[Angus Trim]

Longsword of course is synomous with hand and a half. But Longsword has become to mean something much more specific to me.

We all know that there were a tremendous variety of sizes and weights to historical hand and a half swords, and thee was a tremendous variety of hilt lengths.......

The following are merely my observations following conversations with Matt Galas, Greg Mele, Bob Charron, Christian Tobler, Michael Tinker Pearce, Peter Johnsson, Brian Price, Craig Johnson, and numerous others, as well as what I've gleaned from photos and specs of originals, from copies of the "manuals", and handling and cutting with numerous repros {including mine}. These conversations spanned the last two years, and were either email, telephone, or in person.....

Somewhere towards the late 14th century, civilian fencing in both Central Germany, and Northern Italy {and probably everywhere between} developed to a large degree around the "longsword". Somewhere in this period, its my belief that feedback from some of these fencers got back to certain swordmaking firms that knew how to listen, and the "longsword" came to be. A civilian sword with a long hilt, that still had enough mass to have some military utility.

For the most part, these swords are quite similar to "bastard swords", except that they may be a little larger on average, a little more rigid on average, and have longer hilts. The longer hilts make for a different kind of handling. Instead of "swinging" a longer bladed sword with two hands, one now would be more apt to use a "leverage", or "scissors" type of movement. The sword is now capable of more precision in movement, and moves quicker in less space/ time.

Without these longer hilts, movements that some of us now study in Fiore, and the German styles {Talhoffer for instance} become much harder, if not impossible. These longer hilts are actually needed to make these moves work..........

As a martial tool, these have become more specialized, and more lethal {if that's possible}. But, now there's more challenge for the swordmaker. The longer hilts pose challenges the shorter hilts don't in harmonic balancing. On top of which, to really "work right", the dynamic balance has to be "just so". There's a lot less "tolerance" to make these correctly than shorter hilted swords, or heavier swords. Worse, the combination of greater leverage, and longer hilt/ blade, means that it is much easier to break a blade. Take one of these to "battle", and smack an opponent's helmet at full power, and you're liable to shorten your blade.........

Many of these swords would still work in an armored context. But instead of using a "cut", you're far better off going halfsword, and using these weapons that way. Dump your opponent on his face, and stab him where his armor ain't.....

Which of course takes us to "greatswords", even if fleetingly. The long hilts work great in war, too, however, to have a sword that will love doing the smackin' stuff, there has to be noticeable more mass in the tang, and in the blade. It has to be in the right places, to tame the "harmonic" waves, so that the sword does not self destruct when applied with force and speed to an opponents helmet {or any other plate armor}. These swords would survive the hard contact, but in my view weren't as effective against armor as axes, maces, warhammers, and the like....... but at least you could die with more style.....*g*

The "longsword", more civilian that military, being used in more of a "leverage", or "scissors" style than the other hand and a halfs...........

Comments?

Auld Dawg

[Michael E. Stora, Ph.D.]

Gus, That's an interesting take and I'm sure a very valid one giving how inconsistent the use of different terms were historically.

Here is how I've usually seen it (and, coincidentally Erik Stevenson expresses similar views on his website):

Long Sword- a long fairly heavy sword that can be used in one hands, but benefits greatly from two handed use (conventional or half-swording) and used one-handed from horseback.

Arming Sword- lighter style of hand-and-a-half sword that can be used with agility in one hand. Tends to be lighter, closer COG, and a little more thrust oriented than a Long Sword.

Bastard Sword- An arming sword with a more complex "Swiss" hilt ranging from arms and a single side ring, two side rings, or even a half-basket.

Anyway, reverse the terms long sword and bastard sword, and our definitions are similar. Your AT1533 is my idea of a long sword, possibly slightly on the short side, while some of your new "long long swords" are closer to my idea of a arming/bastard, especially those closer to 2.5 lb than 3 lb.

I think there are others that will agree: from an esthetic standpoint, I think your old DD1602 was fantastic. I'd love to see a 9" hilt version of a "pointy" Type XIX, with an ~37" blade, but encorporating all your learnings over the years.


Mike

[Robert Zamoida]

When I think of a longsword, I tend to think of it more as weapon adapted to several roles, both in civilian and military applications. It could be used in one hand or two, either both on the grip or one grasping the blade; it could be used to cut or to pierce, in self defense on the streets, in a duel, or on the battlefield; it could be used against armored or unarmored opponents; it could be used as a sword, an improvised short spear, or if gripped with both hands on the blade as an improvised pole arm; it could also be used to grapple, apply limb locks, or to effect throws. Perhaps one of the reasons for the appearance of the longsword was the need for a weapon that could be used in many different ways under many different circumstances; it would not excel at all applications, but would be able to perform adequately, especially when your life is on the line. Just my thoughts on the matter, hope they help.

[Taylor Ellis]

I like Silver's definition: a longsword is simply a sword that has a blade longer than the wielder's perfect length. So, you can have single handed longsword and two handed longswords and bastard longswords. It also means that what is a longsword for one may not be for another.