What is the heaviest sword in history? Two-handed combat sword: history and photo
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 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 common 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 TV channel The History Channel" one respected academician 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 - the average weight of any standard-sized sword was between 1.1 kg and 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, swords and swords) demonstrate their misconceptions about "10-pound medieval swords, which can only be used for “awkward blows and chops.”
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 that weapons - battle axes or two-handed swords - were 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 the 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 destroy 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”. According to Cohen, it turns out that real sword, designed for real deathmatch, 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 inherent 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 strength far beyond their capabilities. 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 famous collection and looked at them from a fighter's point of view.
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 heaviest weapons they could and applied 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 a heavier sword to deal more damage.
“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 master fencing 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 there were any - from shortswords to bastards weighed over 1.8 kg, and even these 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 was practicing with the real two-handed sword XVI century, 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 on digital scales just to make sure we had the correct weight estimate. 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.
Biggest combat sword!
This remarkable example of medieval military art has a length of 2 m. 15 cm. and a weight of 6.6 kg. An ordinary person could fight with it for about five, maybe ten, minutes, after which it could be picked up with bare hands. And of course, the blacksmiths and gunsmiths from Passau, when creating this external (ceremonial) sword, did not imagine that one day it would become a military weapon...
further:
The history of this sword apparently began in Germany in the 15th century, presumably in the city of Passau. The sword hilt is made of oak and covered with leather from a goat's leg (without seam). It can be assumed that the sword was made to order for some knight. It is unlikely that it will be possible to identify its first and subsequent owners in the foreseeable future, but it is known that together with the Landsknechts, who used it as a symbol (according to other sources, as a banner?), it came to Frisia (Kingdom in the Netherlands). Here he became the prey of one famous person - Big Pierre (Grutte Pier). This famous Frisian pirate, real name Pier Gerlofs Donia, had a sword in his hand. It must be said that Big Pierre obviously possessed not only very impressive strength, but also considerable stature. His helmet is kept in the town hall of Sneek:
It would seem like an ordinary medieval helmet? But no:
In general, the biography of this man is worthy of a separate story; I recommend that everyone google information about this historical figure.
But, back to the sword, having fallen into the hands of Big Pierre, the sword became a formidable military weapon. According to rumors, this man, who also had a degenerate sense of humor, often cut down several heads with his sword at once. Pierce was supposedly so strong that he could bend coins using his thumb, index and middle fingers. Pierre Gerlofs Donia died on October 18, 1520, about a year earlier he had retired and stopped his pirate exploits. Currently Pierre Gerlofs Donia is considered national hero Holland, and his sword is kept in the Frisian Museum in the city of Leeuwarden.
Sword blade with the inscription "Inri" (presumably Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews)
Personally, in foreign museums where this is allowed, I have had the opportunity to truly appreciate the sensations that you experience while holding a bladed weapon in your hands that is hundreds of years old. It is then that you understand how far we are from fully understanding how they could actually act, and how imperfect the replicas that they are trying to make within the framework of historical movements that are now popular are. And only then do you imagine with all clarity that fencing could really be called an art, not only because of the revolutionary treatises and textbooks written by the masters, but also because they were written for the use of bladed weapons that were perfect in every way. I think you will find it interesting to know the opinion of experts...
The original was taken from the website of the Renaissance Martial Arts Association and is published with the permission of the author.
"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, "The School of the Noble and Worthy Science of Defense", 1617
How much exactly did medieval and Renaissance swords weigh? This question (perhaps the most common on this topic) can be easily answered by knowledgeable people. Serious scholars and fencing practitioners value knowledge of the exact dimensions of weapons of the past, while the general public and even experts are often completely ignorant of this matter. Finding reliable information about the weight of real historical swords that have actually been weighed 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 common misconceptions. And it is not surprising, given how many errors about fencing of the past are spread 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 14th-century swords 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 protestations to the contrary, medieval swords were in fact light, handy and weighed on average less than 1.8 kg. Leading sword expert Ewart Oakeshott stated: “Medieval swords were neither unbearably heavy nor uniform - the average weight of any standard-sized sword was between 1.1kg and 1.6kg. Even large one-and-a-half-handed “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, “Sword in Hand”, p. 13). Leading author and researcher of 20th-century European swords, Ewart Oakeshott, knew what he was talking about. 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 turns out to be surprisingly light: the average weight of swords from the 10th to the 15th centuries is 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 "bastard swords", weighed on average 1.8 kg. 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 Hils, in a 1985 dissertation on the great 14th-century master Johannes Liechtenauer, 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 to use (Hils, pp. 269-286).
EXPERT OPINION
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 on fencing of the 19th and even 20th centuries (even a historian) who would not categorically assert that medieval swords were “heavy”, “clumsy”, “bulky”, “inconvenient” and (as a result of a complete misunderstanding of the technique of possession, 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, Thomas Page's generally excellent 1746 booklet on army fencing, The Use of the Broad Sword, spreads tall tales about early swords. After talking about how things had changed from early technique and knowledge in the field of combat fencing, Page 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). Page's views were shared by other fencers who then used light small swords and sabers.
In the early 1870s, Captain M. J. O'Rourke, a little-known Irish-American historian and fencing teacher, spoke of early swords, characterizing them as "massive blades that required the full strength of both hands." We can also recall the pioneer in the study of historical fencing, Egerton Castle, and his remarkable commentary on the "rude swords of old" (Castle, Schools and Masters of Fencing).
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 Fulkes stated in 1938: “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). Fulkes's opinion, completely unfounded, but shared by his co-author Captain Hopkins, was the product of his experience of 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, Ffoulkes even stated this in 1945: “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.
A famous French medievalist later repeated Fulques's opinion literally as a reliable judgment. Respected historian and expert on medieval warfare, Dr. Kelly de Vries, in a book on the military technology of the Middle Ages, does write in the 1990s about “thick, heavy, awkward, 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.
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 1998 book Medieval Fencing, “It is a great pity that the leading masters of sport fencing (who wield only light rapiers, épées and sabers) display their misconceptions about the “10-pound” medieval swords, which can only be used for “awkward blows and chopping." For example, respected 20th-century swordsman Charles Selberg refers to the “heavy and clumsy weapons of early times” (Selberg, p. 1). And the modern swordsman de Beaumont states: “In the Middle Ages, armor required weapons—battle axes or greatswords—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 a few exceptions, the swords of Europe in 1450 were heavy, clumsy weapons, and in balance and ease of use did not differ from axes” (Cass, pp. 29-30). Even today this idiocy continues. The aptly titled book, The Complete Guide to the Crusades for Dummies, tells us that knights fought in tournaments by “cutting at 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 greatswords weighed “up to 20 pounds and could easily crush heavy armor” (A. Baker, p. 39). None of this is true. 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 battles as they should be?
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 is the beginning of the 21st 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 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 down to the contempt that lovers of sophistication and elegance who lived in the eighteenth century, the romantics of the Elizabethan era and admirers of the magnificent art of the Renaissance had for swords. 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 popular belief that they could not be held in the hands is absurd and long ago outdated, but continues to live, as does the myth that armored knights could only be hoisted onto horses by a crane" (Okeshott, The Sword in the Age of Chivalry , pp. 8-9).
Training with a fine example of a true 15th century Estoc. Long-time researcher of weapons and fencing at the British Royal Armories, Keith Ducklin, states: “From my experience at the Royal Armories, where I studied actual weapons from various periods, I can say that the European broad-bladed fighting sword, whether cutting, piercing or piercing, usually weighed from 2 pounds for a one-handed model to 4.5 pounds for a two-handed model. 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 is undoubtedly knowledgeable, having handled and examined literally hundreds of fine swords from the famous collection and viewed them from a fighter's point of view.
In a brief article about the types of swords of the 15th-16th centuries. from the collections of three museums, including exhibits from the Stibbert Museum 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
In 1863, sword maker and expert John Latham of Wilkinson Swords erroneously claimed that a fine example of a 14th-century sword was of “enormous weight” because it was “used in the days when warriors had to deal with iron-clad opponents.” . Latham adds: “They took the heaviest weapons they could and applied as much force as they could” (Latham, Shape, p. 420-422). However, commenting on the "excessive heaviness" of swords, Latham speaks of a 2.7 kg sword forged for a cavalry officer who believed it would strengthen his wrist, but as a result "no living man could cut with it... The weight was so large that it could not be accelerated, 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 result.” He then deduces, repeating a common mistake, that a strong person will take a heavier 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.
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.” The great 14th century fencing master Johannes Lichtenauer 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. The Italian master Filippo Valdi in the early 1480s instructed: “Take a light weapon, not a heavy one, so that you can easily control it, so that its weight does not interfere with you.” 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. The swords of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, which I personally studied in six countries, and in some cases used to fence and even cut with, 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 there were any - from shortswords to bastards weighed over 1.8 kg, and even these 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.
When I worked with two 16th century combat swords, each weighing 1.3 kg, they performed 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).
On one occasion, while examining several 14th- and 16th-century swords from Ewart Oakeshott's collection, we were even able to weigh a few on a digital scale, just to make sure the weight was correct. Our colleagues did the same, and their results coincided with ours. This experience of studying real weapons makes the ARMA Association critical of 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, a proper understanding of the weight of historical swords is essential to understanding their proper use.
Having examined many medieval and Renaissance swords in practice, collecting impressions and measurements, respected swordsman 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 in motion)." He adds: “In general, modern replicas are quite far from the original swords in this regard. Distorted ideas about what real sharp military weapons are are 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 across the blade, which in turn affects the balance.
You need to understand that modern copies of historical weapons, even being approximately equal in weight, do not guarantee the same feeling of ownership as their ancient 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.
A modern copy 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 - historical replicas, theatrical props, fantasy weapons or souvenirs - are made 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.
There is another factor why modern swords are 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 from numerous images of woodcutter warriors with their slow swings, demonstrating the heaviness of “barbarian swords”, because only massive swords can deliver a heavy blow. (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.
FACTS AND MYTHS
Several times I was lucky enough to carefully compare a modern replica with the original. Although the differences were only within a few ounces, the modern blade seemed to be at least a few pounds heavier.
Two examples of modern copies next to the originals. Despite the same dimensions, small and insignificant changes in geometry (mass distribution of the tang, shoulder, blade angle, etc.) were enough to affect the balance and "feel" of the sword. I have had the opportunity to study 19th century fake medieval swords, and in some cases the difference was immediately noticeable.
When demonstrating swords in my lectures and performances, I constantly see audiences surprised when they pick up a sword for the first time and it turns out to be not at all heavy and uncomfortable as they expected. And they often ask how to lighten other swords so that they become the same. When I teach beginners, I often hear them complain about the heaviness of swords that older students consider light and well-balanced.
Good swords were light, fast, balanced and, while strong enough, retained flexibility and elasticity. These were tools for killing, and they need to be studied from that point of view. The weight of a weapon cannot be judged solely by its size and blade width. For example, the weight of medieval and Renaissance swords can be accurately measured and recorded. What is called heavy depends on perspective. A weapon weighing 3 pounds may be considered elegant and light by a professional, but heavy and clumsy by a learned historian. We must understand that for those who used these swords, they were just right.
Are weapons preserved in the swamps of the Neva? The answers to these questions are saturated with mysticism and supported by chronicles of that time.
Alexander Nevsky is one of the most majestic figures in Ancient Rus', a talented commander, strict ruler and brave warrior, who received his nickname in the legendary battle with Sweden in 1240 on the Neva River.
The weapons and protective equipment of the Grand Duke became Slavic relics, almost deified in chronicles and lives.
How much did Alexander Nevsky's sword weigh? There is an opinion that Five Poods
The sword is the main weapon of a warrior of the 13th century. And wielding an 82-kilogram (1 pound is a little more than 16 kg) melee weapon is, to put it mildly, problematic.
It is believed that the heaviest sword in the history of the world was the sword of Goliath (the king of Judea, a warrior of enormous stature) - its mass was 7.2 kg. In the engraving below, legendary weapon is in the hand of David (this is the enemy of Goliath).
Historical reference: an ordinary sword weighed about one and a half kilograms. Swords for tournaments and other competitions - up to 3 kg. Ceremonial weapons, made of pure gold or silver and decorated with gems, could reach a mass of 5 kg, however, it was not used on the battlefield due to its inconvenience and heavy weight.
Take a look at the picture below. She depicts the Grand Duke in full dress uniform, accordingly, a larger sword - for the parade, to add greatness!
Where did the 5 poods come from? Apparently, historians of past centuries (and especially the Middle Ages) tended to embellish actual events, presenting mediocre victories as great, ordinary rulers as wise, ugly princes as beautiful.
This was dictated by necessity: the enemies, having learned about the valor, courage and mighty strength of the prince, had to retreat under the onslaught of fear and such power. That is why there is an opinion that Alexander Nevsky’s sword “weighed” not 1.5 kg, and as much as 5 poods.
The sword of Alexander Nevsky is kept in Rus' and protects its lands from enemy invasion, is this true?
Historians and archaeologists do not give a definite answer about the possible location of the sword of Alexander Nevsky. The only thing that is known for sure is that the weapon was not found in any of the numerous expeditions.
It is also likely that Alexander Nevsky did not use the only sword, but changed them from battle to battle, since edged weapons become jagged and become unusable...
13th century tools are rare relics. Almost all of them are lost. Most famous sword, which belonged to Prince Dovmont (ruled in Pskov from 1266 to 1299) - is stored in the Pskov Museum:
Did Alexander Nevsky's sword have magical properties?
In the Battle of the Neva, the Slavic troops were outnumbered, but many Swedes fled from the battlefield even before the battle began. Whether it was a tactical move or a fatal accident is not clear.
Russian soldiers stood facing to the rising sun. Alexander Nevsky was on a dais and raised his sword up, calling the soldiers to battle - at that moment the rays of the sun hit the blade, causing the steel to glow and frightening the enemy.
According to the chronicles, after the Battle of the Neva, the sword was taken to the house of elder Pelgusius, where other precious things were kept. Soon the house burned down, and the cellar was filled with earth and debris.
From this moment we begin a journey through the shaky world of speculation and conjecture:
- In the 18th century, monks built a church near the Neva. During construction, they discovered Alexander Nevsky's sword broken in two.
- The monks rightly decided that the fragments of the blade should protect the temple from harm, and therefore they placed them in the foundation of the building.
- During the revolution of the 20th century, the church and its accompanying documents were destroyed.
- At the end of the 20th century, scientists discovered the diary of Andrei Ratnikov (a white officer), several pages of which were dedicated to the legendary blade.
How much did Alexander Nevsky's sword weigh? One thing we can say for sure: not 5 pounds, most likely like a regular blade 1.5 kg. It was a beautiful blade that brought victory to the warriors of Ancient Rus', turning the course of history!
And yet I would like to know whether there was powerful magic contained in it...
Mein Herz mein Geist meine Seele, lebt nur für dich, mein Tod mein Leben meine Liebe, ist nichts ohne Dich // Shadow Troublemaker
The information that will be discussed below does not relate to reality in any way. computer games, where anything is possible, even swords the size of a man.
Some time ago, I wrote a story based on LoS, which featured swords. According to my plan, a boy of 8-9 years old should not have lifted it due to the gravity of the sword. I suffered for a long time, wondering how much an ordinary knight’s sword weighs, and is it really impossible for a child to lift it? At that time, I was working as an estimator, and the documents included metal parts much larger than the sword, but weighing an order of magnitude less than the intended figure. And so, I went to the wide expanses of the Internet to look for the truth about the medieval knight’s sword.
To my surprise, the knight’s sword did not weigh much, about 1.5-3 kg, which shattered my theory to smithereens, and the heavy two-handed weapon barely weighed 6 kg!
Where do these myths about 30-50 kilogram swords that heroes swung so easily come from?
And myths from fairy tales and computer games. They are beautiful, impressive, but have no historical truth behind them.
The knight's uniform was so heavy that the armor alone weighed up to 30 kg. The sword was lighter so that the knight would not give his soul to God at all in the first five minutes of actively swinging the heavy weapon.
And if you think logically, could you work for a long time with a 30-kilogram sword? Can you even lift it?
But some battles lasted not five minutes, and not 15, they stretched out for hours, days. And your opponent is unlikely to say: “Listen, Sir X, let’s take a break, I completely swung my sword,” “Come on, I’m no less tired than you. Let's sit under that tree."
And especially no one will say: “Battle! Stop! One-two! Whoever is tired, raise your hands! Yes, clearly. The knights can rest, the archers can continue.”
However, try to work with a 2-3 kilogram sword in your hands for half an hour, I guarantee an unforgettable experience.
And so, gradually, we came to the already existing information about medieval swords, recorded by historians as a fact.
The Internet led me to the land of Wikipedia, where I read the most interesting information:
Sword- a bladed weapon consisting of a straight metal blade and handle. The blades of the swords are double-edged, less often sharpened only on one side. Swords can be chopping (Old Slavic and Old Germanic types), cutting-stabbing (Carolingian sword, Russian sword, spatha), piercing-cutting (gladius, akinak, xiphos), piercing (konchar, estok). Double-edged division slash-and-pierce weapon on swords and daggers is quite arbitrary; most often the sword has a longer blade (from 40 cm). The weight of the sword ranges from 700 g (gladius) to 6 kg (zweihander, flamberge). The weight of a one-handed chopping or stabbing sword ranged from 0.9 to 2 kg.
The sword was an offensive and defensive weapon of a professional warrior. To wield a sword required long training, years of practice and special physical training. Distinctive feature The sword is its versatility:
- used by both foot and horse warriors;
- chopping blows with a sword are particularly powerful, especially when chopping from the saddle, both against unarmored warriors and warriors in armor (there were enough holes for striking in early armor and the quality of the armor was always questionable);
- piercing blows of a sword can pierce a cuirass and a mirror if the quality of the sword exceeds the quality of the armor;
- by striking the helmet with a sword, you can stun the enemy or kill him if the sword pierces the helmet.
Various types of curved blades are often mistakenly classified as swords. bladed weapons, in particular: khopesh, kopis, falcata, katana ( japanese sword), wakizashi, as well as a number of types of straight bladed weapons with one-sided sharpening, in particular: skramasax, falchion.
The appearance of the first bronze swords dates back to the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC. e., when it became possible to make blades bigger size than daggers. Swords were actively used until the end of the 16th century. In the 17th century, swords in Europe were finally replaced by swords and broadswords. In Rus', the saber finally replaced the sword by the end of the 14th century.
Swords of the Middle Ages (West).
In Europe, the sword became widespread in the Middle Ages, had many modifications and was actively used until the Modern Age. The sword changed at all stages of the Middle Ages:
Early Middle Ages. The Germans used single-edged blades with good cutting properties. A striking example is scramasax. In the ruins of the Roman Empire, spatha is the most popular. The battles are taking place on open space. Defensive tactics are used extremely rarely. As a result, the cutting sword with a flat or rounded tip, a narrow but thick cross, a short hilt and a massive pommel dominates in Europe. There is practically no narrowing of the blade from the handle to the tip. The valley is quite wide and shallow. The weight of the sword does not exceed 2 kg. This type of sword is usually called Merovingian. The Carolingian sword differs from the Merovingian sword mainly in its pointed end. But this sword was also used as a chopping weapon, despite the pointed end. The Scandinavian version of the ancient Germanic sword is distinguished by its greater width and shorter length, since the ancient Scandinavians practically did not use cavalry due to their geographical location. Ancient Slavic swords were practically no different in design from ancient German ones.
Modern reconstruction of a cavalry spatha of the 2nd century.
High Middle Ages. There is a growth of cities and crafts. The level of blacksmithing and metallurgy is growing. Happening Crusades and civil strife. Leather armor is being replaced by metal armor. The role of cavalry is increasing. Knightly tournaments and duels are gaining popularity. Fights often take place in close quarters (castles, houses, narrow streets). All this leaves an imprint on the sword. The cutting and piercing sword reigns. The blade becomes longer, thicker and narrower. The valley is narrow and deep. The blade tapers towards the tip. The handle lengthens and the pommel becomes small. The cross becomes wide. The weight of the sword does not exceed 2 kg. This is the so-called Romanesque sword.
Late Middle Ages. Expansion into other countries is underway. Combat tactics are becoming increasingly diverse. Armor with a high degree of protection is used. All this greatly influences the evolution of the sword. The variety of swords is colossal. In addition to one-handed swords (ruknik), there are one-and-a-half-handed (one-and-a-half-handed) and two-handed swords (two-handed). Piercing swords and swords with wavy blades appear. A complex guard, providing maximum protection for the hand, and a “basket” type guard are beginning to be actively used.
And here is what concerns myths and legends regarding the weight of swords:
Like any other weapon that has a cult status, there are a number of myths and outdated ideas about this type of weapon, which sometimes often appear even in scientific works to this day.
A very common myth is that European swords weighed several kilograms and were mainly used to concuss the enemy. The knight hit his armor with his sword like a club and achieved victory by knockout. Weights of up to 15 kilograms or 30-40 pounds are often quoted. These data do not correspond to reality: surviving originals of straight European fighting swords range from 650 to 1400 grams. Large “Landsknecht two-handed swords” are not included in this category, since they were not the classic sword of a knight, but represented the final degradation of the sword as a personal weapon. The average weight of swords was therefore 1.1-1.2 kg. If we take into account that the weight of combat rapiers (1.1-1.4 kg), broadswords (up to 1.4 kg) and sabers (0.8-1.1 kg) was also generally not less than one kilogram, then their superiority and "grace", so often mentioned by fencers of the 18th and 19th centuries and supposedly the opposite of the "heavy swords of antiquity", is more than doubtful. Modern rapiers, swords and sabers intended for sports fencing are not “lightweight” copies of combat originals, but items originally created for sports, designed not to defeat the enemy, but to score points according to the relevant rules. The weight of a one-handed sword (type XII according to Ewart Oakeshott's typology) can reach somewhere around 1400 grams with the following parameters: blade length 80 cm, width at the guard 5 cm, at the end 2.5 cm, thickness 5.5 mm. This strip of carbon steel is simply physically incapable of weighing more. Only with a blade thickness of 1 cm can you reach three kilograms, or using heavy metals as a blade material - which in itself is unrealistic and impractical. Such swords are unknown to either historians or archaeologists.
If a simple knight's sword did not have the weight that was attributed to it in many legends, maybe the two-handed sword was that dinosaur in the camp of the knight's weapon?
A special variety of straight swords, sharply limited in their purpose and method of use, were giants weighing 3.5-6 kg with blades 120-160 cm long - two-handed swords. They can be called swords among swords, because those techniques of possession that are for more short options were desirable and were the only ones possible for a two-handed sword.
The benefit of two-handed weapons was their ability to pierce solid armor (with such a length of the blade, its tip moved very quickly, and the weight provided greater inertia) and long reach ( Controversial issue- a warrior with a one-handed weapon had almost the same reach as a warrior with a two-handed sword. This was due to the impossibility of completely turning the shoulders when working with both hands). These qualities were especially important if a footman fought against a horseman in fully armed. The two-handed sword was used mainly for duels or in broken formations, as it required a large amount of space to swing. Against a spear, a two-handed sword gave a controversial advantage - the ability to cut the shaft of an enemy’s spear and, in fact, disarm him for a few seconds (until the spearman pulls out the weapon stored for this case, if any) was negated by the fact that the spearman was much more mobile and agile. With a heavy two-handed sword (for example, a European slasher) it was more likely to knock the tip of a spear to the side than to cut it.
Two-handed weapons forged from refining steel, including “flaming blades” - flamberges (flamberges), mainly acted as weapons for mercenary infantry of the 16th century and were intended to fight knightly cavalry. The popularity of this blade among mercenaries reached such an extent that a special bull of the Pope declared blades with several curves (not only flamberges, but also swords with shorter “flaming” blades) to be inhumane, not “Christian” weapons. A warrior captured with such a sword could be cut off right hand or even kill.
By the way, there was nothing magical in the flamberge’s wavy blade - the curved edge had better cutting properties and when hit, a “saw effect” was obtained - each curve made its own cut, leaving petals of flesh in the wound that died and began to rot. And besides, with glancing blows, the flamberge caused more damage than a straight sword.
What is it? It turns out that everything we knew about knightly swords is not true?
True, but only partial. It was impossible to control a very heavy sword. Not every warrior had the strength of Conan the Barbarian, and therefore one must look at things more realistically.
More details about the swords of that era can be found at this link.
