Ask me about swords.

So, I have diagnosed Asperger Syndrome with swords as my special interest. What this essentially means is that I'm obsessed with swords, to the point of them being my default thing to think about, and I have spent years assimilating sword-related trivia.

Since swords are a staple of fantasy fiction, I thought I'd offer my expertise to the benefit of the community. I don't claim to know everything on the subject, but if anyone of you have a question regarding swords I'd be happy to try to answer it. Frankly, if you have a question about swords I can't answer, it's probably something I'll end up researching on my own anyway.

Oh, and I've also had some training as a blacksmith and know the basics of bladesmithing, so I may be able to offer advice in that area as well.

 

First I just want to point out that it's a mistake to think of the katana as an "older" sword. The fact is that the Japanese never actually stopped making them, and they are in fact still made to this day. (For that matter, there are Americans and Europeans making them as well. It's quite amazing.) Which is not to say they never changed over the ages, but the katana itself is not a period specific sword.

But to adress your question: It's true swords eventually took on a ceremonial role, but it bears keeping in mind this was a very gradual change. You sometimes hear that guns made swords obselete, but that is absolutely not true - swords and firearms coexisted for a period of 400-500 years. Early guns weren't really that effective and only gradually improved, and since close combat scenarios still happened the sword remained a serious battlefield weapon throughout the Napoleonic era and right into the late 19th century. What guns actually did was take heavy armor out of the equation, and that was what really changed things because medieval swords were almost exclusively designed to counter whatever armor was used at the time.

But that's just the thing, actually: It's hard to talk about "improvement" because practically all swords were designed to do what was required of them in their own context. Were medieval swords better then post-Renaissance swords? Not really; they were just good at different things. What changed wasn't the attitude towards swords so much as the context in which they were used.

But one thing I can say for certain: During the 19th century, the militaries of Europe did a lot of experimenting with their swords. Really, the sheer crazy variety of different blades you encounter from ca the Victorian period speaks of people who took their swords very seriously, and if they did not manage to improve them, it sure wasn't for lack of trying. These guys tried everything at least once: They tried making straight swords for thrusting, and they tried making curved swords for cutting, and they tried making slightly curved but still kinda straight swords that were equally good for cutting and thrusting. They made swords with broad fullers for flexibility and they made swords with accented pipe-shaped spines for rigidity. They made light swords and they made heavy swords, and they had I think something like four different kinds of sword points. Plus, all the while there was this long and very heated debate about wether the thrust was superior to the cut or vice versa. The thrust side eventually won out, and the last swords to see actual use in the field, as late as World War I, were cavalry sabers with narrow thrusting blades.

So, I suppose the answer is that the sword was treated as a serious weapon for as long as it was expected to see use in actual combat, but how "good" a particular sword was is always going to be a matter of context.

Also useful.

Sorry to say, my obsession mostly only covers metal weapons.

I can tell you about that horse decapitation thing, though: The weapon in question is the Aztec maquahuitl, and it's pretty much considered the sharpest bladed weapon ever created by any culture, anywhere. It's basically a wooden sword with edges made from shards of obsidian, that is to say volcanic glass. Obsidian shards can form edges that are almost monomolecular in sharpness, and some people have used the material to make surgical scalpels. Not primitive old school scalpels, mind you, I mean "actually used in modern hospitals" scalpels.

The downside, of course, is that obsidian is still basically glass, so the edges of the maquahuitl were crazy sharp but also extremely fragile. If I'm not mistaken, Aztec warriors would carry extra shards to replace the ones that shattered in battle.

As for the story about the decapitated horse, I belive it was an account from a conquistador eyewitness. Unfortunately, the last known authentic maquahuitl is said to have been destroyed in 1884, so it's hard to know for sure what they were capable of.

 

I just started learning German longsword, actually. (I've had a grand number of one lessons, so you know I know what I'm talking about. ) I've also tried kendo, but quit before I got to actually hit anyone since I couldn't afford the armor at the time. Before that I did some sport fencing, and in retrospect I wish I had kept that up.

Kendo and sport fencing are actually more sports rather then martial arts - they give you quick reflexes and timing, but don't quite give an acurate simulation of using a real sword in a real fight. Still, if you want to learn how to use a sword, they are still better then nothing.

On the other hand, actual historical fencing styles have been on the rise for a while now, so if you do want to learn how to fence with a rapier the way they did in ye olde times, that's actually achievable. Personally, I would love to learn one of the baskethilt styles, mostly because it kinda looks like the sort of fencing you see in movies.

Oh dear, I can give an exact answer. I'd say there are a lot of factors involved, like wether or not the smith has other projects to work on as well, wether the required material is ready or has to be ordered in, wether or not the blade is pattern welded and the general quality of the workmanship, or how much of a hurry the customer is in. A funny thing about for example Japanese swords is that the really nice, high quality stuff was created during times of peace, because that meant the smiths had more time to put into their art. In wartimes, on the other hand, you needed a lot of swords right away, so the smiths had to churn out inferior blades quickly. I'm sure the same thing applied to European smiths to some degree.

Also, note that "bladesmith" means exactly that: He'd make only the blades, not the entire sword. It was a specialized profession, same way a heart surgeon today won't perform an entire operation by himself. The be more precise, there would be one master smith and two apprentice/assistants doing the heavy hammering. Then there would be another person in charge of grinding and polishing, another guy doing the hilting, another guy making the leatherwork and so on. Most of the time these craftsmen would be in specific guilds, and you could actually get in serious trouble for intruding on their markets.

But anyway, just guestimating here: About a month for a plain but fairly fancy sword with scabbard and everything, assuming no particular delays. More if you wanted luxuries like engraving and jeweled hilts. You probably couldn't get a sword in less then three or four weeks.

Well, I know a bit of general sword care, though I'm honestly not sure if there was any particular way to care for your sword in medieval times. There probably wasn't much need for polishing - rather, you want to keep your sword oiled to prevent corrosion and rust, and you'd probably know some basic honing to keep your blade fairly sharp after use.

Come to think of it, I'm not even quite sure how swords were stored while not in use in medieval times - this seems to be one of those gaps in my data bank. I think I'll ask around a bit and get back to you on this.

 

Oh sure. Probably because they were cavalry weapons - a lot of cavalry swords show tenencies like that.

Mind you, "scimitar" is an umbrella term, covering a much wider family of middle eastern swords: shamshirs, kilijs, saifs, and so on. The word basically means "middle eastern sword", so it's a pretty imprecise term to use.

Well, perhaps I should have said that the debate in question specifically revolved around cavalry tactics - some believed thrusting swords were more benificial during the charge, lancing the opposing force as you say, while others argued curved cutting swords were more beneficial in the melee following the charge. What I meant about the thrust side winning out was that the trend eventually conformed towards the thrust school of thought.

I don't quite like this comparisson, because there is more to sword geometry them just basic profile. The katana blade has a very particular shape that you don't really see much of in western sabers - they are hyper-specialized cutters and tend to be relatively blade-heavy for their size. (Which is not to say they are heavy, just that the standard katana is not a very large sword.)

Most of the 19th century swords I've seen and handled were light weapons. I own an antique infantry saber on which the foible is only about 2mm thick, possibly less. Its absolutely not designed for powerful cutting. The differance between it and my katana are like night and day - they are completely different swords.

I kinda see what you mean, but I'm afraid you are oversimplying a much more complex issue. What makes a good thruster is stiffness and an acute point, which does not necessarily relate to wether the sword has a back or not. And while single edged swords can be better cutters then double edged swords, they are not so per definition. You can pretty much get this kind of performance out of single edged and double edged swords alike depending on exactly what you want out of your blade.

I've actually wondered about the strong preference for double edged swords in the early medieval period - it puzzles me because I can't see any reason for it. You mentioned scimitars before, but few people know that the curved middle eastern swords only appeared relatively late. In medieval times, middle eastern swords were double edged, just like their European contemporaries:


Picture from Ewart Oakeshott's book A Knight in Battle.

Still, it's not like people of that age didn't understand single-edged swords. The vikings had single-edged swords, though they weren't very popular and seem to have faded out in favor of the double-edged variety. In medieval times, there was the falchion family - short, single-edged cutting swords that were apparently fairly popular, but never to the point of replacing their double-edged brothers as the standard. There are a few arming swords with single-edged blades, but they are so rare you almost have to consider them anomalies.

I really can't explain it. It seems the mentality of the time was simply: "Why should I settle for one edge when I can have two?"

Now, you mentioned the medieval swords giving way for more saber-shaped weapons, but the trouble is that you are glossing over about two centuries where the medieval sword was out of style but people still used double-edged swords. The saber as we think of it only gained true popularity in Europe around the 18th century. Before that, the standard military swords were wallon-style cut-and-thrust swords and various baskethilts, which could pretty much be either single edged or double edged. As far as I have been able to tell, the difference between the two was mostly a matter of preference - single edged swords just kinda handle somewhat differently then double edged swords, and all other things being equal, some people just liked them one way while others liked them the other. It came down to taste.

Frankly, if you put a knight is platemail against a 18th-19th century sabrist without armor, the knight is pretty much just going to rush into the poor guy, tackle him and then stab him a lot, while the blows of his opponent bounces harmlessly off his protective steel shell. People wore expensive suits of armor for a reason - because it protected you from harm, and a sword that isn't designed to deal with armor is going to have serious trouble harming an armored opponent. It's really not more complicated then that.

And if you'll let me turn this around: I don't really see what disadvantage a medieval sword would be against a later saber or backsword, even if neither of the fighters wore armor. I do hope you're not one of those people who believe medieval swords were clumsy things weighing 30 pounds and other such nonsense. The medieval sword was a precisely crafted killing tool that excelled at exactly the type of combat it was intended for.

For that matter, there wasn't a single type of medieval sword; what you refer to as a "broadsword." As a matter of fact there are eleven distinct types of swords categorised under the Oakeshott Typology, plus a few subtypes, and most of the variations are designed to take on contemporary armor. Here, let me show you some examples:



Notice how different the top and bottom blades are?

The Type X was one of the earlier styles that grew out of the viking swords. They originated in the viking era and remained a popular weapon until the 13th century. Since the most advanced armor it had to deal with was chainmail, they were primarily cutting swords with broad, flat and flexible blades and wide fullers.

The Type XV, on the other hand, was designed to take on platemail. Now, the thing about plate armor is that it's more or less impervious to edged weapons. You simply aren't cutting through that stuff. Forget about it. The only efficient way to fight someone wearing plate is to stab him through the gaps in the joints of the armor. This required stiff, narrow blades with acute points, sacrificing cutting power. This was a very long-lasting type of sword, seeing use from ca 1290 to ca 1415.

The Types XVI and XVIII are both compromises between cutting ability and thrusting/stabbing ability, trying to create an all-around versatile sword. The XVI was popular in the first half of the 14th century while the XVIII saw use from 1410 to 1510.

Naturally, all of these swords are just as capable of slaying unarmored opponents.

If you look at the dates you'll notice that this isn't a straight progression from cutty-cutty swords to stabby-stabby swords. Rather, they developed the XV to counter armor, but then went: "This works well, but I wish it was a bit better at cutting." And there is a lot of overlapping with these types because people back then also had different taste and different requirements. Notably, when firearms emerged and made plate armor a lot less invincible, you definitely see a return to more cutting oriented swords.

 

Well, bronze is a hard and somewhat brittle copper alloy. It can keep sharp edges but unlike iron and steel, it can't be easily forged, nor can it be heat treated. Instead, bronze swords were cast and might have had their edges forged for extra hardness. I recall my blacksmithing teacher working on a bronze razor using that technique. Bronze is also heavier then iron.

The main advantage of iron is that it's easy to shape when heated, making it easier to work with. Despite this, early iron swords were actually inferior to bronze swords because of their softness. I recall reading somewhere that in the Roman empire, soldiers were issued iron swords while the officers could carry bronze weapons. It was only with the invention of steel that bronze weapons really became obselete. Steel, in terms of bladesmithing, is an alloy of iron and carbon. With heat treatment, the carbon molecules can be arranged so that the steel becomes hard (for sharp edges) or soft (for flexibility) or something in-between. That makes it the ideal material for blades.

Funny thing is, bronze age people seem to have known about iron, they just couldn't figure out how to produce it. On rare occasions, iron meteorites that fell from space were recovered and turned into tools. It is said that when Tutankhamon's tomb was uncovered, they found the young farao surrounded by riches, but upon his chest rested a single tiny iron knife. In ancient Egypt, that one small knife was considered a treasure fit for a mighty king.

"Copper alloy" pretty much means "bronze." I can't say I've ever heard that the Egyptians posessed a superior alloy, but then again Egypt was never my thing. Given that they were advanced for their time, I suppose it's not unlikely they had the best metalurgy around.

Like Sheilawisz said, the typical Egyptian sword was killed a kopesh. They're funny in that people who've handled them say they behave more like axes then swords, and indeed they are theorized to have developed from a type of axe.

 

Let me just add a quick caveat: You may not want to dig yourself into too much detail. Sometimes you just want a sword to be a sword, you know? Honestly, I don't think I'll ever use even a fraction of all I know in my writing. Anyway, remember that you are writing fantasy.

Seriously? The best metal for swords is the stuff we have now, like today. Really, modern metalurgy kicks ass. You won't believe some of the stuff the steel industry churns out nowadays.

Still, even then context comes into play. Exactly what properties are you looking for? If your steel has a minimum of carbon, it will be easy to forge but while it will keep an edge, the blades will be somewhat soft. Not perfect swords, but servicable - good if you have a large army to equip. Add some more carbon and you get stronger and sharper swords, but they will be harder to forge. Add even more carbon and you get really sharp swords, yet the steel is somewhat fragile. Eventually, the carbon content makes the steel too hard to forge at all, and too fragile to be turned into good blades.

If you are more high-tech and add chromium, silicon or vanadium you get spring steel, which can be made into incredibly strong yet very sharp swords. But, you know, then we're into industrial type stuff. There is no way you are getting that kind of metal with medieval technology.

Still, that's not even the important part. The important part is heat treatment: Hardening (that is, the part in the movies where they plunge the red hot blade into water or oil) and tempering (that is, the part they never show you in movies because it's not as dramatic as the hardening.) You can have the best steel in the world, but you will still end up with a crappy sword if your heat treatment method doesn't suit the material.

More or less. Basically, hard steel can be turned into very sharp edges, but it also becomes brittle. Remember earlier in the thread, the part about obsidian being absurdly sharp? Same thing applies to steel.

So, you want your sword to be hard so you can get a cutting edge but soft so it doesn't break so easily. Overcoming this paradox is pretty much what swordsmithing is all about. Now, in Europe, we ended up focusing on finding a middle ground, making swords that are springy and decently sharp. Today, among sword nerds, we refer to swords like these as through hardened. (Or "TH swords.")

The Japanese, on the other hand, built on techniques invented by the Chinese and instead focused on achieving two extremes in the same sword: the edge on a katana is very hard, while the back is rather soft. We refer to this as differentially hardened swords. (Or "DF swords".)

Those wooden swords with obsidian edges are really just taking that idea to its logical extreme.

There really isn't such a thing as black steel, I'm afraid. Steel can be turned black with oxidation techniques, or by quenching it it oil, but it will just be thin layer on the surface.

I think you might actually be better off just relying on your imagination here. It's nice that you are willing to learn new things, but like I said before, remember that you're writing fantasy.

I mean, sure, you could have them go: "Fool, our swords are forged from the finest tungsten alloy steel with a 0.9 carbon content, also .35% silicon!"

...Or you could have them go: "Fool! Your iron trinkets are nothing to the black steel of the Black Steel Empire, forged by the deepest secrets of our mystic alchemy!"

Really, I would totally go with Option B, and I made this thread.

Nice! Heirloom swords are great stuff.