I realize that sword fights aren't accurately portrayed in most movies, but wouldn't the edge of a sword used in battle be horribly chipped? One would think that this would be the case, but I have examined swords actually used in battle yet few actually have major chipping. Defending a heavy blow with one's sword would more than likely mean that the two weapons would come edge to edge. So why don't such swords look more like saws?
Swords used in battle:why no chipping?
- Thread starter Dithsoer
- Start date
- Status
thesecond
Member
They didn't use them like they portray in the movies, i.e., they are primarily thrusting, not slashing, weapons.
Landlocked Pirate
Member
You'll find lots of good information on swords, including your specific question, at this site: http://www.thearma.org/essays.htm.
7X57chilmau
Member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2008
- Messages
- 687
Swords actually used in battle did chip, nick, break, bend. The idea of a sword surviving dozens of heated battles, being passed down thru generations is a fallacy. Only dress swords, never used in battle, survived so.
Also, it is not the point of a sword fight to strike the opponent's weapon. Parries are to redirect a blow away from the intended victim, not to stop the sword. Most strikes are glancing blows.
A sword that actually saw combat against a similarly skilled and armed opponent is damned near destroyed in the skirmish. The goal is to have the other guy's blade fail worst first, allowing you a strike at the squishy bits.
J
Also, it is not the point of a sword fight to strike the opponent's weapon. Parries are to redirect a blow away from the intended victim, not to stop the sword. Most strikes are glancing blows.
A sword that actually saw combat against a similarly skilled and armed opponent is damned near destroyed in the skirmish. The goal is to have the other guy's blade fail worst first, allowing you a strike at the squishy bits.
J
Fosbery
Member
I'm no historian, but from what I've read a sword was unlikely to survive a battle if it actually came up against armour or weapons of the same (or harder) metal. Soldiers would often go through several swords in a battle, or resort to daggers.
Swords used in battle did chip. Museums like pretty pieces and tend to rarely display the beat up battle pieces.
I have handled theater prop swords. Aluminum blades and really chewed up edges. I have no doubt that the blades are meant to be replaced. A actor could get a metal chip in the eye after too much edge abuse.
I have a 1970's reprint of Henry Angelo's Highland Broadsword plates, now on the web. Link below. With the exception of plate 15, all parry's are being conducted with the edge.
Plate 15, parrying the bayonet, it looks like the cavalry man is preparing to parry with the back of the sword.
http://www.thehaca.com/pdf/HungarianHighlandBroadsword.pdf
Having seen enough swords that kids played "pirate" with, edges will look like saw teeth with enough abuse.
Most military swords were kept dull. Prevented training accidents.
Swords broke in battle. I browsed a book on the used book shelf, it was about the battle of Culloden, or earlier. One paragraph quoted a participant who stated five Scottish swords broke over the heads of English Dragoons, including the famous “sword of five”, until the Scotts figured a better way to use their swords. I expect that the Scotts started using the point instead of the edge, and I have no idea what made the “sword of five” famous.
I have a 1970's reprint of Henry Angelo's Highland Broadsword plates, now on the web. Link below. With the exception of plate 15, all parry's are being conducted with the edge.
Plate 15, parrying the bayonet, it looks like the cavalry man is preparing to parry with the back of the sword.
http://www.thehaca.com/pdf/HungarianHighlandBroadsword.pdf
Having seen enough swords that kids played "pirate" with, edges will look like saw teeth with enough abuse.
Most military swords were kept dull. Prevented training accidents.
Swords broke in battle. I browsed a book on the used book shelf, it was about the battle of Culloden, or earlier. One paragraph quoted a participant who stated five Scottish swords broke over the heads of English Dragoons, including the famous “sword of five”, until the Scotts figured a better way to use their swords. I expect that the Scotts started using the point instead of the edge, and I have no idea what made the “sword of five” famous.
Last edited:
theotherwaldo
Member
The kind of swords that are displayed in museums are pretty much presentation swords that were given to important people and possibly used as batons in battle, trophy swords taken from the leaders of defeated opponents (who also used their swords as pointers rather than as weapons), selected battlefield pick-ups, and stuff from armories. Damaged weapons rarely get displayed.
Notice in movies how people stand there and hack at each others' swords? It didn't work that way in real life and there was a lot less hacking at other metal objects.
I have handled one Japanese sword that was supposedly used in real fights. It had small dents in the spine of the sword, not the edge -and I was told by the owner that one was supposed to defend with the softer spine to absorb blows.
I have also seen pictures of another sword with 2 chips on the edge, this was attributed to successful parrying of blows. While still a beautiful sword, it has been permanently damaged.
I have handled one Japanese sword that was supposedly used in real fights. It had small dents in the spine of the sword, not the edge -and I was told by the owner that one was supposed to defend with the softer spine to absorb blows.
I have also seen pictures of another sword with 2 chips on the edge, this was attributed to successful parrying of blows. While still a beautiful sword, it has been permanently damaged.
Pizzagunner
Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 291
It bears pointing out that as armor improved, the increasingly large and expensive to produce sword fell out of general favor as battlefield weapon. Against mail, the one handed swords were already ineffective slashing weapons and plate armor took away most of its offensive ability altogether.
So the sword became a relatively massive piece of steel wielded in a brutal two handed fashion, every inch of the piece being transformed into a purposeful weapon, from the point to the pommel, with the tactics to match. The "dirty" two handed sword fighting today's enthusiasts realistically portray from fighting manuals from the day were from the apex of the sword as a battlefield weapon, but by then, affording multiple examples of such swords, as well as the heavy armor required to make up for the loss of a shield to use as a defense was becoming prohibitively expensive for all but the well to do upper crust.
Knights and men-at-arms were practical and as interested in surviving their battles as much as any modern warrior. Practicality and cost effectiveness also colored the judgement of the nobles who paid to equip and field armies or mercenary forces as well.
An entire array of cheaper to produce, and brutally effective, axes, maces, flails, hammers, and pole arms became the weapons of choice in the later Middle Ages for most run of the mill infantry troops and knights, until effective gunnery saw the end of the plate armor and the renewed popularity of the sword as a "sidearm" to a slow to reload firearm rather than a residual symbol of high standing.
It would really be interesting to see a TV series where these weapon and armor combinations were pitted against one another realistically. I would be curious to see the heavily armored knight with the two handed sword taking on a moderately armored knight using a shield and a small headed hand axe with a back spike. Equally scary propositions would be my bet.
So the sword became a relatively massive piece of steel wielded in a brutal two handed fashion, every inch of the piece being transformed into a purposeful weapon, from the point to the pommel, with the tactics to match. The "dirty" two handed sword fighting today's enthusiasts realistically portray from fighting manuals from the day were from the apex of the sword as a battlefield weapon, but by then, affording multiple examples of such swords, as well as the heavy armor required to make up for the loss of a shield to use as a defense was becoming prohibitively expensive for all but the well to do upper crust.
Knights and men-at-arms were practical and as interested in surviving their battles as much as any modern warrior. Practicality and cost effectiveness also colored the judgement of the nobles who paid to equip and field armies or mercenary forces as well.
An entire array of cheaper to produce, and brutally effective, axes, maces, flails, hammers, and pole arms became the weapons of choice in the later Middle Ages for most run of the mill infantry troops and knights, until effective gunnery saw the end of the plate armor and the renewed popularity of the sword as a "sidearm" to a slow to reload firearm rather than a residual symbol of high standing.
It would really be interesting to see a TV series where these weapon and armor combinations were pitted against one another realistically. I would be curious to see the heavily armored knight with the two handed sword taking on a moderately armored knight using a shield and a small headed hand axe with a back spike. Equally scary propositions would be my bet.
Demitrios
Member
Sorry, wrong post.
HoosierQ
Member
A sword was very difficult thing to make and very costly. As such, they were a) used by very few fighting men in number, and b) not used they way we see them used in movies.
You would arm your foot soldiers with spears and axes and your cavalrymen with spears and often bows. Horsemen tended to be "gentlemen"...that is, knights in Europe or Samurai in Japan.
I am not sure about the idea of the "disposable sword" I am reading about above. The thing was so costly, it was most likely not used nearly as much in battle as we think...in the middle ages that is. By the Napoleonic wars, the sabre was a popular...and mass produced...item for officers.
Even Samurai fought with other weapons more often than their swords. Originally the Samurai was a noble archer and they later adopted swords as status symbols.
The primary "small arm" regardless of culture from the stone age until firearms was the spear/lance/pike. It was easy to make, you could make a lot cheap and just about anybody could use one. Axes were probably a distant second. Swords required a great deal of skill and bows even more so.
You would arm your foot soldiers with spears and axes and your cavalrymen with spears and often bows. Horsemen tended to be "gentlemen"...that is, knights in Europe or Samurai in Japan.
I am not sure about the idea of the "disposable sword" I am reading about above. The thing was so costly, it was most likely not used nearly as much in battle as we think...in the middle ages that is. By the Napoleonic wars, the sabre was a popular...and mass produced...item for officers.
Even Samurai fought with other weapons more often than their swords. Originally the Samurai was a noble archer and they later adopted swords as status symbols.
The primary "small arm" regardless of culture from the stone age until firearms was the spear/lance/pike. It was easy to make, you could make a lot cheap and just about anybody could use one. Axes were probably a distant second. Swords required a great deal of skill and bows even more so.
theotherwaldo
Member
There were graduations among swords in those days that are almost as extreme as they are today. A Japanese land-owner might arm his retainers with the equivalent of modern Pakistani blades while carrying a piece of custom work that might be literally priceless.
Likewise, a knight might have a fine sword at his hip while his squire might be entrusted with a pointed lump of iron that could be called a sword only by the charitable.
Likewise, a knight might have a fine sword at his hip while his squire might be entrusted with a pointed lump of iron that could be called a sword only by the charitable.
Cosmoline
Member
Another advantage of the evolved rapier.
Limeyfellow
Member
They never went up against knights wearing full plate armour and a big arse axe either and have much less leverage on them to snap.
- Status
