[Jean Thibodeau]

Richard;

It's good to sometimes throw an idea out there as speculation and see if it goes " SPLAT " or " BOUNCES ".

I don't think Patrick in any way is saying that your ideas are wrong only that when playing with the concept and trying to figure things out you may be over-limiting the versatility of even relatively heavy swords: He is just giving you his feedback based on actual handling of similar swords and his impressions about what they can do.

In any case your thoughts are interesting and stimulated good discussion even if others may come to contrary conclusions.
No one here wants you to stop.

[Patrick Kelly]

Richard,

If you're looking for someone to tell you that you're unequivocally right you're going to be disappointed. This isn't because you aren't on the right track because I think you are. As I've said before: you've brought up some good citations that are beneficial. However, forums like this are devoted to discussion not lip service. You've asked for opinions and we've taken time to give them to you, please respect that. ( I just saw my name connected with the term "expert a couple of posts down. Please folks don't do that, it makes me nervous I'm nothing of the kind. )

These swords were definitely military weapons with a military character. I absolutely agreed with that. They're big massive weapons which is one of the reasons they're my favorites, I like swords with presence. My friend Greg recently received his Albion Gallowglass and it's a very fine sword. I love the design elements present but it isn't my thing personally. It's a bit too light for me. I like swords that exude the attitude of, "let's break things and hurt people". That's why I like swords of this type. They're most definitely meant for the hurly-burly of the battlefield. In that respect I think you're right on the money. However, my problem lies solely in the way they're being described. They're much more dynamic than being limited to downward chopping movements, etc. Nor do I think they're primarily meant for cavalry use, probably the opposite. Sword techniques seem to be limited on horseback, especially when you have a shield to worry about. Having spent time handling these big swords I think their full potential is realized on foot. A knight would undoubtedly have another more appropriate type of single-handed sword for mounted use if needed or desired. Just my opinion.

You've mentioned the battle of Benevento on several occasions. While the written accounts of that battle are definitely interesting we need to remember that they, like any other account, are written from one persons viewpoint and viewpoints often differ. One of my main interests is the battle of Hastings. With Hastings there are many sources, some contemporary some much later, many of them say far different things. This is one good example of how it's important to avoid drawing concrete conclusions from only one source. I highly doubt that Benevento was won solely because of that one particular technique. I'm sure the outcome of the battle was a bit more complex and involved other varying factors.

We're not shooting you down. We're simply disagreeing on some points and agreeing on others. It's called discussion and one I've enjoyed thus far.

[Angus Trim]

Hi Richard

Remember what I said about passions.......... and don't let them run away during these discussions.

My thoughts on swords is that they may look simple, but what we're dealing with here is really, a very, very complex item/ subject........

Lets take a XIIIa......... It could weigh as little as 3lbs, maybe as much 4lbs. The blade might be as long as 40 inches, or as short as 34. The handle might be 10 inches long, or maybe no more than 6. The edge may be a bit obtuse, or very acute......

The time period stretched from the 12th {and maybe earlier} into the mid 14th...... and then popped up again in the 15th.

Some of them have a nearly linear distal taper, and are relatively thick towards the point, likely with durability somewhat overshadowing cutting ability. Some are have a more concave distal taper, and are thinner in crossection from the cop to the tip, thus probably cutting ability outweighs durabiity........

What can we conclude about these Richard? Anything, really?

If helmets can be dented by a sword, but not likely cut thru, then what? IF properly setup maille is very difficult to cut in test conditions, how hard would it be to cut during a real battle?

Truthfully, I have several opinions about this, but no firm conclusions. I don't think there is enough "real" hard evidence to draw firm lasting conclusions. Opinions yes.........

For one thing, as an example, I don't believe that the XIIIa's at the extremes were neccesarily meant for the same things. The 3lb sword with an acute edge likely wasn't meant ideally to hit the same target or be used the same way as the heavier one with the more robust edge. Consequently, I don't want to over generalize over the whole type XIIIa world....... just won't work........

That's an opinion, not a conclusion.......{though a rather strong opinion}

[Chad Arnow]

Here's another example, from the Castlerock museum. I don't have specs, but you can see how its grip length compares to the other swords in the case. I could get my hand pretty close to the case and the grip was a couple inches longer than my hand's width.

[Joe Maccarrone]

That's a very interesting case full of weapons -- thanks Chad!

Could you estimate the dimensions on that big guy? About 6.5" in the grip, and 36"+ in the blade?

[Chad Arnow]

[Kai Lawson]

Hi Joe--

Grip is about 6.5'', maybe 7''; blade is definitely longer than 36'', even broken off. My money would be about 39'' or 40'' with tip intact. Fairly thin in cross section down the whole--probably a rather fast sword

[Chad Arnow]

[Joe Maccarrone]

Thanks, guys. The middle sword is very intriguing, too; it looks like a XIV in the style of Oakeshott's 'Moonbrand'. Any thoughts on that one, or closer pics?

[Chad Arnow]

[Bartek Strojek]

Aside from the "specs" what's the dating and general 'localization' of those? That would be very interesting to know, if someone managed to date them at least roughly.

[Chad Arnow]

[Luka Borscak]

Well, if we take other very similar swords into account, this one should be either late 12th or first half of the 13th century...

[Ricardo S.]

Hi. Please correct me if I'm wrong. From the little I know about swords and using a little common sense, there is some confusion here. The topic under discussion is the great sword. These swords, in my view, are too big and too heavy to be properly used on horseback, not to mention the fact that they require a two-hand grip. I read a lot about training and strength of these warriors and the true weight of these swords, and when I referred to "too big and too heavy to use on horseback" does not mean that they are clumsy and limited. They just aren’t made for fighting on horseback. What often happens is that the identification of these swords in the books (even Oakeshott’s) is very confusing and is quite easy to confuse a sword with another, especially the larger ones. I've seen books in which the “war swords “(which are big, but not as big as a true great sword) are called great swords. Again I could be wrong, but I came to the conclusion that “war swords” are smaller than great swords and can be used on horseback and also in the same way that bastard swords (with one or two hands without compromising performance, although “war swords” and bastard swords are fundamentally different in anatomy and function). What happens here, in my opinion, is confusion between “war swords” and great swords. The definitions are very blurry, because in my opinion, in some cases, without proper handling, it is difficult to know if a sword is a larger "war sword", but that still allows efficient use with one or both hands or a smaller great sword, which can only be efficiently used with both hands. These two swords were used in wars, but they are not the same thing and a great sword cannot be used just as a "war sword". What seems to happen is that, in general, the smaller sword (“war sword”) receives the same identification as the sword of larger size (great sword), but they are not the same thing (even if they look alike).
So, in my opinion, a great sword was to be used on foot, and I believe that despite its relatively high weight, was not so clumsy and so slow. But still I do not believe there is some physical possibility of using such a sword on horseback.

These are just my opinions and I ask that you correct me if I'm wrong.

Regards.

[Luka Borscak]

You are not wrong if you think 16th century zweihander when you say "greatsword". But in 13th and 14th century "greatsword" and "warsword" were pretty much interchangeable terms. And so we use both terms in this thread.

[Ricardo S.]

I agree with you, but i beleave the actual swords were not the same thing.