[Maurizio D'Angelo]

Hi all,
I returned to the subject of sharpening of swords, the term refers to 1400 -end 1500.
There are two sources, at first glance a contradiction in the other.
1) Filippo Vadi, he writes that the swords are not sharp on strong, but only on the weak. Speaks two-handed sword, 1450-1482
2) D'Angelo Viggiani-Schermo-1575 swords are sharpened on the strong to the tip.

Vadi was right or D'Angelo?

Against total armor, served sharpening the strong?

Some fencing techniques, suggest to hold the sword with his left hand. If it was sharp, it would be more difficult to hold it.

What we see, about two-handed sword, in the museums of that time?

[Kel Rekuta]

Maurizio,
Vadi's sword description applies to a special weapon for tournament fighting. It might as well be a steel bar with a sharpened blade area near the tip. We can still find similar swords being used well into the sixteenth century.

Viggiani is talking about a stiff, narrow double edged sword for use in one hand. Different purpose, different design not really comparable.

[Maurizio D'Angelo]

[Peter Johnsson]

Masters of old may have had personal preferences as to the sharpening of swords. They would not convey to us the complete or fully correct picture.
If you look at well preserved originals you will see that both edges are sharp from the base to the very point. Sometimes the base of the blade is not so sharp (a decimeter or so close to the guard?), but the blade itself is sharpened.

There are specialized dueling or fencing swords that are sharp in sections while leaving some lengths completely blunt. These are very special cases and will say nothing about sword in general.

The japanese sword is famously used to cut with the point and just a short length behind it. Still it is sharp along its complete length (but sometimes a short length right at the base is blunt, or not as sharp). So the same applies here. Why do you sharpen the full length of the katana if a good cut uses only the point?

[Jean Henri Chandler]

I think it's same the reason swords remained popular prestige sidearm for thousands of years in spite of cheaper axes, maces, hammers etc. which could potentially be equally effective: a sharp sword is dangerous to grab.

In real knife fights, fights with sticks and clubs, people alwys grab the weapon which is hurting them.

A sword can be seized, if you know what you are doing and when and how to do it, but it's much more dangerous than grabbing the haft of an axe or a spear.

People will grab sword blades anyway, if their life is at risk. But as often as not, their hand will be cut and you will still have your sword.

J

[Toke Krebs Niclasen]

Sharpness would make little difference against chainmail or plate, but against gambeson or nothing there would be a huge difference.
It sounds rather silly to carry a blunt blade to battle.

[Maurizio D'Angelo]

[Jean Henri Chandler]

yes, and this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-E4aSlLyBTo

...but it's not safe to grab a sword unless you know when and how, i.e. from a bind and when the other guy is reacting to you in a predictable way.

If you grab a sharp sword the wrong way (i.e. at random) you will quickly have severed tendons and muscles and won't be holding anything except blood.

J.

[Sean Manning]

[James Head]

I am sure there are better images available, but you can see the special tournament blade at the bottom of this picture.

[Bill Grandy]

Maurizio,

I don't know if "tournament" is the ideal word to use here, or at least in the modern sense of the word. Vadi, like the majority of the late medieval and early renaissance masters, is predominantly focused on the judicial duel, which in most cases were done to the death. As has been noted, in Chapter II Vadi describes the measurements for the sword, he gives his ideal dimensions for the size, and says the requirements about being sharpened four fingers from the tip specifically for "in arme" - that is, fighting in armour. Then later on, right after the poleaxe section, he repeats his advice for the "forma de spada in arme" - the shape of the sword to use in armour. James included the picture above of what that sword is supposed to look like.

The fact that these are specifically sharp shows that they are meant for mortal encounters, not for friendly sport or "spade da zogo". So while the word "tournament" can be used, I think perhaps we should remember that we are not talking about a friendly tournament.

[Maurizio D'Angelo]

first of all, thanks to those who spoke.

Jean Henri Chandler
your link is very interesting

Sean Manning :
is exactly what you reported, ( never mind. Your Italian is written as my English, but understands)
as well as the photo of James Head.

Bill Grandy:
it is more appropriate judicial duel.

What I do not understand is why, in a judicial duel, against a man in armor, Vadi considered better a blunt-edged sword. Then in battle instead, Peter Johnsson confirms to us, the swords were all sharp. What is the difference?
In a judicial duel, he was fighting for life. Even in battle. Always with men in arms. Here this I can not understand.
Just a preference of the Maestro Vadi?
Against full armor is useless a sharpening sword, or it can be useful?

[Bill Grandy]

[Maurizio D'Angelo]

thanks Bill,
your explanations are sufficient.

It's strange but the Italian has not changed much in 500 years.
Here Vadi, in original.
"La spada da conbatere in arme vole avere la sotoscrita forma cioe la sua longeza vole ariuare el pomo sotto el bracio, tagliare quattro dita in punta el suo manico uolesere de una spanna. Lelzo uolesere longo quanto e il manico de la spada. Euolesere aguzo da ogni lato. e similmente uolessere aguzo il pomo per possete ferire con ognuno di questi."

Here my translation:
" Sword to fight in armor must have the form, written under . That is, the length must arrive with a pommel under arm, cut, four fingers on the tip, grip must be a span. Guard must be as long as the sword grip. Must be pointed on every side. Similarly, to the pommel, so that you can hurt with each of these."