“Oh, knights, arise, the hour of action has come!
You have shields, steel helmets and armor.
Your dedicated sword is ready to fight for your faith.
Give me strength, oh God, for new glorious battles.
I, a beggar, will take rich spoils there.
I don’t need gold and I don’t need land,
But maybe I will be, singer, mentor, warrior,
Rewarded with heavenly bliss forever"
(Walter von der Vogelweide. Translation by V. Levick)
A sufficient number of articles on the topic of knightly weapons and, in particular, knightly armor have already been published on the VO website. However, this topic is so interesting that you can delve into it for a very long time. The reason for turning to her again is banal... weight. Weight of armor and weapons. Alas, I recently asked students again how much a knight’s sword weighs, and received the following set of numbers: 5, 10 and 15 kilograms. They considered the 16 kg chain mail very light, although not all, but the weight plate armor at 20-something kilos is simply ridiculous.
Figures of a knight and a horse in full protective equipment. Traditionally, knights were imagined exactly like this - “chained in armor.” (Cleveland Museum of Art)
At VO, naturally, “things with weight” are much better due to regular publications on this topic. However, the opinion about the excessive weight of the “knightly costume” of the classical type has not yet been eradicated here. Therefore, it makes sense to return to this topic and consider it with specific examples.
Western European chain mail (hauberk) 1400 - 1460 Weight 10.47 kg. (Cleveland Museum of Art)
Let's start with the fact that British weapons historians created a very reasonable and clear classification of armor according to their specific characteristics and ultimately divided the entire Middle Ages, guided, naturally, by available sources, into three eras: “the era of chain mail”, “the era of mixed chain mail and plate protective weapons" and "the era of solid forged armor." All three eras together make up the period from 1066 to 1700. Accordingly, the first era has a framework of 1066 - 1250, the second - the era of chain mail-plate armor - 1250 - 1330. But then this: the early stage in the development of knightly plate armor stands out (1330 - 1410), “ great period"in the history of knights in “white armor” (1410 - 1500) and the era of the decline of knightly armor (1500 - 1700).
Chain mail together with a helmet and aventail (aventail) XIII - XIV centuries. (Royal Arsenal, Leeds)
During the years of “wonderful Soviet education” we had never heard of such periodization. But in the school textbook “History of the Middle Ages” for VΙ grade for many years, with some rehashes, one could read the following:
“It was not easy for the peasants to defeat even one feudal lord. The mounted warrior - the knight - was armed with a heavy sword and a long spear. He could cover himself from head to toe with a large shield. The knight's body was protected by chain mail - a shirt woven from iron rings. Later, chain mail was replaced by armor - armor made of iron plates.
Classic knightly armor, which was most often discussed in textbooks for schools and universities. Before us is Italian armor of the 15th century, restored in the 19th century. Height 170.2 cm. Weight 26.10 kg. Helmet weight 2850 g (Metropolitan Museum, New York)
Knights fought on strong, hardy horses, which were also protected by armor. The knight's weapons were very heavy: they weighed up to 50 kilograms. Therefore, the warrior was clumsy and clumsy. If a rider was thrown from his horse, he could not get up without help and was usually captured. To fight on horseback in heavy armor, long training was needed; feudal lords prepared for military service from childhood. They constantly practiced fencing, horse riding, wrestling, swimming, and javelin throwing.
German armor 1535. Presumably from Brunswick. Weight 27.85 kg. (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York)
War horse and knightly weapons were very expensive: for all this it was necessary to give a whole herd - 45 cows! The landowner for whom the peasants worked could perform knightly service. Therefore, military affairs became an occupation almost exclusively of feudal lords” (Agibalova, E.V. History of the Middle Ages: Textbook for the 6th grade / E.V. Agibalova, G.M. Donskoy, M.: Prosveshchenie, 1969. P.33; Golin, E.M. History of the Middle Ages: Textbook for the 6th grade of evening (shift) school / E.M. Golin, V.L. Kuzmenko, M.Ya. Loyberg. M.: Prosveshchenie, 1965. P. 31- 32.)
A knight in armor and a horse in horse armor. The work of master Kunz Lochner. Nuremberg, Germany 1510 - 1567 Dated 1548 Total weight rider's equipment including horse armor and saddle 41.73 kg. (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York)
Only in the 3rd edition of the textbook “History of the Middle Ages” for VΙ grade of secondary school V.A. Vedyushkin, published in 2002, the description of knightly weapons became somewhat truly thoughtful and corresponded to the above-mentioned periodization used today by historians around the world: “At first, the knight was protected by a shield, helmet and chain mail. Then the most vulnerable parts of the body began to be hidden behind metal plates, and from the 15th century, chain mail was finally replaced by solid armor. Battle armor weighed up to 30 kg, so for battle the knights chose hardy horses, also protected by armor.”
Armor of Emperor Ferdinand I (1503-1564) Gunsmith Kunz Lochner. Germany, Nuremberg 1510 - 1567 Dated 1549. Height 170.2 cm. Weight 24 kg.
That is, in the first case, intentionally or out of ignorance, the armor was divided into eras in a simplified manner, while a weight of 50 kg was attributed to both the armor of the “era of chain mail” and the “era of all-metal armor” without dividing into the actual armor of the knight and the armor of his horse. That is, judging by the text, our children were offered information that “the warrior was clumsy and clumsy.” In fact, the first articles showing that this is actually not the case were publications by V.P. Gorelik in the magazines “Around the World” in 1975, but this information never made it into textbooks for Soviet schools at that time. The reason is clear. Using anything, using any examples, show the superiority of the military skills of Russian soldiers over the “dog knights”! Unfortunately, the inertia of thinking and the not-so-great significance of this information make it difficult to disseminate information that corresponds to scientific data.
Armor set from 1549, which belonged to Emperor Maximilian II. (Wallace Collection) As you can see, the option in the photo is tournament armor, as it features a grandguard. However, it could be removed and then the armor became combat. This achieved considerable savings.
Nevertheless, the provisions of the school textbook V.A. Vedyushkina are completely true. Moreover, information about the weight of armor, well, say, from the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York (as well as from other museums, including our Hermitage in St. Petersburg, then Leningrad) was available for a very long time, but in the textbooks of Agibalov and Donskoy For some reason I didn’t get there in due time. However, it’s clear why. After all, we had the best education in the world. However, this is a special case, although quite indicative. It turned out that there were chain mail, then - again and again, and now armor. Meanwhile, the process of their appearance was more than lengthy. For example, only around 1350 was the appearance of the so-called “metal chest” with chains (from one to four) that went to a dagger, sword and shield, and sometimes a helmet was attached to the chain. Helmets at this time were not yet connected to protective plates on the chest, but under them they wore chain mail hoods that had a wide shoulder. Around 1360, armor began to have clasps; in 1370, the knights were almost completely dressed in iron armor, and chain mail fabric was used as a base. The first brigandines appeared - caftans, and lining made of metal plates. They were used as an independent type of protective clothing, and were worn together with chain mail, both in the West and in the East.
Knight's armor with a brigandine over chain mail and a bascinet helmet. Around 1400-1450 Italy. Weight 18.6 kg. (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York)
Since 1385, the thighs began to be covered with armor made of articulated strips of metal. In 1410, full-plate armor for all parts of the body had spread throughout Europe, but mail throat cover was still in use; in 1430, the first grooves appeared on the elbow and knee pads, and by 1450, armor made of forged steel sheets had reached its perfection. Beginning in 1475, the grooves on them became increasingly popular until fully fluted or so-called “Maximilian armor”, the authorship of which is attributed to the Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I, became a measure of the skill of their manufacturer and the wealth of their owners. Subsequently, knightly armor became smooth again - their shape was influenced by fashion, but the skills achieved in the craftsmanship of their finishing continued to develop. Now it was not only people who fought in armor. The horses also received it, as a result the knight with the horse turned into something like a real statue made of polished metal that sparkled in the sun!
Another “Maximilian” armor from Nuremberg 1525 - 1530. It belonged to Duke Ulrich, the son of Henry of Württemberg (1487 - 1550). (Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna)
Although... although fashionistas and innovators, “running ahead of the locomotive,” have always been there too. For example, it is known that in 1410 a certain English knight named John de Fiarles paid Burgundian gunsmiths 1,727 pounds sterling for armor, a sword and a dagger made for him, which he ordered to be decorated with pearls and... diamonds (!) - a luxury that was not only unheard of time, but even for him it is not at all characteristic.
Field armor of Sir John Scudamore (1541 or 1542-1623). Armourer Jacob Jacob Halder (Greenwich Workshop 1558-1608) Circa 1587, restored 1915. Weight 31.07 kg. (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York)
Each piece of plate armor received its own name. For example, plates for the thighs were called cuisses, knee pads - logs (poleyns), jambers (jambers) - for the legs and sabatons (sabatons) for the feet. Gorgets or bevors (gorgets, or bevors) protected the throat and neck, cutters (couters) - elbows, e(c)paulers, or pauldrones (espaudlers, or pauldrons) - shoulders, rerebraces (rerebraces) - forearm , vambraces - part of the arm down from the elbow, and gantelets - these are “plate gloves” - protected the hands. The full set of armor also included a helmet and, at least at first, a shield, which subsequently ceased to be used on the battlefield around the middle of the 15th century.
Armor of Henry Herbert (1534-1601), Second Earl of Pembroke. Made around 1585 - 1586. in the Greenwich armory (1511 - 1640). Weight 27.24 kg. (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York)
As for the number of details in the “white armor”, in the armor of the mid-15th century there are total number could reach 200 units, and taking into account all the buckles and nails, along with hooks and various screws, even up to 1000. The weight of the armor was 20 - 24 kg, and it was distributed evenly over the knight’s body, unlike chain mail, which pressed on the person on shoulders. So “no crane was required to put such a rider in his saddle. And knocked off his horse to the ground, he did not at all look like a helpless beetle.” But the knight of those years was not a mountain of meat and muscles, and he by no means relied solely on brute strength and bestial ferocity. And if we pay attention to how knights are described in medieval works, we will see that very often they had a fragile (!) and graceful physique, and at the same time had flexibility, developed muscles, and were strong and very agile, even when dressed in armor, with well-developed muscle response.
Tournament armor made by Anton Peffenhauser around 1580 (Germany, Augsburg, 1525-1603) Height 174.6 cm); shoulder width 45.72 cm; weight 36.8 kg. It should be noted that tournament armor was usually always heavier than combat armor. (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York)
In the last years of the 15th century, knightly weapons became the subject of special concern for European sovereigns, and, in particular, Emperor Maximilian I (1493 - 1519), who is credited with creating knightly armor with grooves along their entire surface, eventually called “Maximilian.” It was used without any special changes in the 16th century, when new improvements were required due to the ongoing development of small arms.
Now just a little about swords, because if you write about them in detail, then they deserve a separate topic. J. Clements, a well-known British expert on edged weapons of the Middle Ages, believes that it was the advent of multi-layer combined armor (for example, on the effigy of John de Creque we see as many as four layers of protective clothing) that led to the appearance of a “sword in one and a half hands.” Well, the blades of such swords ranged from 101 to 121 cm, and weight from 1.2 to 1.5 kg. Moreover, blades are known for chopping and piercing blows, as well as purely for stabbing. He notes that horsemen used such swords until 1500, and they were especially popular in Italy and Germany, where they were called Reitschwert (equestrian) or knight's sword. In the 16th century, swords appeared with wavy and even jagged sawtooth blades. Moreover, their length itself could reach human height with a weight of 1.4 to 2 kg. Moreover, such swords appeared in England only around 1480. Average weight of a sword in the 10th and 15th centuries. was 1.3 kg; and in the sixteenth century. - 900 g. Bastard swords “one and a half hands” weighed about 1.5 - 1.8 kg, and the weight of two-handed swords was rarely more than 3 kg. The latter reached their peak between 1500 and 1600, but were always infantry weapons.
Three-quarter cuirassier armor, ca. 1610-1630 Milan or Brescia, Lombardy. Weight 39.24 kg. Obviously, since they have no armor below the knees, the extra weight comes from thickening the armor.
But shortened three-quarter armor for cuirassiers and pistoleers, even in its shortened form, often weighed more than those that offered protection only from edged weapons and they were very heavy to wear. Cuirassier armor has been preserved, the weight of which was about 42 kg, i.e. even more than classic knightly armor, although they covered a much smaller surface of the body of the person for whom they were intended! But this, it should be emphasized, is not knightly armor, that’s the point!
Horse armor, possibly made for Count Antonio IV Colalto (1548-1620), circa 1580-1590. Place of manufacture: probably Brescia. Weight with saddle 42.2 kg. (Metropolitan Museum, New York) By the way, a horse in full armor under an armored rider could even swim. The horse armor weighed 20-40 kg - a few percent of the own weight of a huge and strong knight's horse.
In the mail that comes to the editorial e-mail, the same question often appears.
People want to know how much the sword of Prince Alexander Nevsky weighs. Alas, everything is not at all simple here.There are three known swords that are attributed to Russian princes. This is the Carolingian sword of Prince Svyatoslav Igorevich, the Gothic sword of Prince Dovmont of Pskov and the one-and-a-half-handed sword of another Prince of Pskov - Vsevolod. Let's briefly touch on each of them.
Sword of Prince Svyatoslav Igorevich
In a word, there is a substitution. Apparently real sword Prince Vsevolod fell into disrepair over time or was lost. It was then that it was replaced with the best sword, the most worthy of the memory of the Grand Duke.
Sword of Prince Dovmont of Pskov
Not everything is simple with Prince Dovmont’s sword either. Let's start with the fact that Prince Dovmont himself is a very interesting person. He was expelled from the Baltic states, where he reigned and found a new homeland in Pskov. The Pskovites, under his command, defeated the Teutonic Order in the battle of the knightly castle of Rakvere - this battle is also called the Battle of Rakovor.
The legendary researcher and sword collector Ewart Oakeshott points out that Gothic-type swords were used at the end of the century, but they came into widespread use in the 14th century.
And here the situation is “50/50”. In principle, Dovmont could have wielded such a sword, but then it must have been one of the very first swords of its type. And if this turns out to be true, then we have another reason for national pride.
Sword of Prince Boris, brother of Gleb
Even in ancient Russian literature, the sword of Prince Boris is mentioned - this refers to the holy martyrs Princes Boris and Gleb, highly revered in the ancient Russian squads.
It is also believed that the sword of Prince Boris hung in the room of Prince Andrei Bogolyubsky. After the conspirators killed the prince, one of the killers took this sword for himself. Subsequently, the weapon was never mentioned anywhere else.
But what about the sword of Prince Alexander?
It is unknown to science. However, you don't have to give up. We'll decide everything now.
Of course, Alexander Nevsky had a sword, and most likely not even one. Perhaps this is even one of those swords that lie in our museums, in storerooms or on display cases. Another thing is that we don’t know him by sight.
But we can use old Holmes' deductive method. So, first let’s remember when Alexander Nevsky lived.
Dates of his life: May 13, 1221 - November 14, 1263. In other words, the middle of the 13th century.
This is the time of the Romanesque type sword.
At the top is a sword of a transitional type, from Carolingian to Romanesque. Below is a Romanesque type sword. It has a long thin guard that protects the warrior’s hand, and a fuller that is noticeably shorter than the blade itself.
Consequently, the sword of Prince Alexander Nevsky, as a typical weapon of its time, should also have weighed about a kilogram and a quarter.
ItsElf 13-05-2004 14:03
Good afternoon
on the Internet I mainly find information about the maximum weight of 5-6 kg, sometimes 8 kg is found
according to other information, the weight of swords reached 16-30 kg
what's true? is there any confirmation?
thank you in advance!
Jerreth 13-05-2004 16:50
quote: On the Internet I mainly find information about the maximum weight of 5-6 kg, sometimes 8 kg is found
according to other information, the weight of the swords reached 16-30 kg
COMBAT two-handed swords weighed around 3.5-6 kg. The heaviest sword, 7.9 kg from Switzerland (it seems), after a detailed close-up study, looks much more like a training projectile than a blade intended for chopping.
Indeed, in the Middle Ages there were very real 15-25 kg swords, outwardly more or less a copy of combat swords, with a thicker profile, sometimes filled with lead - the so-called “wall-mounted”. For every baron had to have a weapons gallery on the wall of the central hall, but so that the guests who became unruly at the feast did not tear these collection items off the wall and commit murder, they were specially made by weight like two large crowbars. From the series, if someone picks it, put it right away. Fantasy replicas, in short, plus a relaxed demonstration of weapon skills.
From the same opera - complex full armor"children's" sizes, although this has an additional purpose, to accustom a baronial child to armor until it grows to adulthood.
ItsElf 13-05-2004 18:12
thanks Jerreth
apsara 14-05-2004 01:08
/Indeed, in the Middle Ages there were very real 15-25 kg swords, outwardly more or less a copy of combat ones, with a thickened profile, sometimes filled with lead - the so-called “wall” ones./
If it's not a secret, where does this information come from? Too luxurious for the Middle Ages... Maybe later imitations? In general, they use two-handed weapons to chop for hours only in films; they could deliver several blows to cut through a formation, say, and that’s all.
Strelok13 14-05-2004 01:30
When you mention a two-handed sword, you immediately see Rutger Hauer in the movie Flesh and Blood, with a long flamberge on his shoulder. In general, in the museum on Poklonnaya Gora, above the stairs, there is displayed a sword trimmed with gold and precious stones, but otherwise it looks like a completely steel sword weighing somewhere around fifty, probably kilograms. It was handed over to the museum by President B.N. Yeltsin, it is unknown whether Boris Nikolayevich used it in battles before he gave it to the museum or not, but even if it was simply dropped on the enemy’s leg, it, that is, the sword, is undoubtedly capable of causing severe injury.
Dang 14-05-2004 11:43
He played tennis for them.
GaiduK 18-05-2004 08:50
Hello!
In Warsaw I saw (museum of the Polish army) an original two-handed weapon, I think from the beginning of the 15th century - 16kg, looking at it for a long time I could not understand how to take it in my hands (the thickness of the handle is at least 45mm) so I think it is something like decorative.
There I also had to hold in my hands a pretty good replica of a flamberge - 3100g,
The replica was made by the British brothers based on the original (that’s what they said, and I have no reason not to believe them).
In my opinion, it’s better to kill a sword heavier than 5 kg at home.
Chef 18-05-2004 10:41
In France, at a medieval festival, I had the opportunity to observe a local historical reconstruction club in action. Among other things, they demonstrated fencing techniques with a two-handed sword. I'm not a big expert in the field of edged weapons, but the difference from fighting with conventional swords was noticeable. First of all, the fact that the sword in two hands also served as a shield. Placed vertically with its tip into the ground, it made it possible to parry slashing blows from the side and from below. As the participants later explained to me, two-handed swords were mainly used in battles between heavily armed opponents (knights in armor), but even among the knights, not everyone could wield them due to their heavy weight. They gave me to hold the sword that they had used in the duel five minutes before. It weighed 8-10 kg and, as I was told, was an exact copy of the museum sword.
Jerreth 18-05-2004 12:14
quote: They gave me to hold the sword that they had used in the duel five minutes before. It weighed 8-10 kg and, as I was told, was an exact copy of the museum sword.
http://www.claudiospage.com/Graphics/Weapons/Zweihandschwert_1500.jpg
Italy, approx. 1500 17 cm blade width! We've never fought like this in our lives. But he is very real.
GaiduK 18-05-2004 19:38
"Reconstruction tournaments" vav....
Corporal 18-05-2004 20:13
quote: Originally posted by Jerreth:
Firstly, TOURNAMENT swords are not combat swords, they are a little heavier (or not a little) - just like the current “stuff” that they use at iron reenactment buhurt tournaments. Secondly, museums are full of completely real “decorative” weapons. Here, for example: http://www.claudiospage.com/Graphics/Weapons/Zweihandschwert_1500.jpg
Italy, approx. 1500 17 cm blade width! We've never fought like this in our lives. But he is very real.
Hello. As far as I remember, this example of a “sword” was once called the “Boar Sword”, well, at least it is very similar in shape, and accordingly it was used in hunting...
Regarding the weight of 8 kg or more, gentlemen, you won’t be enough for 5 minutes of battle, and making such a sword so that the “bro” comes out screams loudly and then swings several times heroically and dies, expensive fun.
I think the drabants and flamberges lived even longer, but not everyone will be allowed in, and not everyone will go. And Rudger H. in the film “Blood and Flesh” (as I understand it) meant by his persona a “drabant”, and he walked around with a two-handed weapon.
Jerreth 19-05-2004 12:15
http://www.armor.com/2000/catalog/item918gall.html
Here is a real "boar" (hunting) sword. A characteristic, but completely different form, although it is also two-handed.
And Hauer also ran with a two-handed weapon in “Lady Hawk”, but there was a normal knightly greatsword there.
And there are also “two hundred kilogram boarding cleavers”, and one-handed ones. And according to the description, they look more like a cross between a scimitar and a two-meter piece of rail.
Corporal 07-06-2004 04:01
No....well, people, you really need to figure out what we're talking about....."the weight of a two-handed weapon." As I understand it, some have seen this miracle in museums, some have held it in their hands, and some have delved into knowledge on this topic while lying on the couch, and of course there will be someone here who was able to “try out” this invention.
Even if you are at least three times hefty and fat, why would you need a sharpened crowbar in battle???????????????if you can make it lighter and more convenient and, most importantly, more effective.
And what difference does it make later whether you drive your enemy headlong into the ground or cut him in half.........
Best regards Corp...
Few other types of weapons have left such a mark in the history of our civilization. For thousands of years, the sword was not just a murder weapon, but also a symbol of courage and valor, a warrior’s constant companion and a source of pride. In many cultures, the sword represented dignity, leadership, and strength. Around this symbol in the Middle Ages, a professional military class was formed and its concepts of honor were developed. The sword can be called the real embodiment of war; varieties of this weapon are known to almost all cultures of antiquity and the Middle Ages.
The knight's sword of the Middle Ages symbolized, among other things, the Christian cross. Before knighting, the sword was kept in the altar, cleansing the weapon from worldly filth. During the initiation ceremony, the weapon was presented to the warrior by the priest.
Knights were knighted with the help of a sword; this weapon was necessarily part of the regalia used during the coronation of crowned persons of Europe. The sword is one of the most common symbols in heraldry. We see it everywhere in the Bible and the Koran, in medieval sagas and in modern fantasy novels. However, despite its enormous cultural and public importance, the sword primarily remained a melee weapon, with the help of which it was possible to send the enemy to the next world as quickly as possible.
The sword was not available to everyone. Metals (iron and bronze) were rare, expensive, and it took a lot of time and skilled labor to make a good blade. In the early Middle Ages, it was often the presence of a sword that distinguished the leader of a detachment from an ordinary commoner warrior.
A good sword is not just a strip of forged metal, but a complex composite product consisting of several pieces of steel of different characteristics, properly processed and hardened. European industry was able to ensure the mass production of good blades only towards the end of the Middle Ages, when the importance of bladed weapons had already begun to decline.
A spear or battle ax was much cheaper, and it was much easier to learn how to use them. The sword was a weapon of the elite, professional warriors, and definitely a status item. To achieve true mastery, a swordsman had to train daily, for many months and years.
Historical documents that have come down to us say that the cost of a sword of average quality could be equal to the price of four cows. Swords of work famous blacksmiths were much more valuable. And the weapons of the elite, decorated with precious metals and stones, cost a fortune.
First of all, the sword is good for its versatility. It could be used effectively on foot or on horseback, for attack or defense, and as a primary or secondary weapon. The sword was perfect for personal protection (for example, on trips or in court battles), it could be carried with you and, if necessary, quickly used.
The sword has a low center of gravity, which makes it much easier to control. Fencing with a sword is significantly less tiring than swinging a club of similar length and weight. The sword allowed the fighter to realize his advantage not only in strength, but also in agility and speed.
The main drawback of the sword, which gunsmiths tried to get rid of throughout the history of the development of this weapon, was its low “penetrating” ability. And the reason for this was also the low center of gravity of the weapon. Against a well-armored enemy, it was better to use something else: a battle axe, a hammer, a hammer, or a regular spear.
Now we should say a few words about the very concept of this weapon. A sword is a type of bladed weapon that has a straight blade and is used to deliver cutting and piercing blows. Sometimes the length of the blade is added to this definition, which should be at least 60 cm. But a short sword was sometimes even smaller; examples include the Roman gladius and the Scythian akinak. The largest two-handed swords reached almost two meters in length.
If a weapon has one blade, then it should be classified as a broadsword, and a weapon with a curved blade should be classified as a saber. The famous Japanese katana is not actually a sword, but a typical saber. Also, swords and rapiers should not be classified as swords; they are usually classified into separate groups of bladed weapons.
How does a sword work?
As mentioned above, a sword is a straight, double-edged bladed weapon designed to deliver piercing, slashing, slashing and stabbing blows. Its design is very simple - it is a narrow strip of steel with a handle at one end. The shape or profile of the blade changed throughout the history of this weapon, it depended on the fighting technique that prevailed in a given period. Combat swords of different eras could “specialize” in cutting or piercing blows.
The division of bladed weapons into swords and daggers is also somewhat arbitrary. We can say that the short sword had a longer blade than the dagger itself - but drawing a clear line between these types of weapons is not always easy. Sometimes a classification based on the length of the blade is used, according to which the following are distinguished:
- Short sword. Blade length 60-70 cm;
- Long sword. The size of his blade was 70-90 cm, it could be used by both foot and horse warriors;
- Cavalry sword. The length of the blade is more than 90 cm.
The weight of the sword varies within a very wide range: from 700 grams (gladius, akinak) to 5-6 kg (large sword of the flamberge type or slasher).
Swords are also often divided into one-handed, one-and-a-half and two-handed. A one-handed sword usually weighed from one to one and a half kilograms.
The sword consists of two parts: the blade and the hilt. The cutting edge of the blade is called the blade; the blade ends with a point. As a rule, it had a stiffener and a fuller - a recess designed to lighten the weapon and give it additional rigidity. The unsharpened part of the blade adjacent directly to the guard is called the ricasso (heel). The blade can also be divided into three parts: the strong part (often it was not sharpened at all), the middle part and the tip.
The hilt includes a guard (in medieval swords it often looked like a simple cross), a handle, and a pommel, or pommel. The last element of the weapon is of great importance for its proper balancing, and also prevents the hand from slipping. The crosspiece also performs several important functions: it prevents the hand from sliding forward after striking, protects the hand from hitting the enemy’s shield, the crosspiece was also used in some fencing techniques. And only last but not least did the crosspiece protect the swordsman’s hand from the blow of the enemy’s weapon. So, at least, it follows from medieval fencing manuals.
An important characteristic of the blade is its cross-section. Many variants of the section are known; they changed along with the development of weapons. Early swords (during barbarian and Viking times) often had a lenticular cross-section, which was more suitable for cutting and slashing. As armor developed, the rhombic section of the blade became increasingly popular: it was more rigid and more suitable for thrusting.
The sword blade has two tapers: in length and in thickness. This is necessary to reduce the weight of the weapon, improve its controllability in battle and increase the efficiency of use.
The balance point (or equilibrium point) is the center of gravity of the weapon. As a rule, it is located a finger's distance from the guard. However, this characteristic can vary quite widely depending on the type of sword.
Speaking about the classification of this weapon, it should be noted that the sword is a “piece” product. Each blade was made (or selected) for a specific fighter, his height and arm length. Therefore, no two swords are completely identical, although blades of the same type are similar in many ways.
An invariable accessory of the sword was the scabbard - a case for carrying and storing this weapon. Sword sheaths were made from various materials: metal, leather, wood, fabric. At the bottom they had a tip, and at the top they ended at the mouth. Typically these elements were made of metal. The sword scabbard had various devices that made it possible to attach it to a belt, clothing or saddle.
The birth of the sword - the era of antiquity
It is unknown when exactly man made the first sword. Wooden clubs can be considered their prototype. However, the sword in the modern sense of the word could only arise after people began to smelt metals. The first swords were probably made of copper, but this metal was very quickly replaced by bronze, a more durable alloy of copper and tin. Structurally, the oldest bronze blades were not much different from their later steel counterparts. Bronze resists corrosion very well, which is why today we have a large number of bronze swords discovered by archaeologists in different regions peace.
The oldest sword known today was found in one of the burial mounds in the Republic of Adygea. Scientists believe that it was made 4 thousand years BC.
It is curious that before burial with the owner, bronze swords were often symbolically bent.
Bronze swords have properties that are in many ways different from steel ones. Bronze does not spring, but it can bend without breaking. To reduce the likelihood of deformation, bronze swords were often equipped with impressive stiffening ribs. For the same reason, it is difficult to make a large sword from bronze; usually such weapons had relatively modest dimensions - about 60 cm.
Bronze weapons were made by casting, so there were no particular problems in creating blades of complex shapes. Examples include Egyptian khopesh, Persian kopis and Greek mahaira. True, all these samples of edged weapons were cutlasses or sabers, but not swords. Bronze weapons were poorly suited for piercing armor or fencing; blades made of this material were more often used for cutting rather than piercing blows.
Some ancient civilizations also used a large sword made of bronze. During excavations on the island of Crete, blades more than a meter long were found. They are believed to have been made around 1700 BC.
They learned to make swords from iron around the 8th century BC. new era, and in the 5th century they were already widespread. although bronze was used along with iron for many centuries. Europe switched to iron more quickly because the region had much more of it than the tin and copper deposits needed to create bronze.
Among the currently known blades of antiquity, one can highlight the Greek xiphos, the Roman gladius and spatha, and the Scythian sword akinak.
Xiphos is a short sword with a leaf-shaped blade, the length of which was approximately 60 cm. It was used by the Greeks and Spartans, later this weapon was actively used in the army of Alexander the Great; warriors of the famous Macedonian phalanx were armed with the xiphos.
The Gladius is another famous short sword that was one of the main weapons of the heavy Roman infantry - legionnaires. The gladius had a length of about 60 cm and the center of gravity was shifted towards the handle due to the massive pommel. These weapons could deliver both slashing and piercing blows; the gladius was especially effective in close formation.
Spatha is a large sword (about a meter long) that apparently first appeared among the Celts or Sarmatians. Later, the Gauls' cavalry, and then the Roman cavalry, were armed with spatami. However, spatha was also used by foot Roman soldiers. Initially, this sword did not have an edge, it was a purely chopping weapon. Later, spatha became suitable for stabbing.
Akinak. This is a short one-handed sword, which was used by the Scythians and other peoples of the Northern Black Sea region and the Middle East. It should be understood that the Greeks often called all the tribes roaming the Black Sea steppes Scythians. Akinak was 60 cm long, weighed about 2 kg, and had excellent piercing and cutting properties. The crosshair of this sword was heart-shaped, and the pommel resembled a beam or a crescent.
Swords from the era of chivalry
The “finest hour” of the sword, however, like many other types of edged weapons, was the Middle Ages. For this historical period, the sword was more than just a weapon. The medieval sword developed over a thousand years, its history began around the 5th century with the advent of the German spatha, and ended in the 16th century, when it was replaced by the sword. The development of the medieval sword was inextricably linked with the evolution of armor.
The collapse of the Roman Empire was marked by the decline of military art and the loss of many technologies and knowledge. Europe plunged into dark times of fragmentation and internecine wars. Battle tactics were significantly simplified, and the number of armies was reduced. In the Early Middle Ages, battles mainly took place in open areas; opponents, as a rule, neglected defensive tactics.
This period is characterized by an almost complete absence of armor, unless the nobility could afford chain mail or plate armor. Due to the decline of crafts, the sword is transformed from the weapon of an ordinary soldier into the weapon of a select elite.
At the beginning of the first millennium, Europe was in a “fever”: the Great Migration of Peoples was underway, and barbarian tribes (Goths, Vandals, Burgundians, Franks) created new states in the territories of the former Roman provinces. The first European sword is considered to be the German spatha, its further continuation is the Merovingian type sword, named after the French royal dynasty Merovingian.
The Merovingian sword had a blade approximately 75 cm long with a rounded tip, a wide and flat fuller, a thick cross and a massive pommel. The blade practically did not taper to the tip; the weapon was more suitable for delivering cutting and chopping blows. At that time, only very wealthy people could afford a combat sword, so Merovingian swords were richly decorated. This type of sword was in use until about the 9th century, but already in the 8th century it began to be replaced by a Carolingian type sword. This weapon is also called the Viking Age sword.
Around the 8th century AD, a new misfortune came to Europe: regular raids by Vikings or Normans began from the north. These were fierce fair-haired warriors who knew no mercy or pity, fearless sailors who plied the expanses of the European seas. The souls of the dead Vikings were taken from the battlefield by golden-haired warrior maidens straight to the halls of Odin.
In fact, Carolingian-type swords were produced on the continent, and they came to Scandinavia as military booty or ordinary goods. The Vikings had a custom of burying a sword with a warrior, which is why a large number of Carolingian swords were found in Scandinavia.
The Carolingian sword is in many ways similar to the Merovingian, but it is more elegant, better balanced, and the blade has a well-defined edge. The sword still remained expensive weapons, according to the orders of Charlemagne, cavalrymen must be armed with them, while foot soldiers, as a rule, used something simpler.
Together with the Normans, the Carolingian sword also entered the territory Kievan Rus. On Slavic lands There were even centers where such weapons were made.
The Vikings (like the ancient Germans) treated their swords with special reverence. Their sagas contain many stories about special magical swords, as well as about family blades passed down from generation to generation.
Around the second half of the 11th century, the gradual transformation of the Carolingian sword into a knightly or Romanesque sword began. At this time, cities began to grow in Europe, crafts developed rapidly, and the level of blacksmithing and metallurgy increased significantly. The shape and characteristics of any blade were primarily determined by the enemy’s protective equipment. At that time it consisted of a shield, helmet and armor.
To learn to wield a sword, the future knight began training from early childhood. At about the age of seven, he was usually sent to some relative or friendly knight, where the boy continued to master the secrets of noble combat. At the age of 12-13 he became a squire, after which his training continued for another 6-7 years. Then the young man could be knighted, or he continued to serve with the rank of “noble squire.” The difference was small: the knight had the right to wear a sword on his belt, and the squire attached it to the saddle. In the Middle Ages, the sword clearly distinguished a free man and knight from a commoner or slave.
Ordinary warriors usually wore leather armor made from specially treated leather as protective equipment. The nobility used chain mail shirts or leather armor, onto which metal plates were sewn. Until the 11th century, helmets were also made of treated leather, reinforced with metal inserts. However, later helmets were mainly made from metal plates, which were extremely difficult to break through with a chopping blow.
The most important element of a warrior’s defense was the shield. It was made from a thick layer of wood (up to 2 cm) of durable species and covered with treated leather on top, and sometimes reinforced with metal strips or rivets. This was a very effective defense; such a shield could not be penetrated with a sword. Accordingly, in battle it was necessary to hit a part of the enemy’s body that was not covered by a shield, and the sword had to pierce the enemy’s armor. This led to changes in sword design in the early Middle Ages. Typically they had the following criteria:
- Total length about 90 cm;
- Relatively light weight, which made it easy to fencing with one hand;
- Sharpening blades designed to deliver an effective cutting blow;
- The weight of such a one-handed sword did not exceed 1.3 kg.
Around the middle of the 13th century, a real revolution took place in the armament of the knight - plate armor became widespread. To break through such a defense, it was necessary to inflict piercing blows. This led to significant changes in the shape of the Romanesque sword; it began to narrow, and the tip of the weapon became more and more pronounced. The cross-section of the blades also changed, they became thicker and heavier, and received stiffening ribs.
Around the 13th century, the importance of infantry on the battlefield began to increase rapidly. Thanks to the improvement of infantry armor, it became possible to dramatically reduce the shield, or even abandon it altogether. This led to the fact that the sword began to be taken in both hands to enhance the blow. This is how the long sword appeared, a variation of which is the bastard sword. In modern historical literature it is called “ bastard sword" Bastards were also called “war swords” - weapons of such length and weight were not carried with them just like that, but taken to war.
The bastard sword led to the emergence of new fencing techniques - the half-hand technique: the blade was sharpened only in the upper third, and its lower part could be intercepted by the hand, further enhancing the piercing blow.
This weapon can be called a transitional stage between one-handed and two-handed swords. The heyday of long swords was the era of the late Middle Ages.
During the same period, two-handed swords became widespread. These were real giants among their brothers. The total length of this weapon could reach two meters and weight – 5 kilograms. Two-handed swords were used by infantrymen; they did not have sheaths made for them, but were worn on the shoulder, like a halberd or a pike. Disputes continue among historians today as to exactly how these weapons were used. The most famous representatives of this type of weapon are the zweihander, claymore, spandrel and flamberge - wavy or curved two-handed sword.
Almost all two-handed swords had a significant ricasso, which was often covered with leather for greater ease of fencing. At the end of the ricasso there were often additional hooks (“boar’s tusks”), which protected the hand from enemy blows.
Claymore. This is a type of two-handed sword (there were also one-handed claymores) that was used in Scotland in the 15th-17th centuries. Claymore means "great sword" in Gaelic. It should be noted that the claymore was the smallest of the two-handed swords, its total size reached 1.5 meters, and the length of the blade was 110-120 cm.
A distinctive feature of this sword was the shape of the guard: the arms of the cross were bent towards the tip. The claymore was the most versatile “two-handed weapon”; its relatively small dimensions made it possible to use it in various combat situations.
Zweihander. The famous two-handed sword of the German Landsknechts, and their special unit - the Doppelsoldners. These warriors received double pay; they fought in the front ranks, cutting down the enemy's peaks. It is clear that such work was mortally dangerous; in addition, it required great physical strength and excellent weapon skills.
This giant could reach a length of 2 meters, had a double guard with “boar tusks” and a ricasso covered with leather.
Slasher. A classic two-handed sword, most often used in Germany and Switzerland. The total length of the slasher could reach up to 1.8 meters, of which 1.5 meters was on the blade. To increase the penetrating power of the sword, its center of gravity was often shifted closer to the tip. The weight of the sledge ranged from 3 to 5 kg.
Flamberge. A wavy or curved two-handed sword, it had a blade of a special flame-like shape. Most often, these weapons were used in Germany and Switzerland in the 15th-17th centuries. Currently, flamberges are in service with the Vatican Guard.
The curved two-handed sword is an attempt by European gunsmiths to combine best properties sword and saber. Flamberge had a blade with a number of successive curves; when delivering chopping blows, it acted on the principle of a saw, cutting through armor and inflicting terrible, long-lasting wounds. The curved two-handed sword was considered an “inhumane” weapon, and the church actively opposed it. Warriors with such a sword should not have been captured, best case scenario they were killed immediately.
The flamberge was approximately 1.5 m long and weighed 3-4 kg. It should also be noted that such a weapon was much more expensive than a regular one, because it was very difficult to manufacture. Despite this, similar two-handed swords were often used by mercenaries during the Thirty Years' War in Germany.
Among interesting swords During the late Middle Ages, it is also worth noting the so-called sword of justice, which was used to carry out death sentences. In the Middle Ages, heads were most often chopped off with an ax, and the sword was used exclusively for beheading members of the nobility. Firstly, it was more honorable, and secondly, execution with a sword brought less suffering to the victim.
The technique of beheading with a sword had its own characteristics. The scaffold was not used. The condemned man was simply forced to his knees, and the executioner cut off his head with one blow. One might also add that the “sword of justice” had no edge at all.
By the 15th century, the technique of wielding edged weapons was changing, which led to changes in bladed edged weapons. At the same time, it is increasingly used firearms, which easily penetrates any armor, and as a result it becomes almost unnecessary. Why carry a bunch of iron on you if it can't protect your life? Along with armor, heavy medieval swords, which clearly had an “armor-piercing” character, are also becoming a thing of the past.
The sword becomes more and more a piercing weapon, it tapers towards the tip, becomes thicker and narrower. The grip of the weapon changes: in order to deliver more effective piercing blows, swordsmen grasp the cross from the outside. Very soon special arches appear on it to protect the fingers. This is how the sword begins its glorious path.
At the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th centuries, the sword guard became significantly more complex in order to more reliably protect the fencer’s fingers and hand. Swords and broadswords appeared in which the guard looked like a complex basket, which included numerous bows or a solid shield.
Weapons become lighter, they gain popularity not only among the nobility, but also large quantity townspeople and becomes an integral part of everyday costume. In war they still use a helmet and cuirass, but in frequent duels or street fights they fight without any armor. The art of fencing is becoming significantly more complex, new techniques and techniques are appearing.
A sword is a weapon with a narrow cutting and piercing blade and a developed hilt that reliably protects the fencer’s hand.
In the 17th century, the rapier evolved from the sword - a weapon with a piercing blade, sometimes even without cutting edges. Both the sword and the rapier were intended to be worn with casual clothing, not with armor. Later, this weapon turned into a certain attribute, a detail of the appearance of a person of noble origin. It is also necessary to add that the rapier was lighter than the sword and gave tangible advantages in a duel without armor.
The most common myths about swords
The sword is the most iconic weapon invented by man. Interest in it continues today. Unfortunately, there are many misconceptions and myths associated with this type of weapon.
Myth 1. The European sword was heavy; in battle it was used to inflict concussion on the enemy and break through his armor - like an ordinary club. At the same time, absolutely fantastic figures for the mass of medieval swords are voiced (10-15 kg). This opinion is not true. The weight of all surviving original medieval swords ranges from 600 grams to 1.4 kg. On average, the blades weighed about 1 kg. Rapiers and sabers, which appeared much later, had similar characteristics (from 0.8 to 1.2 kg). European swords were convenient and well-balanced weapons, effective and convenient in battle.
Myth 2. Swords do not have a sharp edge. It is stated that against the armor the sword acted like a chisel, breaking through it. This assumption is also not true. Historical documents that have survived to this day describe swords as sharp weapons that could cut a person in half.
In addition, the very geometry of the blade (its cross-section) does not allow sharpening to be obtuse (like a chisel). Studies of the graves of warriors who died in medieval battles also prove the high cutting ability of swords. The fallen were found to have severed limbs and serious chop wounds.
Myth 3. “Bad” steel was used for European swords. Today there is a lot of talk about the excellent steel of traditional Japanese blades, which are supposedly the pinnacle of blacksmithing. However, historians absolutely know that the technology of welding various types of steel was successfully used in Europe already in antiquity. The hardening of the blades was also at the proper level. The technologies for making Damascus knives, blades and other things were also well known in Europe. By the way, there is no evidence that Damascus was a serious metallurgical center at any time. In general, the myth about the superiority of eastern steel (and blades) over western steel was born back in the 19th century, when there was a fashion for everything eastern and exotic.
Myth 4. Europe did not have its own developed fencing system. What can I say? You should not consider your ancestors more stupid than you. The Europeans waged almost continuous wars using edged weapons for several thousand years and had ancient military traditions, so they simply could not help but create a developed combat system. This fact is confirmed by historians. To this day, many manuals on fencing have been preserved, the oldest of which date back to the 13th century. Moreover, many of the techniques from these books are more designed for the dexterity and speed of the fencer than for primitive brute strength.
What did Historical Swords Weigh?
Translation from English: Georgy Golovanov
"Never overload yourself with heavy weapons,
for the mobility of the body and the mobility of the weapon
are the two main helpers in victory"- Joseph Suitnam
“School of noble and worthy science of defense”, 1617
How much exactly did they weigh? medieval and renaissance swords? This question (perhaps the most common on this topic) can be easily answered by knowledgeable people. Serious scientists and fencing practice value knowledge of the exact dimensions of weapons of the past, while the general public and even specialists are often completely ignorant of this matter. Find reliable information about the weight of real historical swords who have actually passed the weigh-in is not easy, but convincing skeptics and the ignorant is an equally difficult task.
A significant problem.
False statements about the weight of medieval and Renaissance swords are unfortunately quite common. This is one of the most typical misconceptions. And not surprising, considering how many mistakes about fencing of the past is distributed through the media. From television and film to video games, historical European swords are depicted as clumsy and swung in sweeping movements. Recently, on The History Channel, a respected academic and military technology expert confidently stated that swords XIV centuries sometimes weighed as much as “40 pounds” (18 kg)!
From simple life experience, we know very well that swords could not be excessively heavy and did not weigh 5-7 kg or more. It can be repeated endlessly that this weapon was not at all bulky or clumsy. It is curious that although accurate information on the weight of swords would be very useful to weapons researchers and historians, there is no serious book with such information. Perhaps the document vacuum is part of this very problem. However, there are several reputable sources that provide some valuable statistics. For example, the catalog of swords from the famous Wallace Collection in London lists dozens of exhibits, among which it is difficult to find anything heavier than 1.8 kg. Most examples, from battle swords to rapiers, weighed much less than 1.5 kg.
Despite all assurances to the contrary, medieval swords were actually light, comfortable and weighed less than 1.8kg on average. Leading Sword Expert Evart Oakeshott stated:
“Medieval swords were neither unbearably heavy nor identical - average weight any standard size sword ranged from 1.1 kg to 1.6 kg. Even large hand-and-a-half “military” swords rarely weighed more than 2 kg. Otherwise they would undoubtedly be too impractical even for people who learned to wield weapons from the age of 7 (and who had to be tough to survive)."(Oakeshot, The Sword in the Hand, p. 13).
Leading author and researcher of 20th century European swordsEvart Oakeshottknew what he was saying. He held thousands of swords in his hands and personally owned several dozen copies, from the Bronze Age to the 19th century.
Medieval swords, as a rule, were high-quality, lightweight, maneuverable military weapons, equally capable of delivering severing blows and deep cuts. They didn't look like the clunky, heavy things that are often portrayed in the media, more like a "club with a blade." According to another source:
“The sword, it turns out, was surprisingly light: the average weight of swords from the 10th to the 15th centuries was 1.3 kg, and in the 16th century - 0.9 kg. Even the heavier bastard swords, which were used by only a small number of soldiers, did not exceed 1.6 kg, and the horsemen's swords, known as "one and a half", weighed 1.8 kg on average. It is logical that these surprisingly low numbers also apply to huge two-handed swords, which were traditionally wielded only by “real Hercules.” And yet they rarely weighed more than 3 kg” (translated from: Funcken, Arms, Part 3, p. 26).
Since the 16th century, there were, of course, special ceremonial or ritual swords that weighed 4 kg or more, however, these monstrous examples were not military weapons, and there is no evidence that they were even intended for use in battle. Indeed, it would be pointless to use them in the presence of more maneuverable combat units, which were much lighter. Dr. Hans-Peter Hills in a 1985 dissertation dedicated to the great master of the 14th century Johannes Lichtenauer writes that since the 19th century, many weapons museums have passed off large collections of ceremonial weapons as military weapons, ignoring the fact that their blades were blunt and their size, weight and balance impractical for use (Hils, pp. 269-286).
Expert opinion.
In my hands is a wonderful example of a 14th century military sword. Testing the sword for maneuverability and ease of handling.
The belief that medieval swords were bulky and awkward to use has become urban folklore and still baffles those of us new to fencing. It is not easy to find an author of books about fencing of the 19th and even 20th centuries (even a historian) who would not categorically assert that medieval swords were "heavy", "clumsy", "bulky", "uncomfortable" and (as a result of a complete misunderstanding of the technique of possession, the goals and objectives of such weapons) they were supposedly intended only for attack.
Despite these measurements, many today are convinced that these large swords must be especially heavy. This opinion is not limited to our century. For example, an overall flawless booklet on army fencing 1746 "The Use of the Broad Sword" Thomas Page, spreads tall tales about early swords. After talking about how things have changed from early techniques and knowledge in the field of combat fencing, Paige states:
“The form was crude, and the technique was devoid of Method. It was an Instrument of Power, not a Weapon or a Work of Art. The sword was enormously long and wide, heavy and heavy, forged only to cut from top to bottom with the Power of a strong Hand” (Page, p. A3).
Views Page shared by other fencers who then used light small swords and sabers.
Testing of a 15th century two-handed sword at the British Royal Armories.
In the early 1870s, Captain M. J. O'Rourke, a little-known Irish-American historian and fencing teacher, spoke about early swords, characterizing them as "massive blades that required all the strength of both hands". We can also recall the pioneer in the field of historical fencing research, Egerton Castle, and his remarkable comment about "rude old swords" ( Castle,"Schools and fencing masters").
Quite often, some scientists or archivists, experts in history, but not athletes, not fencers, who trained in using a sword from childhood, authoritatively assert that the knight’s sword was “heavy.” The same sword in trained hands will seem light, balanced and maneuverable. For example, the famous English historian and museum curator Charles Foulkes in 1938 stated:
“The so-called crusader sword is heavy, with a wide blade and a short hilt. It has no balance, as the word is understood in fencing, and it is not intended for thrusts; its weight does not allow for quick parries” (Ffoulkes, p. 29-30).
Foulkes's opinion, completely unfounded, but shared by his co-author Captain Hopkins, was the product of his experience in gentleman's duels with sporting weapons. Fulkes, of course, bases his opinion on the light weapons of his day: foils, swords and dueling sabers (just as a tennis racket may seem heavy to a table tennis player).
Unfortunately, Fulkes in 1945 he even expressed it this way:
“All swords from the 9th to the 13th centuries are heavy, poorly balanced and equipped with a short and awkward hilt”(Ffoulkes, Arms, p.17).
Imagine, 500 years of professional warriors have been wrong, and a museum curator in 1945, who has never been in a real sword fight or even trained with a real sword of any kind, informs us of the shortcomings of this magnificent weapon.
Famous French medievalist later repeated Fulkes's opinion literally as a reliable judgment. Dear historian and specialist in medieval military affairs, Dr. Kelly de Vries, in a book about military technology Middle Ages, nevertheless writes in the 1990s about “thick, heavy, uncomfortable, but exquisitely forged medieval swords” (Devries, Medieval Military Technology, p. 25). It is not surprising that such “authoritative” opinions influence modern readers, and we have to make so much effort.
Testing a 16th century bastard sword at the Glenbow Museum, Calgary.
Such an opinion about “bulky old swords,” as one French swordsman once called them, could be ignored as a product of its era and lack of information. But now such views cannot be justified. It is especially sad when leading fencing masters (trained only in the weapons of modern fake duels) proudly express judgments about the weight of early swords. As I wrote in the book "Medieval fencing" 1998:
“It’s very unfortunate that the presenters masters of sports fencing(wielding only light rapiers, épées and sabers) demonstrate their misconceptions about “10-pound medieval swords that can only be used for “awkward striking and slashing.”
For example, a respected swordsman of the 20th century Charles Selberg mentions the "heavy and clumsy weapons of early times" (Selberg, p. 1). A modern swordsman de Beaumont states:
"In the Middle Ages, armor required weapons - battle axes or two-handed swords - to be heavy and clumsy" (de Beaumont, p. 143).
Did the armor require the weapon to be heavy and clumsy? In addition, the 1930 Book of Fencing stated with great confidence:
“With few exceptions, the swords of Europe in 1450 were heavy, clumsy weapons, and in balance and ease of use were no different from axes” (Cass, pp. 29-30).
Even today this idiocy continues. In a book with a good title "The Complete Guide to crusades for Dummies" tells us that knights fought in tournaments, “cutting each other with heavy, 20-30 pound swords” (P. Williams, p. 20).
Such comments say more about the inclinations and ignorance of the authors than about the nature of actual swords and fencing. I myself have heard these statements countless times in personal conversations and online from fencing instructors and their students, so I have no doubt about their prevalence. As one author wrote about medieval swords in 2003,
“they were so heavy that they could even split armor”, and the great swords weighed "up to 20 pounds and could easily crush heavy armor"(A. Baker, p. 39).
None of this is true.
Weighing a rare specimen combat sword 14th century from the collection of the Alexandria Arsenal.
Perhaps the most damning example that comes to mind is Olympic fencer Richard Cohen and his book on fencing and the history of the sword:
“swords, which could weigh more than three pounds, were heavy and poorly balanced and required strength rather than skill” (Cohen, p. 14).
With all due respect, even when he accurately states the weight (while belittling the merits of those who owned them), nevertheless, he is able to perceive them only in comparison with the fake swords of modern sport, even believing that the technique of their use was predominantly “impact-crushing”. If you believe Cohen, it turns out that a real sword, intended for a real fight to the death, should be very heavy, poorly balanced and require no real skill? Are modern toy swords for make-believe fights as they should be?
In hand is an example of a 16th century Swiss combat sword. Sturdy, lightweight, functional.
For some reason, many classical swordsmen still cannot understand that early swords, while real weapons, were not made to be held at arm's length and twirled with just the fingers. Now beginning of XXI century, there is a revival of the historical martial arts of Europe, and fencers still adhere to the misconceptions characteristic of the 19th century. If you don't understand how a given sword was used, it's impossible to appreciate its true capabilities or understand why it was made the way it was. And so you interpret it through the prism of what you already know yourself. Even wide swords with a cup were maneuverable piercing and cutting weapons.
Oakeshott was aware of the existing problem, a mixture of ignorance and prejudice, more than 30 years ago when he wrote his significant book "The Sword in the Age of Chivalry":
“Add to this the fantasies of the romantic writers of the past, who, wanting to give their heroes the characteristics of Superman, made them brandish huge and heavy weapons, thus demonstrating a strength far beyond the capabilities of modern man. And the picture is completed by the evolution of attitudes towards this type of weapon, right up to the contempt that lovers of sophistication and elegance who lived in the eighteenth century, romantics of the Elizabethan era and admirers of magnificent art had for swords Renaissance. It becomes clear why weapons, visible only in their degraded state, can be considered ill-conceived, crude, ponderous and ineffective.
Of course, there will always be people for whom strict asceticism of forms is indistinguishable from primitivism and incompleteness. And an iron object a little less than a meter long may well seem very heavy. In fact, the average weight of such swords varied between 1.0 and 1.5 kg, and they were balanced (according to their purpose) with the same care and skill as, for example, a tennis racket or fishing rod. The prevailing opinion that they cannot be held in hands is absurd and long ago outdated, but continues to live, like the myth that knights dressed in armor could only be lifted onto horses by a crane" ( Oakeshott, "The Sword in the Age of Chivalry", p. 12).
Even a similar broadsword from the 16th century is quite convenient to control for striking and thrusting.
Long-time researcher of weapons and fencing at the British Royal Armories Kate Ducklin states:
“From my experience at the Royal Armories, where I studied actual weapons from various periods, the broad-bladed European fighting sword, whether slashing, stabbing or thrusting, typically weighed between 2 pounds for a one-handed model and 4 pounds. £5 for two-handed. Swords made for other purposes, such as ceremonies or executions, may have weighed more or less, but these were not combat examples” (personal correspondence with the author, April 2000).
Mr Ducklin, undoubtedly knowledgeable, because he held and studied literally hundreds of excellent swords from the famous collection and looked at them from the point of view of a fighter.
Training with a fine example of a true 15th century Estoc. Only in this way can one understand the true purpose of such weapons.
In a brief article about the types of swords of the 15th-16th centuries. from the collections of three museums, including exhibits from Museum Stibbert in Florence, Dr Timothy Drawson noted that no one-handed sword weighed more than 3.5 pounds, and no two-handed sword weighed more than 6 pounds. His conclusion:
“From these examples it is clear that the idea that medieval and Renaissance swords were heavy and clumsy is far from true” (Drawson, pp. 34 & 35).
Subjectivity and objectivity.
Obviously, if you know how to handle a weapon, the technique of using it, and the dynamics of the blade, then any weapon from the Middle Ages and Renaissance will seem flexible and easy to use.
In 1863, a sword maker and major specialist John Latham from "Wilkinson Swords" erroneously claims that some excellent specimen 14th century sword had “enormous weight” because it was “used in those days when warriors had to deal with opponents clad in iron.” Latham adds:
"They took the most heavy weapons as much as they could, and exerted as much force as they could" (Latham, Shape, p. 420-422).
However, commenting on the "excessive heaviness" of swords, Latham talks about a 2.7 kg sword forged for a cavalry officer who thought it would strengthen his wrist, but as a result “No living person could cut with it... The weight was so great that it was impossible to accelerate it, so the cutting force was zero. A very simple test proves this" (Latham, Shape, p. 420-421).
Latham also adds: “Body type, however, greatly influences the results.”. He then concludes, repeating the common mistake, that strong man will take more heavy sword to deal more damage to them.
“The weight that a man can lift at the fastest speed will produce the best effect, but a lighter sword he cannot necessarily move faster. The sword can be so light that it feels like a “whip” in your hand. Such a sword is worse than one that is too heavy" (Latham, pp. 414-415).
I must have enough mass to hold the blade and point, parry blows and give force to the blow, but at the same time it must not be too heavy, that is, slow and awkward, otherwise faster weapons will circle around it. This required weight depended on the purpose of the blade, whether it should stab, chop, both, and what kind of material it might encounter.
Most Medieval and Renaissance swords are so balanced and poised that they seem to literally cry out to you: “Master me!”
Fantastic stories about knightly valor often mention huge swords that only great heroes and villains could wield, and with which they cut horses and even trees. But these are all myths and legends; they cannot be taken literally. In Froissart's Chronicles, when the Scots defeat the English at Mulrose, we read of Sir Archibald Douglas, who "held before him a huge sword, the blade of which was two meters long, and hardly anyone could lift it, but Sir Archibald without labor wielded it and inflicted such terrible blows that everyone he hit fell to the ground; and there was no one among the English who could withstand his blows.” Great fencing master of the 14th century Johannes Lichtenauer he himself said: “The sword is the measure, and it is large and heavy” and is balanced with a suitable pommel, which means that the weapon itself should be balanced and therefore suitable for battle, and not weighty. Italian master Filippo Vadi in the early 1480s he instructed:
“Take a light weapon rather than a heavy one so that you can control it easily without its weight getting in your way.”
So the fencing teacher specifically mentions that there is a choice between "heavy" and "light" blades. But - again - the word "heavy" is not synonymous with the word "too heavy", or cumbersome and unwieldy. You can simply choose, for example, a tennis racket or a baseball bat that is lighter or heavier.
Having held more than 200 excellent European swords from the 12th to 16th centuries in my hands, I can say that I have always paid special attention to their weight. I have always been amazed by the liveliness and balance of almost all the specimens that I have come across. Swords of the Middle Ages and Renaissance, which I personally studied in six countries, and in some cases fencing and even chopping with them, were - I repeat - light and well balanced. Having considerable experience in using weapons, I have very rarely come across historical swords that were not easy to handle and maneuverable. Units – if any – from short swords before the bastards weighed over 1.8 kg, and even they were well balanced. When I came across examples that I found too heavy for me or unbalanced for my tastes, I realized that they might be a good fit for people with different body types or fighting styles.
In hands are weapons from the collection of the Royal Swedish Arsenal, Stockholm.
When I was working with two 16th century combat swords, each 1.3 kg, they showed themselves perfectly. Deft blows, thrusts, defenses, transfers and quick counterattacks, furious cutting blows - as if the swords were almost weightless. There was nothing “heavy” about these intimidating and graceful instruments. When I practiced with a real 16th-century two-handed sword, I was amazed at how light the 2.7 kg weapon seemed, as if it weighed half as much. Even if it was not intended for a person of my size, I could see its obvious effectiveness and efficiency because I understood the technique and method of wielding this weapon. The reader can decide for himself whether to believe these stories. But the countless times I held excellent examples of 14th, 15th, or 16th-century weaponry in my hands, stood in stances, and moved around under the attentive gaze of friendly guardians, firmly convinced me of how much real swords weighed (and how to wield them).
One day, while examining several swords of the 14th and 16th centuries from the collection Evart Oakeshott, we were even able to weigh a few specimens on digital scales, just to make sure correct assessment their weight. Our colleagues did the same, and their results coincided with ours. This experience of learning about real weapons is critical ARMA Association in relation to many modern swords. I'm becoming increasingly disillusioned with the neatness of many modern replicas. Obviously, the more similar a modern sword is to a historical one, the more accurate the reconstruction of the technique of wielding this sword will be.
In fact,
correct understanding of the weight of historical swords
necessary to understand their correct use.
Measuring and weighing weapons from a private collection.
Having studied in practice many medieval and renaissance swords, having collected impressions and measurement results, dear fencer Peter Johnson said that he “felt their amazing mobility. Overall they are fast, accurate and expertly balanced for their tasks. Often a sword appears much lighter than it actually is. This is the result of a careful distribution of mass, not just a balance point. Measuring the weight of a sword and its balance point is only the beginning of understanding its “dynamic balance” (i.e., how the sword behaves when in motion).” He adds:
“In general, modern replicas are quite far from the original swords in this regard. Distorted ideas about what real spicy is military weapon, is the result of training only on modern weapons.”
So Johnson also claims that real swords are lighter than many people think. Even then, weight is not the only indicator, because the main characteristics are the distribution of mass along the blade, which in turn affects the balance.
We carefully measure and weigh weapons from the 14th and 16th centuries.
You need to understand
that modern copies of historical weapons,
even being approximately equal in weight,
do not guarantee the same feeling from owning them,
like their vintage originals.
If the geometry of the blade does not match the original (including along the entire length of the blade, shape and crosshair), the balance will not match.
Modern copy it often feels heavier and less comfortable than the original.
Accurately reproducing the balance of modern swords is an important aspect of their creation.
Today, many cheap and low-grade swords are historical replicas, theatrical props, fantasy weapons or souvenirs - become heavy due to poor balance. Part of this problem arises due to the sad ignorance of blade geometry on the part of the manufacturer. On the other hand, the reason is a deliberate reduction in manufacturing costs. In any case, sellers and manufacturers can hardly be expected to admit that their swords are too heavy or poorly balanced. It's much easier to say that this is how real swords should be.
Testing of an original infantryman's two-handed sword, 16th century.
There is another factor why modern swords usually made heavier than the originals.
Due to ignorance, blacksmiths and their clients expect the feeling of the weight of the sword.
These feelings arose after numerous images of woodcutter warriors with their slow swings, demonstrating the heaviness "barbarian swords", because only massive swords can hit hard. (In contrast to the lightning-fast aluminum swords of Eastern martial arts demonstrations, it is hard to blame anyone for such a lack of understanding.) Although the difference between a 1.7 kg sword and a 2.4 kg sword does not seem that big, when trying to reconstruct the technique, the difference becomes quite tangible. Additionally, when it comes to rapiers, which typically weighed between 900 and 1100 grams, their weight could be misleading. The entire weight of such a thin piercing weapon was concentrated in the handle, which gave greater mobility to the tip despite the weight compared to wider cutting blades.
Loading...
