[Lance K.]

Anybody have an idea? The Christian Fletcher version says 2lb 10oz, which i find to be quite amazing. Being nearly a pound less than other long swords I have to imagine it to be lightning fast, and I would have to think it has an edge over most any other sword.

Any thoughts are welcome.

Lance

[Patrick Kelly]

[Peter Johnsson]

I get many inquieries for detailed information about this sword.

The weight of the original is 1470 grams (±2 grams), or 3,3 pounds.
It is quite astounding in its handling charactersitics.
The sword as a whole is remarcable in every way.

[Lance K.]

Thank you very much Peter.

[Patrick Kelly]

But it is the complex. In order to truly understand a subject like this it's necessary to grasp those complexities. This is a beautiful sword to be sure, but assuming that it is a "pinnacle" because of that is false logic. As with any other sword this one was designed to meet a certain set of circumstances at a certain point in history. Assuming it's superior simply because it's pretty may provide a false conclusion. A Ferrari is pretty but I'm not going to use one to haul a load of cattle to market. Form always follows function and vice-versa. Oversimplifying the issue does both the sword and the field of study that surrounds it a disservice.

[Bill Grandy]

[Nathan Robinson]

[Patrick Kelly]

[Lance K.]

Thanks for the comments.

[Jean Thibodeau]

Lance;

Sounds like a logical argument to me.

When plate armour became the norm the sword, any sword might not be the best possible weapon ? A poleaxe or other polearm might be more effective.

But if we limit the argument to just swords the heavy narrow and very pointy blade do seem to be favoured and as you say if the older armour was more effective why bother with plate.

How did one attack someone wearing plate armour, what are the weak points ?

The vision sights would be a prime target, then maybe getting the blade in between two plate lames and forcing the point through, lastly those area defended only by maille.

With the maille I assume that a type XVII sword would have the most chance of breaking a few links and piercing the maille.

If the maille used with the plate armour was a major point of weakness then older armour being ALL maille would share the same vulnerability but everywhere and not only were plate defences were not usable.

Now although this may work as a theoretical exercise historically you have to wonder why they used the X type swords for instance. The heavy slashing sword must have been at least reasonably effective against maille or they would not have been used !

If fighting in a battle were the majority of opponents would be un-armoured or lightly armoured a heavy cutting sword might be better at stopping enemies quickly than using a thrusting sword with less cutting ability: A slash capable of major dismemberment would stop an attacker faster than an eventually deadly thrust acting more slowly.

Sort of the stopping power argument that was never completely resolved about what is the best and fastest stopper a cut or a stab ?

[Kenneth Enroth]

The Bayerisches sword is highly ornate and exqusite. Looks like the status symbol/self defense weapon of someone rich. Does not look like a battlefield weapon.

Can you equate the maille used to reinforce weaknesses in plate with a full hauberk? If you have two guys in plate that fights with the same weapons you can expect both to duke it out at halfsword. If one of them has full maille and is armed with sword and shield the guy with the pointy sword has to get in past the shield and the man in maille must try to keep his opponent at distance and whack him with the cutting sword. Could he affect the man in plate with a solid blow? I'd say it's quite likely he could. Look at the modern destructive testing against oildrums. I wouldn't want to be hit like that.

In the Maciejowski bible knights are wrestling and thrusting daggers through eyeslits so they aren't defenseless at close quarters either.

A warrior from any period is equipped to fight his own kind. It you hypotethically pitted different period warriors against each other all bets are off. So you cannot say this sword is superior beacuse it's later period. In some cases you probably could when metallurgy improved but an early/high medieval slashing sword s a fearsome weapon for what it's meant to do as well as the later ones.

In the 14th and 15th century plate armour developed and the pointy sword evolved as a response. It's safe to say that the pointy swords excel at what they are meant to do, combat plate armour. But you cannot say that pointy swords are superior to cutting swords across the board, or if you took an XVII back to the 12th century that it would be superior in that context.

[Daniel Staberg]

Kenneth,
The destructive testing of swords against oildrums shows nothing more than that, the effect of a sword against an oildrum. An oildrum is in not very similar to a suit of steel plate armour, to determine the effect of cutting sword on plate amroru yu have to use both a high quiality sword and pieces of high quality armour. Not sub-standard substitutes.

http://www.rdg.ac.uk/engin/home/material/ancient/AW_poster.jpg
Dr Alan Williams is the author of the massive "The Knight and the Blast Furnace: A History of the Metallurgy of Armour in the Middle Ages & the Early Modern Period"

[Peter Johnsson]

To develop an understanding of the functions of cutting and/or thrusting swords we need to look beyond the ability to withstand shocks of deflecting parries, possible edge damage from edg to edge or the ability or inability to cut through plate.

Swords were not constructed/designed to defeat other swords, nor were they made to defeat armour (rather to exploirt the weak aspects of the armour of the time).
They had to *withstand* violent use and still perform as killing tools. That is why development in armour can be traced in the changing shape of the sword. They had to be shaped so they afforded their wielder good intiative and opportunity to put an end to his opponent, taking advantage of his weaknesses. Those could be limited mobiliy, limited sight, limited coverage of armour et.c. As has ben pointed out a few times in this thread: even a full set of plate armour does not afford complete protection. Rarely the combattants on a battlefield are so well armoured that a cutting sword could not be used to disable opponents with a well aimed thrust or cut. A blow from a sword does not have to cleave through the plate to do disabling or killing damage.

The design/type of the sword must be seen in context with the swordsmanship of the time. Also important to note is in what type of combat it would be used: coordinated battlefield use (gladius) or man to man duel (rapier). Perhaps both situations?

The Bayerishes longsword is indeed a very rich weapon that would have been carried by some one of influence and wealth. Beneath gilding and decoration it is still very much a no-nonsense weapon though. A longsword for longsword fighting, be it a self defence "duel" or from horse back in a battle.

We can imagine the owner wearing a suit of high quality armour, perhaps even made by Lorenz Helmschied. He sits on a horse of the most excellent quality. He is surrounded by men at arms equipped in high quality and very business like arms and armour (that probably has some amount of decoration as well).
He is a player for high stakes.
Will he use his sword? -Of course, if the situation arises. How often will that happen? -A good question!

A swordsman might train his whole life to prepare for the life or death encounter with bare blades, but never actually kill an opponent in a swordfight. A sword can be handed down for generations but be destroyed in a few seconds.

This is a long and rambling post.

I only mean to point out that there are many different aspects that define a sword. Quite a few of these aspects might well be misunderstood by us modern enthusiasts, or even un-known, The result is often simplifications and exaggerations that befuddle our understanding.

An idea that I like to propagate is that the sword has *always* been at its peak of development. In every time and culture, the sword has has exactly the shape and quality it needs to perform its intended purpose.
Then once in a while something happens that puts old ideas to shame and new ways need to be found: new types of swords develop as society changes.
Equally important to functional aspects is the economy of making and scale of making. We must also remember for whom it was made: the elite social class during the migration era or the soldiers of the Napoleonic wars. Scale and economy of the production has as large impact on sword design as anything else. This is still very much true today.
Time changes and the sword follows (and sometimes take the lead role).

[Gordon Clark]

There have also been instances of "cycles" over a few hundred years - where armor and other battlefield conditions were enough like the conditions 200 years before that similar (or even exactly the same swords) were used again. A good example is the XIII longswords of the 13th century showing up again in the 15th-16th centuries. There were instances of blades rehilted for use many years later.

I think that pinnacles were a much more personal thing. Particular makers might produce a sword that, for a particular function, they believed was the finests sword they ever produced. Their "masterwork". Such a sword would be a wonderful thing to handle, and subsequent makers might learn much from it. Could they produce a better one? That depends on their skill (and the context of use, of course).

Gordon

[Kenneth Enroth]

[Lance K.]

Wow such very good information here. Thanks to all for providing this additional understanding and insight. It is very appreciated.

[Bill Grandy]

I think one of the problems that causes many misconceptions (misconceptions that date as far back as the Victorian era, and probably before) is the connotation of the word "evolution". To quote Christoph Amberger, "I blame Darwin". To evolve does not mean to become better. It means to change to fit the time.

Which is better, a basilosaurus or an orca whale? One has been extinct since prehistory, does that mean the other is somehow better? What about a tyranosaurus compared to a gecko? One evolved, one didn't, does that mean the gecko is the better creature?

[Steve Grisetti]

[Jean Thibodeau]

Steve;

This is why I like GOOD Sci. Fi. alternate history or fantasy fiction that does this kind of mix and matching of period arms and armour by author who are actually knowledgeable of the real history: It give you a chance to explore the "WHAT IF " without annoying anyone here with the old Samurai versus Knight thing. ( Which I think can be fun if people would not take it TOO seriously. )