[Gary Grzybek]

[Steve Fabert]

[Gary Grzybek]

[Mojje Andersson]

[Alexi Goranov]

Hi Steve,

I would have to agree with Gary that the blades lasted a fairly long time. There are records that even the kings submitted their swords for repair/sharpening instead of buying new swords for the next battle. And they could afford it. Swords were very often issued as an army weapon, so that the average solder did not have to worry( provide money) for buying own weapons. So the weapons were also collected back after a campaign. If the swords were mostly unreliable after a single battle, who in the right mind and money would willingly put his success in battle in the hands of poorly armed army. I am grossly exaggerating and oversimplifying. There were people who even poorly armed stood in battle for what they believed in.

I refuse to believe that a sword is a single-use disposable blade.

Can one destroy a sword in a single battle? Absolutely!! Was that a common occurence? I doubt it! We are yet to discuss the percentage of people who actually used the swords as a primary weapon in a battle, and what their opponents were. Swords should be fairly effective against soft, giving targets (human bodies). I cannot believe that a decent sword would break/bend/ lose sharpness after an hour of hacking into a realistically suspended soft (relatively) target.

In present times people will abuse the weapons in each and every way, from banging them against hard objects to pells without a give, and then wonder why the weapons malfunction/break so often. I do not want to get into that discussion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Any way it is the right of the customer to want the best training weapon possible, but this same customer has to understand that an ideal sword that would withstand all kind of abuse, be safe, perform well in reenactments, cut realistically, and feel like a real period weapon DOES NOT EXIST. Half of the characteristics I listed are incompatible with one another.

Just my regular rambling.........No criticism intended, Steve! Just my opinion that swords are more resilient than you give them credit for.

Cheers,

Alexi

[Zach Stambaugh]

I have read that romans trained with round section wooden gladii . they were supposed to match the balance ratios but be twice as heavy at all points. the ideas was to make the soldier buff and so the real thing felt light by comparison.

[Steve Fabert]

[Alexi Goranov]

Hi Steve,

My reference to the king repairing his sword comes from a book "Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages: The English Experience". One of the first chapter talks about costs and the prices of weapons were listed for different ages. .Also specific payments were mentioned about the king paying x amount for sword repair and sharpening. This same book as well as E. Oakeshott make the point that swords were collected and distributed during campaigns. Oakeshott also speaks of bunch of different used swords being regripped together before being delivered to the army.

You are right that the modern repros (from credible makers) should perform at least as well as or outperform the period weapons. So the question you raise is valid from a certain perspective. Why do modern repros fail so easily? Do they? I have seen edges disintegrate after bashing a stationary helmet. Is that the kind of failure we are talking about? Because this is not the fault of the sword in this case. It is abusive behavior. I started a thread from this observation I suggest you take a look at it (probably you have seen it and or participated in it) [url]/www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=987[/url].

Swords did change shape to reflect advances in armor, but this does not mean that swords became the primary means of taking down armored opponents. It is widely argued that the primary weapons of the knight was the lance (much better at dealing with armor) or battle axes and maces (again much better in dealing with armor) . There are scientific articles published, showing that swords are virtually ineffective against the lowest grade plate armor, and also cannot cut through mail armor (can cause blunt trauma though). I assume this was known to the warriors at the time.

So now-a-days when we start slamming swords against armor, are we really replicating the use that the swords experienced in the medieval times.?!?! The picture of a knight or man-at-arms charging against a field of armored foes WITH A SWORD in hand may seem real to us, but was it part of the medieval battle field ?!?!?! We do occasionally see medieval depictions of battles where knights with swords cut through the metal helms of opponents, but that is probably a great exaggeration.

To get back on point: the only times I have heard of good swords malfunctioning is after unrealistic abuse. What is realistic though may need more definition, but one thing I must say, swords were tools designed to cut through moving flesh and bones. Any other use or abuse, and all bets are off.

[Zach Stambaugh]

swords were often bent and restraightened in battle. this seems likely to occur in sword and buckler fighting when striking a buckler or helmet inadvertently. further, it is much more likely to shatter the edge than to break the whole blade. any sword will get a nick or dull spot when it strikes metal. blade to blade contact will definitely result in a nick. also worked iron or steel was a very valuable commodity. it took much forging or millwork to get iron or steel formed from wrought iron. a sword broken, could be reforged ( and retempered) with much less labor than to make a new one from scratch. plus with the exception of mercenaries, most armies were not really paid wages. they were fed and sometimes armed. if they wanted cash they got it from looting and ransoms. weaponry would be collected after decisive battles.( when you had the time and safety to collect and transport it. a marching soldier laden with loot would also likely trade or simply drop heavy items along the way.he might also cache loot and pay someone to collect it for him.

peasantry also had to plough their fields. if not everything was actively looted, you would find most of the stuff left behind during plowing. the stuff was just too valuable to leave there in the way. at the very least the farmer would sell it as scrapmetal to the local smith. he could turn a broken sword into several knives or a very good sickle cheaply.