[Johannes Lehtinen]

I would like to hear your opinions about the attributes, advantages and disadvantages of European one handed - and bastard swords (compared to other hand weapons of the era or later weapons). I understand the former was used mainly from 900-1200 and the latter from 1200-1300.

I guess both were quite effective against light armour with the long and tough enough blades to shear even the best chain mail with a heavy and well directed blow. To my knowledge they both were also quite effective when used for thrusting. However especially the early single handed sword seems to have lacked efficiency to penetrate plate armour (hence it's disappearance from use in the later period). It seems to have re-emerged later in form of a sword meant solely for thrusting. The bastard sword seems to have evolved in to a two handed sword. Was this truly effective enough to shear even plate armor with cutting strokes?

Please comment.

[Scott Byler]

It is highly debated as to whether a sword could cut most armor at all, even mail (rivetted or weld, rather than butted which tests seem to indicate can be cut or broken without a lot of trouble. ) Plate is largely to completely impervious to cutting strokes seems to be the consensus from what I've read.

It bears remembering that most of the fighters on a field were probably not well armored, or at least were armored very lightly. I've seen the number put forth that about only 5 percent on the battlefield would be truly well armored. Swords of any type can perform quite well against lightly armored folks.

I think that it is good to remember that there were still one handers in use in later periods too. Some probably more dedicated to cutting than thrusting...

I'm hardly an expert, though, and always finish by saying I will allow those better informed to confirm or deny what I've said, and expand on the subject.

[MD Norcross]

In a recent--and apparently oft repeated--forum exchange on Sword Forum, the general concensus was that swords were generally ineffective against well-made plate, period. [The main dispute is whether bolt weapons or longbows were effective against plate, with the consensus that these weapons would certainly unhorse a knight by killing the horse, but vehement disagreement on their effectiveness against the knight himself.] The Age of Plate, however, really doesn't get going until late in the 14th Century, then on into the 15th and 16th Centuries. The sword was effective against "soft" armor, such as leather and padded gambesons, common in use for the foot soldiers of the day.

The Bastard sword is a compromise weapon, as indicated in prior posts, designed not only for the cut but especially for use in the thrust. In fact, these are fearsome thrusting weapons, no matter how Hollywood depicts their usage. If against plate you do not succeed, then go for the joints in the elbows, shoulders, knees and groin! And with the common usage of stop plates in full plate, the neck appears to have been a favorite weak spot, too. It was probably because of their use in the thrust, and the intent that this was a weapon used by mounted knights, that it is generally longer than a single handed sword, with lengths at the short end something in excess of thirty inches and as long as 40 inches. The longer grip assists in the balance and wielding ability of the sword.

BTW, I haven't seen any definitive evidence as to the derivation of the name "Bastard." Based on its derivation in the Oxford English Dictionary, one might surmise that the word derives from the Latin "bastare," meaning "to bear," and which also meant at this period of time, "pack saddle." A Bastard is therefore a longer sword that one would normally suspend from the saddle and not from the belt. If accurate, this would supply further evidence of its anticipated usage by a mounted rider who can well benefit from a longer reach.

From the historical swords I've seen, on this forum as well as others, the one-hander doesn't go out of style until abandoned as a military weapon in Europe at the end of WW I and in the east at the end of WW II, although there are tremendous changes in blade architecture and hilt design.

[Alexi Goranov]

I agree with MD and Scott that swords of any kind are not effective against metal armour, even mail, when used in a cutting attempt. Now as far as cross-bows are concerned there is published evidence that these can do do some bad damage to iron plate armour. The authors are currently investigating the effects on steel plate. The article I am referring to was mentioned before by Craig Johnson on another thread. The article is " Head protection in England before the First World War", Blackburn et. al., 2000 Neurosurgery Vol 47:6. In this article one of the authors discusses impact results using modern made wrought iron plates and helmets with metallurgical characteristics of low grade munition armour (1.8-1.9mm thick). For a sword to damage such helmet it would need to deliver a blow with 270J of energy, however the energy range of swords and axes is within 60J to130J according to the authors. Even someone with the built of Conan will not deliver a 270J blow with a sword. So, according to these results (and if you ask anyone who has ever swung a sword at a helmet) a sword will not penetrate even a low grade wrought iron plate protection. I bet the guy inside the helmet would feel the blow, and probably the sword edge would feel it too (i.e. it may get badly damaged). Now a cross-bow bolt is a whole different story. It only needs 130J to defeat padded munition armour, but it can deliver up to 200J of energy. Based on that, the authors concluded that wrought armour plate was no match for cross-bows. Based on their results, bodkin arrow (18 degree point) and spear (40degree point) could also defeat plate armour of that quality.

How would these weapons perform against high grade, tempered steel armour (which was bullet-proof in the XVI c) it is not known, but I think it is a safe bet to say "less effectively than against wrought iron".

There were two recent threads on "sword durability against armour" and "warhammer against armour" that might be worth revisiting.

Cheers,

Alexi

[Josh S.]

As far as the name "bastard sword" is concerned, I had always assumed that it was derived from the bastardized nature of the sword itself. I.e., it is neither a one- or two-handed sword, but a cross between the two -a mutant, the child of a bastard union(in negative terms, at least). I suppose the claim of Latin "bastare" being its predecessor is as good as any, though.

[MD Norcross]

[Elling Polden]

Bastard/long/hand and a half swords show up in the 1300's, as far as I remember.

As far as the effect of long(aka bastard) swords on armour goes, it should be posible to take a look at the fenncing manuals from the period, and see what kind of techniqes they use...
As far I can see from quickly browsing the ones available at http://www.aemma.org/ , it seems that all the armoured longsword is in the Half-sword mode. (One hand on the hilt, one on the blade, using the weapon as a spear.) This would lead to the conclusion that swinging at plate was not a efficient practice.

Yours
elling

[Alexi Goranov]