable to say that longsword usage from the 13th century wouldn't be drastically different from the manuals of the 14th, 15th and 16th century. In fact, even if the techniques did evolve independantly without any influence, the weapon isn't really very different from other longswords. You'd simply have more cutting than thrusting, but that doesn't change the basic principles. After all, when comparing Japanese long sword techniques to European longsword, you'll find more similarities than differences, and that's clearly a different weapon, and clearly two completely isolated styles.

[Matt Shields]

The late 14th century manual "Goliath" depicts Greatsword usage, (though the swords seem much larger than Oakeshotts description of XIIIa's) and it seems a bit differen't from Longsword. But I remember reading somewhere that it was a Lichentauer commentary, but I'm not sure.

Here it is on the ARMA website.
http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Goliath/Goliath.htm

[Robert Zamoida]

[Jeremiah Swanger]

[Allen W]

Jeremiah, going by Christian Tobler's translation of Leichtenauer in Secrets of medieval Swordsmanship I don't think a pointy long sword is implied any more than a broad tipped one. The 14th century date for his work suggests to me that they were more likely inspired by broader tipped war swords but were applied easily to the pointier long swords and as these became dominant in the 15th cent. and so became the main medium in which his tradition was practiced.

[Taylor Ellis]

Paul Wagner has been doing quite a bit of work with the Harlien manuscript, and he has come to the conclusion (AFAIK)that the manual is on the broad bladed two handed sword, ie the big XX, XIIa and XIIIa swords.

[Elling Polden]

When it comes to the development of the Greatsword, I lean towards the theory that they where originaly sadle swords, intended for calvalry use. (You want a long, heavy sword to wack peasants over the head with. ) This was then adopted for dueling.

As you mention, we dont have any manuals to help us out, so all we can do is guess, or get hold of a couple of them and try.
We had some really horrible 2,5kg longswords in our club back in the days, I guess they would handle something like a greatsword.
When it comes to their use in a one on one fight, (I figure) They would probably move their blades more, as the "reaction time" of the weapon is longer.
Also, they would be aiming for impact hits, unlike the Katana, wich aims for a slicing draw cut, and thus employs a different fighting style (it also has a different grip, and is much, much lighter...)
Along the same lines, I figure that they would grapple less than later longsword skooolz, as the weapons are less nimble in a clinch.

To sum it up, i am imagining a fighting style that focuses on series of sweeping cuts from a relatively long range, with emphasis on evasive footwork and deflections.

Liberi retains some of this fluidity, at least. I have not been instructed in any of the other longsword schools


According to my experience with longswords vs others:
If you encountered a guy with a shield and sword, he would most likely kill you, unless you are armoured, in wich case you might have a chance. If he is armoured as well, you are in for a loooong fight, as you will have problems hiting him, and he will have a hard time hurting you...
If you face a (lone) guy with a shield and spear, you will most likely kill him. (He will most likely know this, and by cunning feats of magick transform himself into a guy with a sword and shield....)

Yours
Elling

[Peter Johnsson]

My practical study of the use of the sword is limited, but having handeled originals of various types, it is possible to draw some conclusions from what is implied in their design.

As have been said previously in this thread, I think our best chance to understand the use of these swords is to go backwards from later manuals.
Most or all of the cutting techniques presented would be possible with a type XIIa or XIIIa sword of war.
The biggest difference would be the use of half sword techniques.

It is my strong impression that you would *not* use a thin and broad cutting blade in half sword techniques. In drawings in the manuals it is very rare indeed to find broad blades used in half-sword fencing.
The anatomy of the blade and the human hand makes gripping a wide sharp blade (in a powrerful grip) very uncomfortable. If the blade is narrow and pretty thick (some 22mm by 5 mm a third in from the point), this changes completely the possible use of the sword. It is still sharp, but not wide enough to really pose a danger of cutting your hand.
This difference is not so evident when you train with blunt steel swords. Realistic sharp swords will make quite another impression.

XIIa and XIIa swords, I think, could be used in most other techniques seen in the manuals as long as they make sense on a battlefield. Here is another difference between the manuals and how we must imagine the use of the war swords: the longsword was (partly) a duelling weapon, the war sword was, as the name implies, made for war.
In a duel you will focus on one sinlge opponent. In a battle time and opportunity is even more crucial, I imagine. The fact that many are invloved in fighting simultanously will change the perspective of the use of the sword. This ought to be our guide in trying to understand how these swords were used.
Economy in movement and an emphasis on timing and cutting technique.
If you bungle your attack, you´d not only have one irritated opponent to worry about but also all his angry friends standing by his side...Not a pretty picture.

A note: the heft and handling of these swords can be surprisingly agile. Even if they are large, they are still relatively quick and agile weapons. (Sometimes more agile than contemporary single hand swords). Size and heft is designed so that a single blow will make a difference for the outcome of the fight if placed with precision and force.

[Felix Wang]

That is a very interesting thought about half-swording and big cutting swords. It does fit in with the recommended tactics of half-swording, where the emphasis is on thrusts rather than cuts - and hence better suited to a much pointier sword.

The battlefield usage is very important, I agree. Di Grassi recommends that when fighting multiple opponents, that you rely upon cutting, and favor thrusts only when facing a single enemy. This makes some sense, as a cut threatens (or can hurt!) more than one target in its path; also a cut can be reversed and still present a threat. A thrust only threatens one target, and must be recovered from to attack again. So, armour permitting, cutting might predominate in a battlefield.

[Robert Zamoida]

[Elling Polden]

Based on my reenactment fighting experience, a longswordman on a battlefield is in trouble. Since he has neither the protection of a shield or the range of a polearm, he will be rushed and killed by shield-carrying foes (this happens a lot, and would probably be the same in real life...), and killed by attacks of oportunity from polearms.

He is, however, less in the shit than a guy with a singlehanded sword and no shield. (but more so than a sword/buckler, but this advantage is probably mostly gamey, as parrying a polearm blow with Sword&Buckler will not be plesant at all.)

The longsword (or warsword) is better than the single handed sword at both offence and defence, but it can not do both at once. That is, a longswordman under pressure can only defend himself, or, on the offence, only attack.
A shield carrier can protect himself while attacking, and will thus overrun the poor sod.

But a longsword/warsword would be a preferable backup to your primary weapon. (In this period (14th/15th century) probably a polearm or spear.)

I belive there are a number of depictions of fighting scenes from the 13th and 14th century where kinghts in single combat have slung their shields on their backs, and are grasping their swords with both hands, probably to have chance of actually hurt eachother...

[Gary Venable]

[Steve Fabert]

[Alexi Goranov]

[Matt Shields]

[Felix Wang]

I believe there is a problem when extrapolating from re-enactment or other modern simulations to historical battle conditions. This shows up when evaluating a longsword vs. sword+shield, or longsword vs. spear.

The issue is armor. The longsword is a weapon of the high and late Middle Ages, and most longsword users were of the upper classes - who habitually wore armor on the battlefield. The effectiveness of this armor (full mail, transitional, or plate) is not reflected in most simulations. Several threads on a couple of forums have discussed the worth of armor, and it seems pretty clear that these types of armor were not easily pierced by a single-hand sword or a simple spear. Maces, big swords, and axes were better, and heavy polearms like the halberd were best at attacking such armor.

As far as I can tell, most simulations assume that a good, clean blow with a single-hand sword or thrust from a spear is disabling - when they probably weren't effective against well-armored foes. That is one of the factors that allows the use of a longsword - you don't rely on the shield so much because most blows that hit you are not effective. (Indeed, if you look at the relationship between the amount of armor and the shield size from about 1100 to 1400, there is a direct, inverse relationship - as armor improves, shields shrink.) Most simulations assume a shield will block any blow, and that armor does not. Against really powerful weapons like the halberd, probably neither worked that well. Certainly, a wooden shield wouldn't be that much better than a curved steel plate.

This assumption automaticaly puts the armor-wearing types at a disadvantage that is not historically correct.

-------------------
addendum: Sword and buckler is worth thinking about, because it seems to have been primarily a civilian defense. This combination shows up a lot in civilian discussion; and it shows up as a secondary weapon system (I refer to the combination of sword and buckler, not just the sword alone) in men whose primary weapon requires two hands - i.e. archers. It is not terribly well suited to fighting in armored conditions, I suspect. For example, one of the basic assumptions of I.33 seems to be - if your foe doesn't guard his arm with his buckler, cut if off. This is fine, but an arm in a good steel vambrace is not going to be cut off by a quick slash from a single-hand sword.

[Robert Zamoida]