How did sword fighting swords hold up? Edges?

[Frankopee]

Please pardon my randomness but searches didn't reveal much and since not many people have full-blown sword battles anymore (outside of fencing competitions I guess) there isn't much common knowledge left.

But when using big heavy King Arthur type Knights or Saddle era swords what the heck happened to their edges and how messed up did they get in battle?

Seems to me that unlike Game of Thrones or Vikings I bet a lot of swords outright failed or got stuck into things like armor or wood... Or what do you think happened?

If they weren't brittle then did they bend? Did Lancelot go into battle with a sword that wouldn't fit in a sheath, cocked 20-degrees?

Thanks, just speculating on a Sunday night, no NFL anymore.

 

[gadunz]

The swords weren't heavy, & the fighters were trained to not hit plate armour but to thrust at the gaps.
Curved sabres only became popular when gunpowder made armour redundant.
A "King Arthur" would've been a Romano-British cavalry leader fighting the invading Anglo-Saxons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatha

In the European High Middle Ages, the typical sword (sometimes academically categorized as the knightly sword, arming sword, or in full, knightly arming sword) was a straight, double-edged weapon with a single-handed, cruciform (i.e., cross-shaped) hilt and a blade length of about 70 to 80 centimetres (28 to 31 in).
Service history

In service c. 1000–1500
Specifications
Mass avg. 1.1 kg (2.4 lb)
Length avg. 90 cm (35 in)
Blade length avg. 75 cm (30 in)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knightly_sword

The notion that heavy swords were "necessary" to crudely bash and hack at combatants in heavy armor is a considerably inaccurate and misinformed one. Virtually all Medieval close-combat can be shown to have involved some sort of systematic basis and principled action involving cutting and thrusting techniques. These were optimized for the type of arms and armors encountered at the time. Thrusting has always been important in close-combat, especially armored swordplay, where it is actually the primary form of attack precisely because hacking and chopping are typically much less effective against armors. (It was after all following the era of armored combat that large curved chopping blades actually experienced a resurgence in European cavalries.) Cutting blades naturally require a certain mass to produced optimal impacts, whereas thrusting swords ideally benefit from lightness that permits an agile point. Quite often specialized swords developed as ideal for one situation or condition of fighting would prove disastrous if employed in another. The later development of much lighter single-hand thrusting swords therefore reflected a transition away from the more complex selhttp://www.thearma.org/essays.htm#.X3qXNKKM3Def-defense challenges of a military environment and more toward civilian concerns of unarmored single combat. Compared to modern featherweight versions, historical swords that for centuries proved effective and formidable fighting tools can therefore only be viewed as somehow "heavy" or "awkward" if you are unused to properly training with them at length following proper methods.
http://www.thearma.org/essays/TopMyths.htm#.X3qNtqKM3Dc
http://www.thearma.org/essays.htm#.X3qXNKKM3De

The Game of Thrones swords were depicted as unrealistically heavy.

 

[not2sharp]

I don’t think swords were used very much against armored opponents outside the list. If they were used at all, it would have been against light armored peasants. The primary weapons were spears, bows and war hammers/maces.

n2s

.....

The Game of Thrones swords were depicted as unrealistically heavy.

They also exist in an alternate world where armor is worthless; and are therefore shown being used far more often then real swords of the period.​

 

[gadunz]

Any medieval swordsmith whose blades broke or bent would be demoted to blacksmith making shovels.
http://www.thearma.org/essays/How_Were_Swords_Made.htm#.X3rEyqKM3Dc

 

[Triton]

I think it's a worthy question and not one I've ever heard a really good answer to. Certainly we only have a small number of extant swords to draw our conclusions from. Of those I have yet to see one that has severe edge damage or has failed. Some of those we have were undoubtedly display pieces, but not so say the sword of Saint Maurice of Turin or the Conyers Falchion. So how were they not damaged? Either they were very tough indeed or used differently than we think. I do not know the true answer although I suspect mostly the latter.

 

[Triton]

The swords weren't heavy, & the fighters were trained to not hit plate armour but to thrust at the gaps.
Curved sabres only became popular when gunpowder made armour redundant.
A "King Arthur" would've been a Romano-British cavalry leader fighting the invading Anglo-Saxons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatha

In the European High Middle Ages, the typical sword (sometimes academically categorized as the knightly sword, arming sword, or in full, knightly arming sword) was a straight, double-edged weapon with a single-handed, cruciform (i.e., cross-shaped) hilt and a blade length of about 70 to 80 centimetres (28 to 31 in).
Service history

In service c. 1000–1500
Specifications
Mass avg. 1.1 kg (2.4 lb)
Length avg. 90 cm (35 in)
Blade length avg. 75 cm (30 in)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knightly_sword

The notion that heavy swords were "necessary" to crudely bash and hack at combatants in heavy armor is a considerably inaccurate and misinformed one. Virtually all Medieval close-combat can be shown to have involved some sort of systematic basis and principled action involving cutting and thrusting techniques. These were optimized for the type of arms and armors encountered at the time. Thrusting has always been important in close-combat, especially armored swordplay, where it is actually the primary form of attack precisely because hacking and chopping are typically much less effective against armors. (It was after all following the era of armored combat that large curved chopping blades actually experienced a resurgence in European cavalries.) Cutting blades naturally require a certain mass to produced optimal impacts, whereas thrusting swords ideally benefit from lightness that permits an agile point. Quite often specialized swords developed as ideal for one situation or condition of fighting would prove disastrous if employed in another. The later development of much lighter single-hand thrusting swords therefore reflected a transition away from the more complex selhttp://www.thearma.org/essays.htm#.X3qXNKKM3Def-defense challenges of a military environment and more toward civilian concerns of unarmored single combat. Compared to modern featherweight versions, historical swords that for centuries proved effective and formidable fighting tools can therefore only be viewed as somehow "heavy" or "awkward" if you are unused to properly training with them at length following proper methods.
http://www.thearma.org/essays/TopMyths.htm#.X3qNtqKM3Dc
http://www.thearma.org/essays.htm#.X3qXNKKM3De

The Game of Thrones swords were depicted as unrealistically heavy.

I do agree that plate armour effectively makes one, if not sword proof at least very sword resistant. That said, chopping swords never entirely went out of style. A good percentage of your opponents were likely to not have full plate even late in the medieval period. Choppers like the falchion or those Majieowski cutters existed side by side with more traditional cruciform hilted weapons.

 

[BitingSarcasm]

People put as much wealth into their personal kit of arms and armor as they could because their lives were at stake. A full panoply of battle-ready armor and weapons would set today’s re-enactor back a few thousand dollars; some people spend more on a really good bicycle. But back before the Industrial Revolution and advanced iron ore extraction, we are talking about an investment more akin to a family car or a house.

Despite the expense, arms and armor were essentially consumable goods. Baggage trains carried replacement weapons, blacksmiths, and armorers because they had to or the army would eventually find itself unarmed due to damage. When gear broke it was repaired, replaced, or salvaged to recover some of the expensive metals used in its construction. The Bayeaux Tapestry shows men stripping armor off of corpses while arrows were still falling around them, showing the value of war gear. After the battle, scavengers would take any useable bits they could find, literally beating broken swords into ploughshares. It’s not amazing that we don’t find many swords with battle damage, it’s amazing we find any at all. The circumstances that have to align make them rare like fossils. Top level gear, like a real Ulfbrecht sword, had a longer life span, but swords that went to war wore out. Surviving examples come to us from armories and family collections, and are far more common from areas where swords were unlikely to be used against metal armor.

If all one sees is video games and movies, swords act a lot like lightsabers, indestructible and unbendable. A more comical, yet slightly more accurate, portrayal is to watch the judges from Forged in Fire “test” the competitors’ weapons. There you can see swords deforming and snapping back to true under impacts, in slow motion no less. And dramatic failure is always an option, even on a piece that otherwise looks rock solid.

 

[JParanee]

There are many swords that have lost mass due to having chips taken out

After time they can be reduced in overall mass and this is called a tired sword

You would try to use the flats or spine of a sword to deflect blows but in the heat of things edge on edge contact was inevitable hence the amount of tired swords out there

I have a lovely Katana in my collection that is over 400 years old and is on the tired side

30 years ago I sent it to Michael Bell and he lightly went over it and remounted it

I’m sure it was more robust when it was born but ya have to wonder what its seen






Here is another blade that is almost as old that has been polished a bunch and while not as tired as the above piece it still shows use

 

[Rhinoknives1]

Please pardon my randomness but searches didn't reveal much and since not many people have full-blown sword battles anymore (outside of fencing competitions I guess) there isn't much common knowledge left.

But when using big heavy King Arthur type Knights or Saddle era swords what the heck happened to their edges and how messed up did they get in battle?

Seems to me that unlike Game of Thrones or Vikings I bet a lot of swords outright failed or got stuck into things like armor or wood... Or what do you think happened?

If they weren't brittle then did they bend? Did Lancelot go into battle with a sword that wouldn't fit in a sheath, cocked 20-degrees?

Thanks, just speculating on a Sunday night, no NFL anymore.

There are a group of videos I’ve seen that professionals from the Museum of Armor in Leeds, England. It shows a man dressed in 90lbs Plus of Full amour doing cartwheels! The amour was fitting to the man & so were their weapons. They knew how to use every inch of a sword or pole arm to open a knight in full amour Like a lobster & stab or crush their vitals ... Look on Utube . The video from the Leeds Museum is most likely there.

 

[soc_monki]

There are a group of videos I’ve seen that professionals from the Museum of Armor in Leeds, England. It shows a man dressed in 90lbs Plus of Full amour doing cartwheels! The amour was fitting to the man & so were their weapons. They knew how to use every inch of a sword or pole arm to open a knight in full amour Like a lobster & stab or crush their vitals ... Look on Utube . The video from the Leeds Museum is most likely there.

Soldiers today run with 50-100lbs of gear strapped to them. Including body armor. It's all in conditioning. The old thought that plate armor made a man immobile is obsolete. As agile as someone in some leather and mail? Maybe not. But much more agile than some once thought.

I haven't seen any mention of swords being used as an improvised club (mordhau) or half swording for better control of the point. Also the fact daggers were used a lot of times to finish off an armored opponent.

I can imagine that large scale battles had sword duels that were quick and dirty with not much back and forth blade play. Not a lot of opportunities to get the edge damaged if you don't hit metal to metal.

I'm not an expert though, just a bit of interest in the field.

 

[HFinn]

Albion makes a reproduction of the Cluny longsword. The story behind the original is of interest here.

The Story

The Cluny sword can also tell us a thrilling or even chilling story: it carries clear marks from having survived a swordfight. Whether its owner survived is another question...

In the surface of the leather and the almost completely intact blueing, we can see some moderate traces of use. On the lower part of the grip, there is some wear where the owner has grasped it or rested his hand occasionally.

The sword initially gives an impression of well-cared for artifact that has traveled, directly from the hands of its owner in a fast lane through time directly to us. Only the patination any century old object will get from gentle oxidation and ageing of organic materials is witness to its actual age.

However, looking closer we can see that this sword has been through at least one event that was far from gentle.

In the blade at the point of impact there are deep scars, where an edge has cut into the spine on both sides: one cut on one side and two cuts on the other. Curiously, apart from these deep gouges, there is no other damage in the blade: no deep notches in the edges. Looking down the blade there is not much unevenness in the edges from resharpening, if any.

In the sides and front of the guard there are several small nicks and cuts. None of these are very deep, but still clear: you can tell they were made by a sharp blade and not caused by bumps and knocks from casual handling.

The most vivid witness of the fierceness of the fight is the deep cut in the grip, right in the spot where the index finger of the left hand would rest. Or perhaps the wielder of the sword was lucky and fully grasped the pommel? In that case the cut would have landed harmlessly between his hands. It is obvious that the cut was made with some considerable force and that the edge of the weapon was very sharp.

https://www.albion-swords.com/swords/johnsson/sword-museum-cluny.htm

I have trained several european sword arts. In longsword and other medieval/renessaince arts the rule was to parry, middle to middle, edge against flat. This has several reasons. By parrying with edge against flat, striking the opponents sword away, you gain mechanical advantage but also avoid unnecessary edge damage. Straight blocking is rare.

There is a reason why later sabers and also chinese Qim - swords were not allways sharpened for the whole lenght of the blade. Left blunt the forte, portion of the blade nearer the hilt can better survive blocking and parrying.

 

[john april]

i honestly do not think it would matter much. wars were won with iron, copper, bronze swords. i have a cheezy cheap $100 practice wakizashi and if i sharpened it, even being cheap unhardened steel, i will remove a head in one swipe.

 

[JakeoftheLake]

I actually have a bit of knowledge on this. I do HEMA (Historical European Martial Arts). It's basically fencing but done with longswords, messers/falchions, sabre, rapiers, etc. according to historical manuscripts. When swords were swung into each other, both of the edges would notch, creating a "bind". Essentially, they would lock together for a moment, allowing you to control your opponent's sword to a degree. Much of the manuscrits detail techniques for working (fighting) "from the bind." This kind of damage was not only expected, but necessary for proper use of the sword.

 

[JakeoftheLake]

Albion makes a reproduction of the Cluny longsword. The story behind the original is of interest here.


https://www.albion-swords.com/swords/johnsson/sword-museum-cluny.htm

I have trained several european sword arts. In longsword and other medieval/renessaince arts the rule was to parry, middle to middle, edge against flat. This has several reasons. By parrying with edge against flat, striking the opponents sword away, you gain mechanical advantage but also avoid unnecessary edge damage. Straight blocking is rare.

There is a reason why later sabers and also chinese Qim - swords were not allways sharpened for the whole lenght of the blade. Left blunt the forte, portion of the blade nearer the hilt can better survive blocking and parrying.

I would disagree with the rule being to parry with the flat. At least in Lichtenauer, it is much more commonly shown to parry with the edge to create a bind. Not trying to argue, just curious as to what source you practiced.

 

[HFinn]

I would disagree with the rule being to parry with the flat. At least in Lichtenauer, it is much more commonly shown to parry with the edge to create a bind. Not trying to argue, just curious as to what source you practiced.

What I actually meant was not parrying with the flat. I meant parrying with your sword edge against flat of the opponent. You strike with your edge against the flat of the opponent's sword knocking it to side. So you parry the incoming sword, trying to strike you, with your edge.

 

[High Tower]

One of my favorite sword makers is Angus Trim and I am fortunate to own two of his swords. He posts on Facebook with his latest creations and also once in a while he will post on his sword knowledge which is extensive. I quote from one such post below. Not my words but his because I always wondered the same thing.

"Swords as consumable items………Back to the delusions…….The beatings will continue until morale improves….

There is a modern narrative that historical swords were durable enough to survive serious abuse. The same people believe modern swords should hold up nearly forever. And then maybe we should discuss how long sword simulators should last in the studio……

One of the gentlemen I worked with years ago, on the kat front, had at least some of his polishing training in Japan. He told me that a katana was considered good for “ten engagements”. After each serious encounter, the blade was liable to be nicked up some, and that would require an entire blade polish {read a lot of stock removal} to fix. After a few serious encounters, the blade would be “tired”.

So how would western blades fare in similar circumstances? Well, in some cases history tells us that not any better. Oakeshott’s first sword {a XIIIa} had been found in a church, where the original owner left it after a desperate battle. According to Oakeshott, the sword had ninety-two nicks in the edges {“Records of the Medieval Sword”}. If I interpret what Oakeshott was saying correctly, the sword was finished as a weapon.

In various museums in Europe, there are several seriously damaged swords stored away, outside the public’s view. The pristine weapons in the public view? Very possibly never used.

As a side note, about thirteen years ago, I sold four longswords {sharps}, to an instructor based in Europe. A few years later, he contacted me that a sword had broken cutting a mat, but that the break wasn’t where it struck the mat, but towards the tip away from the mat.

When I got the blade back, I was taken aback by the condition. The blade’s edges really didn’t exist anymore, they were a sold line of nicks and wasn’t nicked was rolled over. The swords weren’t just used in cutting practice, but in “live partner practice”. Where the blade had broken, there was a very deep nick with what appeared to be a beginning fracture at the bottom of it. From there the break had been clean. The visible crystalline structure was beautiful. The blade had broken the way it was supposed to.

Blades aren’t supposed to break you say? Well, they’re made of steel, and steel wears, fatigues, and eventually fails. And that’s what happened. That blade had given all it was going to, and had failed.

The same can be applied to modern simulators. They have a given lifespan of use, hard use even, but they will eventually fail. When? Depends on the use, the design of the piece, and what they are.

For instance, I made rapier simulator blades in 2002, that are still in use. They’re used as rapier blades though, not longsword blades……….

Right after my stroke, I designed a few simulator blades, which became popularly known as I-Beams. The idea being to have thick edges to survive abuse, and a deep wide fuller or groove to keep the weight down.

The first series of longsword simulators didn’t prove to be that durable. They were too light. I think one of the first ones broke within three months. I feel two years is where it should be……

The second series added several ounces to the blade. The finished simulator weight 2lbs 12 oz. The first one is still in service seven years later. This one worked, but the whole bunch of them are now beyond their expected service life. How long will they last? {Shrug} Who knows? I’m beginning to believe they might last ‘til I’m gone {a few years from now}.

I was talked into making more of the lighter ones. I let the buyer know to not expect any more life than six months of moderate use. Today, they are breaking, but the first one that broke made it a couple of years.

Back to swords for a moment….. “Back in the day” I used to keep one or two shop cutters for the cutting season. They would be used by multiple people, many cutting for their first time. They would also wind up being resharpened several times during the season, and it wasn’t unheard of that I had to straighten a sword blade ocassionally. After the season, I made a decision on the fate of the sword, many were cleaned up and sold on a healthy discount as shop cutters. A few were destroyed because I felt they were no longer safe.

Steel wears. Don’t expect that shiny toy to hold up to lots of abuse without wearing out. If you’re going to use it, maintain it, and plan on eventually replacing it."
-----------------------
In some movies you see the hero with his lifetime sword that he uses in all his battles. That Hollywood for you. Not based on any kind of reality.

 

[TwinStick]

Disregard, my question was answered in the above post.

 

[Londinium Armoury]

Typical HRC of medieval swords were around 30-40 HRC not as hard as most people assume in the low to mid 50's. Modern smiths produce swords in the mid 50's for medieval replicas, but the actual historical blades were softer. The people who tested the HRC of antiques noticed they sometimes ran as soft as 30 HRC and normally were in the 40's/ So the edges would of got dinged up quite quickly, and especially in duels with blade on blade contact being very common with longsword techniques, binding, shield contact etc, the blades would get notches and bitten up quite a lot. Also a lot of later period european swords made by companies like Wilkinson and Pillin have slightly higher HRC than the medieval examples. I've seen and own antique sabres that have served in battles, they have obvious damage to the blades sometimes, and the edges notch out and roll when contacted by other swords. They also have cuts and damage to the brass and steel hilts.
People like to imagine soldiers taking care not to damage their edge during a life or death battle, but honestly their swords got eaten up and then service sharpened after if they were lucky enough to survive.

 

[bdcochran]

Kudos to HighTower:
Swords as consumable items………Back to the delusions…….The beatings will continue until morale improves….

Whenever I read a posting that a person wants a real sword for practice, I cringe. Just buy a bokken. A wood or heavy duty plastic sword in the shape of a Japanese sword. Inexpensive. It can kill you if you are hit. I would NEVER use my katana or wakizashis in practice.

Buying a real sword for practice is like buying "a throwing tomahawk" and learning that when the tomahawk hits the dirt ground or concrete sidewalk, it gets injured and eventually breaks.

 

[Mecha]

I actually have a bit of knowledge on this. I do HEMA (Historical European Martial Arts). It's basically fencing but done with longswords, messers/falchions, sabre, rapiers, etc. according to historical manuscripts. When swords were swung into each other, both of the edges would notch, creating a "bind". Essentially, they would lock together for a moment, allowing you to control your opponent's sword to a degree. Much of the manuscrits detail techniques for working (fighting) "from the bind." This kind of damage was not only expected, but necessary for proper use of the sword.

I don't know about that. I think the "bind" is a momentary stalemate when swords are pressed together and neither opponent is able to definitively disengage or attack without great risk (sort of like "sticky hands" in kung fu), not swords getting stuck to each other from notches. Two swords swung into each other and getting notched will not bind them together.