Western Weapon Styles: The Longsword

[JusticeZero]

How does the sharpness of these sword compare to other widely-used swords in history? The samurai sword was as sharp as possible and highly-polished to reduce drag, while the Greek bronze sword would have been poor at holding an edge and therefore produced more shallow cuts and done a lot of blunt-trauma. I would assume that these swords fall someplace in the middle?

Good European swords have as good or better edges than the katana, using folding, alloying, and good metallurgy. Europe was not so much constrained by a lack of metals, and had some very good alloyed materials. Some of this was by experimentation; the famous Toledo blades, as I recall, were in modern times discovered to contain traces of vanadium which they did not at the time have the ability to manipulate. Nonetheless, the alloying of non-metal materials into the steel which were chemically ingenious were in common use. The pommel and tang has been discovered to be key to the design of swords in Europe; the rebound shock of impact is caught and reflected back down into the blade and target by the springiness of the tang and the mass of the pommel.

I can only theorize that the xenophilia for the japanese sword comes from lack of knowledge of local equivalents and the standard romanticization of the exotic.

[Liver Punch]

Good European swords have as good or better edges than the katana

Are we defining better as by sharpness, ability to hold an edge, flexibility, or a combination of all of them? I've read conflicting information regarding this, but have read a that in a Katana vs Katana battle, you'd block with the backside to avoid damaging the blade because it was so hard and thus could be chipped relatively easily. In a world where there were people covered in metal roaming about the battlefield, I would think this would be a less than desirable property. I tend to define "how good" something is by how well it takes abuse, be it a blade or a wine glass.

I suppose it's also worth noting that people define blade sharpness by whether or not you can shave with it, when such an ability is defined by a blade's angle. I have no idea what the angle of an average katana's cutting edge is. It would be interesting to get a cross sample of blades throughout history and compare that specification.

[Zoodles]

Thanks for the responses. I'll try and answer your questions!

liver punch:

I've always wondered about European sword construction. What was the process by which the steel was made, how would a smith go about forging the sword - is there a multitude of methods and techniques or one generally accepted "best way?"

The way swords are built are dependant on the quality of iron. Europe employed a large variety of techniques in forging swords that varied as time went on. One thing to understand is that Japan is a resource poor island..this affected that way they forged swords. Thier smelting technology was quite basic and thier sources of iron were poor, so as a result they learned the process of differential hardening and lamination (ie folding) form the chinese. They needed these to produce quality weapons from the resources they had.

Europe had good access to high quality iron, and some of the worlds finest smelting technology. The Europeans were fully aware of differential hardening and folding, and indeed used them when needed. In fact the Vikings and Migration era germans are perhaps the finest swordsmiths who ever lived, producing technological tour de forces like the Bamburgh blade by twisting steel bars together. But as the middle ages wore on, they no longer needed to go to these extremes. The Europeans could mass produce high quality blades that did not require extensive working. They could even sharpen them on a water powered sharpening stone and shape them with water powered sanding belts. It's the difference between having to build a house with paper, and having to build a house with wood. You don't need to go to elaborate lengths to build a house out of wood.

" How does the sharpness of these sword compare to other widely-used swords in history? The samurai sword was as sharp as possible and highly-polished to reduce drag, while the Greek bronze sword would have been poor at holding an edge and therefore produced more shallow cuts and done a lot of blunt-trauma. I would assume that these swords fall someplace in the middle? "

No sword is good at producing blunt trama. The shape and weight distribution are all wrong, and swords are too flexible. Greek swords will cut you up badly! In any case, no sword that was actually intended to use in a fight was actually honed to such a level of sharpeness as people think. To find out why, take your finest butcher knife, hone it as keenly as possible, then hack into a cow bone. The sharper the blade, the more fragile it becomes. This is especially true of laminated japanese style blades, as any chip past the temper line means the blade needs to be reforged. The Japanese used to swing thier blades into bags of sand before a battle to ensure they weren't too sharp.Swords were honed to about the level of sharpness of a wood chisel.

Shape, blade geometry and technique are far important to cutting power than sharpness. Straight bladed Euro blades are extremely diverse in shape and function and are generally categorised according what is called the Oakeshott Typology. Broad bladed swords with spatulate tip are superb cutters, whereas narrow blades with an acute point are less able cutters. Blades with a certain type of blade geometry (ie the cross sectional shape of the blade) are better at cutting than others. European blade design was constantly changing to adapt to the times. In general, the earlier blades cut as well as Japanese blades. The later blades, which were compromise designs intended to allow efficient thrusting were less capable.

" What sort of metallurgic properties does a longsword have? For example, the general properties of a Samurai sword are a hard shell with a flexible core. What sort of balance between hardness, shear strength, tensile strength, flexibility, etc...in short, what's the mechanics and theory behind how and why European swords worked in the fashion that they did? "

Speaking of the later middle ages, generally speaking they were monsteel blades. That means they were forged from a single billet and were through hardened, not differentially hardened like Japanese Blades. Europes superior smelting technology and better iron allowed them to produce higher quality steel. The Japanese on the other hand produced a lower quality of steel that had to be more extensively worked. This is why the japanese folded thier blades. Folding the blade reduces the structural integrity of the blade, because of microscopic flaws in the welds between layers. But it is needed to even out the carbon content of the steel. If your steel is good enough quality, folding is not needed, and can even damage the steel by removing too much carbon. If your steel is poor, its vital to use a process like folding to produce a quality blade.

This is the same reason the Japanese employed differential hardening..ie soft and hard steel. They needed to work with wildly differing qualities of steel, so the harder martensite steel was used on the cutting edge, and the softer pearlite steel formed the core. Europeans did not need to worry as much about this..they could make blades of martensite because thier steel was better. This doesn't mean european swords are 'better', it just means they did not have to put nearly as much effort into making a quality blade.

" how long did chain mail and partial-plate armor appear on the battlefield? The same thing with swords - what would the cost of a broadsword be in the 1500s...no doubt your average person couldn't afford them and would instead appear on the battlefield with an axe, or a pike, or something within their means. How likely would we be to see two soldiers or knights armed with modern for the time technology square off in individual combat?"

Mail armour is thousands of years old, and was invented by the celts, long before the birth of Christ. Plate armour started to appear in 1300's and reached its height in the 1500's as european smelting technology improved and allowed mass production of steel. I cannot say how expensive a sword was though. As to how often two knights sqaure off in single combat? Very often. Duels and tournaments happened all the time. Judicial dueling, trial by combat was common into the early 14th century. Unlike other duels or tournaments, Judicial duels were always to the death.

Evil Dave:

nice stuff, thanks for posting! My interest is in conditioning, do you have any information on historic conditioning methods? Cheers.

No, unfortunately we do not. The fechtbuchs were written as reference books for an audience that already knew how to fight. We know little about thier training or conditioning techniques

[Liver Punch]

Thanks for the answers - I'm going to pull a few books off the shelf that I know are going to remind me of everything else that I get curious about. I find the scope of almost anything historical to be incredibly lacking in detail - it's hard to cover a several hundred year period with attention to such a think I guess.

How far back and to what extent of Europe have you studied? There's a heck of a lot of history there!

[Zoodles]

How far back and to what extent of Europe have you studied? There's a heck of a lot of history there!

I have had an interest in history since I was a child. It was interest in history that drew me in HEMA to begin with.

The community has a scholarly bent to it..it has to. These manscuscripts are written in different languages, and use a context and idiom that most people do not understand. The manuscripts need to be translated, the language studied to extract clues, theories formulated, tested and debated. One of the interesting things about this is that it has actually stimulated interest in martial arts and physical culture in people that until then had no interest in either. And it has stimulated interest in history and language in people who had prior interest in academic studies.

A thorough knowledge of the manuscript that an organisation uses is vital and to really get a proper understanding, a student should have a working knowledge of other key manuscripts as well. Many students go so far as to learn the languages the manuscripts were written in so as to read the manuscipts in the original and produce thier own translations. It is pretty normal procedure for organisations that use a ranking system to require a high level of knowledge before they can qualify for a promotion. (As an aside, there are historically based ranking and promotion systems that are based on those used by european martial arts guilds of the era. Some orgs use em, some do not, some don't bother with ranking systems at all)

Knowledge of swords is also important in this community. There are so many misconceptions about european weapons and martial arts to dispel, that any serious practioner is forced to become very knowledgable on the subject. Its very common to be forced to fend off attacks on the credibility and legitimacy of our arts by skeptics or the ignorant.

[darksoul]

Holy crap Zoodles! You are a wealth of knowledge!

[bushido_man96]

I've seen the HEMA website, and it seems like lots of good stuff is going on there. I'm curious as to whether or not there have been any recent works published worth picking up? I have several translated Fectbuchs, but haven't picked up anything new for a few years.

Thanks for joining up and sharing all this with us. I look forward to having more converstations with you on this subject. Its been a while since I've reviewed anything, and since I have no group around to study with, aside from some SCA guys I used to fight with, all I can really do is read and learn.

[GaryWado]

Hi Zoodles,

Are you from the UK? If so, there is a fair chance I know you.

I'm loving the comparison of European medieval ma to that of feudal Japan, but it has to be taken into context. (I’m lucky as one of my senior students is a professional practitioner of it and we get chance to swap notes regularly).

Many of the techniques handed down in Japanese "koryu" traditions however have been "active" transmissions i.e. directly from teacher to student over an unbroken lineage of hundreds of years.

What are your thoughts on the accuracy and functionality of techniques from such Japanese koryu compared to that of modern day European medieval combat practitioners who, in the most part, have had to rely on research to establish their raison d’être?

Gary

[Zoodles]

Hi Zoodles,

Are you from the UK? If so, there is a fair chance I know you.

Sorry..i'm a Canuck

I'm loving the comparison of European medieval ma to that of feudal Japan, but it has to be taken into context. (I’m lucky as one of my senior students is a professional practitioner of it and we get chance to swap notes regularly).

Many of the techniques handed down in Japanese "koryu" traditions however have been "active" transmissions i.e. directly from teacher to student over an unbroken lineage of hundreds of years.

What are your thoughts on the accuracy and functionality of techniques from such Japanese koryu compared to that of modern day European medieval combat practitioners who, in the most part, have had to rely on research to establish their reason d’être?

Its quite difficult to say, to be honest. I don't know enough about the Koryu arts to make a solid judgement. I do study an eastern sword art, buts its Haedong Gumdo, which was invented in the 80's and is a synthesis of japanese styles, Gicheon il su kung fu and theatrical sword fighting so its not entirely relevant.

If you look at the grappling, its very similar. The dagger work is similar too. All The techniques tend to emphasize very direct gross motor actions. There isn't anything like the japanese notion of Aiki and not much emphasis on pressure points or small joint manipulation, just a fist to the face and a dagger in the neck. Western swordwork has some very unique features which are made possible by the shape of the weapon which I haven't seen in Japanese swordsmanship , but as to whether they are more or less practical I do not know. There were philosophical, even internal aspects to some of the arts, but these aspects do not resemble the philosophical aspects of eastern arts at all.

The biggest issues we face are context. We see these pictures, we read the words but we are not entirely sure what it is we are seeing, especially with sword. The grappling and dagger are fairly easy, since we have a modern basis of comparison. Initially there was great resistance to applying and using Kenjutsu and other living lineages, but that resistance is dying and with more eastern sword arts people coming in we may gain perspectives to fill in the gaps.

In these manuscripts the language is sometimes cryptic. The art may be crude or missing. The context is uncertain. One of the problems is that these manuscripts were usually written as reference books for people who already knew how to fight. There is much that the authors assumed the reader would already know, so they didn't write it down. Trying to figure these things out takes alot of time, study and trial and error. Disputes over interpretations have caused heated arguments and even schisms in important organisations. Another problems is the distinct possibility of frauds..how many of these manuscripts were written by guys who knew what they were talking about, and how many were written by frauds? Koryu arts don't need to worry about this..they have a living lineage, a teacher and full syllabus with a defined interpretation of the art

There are strong points though..we can see elements of context that I think may be lost in oral transmissions. We have the literal words of the fighting men themselves telling us what to do, what works and when. For instance there are certain dagger defense techniques and sword guard positions that work much better in armour than out of armour and the authors tell you this. Similar techniques may have been preserved in Koryu, but without the words of the old masters, their original intent may be lost. There is also an element of mutation that is bound to occur in any oral transmission. Any art that is not being used in its original function will mutate to suit its new function. Since no form of transmission is perfect, I suspect that there has been mutation in certain elements of Koryu that no one may realise.

[Zoodles]

I've seen the HEMA website, and it seems like lots of good stuff is going on there. I'm curious as to whether or not there have been any recent works published worth picking up? I have several translated Fectbuchs, but haven't picked up anything new for a few years.

Thanks for joining up and sharing all this with us. I look forward to having more converstations with you on this subject. Its been a while since I've reviewed anything, and since I have no group around to study with, aside from some SCA guys I used to fight with, all I can really do is read and learn.

Robert Charette just released a very nice book on Fiore Dei Liberi's manuscript Flos Duelletorum. If you purchase Tom Leoni's translation of the Getty Manuscript, and use Charette's book as study guide you'll have an excellent combination. Even if swords aren't your thing, Fiore's simple, logical and efficient grappling and dagger defense (plus variants on how to apply the defenses using every day objects like batons and belts) is worth taking a look at. His entire grappling system is broken down into 4 basic positions, and the rest of his fighting system extrapolates from these four positions.

The great thing about Dei Liberi is that his system is a complete, integrated and internally self consistant system of fighting with weapons that is laid out in a logical and reasonably clear manner.

Leoni's translation: http://www.lulu.com/shop/tom-leoni/fiore-de-liberis-fior-di-battaglia/paperback/product-5364635.html

Charrette's Book

http://www.freelanceacademypress.com/armizare.aspx