Ask me about swords.

[Anders Ämting]

I saw that you said world war 1 was the last war swords were used for combat in.. that is not technically true, because there was a man by the name of: "Mad Jack Church Hill Jackson" (is what his team called him) he rushed into battle with a scottish sword, long bow, and bagpipe, during world war 2! and only had one defeat his entire military career. You can find a bunch of biographies about him on google.

Right, I correct myself, then: WW1 was the last major conflict where swords were officially issued to troops as part of their standard equipment. (That I know of.)

also what kind of sword is best for fighting a man with a broad shield?

Hard to say. I mean, it's a bit of a vague scenario, and it's always a tricky thing to nail down what is the "best" anything when it comes to swords because they are so contextual. The usual cop-out would be to say: "Whichever sword you happen to be the most skilled at using."

But I don't like cop-outs, so I'll try to answer anyway. In general, the concensus tends to be that a skilled fighter with a shield will usually have the advantage over a swordsman without a shield. If you have a shield as well, and there's no additional armor involved, I suppose any decent single-handed sword would do the job, though your probably want one that was meant to be used along with a large shield. A viking-style sword, for example.

Theoretically, swords that are curved in certain ways would allow you to strike around shields. The Ethiopean shotel was developed from this concept, I believe, having a distinct siccle-shaped blade. That approach tends to be very rare, though.

 

[Astner]

Were pattern welded steel swords more durable than regular steel swords?

What kind of steel were rapiers designed by, and were they as resilient as regular swords? Why rapiers preferred over the regular design?

 

[Anders Ämting]

Were pattern welded steel swords more durable than regular steel swords?

Well, kinda sorta, but not really.

Back in the iron age when people still hadn't quite gotten the hang of this whole "steel" thing, pattern welding was a way to achieve a blade with a homogenous carbon content. Such blades were better than the plain steel swords that could be produced at that time, because the metal they had access to tended to be of uneven quality.

Once people learned to produce good quality steel, pattern welding ended up being basically bling - a luxury that wasn't really necessary. A well-made pattern welded blade is about as good as a plain steel blade with decently uniform carbon content. These days it's mostly an artistic thing - pattern welded blades require more time and work, making them more expensive, and people find the patterns to be pretty.

On the other hand, if the bladesmith doesn't quite know what he's doing, a pattern welded blade can actually turn out worse than a monosteel blade due to carbon being lost in the process. Also, some of the more lazy or unscrupuclous smiths may not be too picky about what metals they put into the weld, while they better ones will pick their steels more carefully.

What kind of steel were rapiers designed by, and were they as resilient as regular swords?

As far as I know, rapiers would have been made out of whatever weapons grade steel was available at the time - by then people had pretty much gotten the hang of steel. That said, I'm sure the quality varied a bit.

A good rapier would have been at least as durable as any other quality sword, though. They were tempered to be flexible, and the idea of heavier swords snapping them in half is pretty much a myth. On the other hand, they were not very bendy or whippy - rapiers were made to be rather stiff in order to penetrate for example thick clothing.

Why rapiers preferred over the regular design?

The rapier was a civilian sword, more or less exclusively carried by the better-off city people for self-defense and dueling. As I understand, it evolved into a dedicated thrusting sword because Renaissance cities were built with very narrow allyways. If you were assaulted in such an ally you wanted to keep your attackers away from you but you wouldn't have room to swing a long weapon. Thus, the best methods of defense was a very linear fighting style using a long sword designed for thrusting.

 

[Ankari]

Hello Anders,

How does someone take care of their sword? What do they use to protect it from rusting? How often do they clean it? I see references to using mineral oil. Does the oil stay on the blade? Why or why not? And did they have mineral oil back in the day?

 

[Anders Ämting]

Most use a coating of oil to keep the blade from rusting. Mineral oil is popular, but apparently any kind of light oil will work just fine. Some people coat the blade in renaissance wax for longer storage, some use modern gun oils or silicon sprays. When I oil my sword, I use a Loctite anti-corrosion spray. Basically anything that keeps the steel free from moisture and oxygen will do the job. I'm not entirely sure what people used in the old days, might do some research on that, but I'm guessing it varied depending on time and region.

When maintaining the sword you'll want to clean the oil off, wash the blade with for example alcohol and make sure it is dry, and then apply a fresh coat of oil. If required, you can polish and/or hone the blade after removing the original oil coat. As for how often you should maintain the sword, a typical example would be to clean and reoil it after each use if possible, or once ever two months if it doesn't see use.

This varies depending on climate, though - if you live in a rather dry enviroment you will need to maintain your sword less than someone who lives in a very humid enviroment. Also, I've heard that one should not store swords in their scabbards, though this is apparently mostly an issue with leather scabbards with no wooden core, as the leather can trap moisture that causes the blade to rust. And while all types of steel will rust eventually, some steels are less prone to rust than others, meaning some swords will be more resiliant.

Finally, on a personal note; I'm not convinced all this is really entirely necessary to keep the blade in decent condition - it's probably more like a precaution. I'm usually too lazy to bother messing around with oils, so for the most part I leave my sword as it is, check it for signs of corrosion once in a while and polish it up with a polishing agent and some fine steel wool on a regular basis. So far I haven't had any major rust issues.

Speaking of rust, if you do find rust on your blade, take note of the color. Dark rust spots are unsightly but not dangerous to the sword. Brighter red spots is "active" rust, and needs to be polished off or it will eat into the metal over time.

 

[Ankari]

I'm not entirely sure what people used in the old days, might do some research on that, but I'm guessing it varied depending on time and region.

That is my problem. I see reference to mineral oil all the time. Some just refer to mineral oil as sword oil (I guess there are some added ingredients that make it slightly different).

Anders, you are an asset. Thanks for your help. If you find out what they used back in the olden days, please update.

Thanks!

 

[Anders Ämting]

That is my problem. I see reference to mineral oil all the time. Some just refer to mineral oil as sword oil (I guess there are some added ingredients that make it slightly different).

Anders, you are an asset. Thanks for your help. If you find out what they used back in the olden days, please update.

Thanks!

Are you interested in any particular time or culture? That might make it easier to find out.

 

[Ankari]

good point. I would have to say that my setting currently resembles western culture, around the 1100's. It does have a few subtle hints of eastern culture.

 

[CupofJoe]

I have read that at Vindolanda [on Hadrian's Wall in the north of England] that under a [supposed] barracks they found squares of sheep fleece that had been preserved. These were about a foot across and didn't seem to be from clothing [no sewing holes I guess]. What they came up with was that sheep fleece might have been used to clean the swords or javelins or armour, the lanolin acting as a protective oil/wax. In the cold and wet this was probably okay but I can't help but think that it would really smell in hot dry places...

 

[Anders Ämting]

good point. I would have to say that my setting currently resembles western culture, around the 1100's. It does have a few subtle hints of eastern culture.

Will see what I can find out.

I have read that at Vindolanda [on Hadrian's Wall in the north of England] that under a [supposed] barracks they found squares of sheep fleece that had been preserved. These were about a foot across and didn't seem to be from clothing [no sewing holes I guess]. What they came up with was that sheep fleece might have been used to clean the swords or javelins or armour, the lanolin acting as a protective oil/wax. In the cold and wet this was probably okay but I can't help but think that it would really smell in hot dry places...

Afraid I don't know much about lanolin. Though, like I said, steel would corrode slower in dry climates.

 

[Kit]

Finally, on a personal note; I'm not convinced all this is really entirely necessary to keep the blade in decent condition - it's probably more like a precaution. I'm usually too lazy to bother messing around with oils, so for the most part I leave my sword as it is, check it for signs of corrosion once in a while and polish it up with a polishing agent and some fine steel wool on a regular basis. So far I haven't had any major rust issues.

At the risk of attracting eyerolls.... for people who are very serious about weapon work, part of the big deal about constantly cleaning the blade is that while you're handling your weapon, you are sort of bonding with it. It's not just some random object... when you fight with a weapon, it becomes part of you.

 

[wordwalker]

Here's a sword question:

I once saw a demonstration that a swing with a basic broadsword can't cut through chainmail. I have doubts about that test, so I'm wondering, how true is it?

Can you give us a sense of how likely the different conditions around that are to happen? For instance, I'm sure cheaper mail or mail that had been hit a few times before would be more likely to break, but how elite would a soldier or his army likely have to be to have "non-cheap" mail that's __ likely to take the hit?

(Of course, even if the mail holds you've still belted someone's ribs with a perfectly good crowbar...)

 

[wordwalker]

(Oh, and sorry for the term "basic broadsword." But you see what I mean, I'm trying to build a couple of rules of thumb about the more likely swords and armor and when we might find them.)

 

[SeverinR]

At the risk of attracting eyerolls.... for people who are very serious about weapon work, part of the big deal about constantly cleaning the blade is that while you're handling your weapon, you are sort of bonding with it. It's not just some random object... when you fight with a weapon, it becomes part of you.

I think it would be much like a modern soldier cleaning his weapon frequently. Protecting the item that might protect your life.

In that instant of need, it might come down to the perfect edge, or the reliablility of the firearm to save your life.

 

[Anders Ämting]

At the risk of attracting eyerolls.... for people who are very serious about weapon work, part of the big deal about constantly cleaning the blade is that while you're handling your weapon, you are sort of bonding with it. It's not just some random object... when you fight with a weapon, it becomes part of you.

At the risk of being an eyeroller, I think that bonding with a weapon includes a certain degree of trust and understanding - I trust my sword not to degrade into a pile of rust just because I don't feel like obsessively smearing oil all over it.

I know exactly how much maintance this sword actually demands, so I know neither to ask too much nor dote on it unnecessarily. That's what it means to bond with your weapon, I think.

Here's a sword question:

I once saw a demonstration that a swing with a basic broadsword can't cut through chainmail. I have doubts about that test, so I'm wondering, how true is it?

Can you give us a sense of how likely the different conditions around that are to happen? For instance, I'm sure cheaper mail or mail that had been hit a few times before would be more likely to break, but how elite would a soldier or his army likely have to be to have "non-cheap" mail that's __ likely to take the hit?

I had to look this up because armor isn't really my thing. From what I can tell, tests show that mail will resist powerful cuts with only minor damage, but can be pierced by thrusts from stiff swords with acute points. Also, one should bear in mind that most tests like these are done on rigid, stationary targets, not a soft human body who is actively trying to avoid injuries, so if anything they are biased against mail. In short, evidence indicate that a warrior wearing mail would have had little to fear from cutting attacks.

Throughout the medieval era, there was a trend of swords design becoming less geared towards cutting and more geared towards thrusting. You often hear that the purpose of this was to produce swords capable of combating plate armor. (In fact, I'm pretty sure I've made that claim earlier in this thread.) But a different theory is that thrusting swords developed to combat mail, and then plate developed in response to that. Which actually makes a whole lot of sense when now that I think about it.

As for "cheap" mail, I'm not sure there even was such a thing. Even low-quality mail would have been kinda pricy, not something you would outfit a whole army with. The most likely reason that cutting swords dominated the early medieval period was probably that mail just wasn't that common - it was something reserved for the richer warriors, while common soldiers would wear lighter armors like gambesons. (For that matter, a mail armor would often have been worn over some kind of padding.)

I should add that non of this is conclusive facts: People are still debating exactly how effective mail really was against swords, and since we don't have a lot of reliable accounts from that time, the real answer is that we don't quite know for sure. However, the general conclusion seems to be: A sword might be able to cut through mail, but even so it was probably something that happened exceedingly rarely.

(Of course, even if the mail holds you've still belted someone's ribs with a perfectly good crowbar...)

Honestly, I suspect a crowbar makes for a better bludgeoning tool than most swords.

But yes, most seem to agree that even with mail armor, you were still vulnerable to blunt trauma. At least far more so than someone wearing plate.

 

[wordwalker]

Thanks.

As for "cheap" mail, I'm not sure there even was such a thing. Even low-quality mail would have been kinda pricy, not something you would outfit a whole army with. The most likely reason that cutting swords dominated the early medieval period was probably that mail just wasn't that common - it was something reserved for the richer warriors, while common soldiers would wear lighter armors like gambesons.

I thought "cheap mail" was a bad phrasing, . So, it's the richer warriors only that have mail-level protection, but against them you're mostly trying to thrust or to reach the unarmored parts. Got it.

 

[Shadow Fox]

I have a question that I'm surprised hasn't come up as of yet, but i shall pose it none the less. I am personally of scottish heritage and so since I was a young lad, I had been exposed to the Iconic scottish claymore. What I'm wondering is that is their any notable progressive difference of the commonly called "great swords" such as the claymore, zweihander and so on. To clarify, I am not asking for a comparison between large swords to other types of swords. I'm asking if their is any appreciable design difference that would play out in combat between, for example, a claymore and a zweihander. What are the advantages and disadvantages of these weapons in comparison to each other? Is there even a difference or is it merely cultural aesthetic?

 

[Gurkhal]

I've got a few questions that I wouldn't mind getting answered.

Was there any major metallurgical advances in regards to making the swords swords used during Antiquity and the Dark Ages (early Middle Ages)?

What was the most advanced sword possible to make with bronze? Would it have been physically possible to make a longsword using bronze?

What would you say about the saex (spelling?) sword, pros and cons?

 

[Anders Ämting]

I have a question that I'm surprised hasn't come up as of yet, but i shall pose it none the less. I am personally of scottish heritage and so since I was a young lad, I had been exposed to the Iconic scottish claymore. What I'm wondering is that is their any notable progressive difference of the commonly called "great swords" such as the claymore, zweihander and so on. To clarify, I am not asking for a comparison between large swords to other types of swords. I'm asking if their is any appreciable design difference that would play out in combat between, for example, a claymore and a zweihander. What are the advantages and disadvantages of these weapons in comparison to each other? Is there even a difference or is it merely cultural aesthetic?

There were some differances. Despite the claymore's reputation as a big sword, apparently the Scottish prefered their twohanders somewhat smaller than the continental variety. They were certainly a lot smaller than the true zweihanders. On the other hand, they tended to have very long hilts in proportion to the rest of the sword.

Based on this I'm guessing that while Scottish swordsmanship probably wasn't that exclusive, it would still have had its distinct characteristics.

The blades probably weren't much different, though, since the most common practice of the time was to import blades from major bladesmithing centres like for example Solingen, Germany. Most claymores would thus have been pretty standard greatswords/longswords that were shipped in batches and then hilted in the local flavor, either with the iconic sloping hilt with quatrefoils and langets, or the lesser known clamshell variety.

I've got a few questions that I wouldn't mind getting answered.

Was there any major metallurgical advances in regards to making the swords swords used during Antiquity and the Dark Ages (early Middle Ages)?

Bit of a broad question. I can't say if there were any known notable advances in bronze technology. (Though I'm guessing there probably was.) I've just never been very interested in bronze age weapons, honestly. Sheilawisz might be able to help out here.

(I have heard that the ancient Egyptians were supposed to possess some kind of super-alloy that was better than regular bronze. Might just be a myth, though, or perhaps they simply had the best quality bronze of their time.)

Obviously, the major paradigm shift was the introduction of iron. The first to use iron weapons were the Hittites, and historians used to attribute the rise of their empire to a kind of iron monopoly. Though, there is now also a theory that the bronze age collapsed due to shortage of tin, which made bronze expensive and difficult to manufacture. This gave iron technology a chance to advance and iron tools ended up cheaper, stronger, lighter and easier to make even when tin became available again.

As for the later Iron Age ("Dark Ages" isn't really a PC term among historians nowadays) you would indeed have seen a lot of metalurgical development, with people finding new ways to improve their steel - case hardening, pattern welding, lamination techniques as so on. This pretty much continued until steel production became advanced enough that reliable monosteel blades could be produced in large quantities, and even then the steel just kept getting better. Even today, there are still interesting things happening in the field.

What was the most advanced sword possible to make with bronze?

"Advanced" is a tricky word to use about something as contextual as swords. It almost always comes down to how exactly you were planning to use it.

Though, just as an example of what you can achieve with bronze if you really know what you are doing, there's the sword of King Goujian, which rested in a water-soaked underground tomb for two millennia and was still in basically perfect condition when they dug it up. As in, the damn thing was still sharp.

Would it have been physically possible to make a longsword using bronze?

Well, there's no reason it would be impossible - the only real question is how appropriate it is. Bronze is heavier and more brittle than steel and needs to be cast rather than forged. I'd say it can definitely be done but you would still just end up with an inferior longsword for way more effort.

What would you say about the saex (spelling?) sword, pros and cons?

The seax (also sax, sæx or scramasax) was generally more of a knife than a sword, though it certainly came in a lot of different dimensions - some being large enough to resemble small swords.

As far as I can understand, they were basically a very common sidearm, functioning both as a tool and a secondary weapon. The modern equivalent, I think, would probably be the fascine knife or the machete.

I've seen a reproduction with a hilt long enough for two hands, but I am to understand such seaxes were not actually used two-handed but rather gripped at the end of the hilt and swung somewhat like a hammer.

Anyway, there may have been specialized fighting styles for these weapons, but since there are no surviving records from that time we are basically left with guesswork.

Also, one theory proposes that the Norweigan single-edged viking sword developed directly from the seax, though I'm pretty sure there's no hard evidence and even if it's true, I'd still consider them distinctly different weapons.

 

[Sheilawisz]

@Gurkhal: Bronze and bronze age weapons are a world totally different to steel, but it's very fascinating on its own right.

For great and accurate information about real Bronze Age techniques and weapons, I always recommend a visit to Neil Burridge's site which you can find here.

Modern Bronzesmith Neil describes the process of creation of bronze swords following the same methods that were used back then, it was truly an art and, because of the many factors involved, bronze weapons would vary a lot in quality and properties between different regions and different Bronzesmiths.

Despite the popular belief that Bronze swords were soft, weak and not real swords, bronze age swords were lethal and devastating weapons even though they were very short when compared with later steel swords. They are shorter because Bronze tends to bend after very strong blows against a target, but still, I have heard about very long swords made in bronze age China.

Ewart Park type bronze swords were between 50 and 70cm long, but longer blades were used to fight on horseback =)