Medieval European swords are not meant to be sharpen??

S

SharpEdge

Joined
Jul 7, 2000
Messages
140
Hi, that's what I heard from a local knife shop owner. He compare the European Medieval swords to samurai swords, and said European swords are not sharpend cuz when it hit the metal armor it will break easy. The samurais use edged swords cuz their armors are not as hard as metal. Is this true??
Thx
 
Local knife shop owners aren't very reliable authorities.
All broad generalizations are wrong - including this one, and the preceding one
smile.gif
.
The short answer to your question is that there is no short answer to your question.
Here is a longer essay that addresses the subject pretty well.
 
Truly,it depends on the type of medieval blade.Older blades tended to be sharpened,but only to a degree.You have to look at what it was made to go up against.The earlier swords went against leather and some chainmail,so they were sharp to a degree,primarily for hacking off a limb.The later medieval blades had to go against heavy armor and heavy leather.They were more pointed for this task,and so weren't sharpened much.
Renaissance blades modeled after the broadswords were sharp to a decent degree,since they no longer had to go against armor.This is also when the fencing blades developed,with only the sabers being sharpened.All others were for thrusting,and only the very tip might be sharpened.
Oriental blades on the other hand,such as the samurai,were sharpened.They were created for cutting effectiveness,yet given a tip that could pierce armor.
Basically,it all boils down to what each blade was truly designed for.And yes,most dealers have no clue as to what is truth or fiction.I still find those that say no samurai is to be returned to it's sheath without drawing blood first.That's a loose myth based on one family blade,and the fact that most samurai believed that the only time you should draw the blade is to draw blood...basically as a last resort.

------------------
*The* Lunatic Puppy
It wasn't me...It was my *good* twin..
 
Well as far as I know, the "blooding the blade" thing is false. Also, Japanese-style swords were not made with the intention of an "armor-piercing" tip, nor was that what the tips really were. Japanese swords were relatively thick with less dramatic distal taper than many other swords are commonly found with and were capable thrusters, though many thrusts were still performed with a cutting action.

I'm no expert on Euro swords, but a sword, regardless of time and place, should be at least fairly sharp if it's to do any cutting. Euro swords may not be sharp to a very high degree, and as far as I know are sharpened with a secondary bevel (that Japanese-style swords don't have) which decreases the acuity of the edge but greatly helps the integrity due to the material backing the edge itself. There's no reason for the edge to be completely dull unless it's a solely piercing weapon.
 
True,the cutting style european blades were sharp to some degree.But,none were really sharpened well.Not everyone had a grinding wheel available,so they had to resort to using certain types of stone that just happened to have a decent groove in them.If it looked like it'd give a decent edge to the blade,they'd use it.
Yes,the japanese blades were for cutting,but even they realized that there might be a need for thrusting,which is why the tips are made well.The spine of the blade gives great strength for both cutting and thrusting,which is why I do prefer the single-edged blades,which you don't really find in the medieval blades from western europe except for saber-styled blades of the later centuries.
I still find many people that think that even rapiers were sharpened all along the blade.Only some dueling rapiers had an edge that could be sharpened,all the rest were dull.
Nevertheless,there's always going to be people who haven't done their homework,like a lot of dealers and especially those who watch the movies or tv shows,or who go to renaissance festivals and decide that they just want to own a blade because they think it's cool.I see a lot of them at the michigan renaissance festival every season.

------------------
*The* Lunatic Puppy
It wasn't me...It was my *good* twin..
My "inner puppy" made me do it..
 
I'm in no way questioning your information, I don't have the knowledge of western blades to make the technical distinctions I am more familiar with in Japanese swords...

But would you mind introducing yourself? Do you practice any particular schools or traditions of swordsmanship, what styles do you enjoy and for what purposes?

We don't have all too many posters here, so I don't see any real harm in asking some folks to introduce themselves.

Shinryû.
 
Not a problem,lad.
I've studied whatever I could about every style of swordsmanship that I could find.
Most sword skills come from pure instinct though.The main exception to this is the Oriental methods,which were set into certain forms.
In western Europe,the only styles that were set more into form were done in the later ages,such as "Cut and Thrust" and the early forms of what we call "Fencing" today.Today's fencing styles bear little resemblance to the older forms.The old forms were done "in the round",whereas now they're done "in line".Such a loss..."in the round" was a lot more fun <IMG SRC="smile.gif" border="0">
As for exactly what I've studied,there's Iai-Do and Kendo,the cut & thrust and "in the round" fencing styles and Florentine.
All other stuff is from picking up a blade and finding out for myself how it wants to be used and what it's capabilities are.As I said,swordsmanship is primarily instinct.You can learn a lot by practicing set forms and styles,but it's also good to find what you can do if you really need to. <IMG SRC="smile.gif" border="0">
 
Robert and MacCanine, there is the famous story, perhaps apocryphal, of Richard I and Saladin meeting. Richard uses his broadsword to cut an iron bar in half and then Saladin tosses a silk handkerchief into the air and sets everyone's teeth on edge by slicing it in two with his (true) Damascus sword. The point was that his was so much sharper than Richard's. However, if you read of the results of Medeval battles, you will read of arms and legs and heads lopped off, of stomaches sliced open, and of many other such injuries. These could not have been inflicted with dull weapons, so somebody must have been sharpening their weapons. Yes, the estoc of the Late Medieval and the rapier of the Renaissance were sharp only at their point, they being solely thrusting weapons, but otherwise, I suspect that they did sharpen them. No, not everyone had a grinding stone available, but everyone did have a scythe stone handy, or an axe stone, and that is all that it took. I should think that one of the more common evening chores in camp was sharpening weaponry. The edge did not have to be the shaving sharp edge that we BladeForumites seek and admire, but it had only to be a good working edge.
 
True,but that's what I mean when I say "sharp to a decent degree".
There has always been (in modern day) a difference of opinion on what is meant by the term "swordsharp".Users and historical buffs say that it means sharp enough to do the damage,but not so sharp as to get deep nicks in the blade when you struck something.
I have heard many dealers and novices say just the opposite.In fact,most makers (and dealers) these days put near razor sharp edges on swords that shouldn't have them.
One needs to remember that most warriors did not always have a good method for sharpening.Quite often,sitting in the dark at an encampment,they would grab a stone and start sharpening.But,this led to the blades not always having the same angle degree for the cutting edge.So,sometimes a blade would be sharp enough,other times a wee bit blunt.
Truthfully,the average sharpening angle for a sword is the same for an axe or hatchet,which is around 30 to 40 degrees.That is the sharpest you want the old blades to be,because that angle gives the blades the most effectiveness.Anything sharper and you'll start getting too many deep nicks which you won't be able to sharpen out.
The main differences between the oriental and european blades are the materials used,the method of making the blades,and the use of the blades.Most european blades (pre-renaissance) were made more for hacking and thrusting than cutting.They were brutal weapons,which is why we have the tales of the wounds made during battle.Besides,most of those blades wouldn't have held a sharp edge for long anyway...since the materials and methods used weren't all that good for making swords.It was closer to the renaissance period when the blade making started getting better.
 
Wait a minute, here. You asy that the the methods and materials used in making European swords up until the Renaissance were crude and not up to maintaining a keen edge. On this I must challenge you. The methods and materials were there if you wanted to pay for them, it's just that most did not. The folded and refolded however many times Japanese sword is the same technique that is called pattern-welding in a European sword and it was commonly used in hte dark ages, but went out of use in the Medieval period because steel production got better and they could make quality homogeneous steels that made better blades than pattern welding. I believe that differential tempering was not unknown in Medieval era, so I doubt that the technical aspects of the Japanese sword were all that superior to a quality European sword of the Medieval era. Note that I am not talking here about ammunition quality weaponry, but high quality items that the nobility would have used.

If we go back to the Roman era, we know from records that the Roman legions kept their gladii very sharp, and that they were made of very high quality materials, at least after the Punic Wars when the Gladius Hispaniensis was introdused. The Spanish Celt-Iberians were, perhaps, the best iron/steel workers in Europe and Publius Scipio "imported" a great number of them to Rome upon his conquests of large parts of Spain so that they could make their admirable weapons for the Romans to use against the Carthaginians, which they did with great success. The records from then on until much later in the Empire show that these weapons were kept honed to a very keen edge so that they could do their job of gutting Joe Barbarian most efficiently. It was left up to the Centurion to make sure of that, and given the discipline of the time, beating with a vine stick, you may be sure that they were kept sharp.
 
As I've clarified before, European swords are not my forte, so I can't make serious judgement calls on them. European ores and the quality of steel is not something I know too much about. I know about early pattern welding (not very similar to Japanese forge-welding, but not totally dissimilar), I know about the basic overall designs from various periods. But there are assumptions I do make.

Here are some of the assumptions...

Some swords were sharpened more than others. Some people liked having very sharp blades, some did not. You did not see hair popping edges on all katana and tachi. They were sharp, and had fairly acute edge geometry, but were not given a razor edge because they were easy to damage, especially considering the lack of post-quench temper.

I would assume that since many European swords have a bit softer and less chippable edges, along with the secondary bevels I think to be standard, they can be sharp but not very acute. Softer steel will lose a very fine edge, but with its geometry, will maintain a good edge a long time, and since there's so much material backing the edge, it quickly gets difficult to propagate a chip or crack or cut beyond the very edge itself.

I hesitate to say they were all keenly sharpened, some people probably didn't give a damn, and some people did. I would not be surprised to see a dull blunt Euro style blade, and I would not be surpised to see one that could shave hair. I would think most would fall somewhere in between.

But as I said, these are only assumptions of European-style blades. I could be way off. I know Japanese swords tend to be quite sharp, but are not the giant razors people sometimes think them to be.

Shinryû.
 
Ok,here we go...
smile.gif

The early Roman Gladius was of bronze,and the later version was iron.And it doesn't take a sharp edge to be able to "gut" anything with a heavy blade.The Gladius was formed along the "leaf blade" design,which was great for hacking off/open just about anything.Between 1500 BC and 1300 AD the progress of metallurgy moved slowly.1500 BC was approximately the beginning of the Iron age,but it wasn't until around 600 AD that the Vikings developed carbonized iron for weapons,and the pattern welding process of folding for the weapons.But,the processes for smelting the ores were still crude in most areas.
The quality of medieval sword-making iron varied tremendously from one region to another.The technique of creating steel from iron was a half-understood procedure until late into the 18th century.
In other words,many of the blades made during those centuries could be considered as "crude".A lot of the blades were basically "mass produced" by an armourer and his staff,most of which would be apprentices.It all depended upon if there was a war about to happen or not (there usually were for quite some time).If there were no wars taking place,that's when the armourer would take the time to try new processes..during wars he would have no time.
Truthfully,a lot of the earliest blades haven't survived the ages.Most of what we see in museums were either from the later ages,or they had been well preserved for hundreds of years.
Basically,you need to look at the different factors between the ages.How many areas had good methods for smelting and processing, how many areas had good trade lines with each other,what were the average prices for items,how many people could really afford those prices...etc.There's a lot to look at before you can truly say that Europe as a whole had good blades at all times.
It wasn't until after 1300 I believe,that Spanish steel became sought after for it's strength & flexibility.Damascus had come into being far earlier,but was relatively unknown in much of Europe for a long time.
So yes,you could consider most medieval blades to be somewhat crude,depending upon the time frame and the processing in the different areas.

------------------
*The* Lunatic Puppy
It wasn't me...It was my *good* twin..
My "inner puppy" made me do it..
 
Wow! Does no one believe that European swords were sharpened? Perhaps for a thousand years groups just wailed on each other with "blunted" metal rods? I don't think so. Most of my reading seems to point to the fact that medieval blades were sharpened - not like knives but still sharp. The talk that swords were not sharpend because of armor just doesn't "cut-it." The medieval battlefield contained many weapons and swords were not necessarily required to defeat armor to do deadly work - most folks on the battlefield didn't have plate or even mail armor. The medieval swords came in various types and evolved to meet various challenges. Yes the estoc was blunt and made for hammering & stabbing. Howerver, nost sword types were made for cutting fof a cut & thrust. I would guess also that most medieval swords were of excellent quality - Europeans have been working with steel and making excellent swords for over 2000 years. Don't judge the originals by remains or shoddy replicas. Bottom line - I think a good medieval sword would compare quite favorably with a Japanese Katana.
 
Loki...no offense, but have you read this thread? Most everyone was saying that swords WERE sharpened, albeit not always to a very high degree and not necessarily with a very acute edge geometry.

And on another note, it is best not to compare one cultural style with another. It's a matter of apples and oranges.

Shinryû.
 
Come on, MacCanine, the Romans stopped using bronze about the same time everyone else in the area stopped using bronze and went to iron. It was called the Iron Age and occurred, really, before the establishment of the Roman state. And please reread my post about the when the Romans began to use the gladius hispaniensis. It was during the Punic Wars. According to Polybius, Scipio brought back a number of smiths from Iberia, where he had found that they had swords of infinitely superior quality to what his Roman troops had. Being no fool, he had forced captured smiths to make enough to re-equip his expeditionary force so that he could finish the job of taking southern and eastern Iberia away from Carthage. When this was done, he enslaved a large number of the smiths and dragged them, back to Rome so that they could teach the Roman smiths their craft and so that they could re-equip the entire army. This is the origin of the gladiu hispaniensis, which current research indicates may not have been so close a copy of the Celt-Iberian sword design as originally thought, but it was made with their techniques and their ores. It did include considerable heating and and forging in a charcoal fire, so there was obviously carburizing of the iron, and we have found Roman gladii in archaeological sites, or so I have read, that are pattern-welded of a sort. They may not be the elaborate pattern-welding of the Rhineland smiths and the Norse smiths of later years with the etched fullers (no relation), but there are clear signs of the blades being made of a combination of more than one piece of metal pounded out and folded, heated, pounded, folded, etc. I will try to find the source.

The tactics of the legions required going in and slashing open their opponents' stomachs, not in lopping off appendages, as you imply, so the blades were, according to all reports, kept quite sharp for that function. You need to remember that most of their opponents were unarmored barbarians who would have been lucky to have a helmet and a shield, let alone a mail hauberk. A chief might, but the rank and file would not.



------------------
Walk in the Light,
Hugh Fuller
 
The Roman Legions preferred to use spears before attempting to use a sword.And,the gladius wasn't really used for cutting open the gut...it was primarily used for stabbing.Common method was to deflect any incoming blows with a shield,then step in with a thrust to gut,then pull back out and move on to the next opponent.
And,if you'd read my last post,you'll notice that I said that not all areas had the same skill in making swords.Some were good,most were not.It took many years before things started to fall into place as far as smithing went.It wasn't an exact science (nor would it become one until the 18th century),so you can't have all areas using the same methods.Therefore,there would be differences all over the continent.
Yes,the Romans started using iron,but the early gladius was made of bronze.There have been many found in excavations,and a lot are in museums now.You'll have to realize too,that change did not always come quickly.Just because one new item was introduced didn't mean that from that point on everyone used the new item and nothing else.It took a while to build up enough stock to supply a country,and not everyone could afford it either.
As for armor,yes,chieftans did have the best armor available,but even the common warriors could have some as well.All throughout history,until modern age,warriors would commonly strip the fallen of arms and armor if they needed it.It was common practice...especially if it was taken off the enemy's slain.

History is still not a *set* thing.Every day there are new things found which cancel out things which we have taken for granted throughout our lifetimes.So,history is continually being re-written.It just may happen that something will be found which will make all of what we say look like idiotic theories
smile.gif


------------------
*The* Lunatic Puppy
It wasn't me...It was my *good* twin..
My "inner puppy" made me do it..
 
Oh boy, this can of worms again.

MacCanine; Go to www.thehaca.com, and check their bibliography. Read some of Oakeshotte's books. He's probably handled more Medieval swords than any human being alive. He describes the edge of one as "being like a good carving knife". You might also like to know that some Viking swords have been found still sharp enough to slice paper, in excavated condition! They wil also typically bend 45 degrees out of line, and return to true.

You are correct in saying a Medieval sword was sharpened like an axe, at an obtuse angle. The problem with the word "sharp" however is, that many blades sharpened at an obtuse angle can still do such things as shave hair or slice rather well. Thus the term becomes meaningless.

"Most european blades (pre-renaissance) were made more for hacking and thrusting than cutting."

Patently untrue. Sagas and records from the speak many times of limbs being severed with a single blow, even through mail.

Something you might find instructive: Go to http://www.thehaca.com/Videos/Videos.htm and under the videos about test cutting, watch the deer one. In which a man removes the head of a freshly killed dear with a single blow from a Medieval single-handed sword. With a fairly moderate blow I might add.


"They were brutal weapons,which is why we have the tales of the wounds made during battle."

"Brutal" is a value judgement. Our earliest fencing manual is from 1295 though, and it already shows such "modern" concepts as parrys, timed cuts, and much use of thrusting.

"Besides,most of those blades wouldn't have held a sharp edge for long anyway"

Hank Reinhardt has demonstrated how a Medieval sword can cut through a mail shirt with very little edge damage. And if you will watch the testcutting vids at the Haca site, you will see John Clements making repeated cuts through bamboo. If the sword was dull after the first few strokes, you certainly couldn't tell by the cutting.


...since the materials and methods used weren't all that good for making swords.It was closer to the renaissance period when the blade making started getting better."

I wonder what your source is on this...again, go study the words of people who have actually handled and studied Medieval swords for years.

Cheers,

Matt Bailey


[This message has been edited by Eliashan (edited 03-29-2001).]
 
Robert:

I did indeed read the thread. I wasn't casting stones at anyone posting. I've just seen so many conversations and mutterings about how medieval and european blades were not sharp or low quality and non-comperable to asian blades. I'n happy that some truths are poking out. As far as comparing other blade styles - I'm afraid that cats out of the box - it's been done and by many. To what end I'm not sure. I'll admit that I prefer european styles but I'm not putting down asian styles. To each his/her own. A good sword of any style is wonderful to behold. Sorry if I offended.
 
Hey,debate is always a good thing
smile.gif


I have read Oakeshott and I know about H.A.C.A.But,they don't know *everything*.
Neither do I,but at least I am constantly in search of newer knowledge on the subjects that I like,and I am willing to study the weapons themselves and learn from them what their capabilities are.
It doesn't take a really sharp edge to chop off an arm or the head of a deer.The edge is only one factor in the motion.It's more a question of physics than anything else.
As far as a blade holding an edge,it really depends on the kind of use it's seeing.A medieval blade would hold an edge for an average of a few weeks,maybe a little more depending on how much it was being used.If it was being used in battle constantly,the edge would be dulled a lot sooner.
Yes,even viking swords could cut paper.So can an axe that's properly sharpened.But not *all* blades were properly sharpened.Some of you are missing the point.Some were sharpened,some were not.I have said this before.And,because some weren't made well,they wouldn't hold an edge.There were a lot of blades that weren't made well,and they came from many areas.But,people could afford them,and maybe the less well-made blades were more comfortable for many to use...who knows...but they were being used.
We're still missing actual blades from several areas of medieval history.Most that have been found are decent blades,but many are from the later medieval period,and some from pre-medieval periods.Every once in a while they do manage to find a blade from the early medieval period.Unfortunately,a lot of the blades that are found are severely corroded.Some are found in good condition,but those are usually found in places that are good for the sword's preservation over the years (but these are not always typical of the blades being used in the time period).
You also have to look at the fact that not all warriors used swords.Many used other weapons such as the axe and mace.Many times a warrior would have a sword,but not use it.For some,it was purely a back-up weapon...and not always well-cared for.

As for chopping thru chainmail,the only area in which you had a real chance of success was the shoulder area,where the rings had no chance to bend.They have found that if the old coats of mail were struck in the torso area of the body,the links of the mail would bend around the blade,sometimes effectively trapping the blade.The old shirts were made of iron links,and commonly the rings weren't hardened after (or before) being attatched to the shirt.This made for a shirt which would hold up well under the blows of swords.Commonly,the person wearing the armor would suffer more from bruises and blunt force trauma.This is also a reason that many warriors used large blunt weaponry such as maces...to do as much damage as possible to those wearing armor.
I have to know the history of chainmail and several other types of armor because I make chainmail.I have to be able to explain to people interested in the stuff when it was worn,why it was worn,what damage could be done to it by different weaponry...etc.So,I do my homework...

No,I don't claim to be an *expert* on anything,but I don't believe that all *experts* are the definitive sources of knowledge that some people credit them to be.Many have been proven to be wrong over the ages,and it will continue to happen throughout the rest of human history.
Therefore,I can only believe in the things that I have discovered for myself.It is up to others to find their own truths,many of which may disagree with my own.Such is the way of life
smile.gif


------------------
*The* Lunatic Puppy
It wasn't me...It was my *good* twin..
My "inner puppy" made me do it..
 
MacCanine, up until the adoption of the gladius hispaniensis, the Romans used the basic Greek hoplite sword that they had inherited from their former masters, the Etruscans. It was, indeed, of bronze up until iron came into common use and then it was made of bronze, just as in the rest of the Mediterranean area. But all of that was before the establishment of the Roman Republic. The Romans continued to use the hoplite tactics until the Gauls (Celts) beat the stuffing out of them at the Allia River in 396 BC, and then went on to sack and to burn Rome. The Romans never really got over that psychological trauma, IMHO, as their Empire was founded on the heaped bodies of millions of Celtic dead resulting from what amounted to a war of genocide. But that defeat, coupled with the defeats at the hands of the Samnites in Southern Italy, such as at the Caudine Forks, led to the wholesale revision of Roman military tactics into the famous manipular system that evolved into the pilum, scutum, and gladius weapons system that you were describing, albeit inaccurately.

First of all, the pilum was not a spear, but a heavy javelin. Its purpose was to be thrown at the enemy in order to break up his charge, most especially the Celtic Charge. It also served to encumber his shields even if it didn't hit and kill or wound him. This resulted in his throwing said shield away. The result was that he went into battle mostly unprotected. Yes, I said unprotected. I stand by the statement that very few barbarians, other than the chiefs and their hero bands would have had much in the way of armor, since it was so damned expensive. Yes, there was salvage, but you had to win to do that, and you mostly lost going up against the Legions.

Once the pila were thown, then the real work began. The Legionnaries would draw their gladii and close with their foes. They would use the scutum as a battering ram to knock him off balance or as a hook to pull his shield aside, in either case openning him up for the Roman to stab into his gut and to then CUT his way out. It was not a simple tab and withdraw, but a stab and cut around a bit to do as much damage as possible on the way out before moving on. The result was the Hermann Teuton would be left, lying in the dust with his guts falling out in the dirt and bleeding his life away, utterly unable to be a threat to anybody. This was not a case of undue cruelty on the part of the Romans, it was simple efficiency. A simple stab wound might not incapacitate, but a stab and cut around certainly would, and that was the point: to put the enemy out of the fight. I hope that, from this, you can see that it was the gladius and not the "spear" that was the primary weapon of the Legions. It was the gladius that they relied upon to do the real work of their wars.

May I suggest that, if you wish to discuss Roman military, you might wish to read Peter Connolly's "Greece and Rome at War" and John Warry's "Warfare in the Classical World". They are both available from Amazon.

------------------
Walk in the Light,
Hugh Fuller

[This message has been edited by FullerH (edited 03-30-2001).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top