Medieval sword types and cutting

[bigdummy]

Maybe they are better at hacking apart shields

Or using from horseback, where you need maximum reach... The thing is that the pointy swords came along when plate armour spread, but ALSO when men-at-arms started fighting on foot more often..

Yes that is a very good point. No pun intended. When cutting from horseback it's valuable to be able to injure targets as far away as possible.

Regarding the falchion, my understanding is that the width of the blade at the center of percussion effects the amount of sustained force that is applied in the cut - specifically in percussive cuts. I don't really understand the physics of that but it's the way it was explained to me and it seems to bear out. This is why those big cleavers that butchers use to chop up bones are so wide.

BD

[Barca]

Interesting thread.

Since we want (angular) momentum to cut powerfully (as well as proper edge alignment etc) and our momentum equation involves mass (at the point of impact) multiplied by velocity, we need to consider how different swords behave in different types of cuts and how easy they are to bring up to sufficient velocity for a given value of mass.

My purely anecdotal experience (and really, unless we set up proper scientific observing conditions and document and control all the variables, this is all anecdotal) is that broader bladed (often heavier) longswords such as 12a's and 13a's often benefit from longer, rotational cutting strokes (i.e. moulinets) compared to lighter, more tapering longswords which can be used with shorter, snappier cuts. Doesn’t make either better, just a little different.

A big, wide, heavy sword like a 13a (or even the much larger montante, claymore, spadone or zweihander with a broad, flat blade) is not a great cutter when used in very short amplitude strikes. Partly because the greater mass of the sword results in greater inertia from a position of rest, which must be overcome by a longer period of acceleration in order for the sword to cut. This partly explains why continuous motion and conservation of momentum by cutting in moulinets is such a vital feature of using true two handed swords like the montante or spadone - mechanical efficiency.

A much lighter sword, with a narrower more tapering blade and (most likely) a COG closer to the hilt, suffers correspondingly lower inertia and is more easy to accelerate despite a short distance to the target. It stands to reason, and experience bears it out, that such swords can often be brought up to a sufficiently high velocity in a reduced length of time.

We can feel this in action by comparing how easy it is to whip a Hanwei feder around at high velocity and get it to 'woosh' even with fairly short cuts, compared to a much heavier and broader bladed sword (e.g. an A&A German bastard sword, which is similar in overall size, but considerably heavier). For sure, that’s an extreme comparison, but I think it helps illustrate the point.

So what am I getting at? I think a wide range of cuts should be used with all kinds of swords when evaluating their cutting potential and ability. When I watch test cutting videos and observe it in person, it seems like nearly everyone cuts almost exclusively from positions like vom tag and occasionally nebenhut (or the Fiore equivalents) using fairly short amplitude cuts, even when they are using heavier, wide bladed swords with greater inertia to overcome. Indeed, some people go so far as to say that the goal of training and test cutting is to minimise the size of our cuts (I disagree, for reasons which are too complex to go into here).

When test cutting, rarely ( if ever) do people perform fuller cuts beginning in more highly charged positions like a fully turned away zornhut or a full 'Jogo do Pau' or 'Baton Français' style moulinet from pflug or ochs. I think people unfairly look down on these types of powerful cuts as being slow and clumsy, which is only true if they are poorly performed by swordsmen lacking practice with them. Larger amplitude rotational cuts are precisely the kinds which, thanks to a greater period of acceleration and thus a higher velocity at the moment of impact, can make the most of the additional mass in wide sword blades.

Just some grist for the mill which might help explain why I still respect the cutting potential of swords like 12a’s and 13a’s.

[bigdummy]

That may be true for the zweihanders and so forth but the type XII, XIII aren't necessarily heavier than the XV, XVII and XVIII. So I'm not quite convinced by your theory.

BD

[admin]

The weight issue doesn't really stand up, because you can find lots of examples of Type XII, XIII, XV, XVII and XVIII longswords in the 3 - 4.5lbs range and not many over that. One of the most consistently heavy types are the XVII, and they are narrow and pointy. There doesn't seem to be any correlation between average weights and type, between these types.

Having said that, I think there might be something to be said for the method of cutting - a stiff blade flexes less and returns to true quicker, and so in quick changes of direction is going to perform better than a floppy blade that whips about all over the place when you quickly change cut direction. Quite simply, the blade is more likely to land straight during quick direction changes if the blade is stiffer.

Incidentally we should mention that there is also a third broad category of sword at this time. As well as thin broad blades and pointy stiff blades there is also a group of thin and pointy blades which are very broad at the base but taper directly to a point. A large group of these survive from the Alexandria arsenal and Einar has been talking in the pub about the replica he recently commissioned.

[bigdummy]

The Brescia Spadona and a lot of the XVIII types are a bit like that (not quite to the full extent), somewhat broad at the base and tapering sharply, as are the XXI and XXII and 'Cinquedea' types I mentioned upthread. Is there a consensus on how the cinquedea is normally used?

Another common shape is the broad, slowly curving blade tapering to a sharp point, the so-called "Henry V" sword has a particularly nice profile I think and is a good example of this.

BD

[Mink]

The weight issue doesn't really stand up, because you can find lots of examples of Type XII, XIII, XV, XVII and XVIII longswords in the 3 - 4.5lbs range and not many over that. One of the most consistently heavy types are the XVII, and they are narrow and pointy. There doesn't seem to be any correlation between average weights and type, between these types.

What Bill is saying is not necessarily that the total weight is bigger in the earlier types, but that the weight on the blade is bigger. My type XI is 100g lighter than my type XVI, but nevertheless it has 350g on blade when the type XVI has 250g.

Bill is right in my opinion that a sword that is heavier on the blade is easier to manipulate by swinging in moulinets than by doing quick accelerations and stops. However, I don't know if the problem with cutting is merely a matter of speed on impact, given than several posters mentioned the problem with flexbility...

Regards,

[Barca]

I agree it's not so much about overall weight, but more about the distribution of that mass along the blade.

We're all generalising here, but type 12s and 13s, for the same value of weight as 15s, 17s and 18s, typically have more of their mass out near the COP all the way to the tip compared to more tapering blades. The tapering types are typically (though not always) lighter near the COP and tip and the wide forte keeps more of their mass closer to the hands and the point of rotation. Such different distribution of mass affects how they handle and how quickly they overcome inertia and accelerate to a given velocity - this all obviously affects cutting potential with different types of cutting technique.

Intrinsically, we know this. If I have a 4lb hammer, a 4lb iron bar and a 4lb sword, each of which has a very different distribution of that mass (hammer right out near the tip, iron bar equal along its length, sword closer to the hands), I know that it takes me longer (a bigger swing) to accelerate the hammer to a given velocity than it does the iron bar; in turn, it takes longer to bring the iron bar up to a given velocity than it does the sword. But provided I have the time (i.e. distance to target) and room to swing it, I know that the concentration of the hammer's mass at the point of impact will result in a more powerful blow than either the iron bar or the sword because of the role mass plays in the overall momentum equation.

The point, ofcourse, is not that hammers make good swords, but that the design of broad bladed swords with spatulate tips was quite deliberate and functional IMHO, rather than some kind of design oversight or technological inferiority compared to later tapering swords. Matt even pointed out that broad bladed swords with spatulate tips made something of a comeback from the 15th century onward (many blades, like basket hilts and claymores, stayed that way for centuries afterward). That argues against any kind of objective inferiority of design and argues in favour of fitness for intended purpose.

[bigdummy]

I definitely don't think it was a design oversight or a mistake

[Barca]

What Bill is saying is not necessarily that the total weight is bigger in the earlier types, but that the weight on the blade is bigger.

Yes, that's what I'm referring to. Distribution of mass over the length of the sword, which affects things like vibrational nodes, COG, COP, cross sectional geometry and flexibility etc.

Bill is right in my opinion that a sword that is heavier on the blade is easier to manipulate by swinging in moulinets than by doing quick accelerations and stops. However, I don't know if the problem with cutting is merely a matter of speed on impact, given than several posters mentioned the problem with flexbility...

I think the concern over flexibility is legitimate, and anecdotally, stiffer swords are more forgiving when the edge alignment is anything less than optimal than flexible or even wobbly swords. I think it is no longer contentious on this thread to observe that in design terms, the hypothetical ultimate cutting sword, in addition to being ultra sharp, has a very a) wide, b) thin and c) stiff blade, to a) maximise mass at the point of impact, b) minimise drag and resistance and c) minimise in-swing wobbling and distortions which reduce the sword's effectiveness upon impact. It is quite the design challenge to trade these things off against each other, while still retaining a weapon that retains an edge, is effective against the common armours of the day, handles well and can thrust, parry and displace other common weapons (swords aren't just about cutting afterall). IMO the interplay between these design challenges goes a long way to explaining the diversity of sword forms across all cultures.

[bigdummy]

Keep in mind this is further complicated by the fact that there is also more than one type of cut - you are talking about a 'percussive cut' primarily, there is also a draw cut, where a small strait-razor can perform better than a lot of swords...

I suspect some of the sword designs are using more than one cutting mechanic in their design.

BD

[Barca]

I suspect some of the sword designs are using more than one cutting mechanic in their design.

I agree. I think the broad bladed, spatulate tipped swords benefit from types of cuts that are not commonly used in modern test cutting.

[Mink]

Intrinsically, we know this. If I have a 4lb hammer, a 4lb iron bar and a 4lb sword, each of which has a very different distribution of that mass (hammer right out near the tip, iron bar equal along its length, sword closer to the hands), I know that it takes me longer (a bigger swing) to accelerate the hammer to a given velocity than it does the iron bar; in turn, it takes longer to bring the iron bar up to a given velocity than it does the sword. But provided I have the time (i.e. distance to target) and room to swing it, I know that the concentration of the hammer's mass at the point of impact will result in a more powerful blow than either the iron bar or the sword because of the role mass plays in the overall momentum equation.

Even better, depending on the mechanic you rely on to move the object, you won't get the same result.
If you use purely swinging mechanics (as if the object was a pendulum and not a rigid bar that you can torque in you hands), the time of the swing and the terminal velocity is not that dependent on the mass at the impact point. For example a 4lb hammer can be swung in almost the same time as a 2lb hammer of the same length, arrive on target at roughly the same speed, and hit with twice as much momentum and energy.

Regards,

[Isto]

Which one in general cuts better in your opinion, type XVa or type XVIa blade? Same can be asked about thrusting ability. If I remember correctly type XVa blades were more popular than XVIa blades. Type XVa blades were also used much longer. Why?

[Monster Zero]

One thing to consider too is that it's not just the damage done to consider, but also the maneuverbility and ability to change directions to feint, parry and recover from failed attacks.

Having the balance further out will chop, crush or impale deeper, but it makes the weapon harder to maneuver.

Some swords are definitly designed with this in mind.

[Fab]

Apologies for arriving late. OTOH, I wouldn't have had much time to take part in these thread anyway. But since my name has bene mentionned somewhere, here's in a few words my take on this, that I'm trying to explain in detail in my PhD, and had the opportunity to put forward last year in the Cluny exhibition and the related publications :

Maybe it's not just limited to arms and armour, but one might argue that 3 things dictate the shape (and evolutions) of these object. The choice of words is poor, but let's call them Technology, Use and Fashion. And the 3 of them are entwined, inextricably. I'm separating them to make my point clear now, but please keep this in mind.

Technology is probably the easiest thing to explain : the materials and associated technical processes available at one given time do show on the final objects. Examples for this abound : plate armour (and a lot of polearms) develops when plate-making (in terms of semi-finished products) soars (linkd tot he developement of hydraulic-powered production centers). Earlier, the sandwich construction of Dark Ages sword guards basically dictates their aspect.

Use is also self-explanatory, although maybe too often seen in simplistic ways. But in a few words : the shape of your weapon is dictated by the variables of combat. A simple example is "pointy stiff sword vs. armour (and gaps in it)". But other factors come to play than just passive, defensive parameters. It is tempting, for instance, to link the appearance of fencing terminology in French litterature and the evolution visible in the fighter's equipment of the time. Or in other words : the shields moves closer to the body, the sword gets longer (an moves forward), the cross guard widens as the sword is now opposed not to an active shield primarily, but to an active sword. It might be the beginning of sword-on-sword fencing (albeit limlited) as we know it. But I'm drifting.

Fashion, now. Fashion is the most immaterial influence of these 3, as it is not directly linked to a material, 'hard', physical ensemble of influences. In fact, in that single word I also put all the immaterial aspects that are involved in what can be seen on period arms and armour.
Examples of this have been mentionned before. When something becomes fashionable, then things tend to adapt to these self-created needs.
But it also works the other way. There is a lot - a lot - of what I call 'inertia' in the evolution of arms and armour. It's not just a matter of 'not fixing what's not broken'. It's deeper than this.
Take a look at pattern-welding, for instance. PW has been explained as a technological need to combine soft iron and hard steel to get the best out of the 2. And that can make sense. Now, what of these swords that have just thin coating of PWed material on the very surface of their flats ? There's no structural benefit to it. And it still remains a PITA to make, and people still made it.
Think of this : it's a bit like the Hogfather in Pratchett's book : if he doesn't finish his round, the Sun might not rise - there would only be a huge ball of fire in the sky. Technically, it would be the same. But they all know it wouldn't be the Sun.
Same for swords : it wouldn't be a sword if it doesn't have the pattern on it.
I could go on for hours on that - or set up an exhibit - and speak of how the PW elements turned into the prayers inlaid in sword fullers, but that'd be drifting again.

I hope it all makes sense. Sorry for the lengthy speech.

Back on topic now :
Ultimately, I believe that swords are better at what they're made for, with all the things implied by what's above. The design of one sword might have been mostly dictated by efficiency in a specific set of conditions, but it cannot escape the influence of the technology that created it, nor the influence of fashion, be it evolutive or, contrarily, inertial, that surrounded it.
Or in other words : there might be swords that were just designed as being 'good' looking swords, ie satisfying more the immaterial part of this triple set of influences I wrote above, than to be 'good' at doing more material things for which nother sword might perfor better.


Don't get me wrong : I'm happy to see that a lot of people here have this tehcnical, user's approach on swords, especially when compared to the old ways of looking at swords simply as Art objects. We simply shouldn't forget that there's more to the sword than meets the eye (and it hurts).

[admin]

Peter Johnsson's article in the latest edition of the Park Lane Arms Fair catalogue relates strongly to Fab's post. In it he goes into depth on his theory of geometry and proportion used to design medieval swords, from their length, the size of their hilts and even down to the angles used in their details, such as on the pommels.

[Fab]

Well, Peter and I have talked much on the subject
In fact, a lot of my current thoughts about this so-called 'inertia' I mention were inspired by a discussion we had at my place whe he visited in September 2008 (on that very day we documented a certain sword at the Cluny museum...).

Nice article, no ? I somethimes think he's pushing things too far in terms of geometrical complexities, and that the approach was more, say, 'organic', but he makes very valid points. And brillantly, on top of that.

[J G Elmslie]

Having said that, falchions and Japanese swords tend to be quite thick, and they still cut very well..

Just a little point I'd like to contribute here, if I may.:

Falchions are something of a personal area of study for me (at one point I rather had a near-seizure, foaming at the mouth on seeing some godawful TV programme describe them as "heavy axe-like cleavers for chopping through armour". When I came to, I saw the light, and began a Mission From God. Ok, Ok, so the reality was it pissed me off a bit and I was inspired to start a study... but the first story's better. ).

Anyhow, net result of that is that I've slowly been working on a fairly exhaustive study of the medieval falchion (and a brief look at associated western european single-edged blade types like messer, the maciejowski/villard de honnencourt style blades, etc), both in terms of recording the physical details of all the 20 or so surviving original examples scattered in collections around the world in high detail (high-quality photography, measurements, cross-sectional profiling along thier entire lengths, and the best quality illustrations I can pull off) as well as possibly a typology of their blade forms that's a little more developed than Heribert Seitz' effort. I'll quite likely end up producing exact duplicates of a couple of the significant archetypes to put them through active (ab)use to get empirical data on the actual handling performance in both cut and thrust to put a proper benchmark down on thier handling characteristics.

If I'm really lucky, I might be in a position to submit all that to the Park Lane Arms Fair Catalogue someday, though I rather fear it already makes too wide-ranging a subject for that.

Anyhow...
one thing that I'd just like to point out is that most of the falchions I've managed to get my grubby little mitts on tend towards the opposite of that, particularly the earlier cleaver style falchions (Conyers, Cluny CL.3452., Hamburg AB.II.176., Castle sforzesco Museum Milan, and the privately owned transitional subtype auctioned by Hermann-Historica, in thier auction #63, Lot no.2308) are all notable by the very pronounced distal taper on them and the very thin cross-section at the point of percussion; Conyers falchion is only around 1.2 ro 1.5mm thick, Cluny, Hamburg and Sforzesco falchions all have corrosion that's gone right through at that point, but despite that, none of them really have a cross-sectional thickness at that point of more than 1.8mm. the thickest of the lot is the Hermann-historica example, and that's about 2.5mm, but with a clipped-point that might, underneath concretions, have been a re-inforced tip.

the sole exception to the cleaver-form falchions being narrow in distal profile is the Rothenburg Reichsstadtmuseum example, which is quite broad in distal at the point of percussion ( I'd guss about 3.5 - 4.5mm, though I've yet to handle it, but it is most likely a 19th C fake, as many of the Reichsstadtmuseum's collection seem to be.

that said, while the later 14th C and the 15th Century examples are quite a lot thicker than the earlier cleaver-style forms, those I've looked at such as the Thorpe and Royal Armouries IX.5409 (castillon) have their profile geometry evolving into the narrower cusped forms, with thicker distal profiles of around 2.25-2.5mm respectively, but a narrower profile overall.
Two of the transitional ones of that slow change of form are the Musee d' Invalides reversed-edge falchion, and its twin in the Legermuseum, Delft, inv.no.011098, Both an interesting oddity in the use of a reeinforced point, a false edge, and a thicker distal than the cleaver forms while maintaining some of the breadth.
That, however, is still quite a bit narrower in distal cross-section than many XVa's and XVIIIb's at thier point of percussion, and is pretty close to matching the cross-sectional dimensions of the broad cutting edges of XVIas and XVIIIcs I've had my hands on, if not the insanely thin cross section of some of the very long brazil-nut pommeled XIIs I've studied.



the 16th C falchions, I would agree, a number of those seem to develop thicker distal cross-sections that are the match for double-edged blades, but for now are outside the area I've been studying in detail, so my familiarity with them is more through my usual work, than any particular focused study.

Erm. Sorry. that got a bit long-winded didnt it?

[bigdummy]

Does anyone make a decent falchion replica?

[J G Elmslie]

Does anyone make a decent falchion replica?

Albion's about it right now of the commercial makers for really good stuff, the Vassal's a pretty good representation of the 14th C falchions.

Gus Trim's doing a pretty good Thorpe style peice that looks the part, assuming you get the peined version, and dont mind the hilt furniture looking a bit too machine-made.

Tim Noyes has a pretty good reputation among people I know, but I'm still scpetical about some of the details on his ones - they're catching my eye in the wrong way having spent so much time peering at the originals or manuscript illustrations. He's probably the best off-the-shelf option for a blunted one for sparring though.

Armourclass' falchion is hilted up more like the Wakefield style hangars - in that, their blunt's a really good representation, and great value. The sharp version, however, leaves a fair bit to be desired as a falchion.

Pavel Marek makes a few messer which look really good; his falchions are a little less stellar, but I've yet to handle them so cant really say how good they are in the hand.

And Tinker Peirce makes a representation of the Invalides type transitional one, but its too bulky for the real one in distal profile, and has'nt got the same elegance of line.

Everyone elses' tend to be complete trainwrecks; Lutel make a brick, Del Tin make something you could club baby seals to death with that has all the elegance of something drawn by Ray Charles... Windlass' one looks the part for a thorpe clone at first glance, but is 3 inches shorter, has no false edge, and weighs a metric f*cktonne more. And the less said about the Valiant Armoury model the better, as its truly ghastly.



and for me? well...
I'm pretty confident I'll have a few decent high-grade falchions produced over the next 12 months, I have one later 16th C storta in preproduction just now for a customer, and a couple more falchion for that study I'm doing should be slowly making their way off the workbench over the next while, starting with a Castillon and an Delft/Invalides. But, equally, those arent being made for customers, so take a back seat to commissions, and I'm taking my time with them. Still trying to decide if I put them up for sale after I've produced them.