[Chad Arnow]

There have been many threads on this site regarding the earliest true great swords. We often think of them as 13th century weapons, usually more mid-to-late13th century than early. However, more recent scholarship shows that great swords existed eariler than that, perhaps even in Viking times.

I came across this earlier example of a great sword and thought people might enjoy seeing it. Its grip length seems to make it one of those more rare Type XIII swords, not the longer-gripped Type XIIIa.

[Jared Smith]

Chad,

Do you have any idea how the offeror established this estimated date? There are at least of couple of other examples. Some items like the Vastera's sword was dated by the surrounding equipment and wreckage found with it.

[Grayson C.]

Wow thats amazing!



Never knew they were that early in history. Thanks for the post Chad.

[Chad Arnow]

[Chad Arnow]

[Richard Fay]

Hello all!

Chad,
Thanks for posting that! I have an interest in early examples of "great swords". They did sometimes occur earlier than was once thought. There are a few twelfth-century, or possible twelfth century, examples in Oakeshott's Records of the Medieval Sword. His "Appendix B" even gives a fairly in-depth discussion about why the inlays in at least one "great sword" probably date it to the first half of the twelfth century. He argues that the "handwriting" on the inlays is very similar to other swords that date circa 1120.

I've included pictures from Records of the Medieval Sword showing these early examples of "great swords", or type XIIIs of the same general style as the larger "great swords".

Number 3 is XIII. 3 from Records. Oakeshott dates this sword circa 1200-50, but notes that the hilt form suggests a century earlier. Its blade length is 32 inches, so it's more of a "general" type XIII than a true "great sword". (Oakeshott defines a true "great sword" as a sword with a long blade and a long hilt, but these are all swords that are a bit larger than the normal sword of the period.)

Number 4, XIII. 4 in Records, is another "general" type XIII that Oakeshott dates circa 1150-1200. It has a broad blade that's 33 inches long.

Number 11 (XIIIa. 11 from Records) is a "great sword" with a long and narrow fuller, reminiscent of the blade on an Oakeshott's type XI. The blade is 35 inches long. Oakeshott dates this example circa 1200-50, or more likely 1100-50. He points out that the faceted pommel is of a type found in the Leppaaho Viking swords, and gaddhjalt type cross was used by the Vikings. This could make the earlier date far more likely, especially since it seems to be a "great sword" version of a type XI (which he dates circa 1100-1175).

Number 13 is a "great sword" with a shorter blade than most (33 1/2 inches), but a grip length that firmly places it in the "great sword" category. It's XIIIa.13 in Records. Oakeshott dates this one circa 1120-50, based on an examination of the inscriptions. He says the inscriptions imply a date of circa 1120, as compared to other examples. This is a significantly early great swords, but he points out in "Appendix B" in Records that there are earlier examples of long-bladed and long-hilted swords, including examples in art from the 2nd century AD to the 12th!

There were also long-bladed but short-gripped swords. In Sword in Hand, Oakeshott mentions (with photo, but I can't post that one) that a sword found near Pontirolo of circa 1150 has a huge blade 40.5 inches long! The whole thing is 47.25 inches long and weighs just under 5 pounds! This isn't a true "great sword" because of its short grip, but it is longer than the "normal" sword of the period. In the same work, Oakeshott again mentions that there is evidence pointing to the use of the true "great sword" as early as the beginning of the 12th century.

Here are the pictures from Oakeshott's Records of the Medieval Sword:

[Eric Myers]

Very interesting, but I'm wondering why these are classified as great swords, rather than longswords? The blade is broader like a stereotypical greatsword, but the short blade length and short grip is more characteristic of a longsword.

Regards,

[Patrick Kelly]

[Eric Myers]

[Richard Fay]

Hello all!

[Lancelot Chan]

It's really interesting to know. I believed I've read somewhere that the development of longsword emerged when armor was developed to the degree where the use of shield was no longer necessary. If such reason holds true, it means the mail popular in the 12th century was already quite attack-proof that one started to abandon the use of the shield. And this seems to verify modern test on historical-accurate mail that the armor held up very well under sword attacks. Hmmm....

[George Hill]

[Joe Maccarrone]

I don't think we should try to read any conclusions about armor into the dates of the early great swords; it's quite likely that some offense-minded fellows simply preferred to fight with both hands on a large sword -- just as some preferred two hands on a large axe.

And Chad, thanks very much for posting those pics -- this is a topic of great interest for me.

[Elling Polden]

Also, keep in mind that a long grip does not automatically equal two handed use.
It is also the simplest way to balance a long blade.

Several of the type XI blades are as long as the later greatswords. These where, as theorized, used by cavalry and hung on the saddle, in addition to the arming sword around his waist.
The great sword would be a direct development from these, basically featuring a elongated handle to improve balance. As time went by, dismounted knights probably found out that the greatsword, held in two hands, was supperior to the single sword, and thus started to carry them as sidearms when fighting dismounted with spears or polearms.

The greatsword is still not as good as a sword and shield, but if you are not carrying a shield anyhow, it is preferable.

[Richard Fay]

Hello all!

I want to echo what Elling said regarding the great swords. They weren't necessarily meant to be used exclusively with two hands. The longer hilt could have functioned as a counterbalance for the longer and heavier blades (some weighed close to 4 pounds). They are not quite of two-handed proportions; they are more like early, slashing-versions of the later hand-and-a-half or bastard swords (Oakeshott's types XVa and XVIIIa).

Here are some excerpts from various Oakeshott books describing the use of these great swords:

[Richard Fay]

Hello again!

Oakeshott seems to believe that these great swords were adopted, in part, to counter the additions being made to the mail hauberk. This is what he said about the great swords and armour:

[Jared Smith]

I have expressed this theory previously, but think it is still relevant.

Fighting from horseback, one may make greater advantage of a heavy bladed, slow, one-handed, sweeping blow. Extra reach and long grip length could be preferred even if one assumes one handed use from horse. Not every aspect of sword handling has to be evaluated in terms of unmounted combat and German style technique.

I have wondered if these types of swords were ever really popular in terms of a majority (say roughly 50% of knightly combatants) actually possessing them... or if they were basically uncommon in nearly all periods with a rough century or two marking them as being more noticeable in terms of surviving examples.

[Richard Fay]

Hello all!

[Jared Smith]

I appreciate it Richard.

I have targeted a transition era 13th century "kit" (small amounts of plate on mail) for a while now and have actually begun calling for an anvil and some starter equipment today. I wish to build a complete ensemble of armour and great sword. I will forego the expenses of an appropriate well trained horse though (have all ready been through the expenses of the English Eventing thoroughbred thing with a daughter....)

The popularity of the great sword and longer grip longswords is a difficult and interesting post. It was certainly known during the 12th century, classified as popular during the 13th century by some, but survives in quantities in museums mainly from later centuries. Some real life figures (the Black Prince) were characterized by eye witness accounts as consistently carrying uncommonly long swords with long grips in battle, but depicted with more classical single handed swords in their effigies. I consider it possible that the great sword got short changed in art and credit in terms of its popularity.

[Chad Arnow]