Medieval sword types and cutting

[bigdummy]

I don't want to start a big debate about it and I know these have been the assumptions for a while, but I'm not convinced by this theory that the strait broad-bladed swords cut better than the 'pointy' swords. I've cut with a lot of replicas over the last twelve years that I've been involved with this, not just the ones from my own collection or my own club. I am not convinced that we can really determine all that much from replicas to be honest, and I've only ever cut with replicas*, but I have cut with the highest-end weapons being made by Albion, Arms & Armor and various other American and Eastern-European (I have a Cervenka) makers, as well as the lower-end weapons by Hanwei, Windlass, and Cold Steel and the like.

The best European cutter I've ever seen is Albions Brescia Spadona, one of the 'pointy' designs of indeterminate subtype (albion suggests XVIIIa or possibly a XVIa )... and I think I'm not unique in noticing this. At one large cutting party I attended it cut far better than all the XIIa, XIIIa and XX types and some messers which are supposed to be the best cutters according to the conventional wisdom. In fact my little (42") type XV Constable cut better than most of them, which is why I bought it. Now this may very well be due to some missing factors in the replicas and the antiiques might cut a lot better, I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised to be honest.

I'm not even convinced the pointy (sharp profile taper) shape or more wedge-like blade shape is exclusively or even primarily for dealing with armor necessarily, at least not in all cases. It may be simply to make the sword hold up better against contact with other swords, or it might be an improvement intended for fencing, or just to enable quicker thrusting attacks. Or maybe even to improve cutting. I'm not sure what it was for. So I will concede that you are articulating a widely held belief, and certainly I grant you that a very broad-bladed falchion will usually cut better than any sword; but I don't think I'm alone in noticing that with replicas, a lot of the pointy types (XV, XVI, XVIII) seem to perform better at cutting than a lot of the XII and XIII which are in theory supposed to be the best cutters.

Personally if given the choice in an unarmoured fight I would choose an XV or XVIIIa longsword over a falchion, becuase I feel like I would be able to seriously injure the other guy with a cut or a thrust before he could get to me, even if in theory his weapon could deliver a more powerful cut. More versatility in attack and defense, better hand protection would be more important to me, given that I know from test-cutting experience against meat and bone I can consistently cut well enough to kill or maim with the longsword.

Also, speaking of hand protection, certain complex-hilt features appear on battlefield weapons and are quite common on longswords back to the 14th Century, at least in some regions of Continental Europe, it wasn't just an innovation for civilian use by any means. As you are probably aware, gauntlets don't provide perfect protection and not everyone liked to wear them anyaway..

BD

* I have cut with antique Tulwars, bananas and 19th century military swords, but never an antique Medieval or Renaissance sword yet.

[admin]

I'm not convinced by this theory that the strait broad-bladed swords cut better than the 'pointy' swords.

And:

So I will concede that you are articulating a widely held belief, and certainly I grant you that a very broad-bladed falchion will usually cut better than any sword

Your argument above seems a bit contradictory. Do you think that falchions are designed that way to cut better or not? What about broad-bladed types, like Type XIII - do you believe they were not broader to improve cutting capacity? Or for some other reason? It is fairly easy to see that as plate armour spread so did pointy blade shapes and then as armour was abandoned so the more parallel-edged blade types came back. In addition to this, the pointy blade types were often THICKER in the last third of their blades than in the middle... clear evidence that their points were reinforced for thrusting through tough material, like rondel daggers.

I think we should be very careful about taking test cutting of plastic bottles and straw mats as a definitive test. How does a given blade act on padding or mail? Or layers of clothes? How does it deal with wood or iron plates? etc

Most people here probably know that the Japanese swords they use for cutting tatami mats are often thinner than real antique examples, because they are optimised for cutting tatami mats.. not for fighting with or attacking armour and parrying other weapons. Good for test cutting does not equate to good for real life.

At the end of the day whether a sword cuts well or not is governed by a whole bunch of factors, not least the sword sharpness and whether the person using it can accelerate it to the optimum velocity - someone who is not strong enough for a given sword will cut better with a lighter sword. MxV squared and all that.

However, as a matter of simple physics, given equal sharpness, equal acceleration, a straight edge and equal total mass the sword that will cut the best is always the one with the most mass near the tip and with the thinest cross-section possible. That gives you falchions and things like Type X viking swords.

The final point I'd make about cutting capacity is that it is not just how well you can cut, but from how far away. A Type XV might cut well 12 inches down from its point, but many Type X, XIII or falchion type blades cut still very well right near their tips. That makes then better cutters in more than just one way - it means they can also cut from a distance that the pointy sword can not.

It seems perfectly clear to me why pointy swords increased with armour and then broad blades re-emerged with the decline in armour (ignoring rapiers..).

Also, speaking of hand protection, certain complex-hilt features appear on battlefield weapons and are quite common on longswords back to the 14th Century, at least in some regions of Continental Europe

I'd be interested to see 14th century examples. The earliest examples I know of are actually dated to around 1410 and are on very light Type XX single-handers that we might call 'sideswords'. It is impossible to class these as either 'battlefield' or 'civilian' weapons, as that distinction doesn't seem to have existed at that time. It is true to say that some types of soldiers did not or could not wear gauntlets for practical reasons - such as archers. Many of the 15thC examples of knucklebows are on falchions which are believed to have been archers' or crossbowmen's swords, so that may make sense.

[bigdummy]

Your argument above seems a bit contradictory. Do you think that falchions are designed that way to cut

What I mean is that there is a point at which enough width will trump the other factors, I've seen photos of falchions with very thin, very wide blades which I think would cut better than any sword. but I don't know because I've not tested any yet.

I think though at the width of a typical sword, other factors are also significant, and I have to go by the testimony of my own eyes.

As for test-cutting medium, we typically start with light media like bottles and tatami mats and end with meat and bone, a side of ribs, a pig's head. Then we have a Barbque. We have tested againt game animals including a small alligator once*. We usually also cut bamboo and other wood, and we have tested against textiles and riveted mail. With my little constable I've cut wooden poles, sides of ribs, pig shoulders, and bamboo, among other things, and accidentally cut through a paint can and a heavy duty garbage bin, without ever so much as nicking it. I suspect the diamond cross-section and the wedge-like shape of the blade contributed to this strength, along with a certain amount of luck. I can provide photos and video of all of these. Conversely, I once bent an antique Tulwar cutting through a plastic water bottle.

I've also been to many large test-cutting parties including one sponsored by Albion, of which I also have photos, where there were a lot of experienced cutters there and we cut against a variety of media.

Regarding the reinforced point, in some cases it's for armor-percing no doubt, but I suspect this also has a a value simply for a fencing tool - that Constable I have has held up better than all the other swords our club has access too, the only other ones which held up to the last 6 years of what can only be called abuse, are the Cervenka and a remarkably tough though overweight MRL Katzbalger we have.

The final point I'd make about cutting capacity is that it is not just how well you can cut, but from how far away. A Type XV might cut well 12 inches down from its point, but many Type X, XIII or falchion type blades cut still very well right near their tips. That makes then better cutters in more than just one way - it means they can also cut from a distance that the pointy sword can not.

Tht is a fair poinnt, I agree.

It seems perfectly clear to me why pointy swords increased with armour and then broad blades re-emerged with the decline in armour (ignoring rapiers..).

Broad blades did re-emerge but the pointy ones didn't disappear, and your type XX swords are different from the earlier type X, XII and XIII aren't they.

I'd be interested to see 14th century examples. The earliest examples I know of are actually dated to around 1410 and are on very light Type XX single-handers that we might call 'sideswords'. It is impossible to class these as either 'battlefield' or 'civilian' weapons, as that distinction doesn't seem to have existed at that time. It is true to say that some types of soldiers did not or could not wear gauntlets for practical reasons - such as archers. Many of the 15thC examples of knucklebows are on falchions which are believed to have been archers' or crossbowmen's swords, so that may make sense.

I have seen late 14th C. longswords with side-rings and finger rings in the Czech Republic, and photos of longswords, messers, schiwlesersabels and arming swords with the same features from Scandinavia, Germany, and Switzerland in some books I have in my library, which are supposed to date from the same period, including in some of those Osprey military books. I can scan these and upload somewhere if you like, or just give you a Title, ISBN and page reference.

BD

* purchased from a game-meat dealer in our neighborhood, it was not alive of course

[Michael Edelson]

My experience is based entirely on reproductions (at least with Western swords) but I've also found that the later century swords are better cutters than the earlier swords. I'm not talking about tatami, against which the earlier swords do fine. Tatami is not a simulator, it is an educator. I'm talking about cloth, meat and bone.

I tested several XIIIa and one XIIa against cloth (layered linen) and they were very poor performers, barely able to get through any layers at all, while later period swords performed much better.

If I had to guess why, I'd say it's the flexibility. When a sword hits a target any vibration/wobbling will rob it of its energy, and those things wobble/vibrate a lot. Also, the more the sword distorts (flexes) as it is cutting the harder it is to keep its edge plane aligned with its trajectory, which also causes problems. You don't see this as much with tatami (unless you roll a bunch of mats together) but with larger meat/bone targets this becomes very evident.

Falchions/messers are not my forte and I've cut with very few of them, but they do perform quite well. They are wide, thin, BUT they are also stiff. That, I think, is the key factor.

Most people here probably know that the Japanese swords they use for cutting tatami mats are often thinner than real antique examples, because they are optimised for cutting tatami mats.. not for fighting with or attacking armour and parrying other weapons. Good for test cutting does not equate to good for real life.

Some people do use very thin swords, but most people don't, because good teachers frown on people using swords to compensate for lack of skill, and because they are expensive (usually L6/bainite). I have both types of swords and in the hands of a skilled person the thinner swords don't really make that much of a difference. In some ways they actually hurt cutting ability becuase of greater vibrations, which is why I wanted to respond to this point. Here too a thinner, more flexible blade can have a negative impact in cutting.

The final point I'd make about cutting capacity is that it is not just how well you can cut, but from how far away. A Type XV might cut well 12 inches down from its point, but many Type X, XIII or falchion type blades cut still very well right near their tips. That makes then better cutters in more than just one way - it means they can also cut from a distance that the pointy sword can not.

This is something I discovered that caused me to rub my chin. In my experience, XIIIa cut better with the tip than with the blade, and while still not as good as a stiffer later period sword, the range advange is significant. You also don't have to worry about getting your sword stuck in the taget, the only down side is the wounds would be relatively superficial.

Hope this helps.

[bigdummy]

I think maybe the profile taper might help cutting by providing the same sort of slicing effect that a curved blade does? Or is that just stupid?

It's just a guess but this is a pattern I've seen. Maybe it's the vibrations like Mike said and that might indeed be one of those more subtle factors which is different in a replica compared to the antique original.

I remember seeing photos of some of Mike's tests that he is referring to, were he cut against multiple layers of linen and tried piercing mail and some other tests, it was quite interesting.

BD

[Michael Edelson]

It's just a guess but this is a pattern I've seen. Maybe it's the vibrations like Mike said and that might indeed be one of those more subtle factors which is different in a replica compared to the antique original.

I've gotten to play with two XIIIa originals and both were as wobbly as the high end repros. Though others have said they have seen some that were not. With blades that large if you add enough steel to make it stiff it would be beast of a sword, wouldn't it?

[bigdummy]

Well with the type XX blades they have a much more complex shape, with multiple fullers and so on, maybe that has something to do with stiffness?

BD

[Michael Edelson]

Well with the type XX blades they have a much more complex shape, with multiple fullers and so on, maybe that has something to do with stiffness?

BD

I have absolutely no experience with those. But maybe they were the thinking man's XIIIa.

[admin]

Broad blades did re-emerge but the pointy ones didn't disappear, and your type XX swords are different from the earlier type X, XII and XIII aren't they.

Not really. The cross-section at the COP of a Type XX is very similar to the XII or XIII.. It's basically oval or very flattened-diamond, sometimes with a bit of fuller.
That famous one from the Alexandria arsenal with the finger ring weighs less than 2lbs and is incredibly thin and flat at the COP. This is essentially the same kind of thickness and cross-section that you get on a whole range of cut and thrust swords, from spadroons to sabres to broadswords. The weights are about the same as well..

I have seen late 14th C. longswords with side-rings and finger rings in the Czech Republic

I am 99% sure they were wrongly dated then. Side rings did not appear until the middle of the 15th century, finger rings around 1400. However, I'm willing to be proven wrong - if you can find evidence of finger rings or siderings in the 14thC then I will be really surprised. In any case, this is sort of a different topic.

Never trust dates for arms and armour in Osprey books by the way...They are pretty awful for that kind of accuracy.

[admin]

Mike, BD,
I do completely agree that stiffness is a good quality in any sword and an overly flexible blade is detrimental to both cut and thrust. I also agree that the more flexible thin swords are FAR less forgiving in general - if you get anything wrong in your cut then they just bounce off the target... Having said that, in my experience the pointy types of sword popular in the 14th-15th centuries are pretty awful at cutting in the end few inches of blade. You generally NEED to overlay the point well past the target in order to get a good cut (the Albion Talhoffer and Agincourt for example seem almost incapable at producing decent cuts with the end 8 inches of the blade!), whereas swords like falchions or Japanese swords cut really very well right up to the tip. That means that whilst a pointy sword might be 6 inches longer, you have to get 6 inches closer (or more) to cut, and so the length advantage (at least in the cut) is negated.

I think it's also very important when comparing swords to make sure that they are well sharpened - I have two Albions and one came considerably sharper than the other. The Mark Vickers I had was even sharper and outcut both of them, then I resharpened the Albions and then they out-cut the Mark Vickers... so subjective viewpoints can vary a lot based on the variables in your particular experiences.

[Stevie T]

While the thinner more tapering blades may be more effective in the thrust can we be sure that that is the reason that they were made that way?

As armour becomes more common the skill of metal workers becomes better as new methods are developed. They can then make blades that taper, and when looking at the fashions of the C15th there seems to have been a tendancy towards long tapering lines,, so long tapering blades become the fashion.

By the renaissance the general fashion is for much more solid, rounded shapes, so perhaps that's the reason the blade shape changes again.

Presuming something happened for logical, practical reason usually reflect on the decisions made by people at the time. Just look at the Mary Roses!

[admin]

Some people may read your post and find it highly improbably, Stevie. I don't really think that is a dominant factor, but I think it is an interesting point though - we do know that medieval and renaissance artisans and artists did operate to formulars. Note that even fencing masters (eg. Vadi) often describe a sword's proportions in terms of spans of the human body, whether it be the length of the grip, or the guard, or the blade.
However, I think that the form of sword blades and points in particular are probably functional to a degree beyond the aestheitc considerations we might be able to observe in hilts, for example.

[John H]

Ever tried a Cold Steel for cutting, they are great at it…Just ask Lynn…

But seriously next time you have a cutting party get ahold of a Cold Steel, their 1796 is a great example of the point I’m going to try and make: A good cutter does not necessarily make a good fighting blade. Many factors go into how a blade cuts as Matt said, when one or the other is off the blade may perform poorly. These factors can be tweaked to encourage one attribute or the other as the CS’s do. I’ve also handled a longsword that I would call ‘optimized for winding.’ The PoB is back so far the center of percussion is almost at the meza, this thing wants to thrust. I’ll practice with the guy any time, when he hits me his blade caries no impact.

There is a story I heard a long time ago, I’ve not been able to verify it, but the basics of it was: when the US was picking it’s design for the type of cavalry sabre they were going to use, they tested lots of different models. They tried heavily curved designs, strait designs, the slightly curves that you see we adopted. They failed to properly sharpen the curved blades used in the testing and thus the cuts were found ineffective and the results favored the straighter blade, as a thrust worked just fine with a dull blade. Also the person testing the blade was trained in small sword, not strictly trained how to cut with a heavily curved blade.

Moral of that story is, sharpen your blade, and learn to cut with the blade as it wants to be cut with, not as you want to cut. Sometimes a chopping cut is not appropriate for the blade you are using, a pushing or pulling cut may be. Not all blades want to be cut with the same, some just don’t want to cut they want to thrust. If you are used to a pushing cut and you get a point heavy cavalry blade that wants you to chop with it, you probably aren’t going to be successful or happy with the blade.

[Michael Chidester]

However, I think that the form of sword blades and points in particular are probably functional to a degree beyond the aestheitc considerations we might be able to observe in hilts, for example.

Well, we know that clothing fashions influenced the shapes and styles of armor, so I don't know that it's a stretch to say they may have influenced sword shapes as well.

[Stevie T]

Some people may read your post and find it highly improbably, Stevie.

A quick search of Fab's posts will show you that a man who has devoted a substantial amount of his life to the academic research of swords and armour would say that fashion is a significant factor in their development, and that most who study A&A place way too much importantance on practicallity and functionality.

just look at practical items we buy today, like shoes. We make our decisions on a wide variety of factors, only one of which is a percieved functionality. I doubt it was that different back then.

[Stevie T]

However, I think that the form of sword blades and points in particular are probably functional to a degree beyond the aestheitc considerations we might be able to observe in hilts, for example.

Well, we know that clothing fashions influenced the shapes and styles of armor, so I don't know that it's a stretch to say they may have influenced sword shapes as well.

I think by the time period in question the interchange of ideas from one to the other was that complex it becomes incredibly hard to determine which influenced which.

The point still remains though, armour and fashion were inexplicably linked.

[Michael Edelson]

Having said that, in my experience the pointy types of sword popular in the 14th-15th centuries are pretty awful at cutting in the end few inches of blade. You generally NEED to overlay the point well past the target in order to get a good cut (the Albion Talhoffer and Agincourt for example seem almost incapable at producing decent cuts with the end 8 inches of the blade!), whereas swords like falchions or Japanese swords cut really very well right up to the tip. That means that whilst a pointy sword might be 6 inches longer, you have to get 6 inches closer (or more) to cut, and so the length advantage (at least in the cut) is negated.

Yep, that's true, though not all swords suffer that much. The Albion Brescia Spadona or Earl can cut fairly close to the point, but still no where near a XIIa or XIIIa. So yes, a bunch of length is sacrificed, but it's not always 6 inches.

Also, even the older swords with spatulate tips need to get closer to inflict serious wounds. Swords use up their length as they cut, meaning there is a retracting motion naturally inherent in the arc of a cut. So a tip cut with a XIIIa cannot cut deeply, and neither can a cut with the first inch or two of that blade. You have to get closer. In that respect, the pointy swords are the same. They can cut all the way to the point when starting from further away.

You mentioned a kkatana...well no one cuts with the tip of a kkatana for precisely that reason. Such cuts would be shallow. Typically one cuts with the first few inches, like 6 or maybe even 8.

(oh come on, enough with the banana thing already)

I think it's also very important when comparing swords to make sure that they are well sharpened - I have two Albions and one came considerably sharper than the other. The Mark Vickers I had was even sharper and outcut both of them, then I resharpened the Albions and then they out-cut the Mark Vickers... so subjective viewpoints can vary a lot based on the variables in your particular experiences.

I think sharpeness is critical. It is my belief that a period sword (of most types) would have been extremely sharp, simply because you need a sword that is extremely sharp to get through even a few layers of medieval clothing. I hone all of my swords to spooky scary sharp levels while maintaining a strong edge shape.

I gotta say, I'm really enjoying this thread. Normally at this point on must cutting related threads I'm pulling my hair out.

[John H]

just look at practical items we buy today, like shoes. We make our decisions on a wide variety of factors, only one of which is a percieved functionality. I doubt it was that different back then.

This really has to do with ‘expected usage’ of items. When my wife straps on the ‘sexy’ shoes she doesn’t expect to walk in them. In many dresses she does not expect to sit or stand depending on what she is doing and will pick her dress according to if she will be standing or sitting. When we go to San Francisco she has finally resigned that she needs walking shoes, and is willing to get the ‘best looking’ shoes she can walk in. We now have conversations of how far we expect to walk before we leave the house with her in pretty shoes.

Combat boots are combat boots because of function not fashion. A court sword may be more designed for looks but a battlefield sword isn’t going to favor looks over function. Fashion can only effect design so far as not effecting function if you wish to use the item. A gold plated assault rifle that jams twice as much isn’t going to stick around long.

[the_last_alive]

One thing that's not been mentioned yet in regard to originals (BD's comment on bending the Tulwar put the thought in my head) is that (as mentioned in the armour thread) there's the potential for a lot a variation in quality of the materials used in the construction of different swords, let alone the skill levels of the smiths who made them.

Interesting thought on the fashion influencing blade shapes. Fashion influencing armour design makes sense to me, you have to be seen wearing it, so you'd want it to look good and thus follow the fashion (or at least be similar to it). But I'm not so sure about blade shapes, but it's definitely and interesting thought.

All in all, interesting thread, and I really need to do more test cutting/own more sharps...

[Michael Chidester]

Combat boots are combat boots because of function not fashion. A court sword may be more designed for looks but a battlefield sword isn’t going to favor looks over function. Fashion can only effect design so far as not effecting function if you wish to use the item. A gold plated assault rifle that jams twice as much isn’t going to stick around long.

I dunno, there are hundreds of styles of combat boots, and some are much more functional than others. I've seen a lot of soldiers wearing boots that are basically just beige high-top sneakers. I think TRADOC even cracked down on the trend at one point because they weren't sturdy enough for combat.



And, of course, I love my tanker boots even though they shitty for walking any sort of distance (the real reason for the motto "death before dismount"?). I still use my polished black pair as my primary dress shoes and my riding boots.



Your combat boot analogy is actually a good one. Not all boot designs are created equal or are even necessarily good at their function. The same might be true of sword designs.