The Why of Weapons: The Great Sword of War

[Ankari]

This is a follow up thread to Malik's outstanding article he posted on Mythic Scribes' home page. You can find the article here.

The article describes the gran espée de guerre as a specialized sword meant to smash metal more than cut anything. It could cut but, to use a phrase from your article, "you’d have to punch the edge of the sword to cut yourself on it."

Does this mean professional soldiers or mercenaries would carry two swords? One with a sharper edge, and one meant to cave in armor?

How did people back then weld the steel edge on an iron core? Do you mean they heated both items and hammered them into one blade?

What other ways were used to join steel edges to iron cores?

You wrote as a side note "authentic swords didn’t have secondary bevels the way modern kitchen knives do." Does that apply to swords from that era? Why didn't they have a secondary bevel?

Finally, if the object was to damage armor and pass the force through to the flesh below, why were these swords more popular than a spiked hammer?

Thanks Malik. I enjoyed the article tremendously.

 

[wordwalker]

Finally, if the object was to damage armor and pass the force through to the flesh below, why were these swords more popular than a spiked hammer?

Before Malik and the other pros get in, I'll suggest a couple factors here:

Spikes are another way to build up enough focused force, but they can be inefficient. By trying to punch right into the flesh they're also more likely to glance off armor if they don't hit squarely-- or if they get that hit, they risk getting stuck. (Though a hammer spike's probably short enough that it might not stick too deep. Some kind of pick, on the other hand...) By the same logic, an "invincibly powerful magic sword" might be better as a hammer, so that even nicks would knock the target around instead of making minor flesh wounds and swishing on past.

For that matter, the "crowbar" impact Malik describes sounds like a better result than punching a spike into someone. The spike might make a deeper and maybe more permanent wound, but it wouldn't have as much guaranteed stopping power.

Finally, the gran epee is a sword. Swords became the symbol of war, and of the idea that it could be a matter of skill and discipline rather than draftees carving up meat, as soon as that overspecialized knife started to be real competition with the spears and axes that could still double as peasant tools. Look at those Marine recruiting clips today: is that supposed to be a realistic, day-to-day ratio of the use of battle rifles to swords?

--Okay, the last argument probably meant the least to the warriors, since it wouldn't compete well with differences that kept them alive. But it means a lot more to us writers.

 

[Guy]

This is a follow up thread to Malik's outstanding article he posted on Mythic Scribes' home page. You can find the article here.

The article describes the gran espée de guerre as a specialized sword meant to smash metal more than cut anything. It could cut but, to use a phrase from your article, "you’d have to punch the edge of the sword to cut yourself on it."

Does this mean professional soldiers or mercenaries would carry two swords? One with a sharper edge, and one meant to cave in armor?

No. Anything that'll cope with armor will do a number on a soft, squishy body.

How did people back then weld the steel edge on an iron core? Do you mean they heated both items and hammered them into one blade?

Basically, yes. It's a very technical process, and there were a number of ways to do it, but you've got the gist of it.

Finally, if the object was to damage armor and pass the force through to the flesh below, why were these swords more popular than a spiked hammer?

The armor of the period Malik's talking about was mail. Mail resists cuts well, but it does nothing about impact trauma, so if you failed to penetrate it you could still beat hell out of the guy inside it. Padded garments were worn, but prior to the advent of plate beating the man up inside his armor was a perfectly viable option. Once plate became more common, penetrating spikes became more common.

 

[Guy]

Good article, Malik. What were your sources?

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

You wrote as a side note "authentic swords didn't have secondary bevels the way modern kitchen knives do." Does that apply to swords from that era? Why didn't they have a secondary bevel?

I haven't read the article, but knowing a bit about knife blades, I'll take a stab at this one....

Sounds to me like he's talking about a convex edge, or similar where there is a gradual slope from the blade spine (or center if double edged) to the cutting edge. In this case the slope would be constant without the drastically steep angle seen on a beveled edge.

Pick up a knife that you have and hold it up into the light so the glint of reflection shows the bevel that forms the edge. Now imagine there is no line in the reflection, and the blade tapers from thick to sharp with zero drastic changes (i.e. No bevel). That's a convex edge. Look up convex edge online, there's plenty of diagrams.

The convex edge has a couple key advantages. First & foremost, there is more metal behind the cutting edge which means it is stronger. It will be more durable and will resist chipping and rolling of the steel (stays sharper longer) than a beveled edge. Second, it is easy to maintain a convex edge with strops, a grinding wheel, or if you're practiced, stones.

A beveled edge typically requires more elaborate sharpening systems that can keep an angle constant on both sides of the bevel. For example, if I'm sharpening a knife to an inclusive angle of 44 degrees, that means I need to sharpen each side of the beveled edge to 22 degrees. The more precise I am in the sharpening, the sharper my blade.

As a side note, most axes are convex edged. That's because of the chopping they are required to do, even in the modern day. An axe with a beveled edge would not stay sharp very long. The edge would roll as the steel bent because there would not be enough backing metal to provide proper support. I assume the theory is similar in regard to war swords.

 

[Malik]

This is a follow up thread to Malik's outstanding article he posted on Mythic Scribes' home page. You can find the article here.

The article describes the gran espée de guerre as a specialized sword meant to smash metal more than cut anything. It could cut but, to use a phrase from your article, "you’d have to punch the edge of the sword to cut yourself on it."

Does this mean professional soldiers or mercenaries would carry two swords? One with a sharper edge, and one meant to cave in armor?

If they could afford it, then yes. A professional soldier or knight would carry an arming sword or a riding sword, typically a one-handed sword that tended to be much sharper. The arming sword or riding sword served the same purpose as a modern soldier's sidearm. It was also often worn when out of armor; this is the sword that a man allowed to carry swords would carry everyday. Also, the gran espee de guerre was generally so big that it could only be carried across the back. To draw it you would have to unbuckle the baldric, clear it, and rebuckle the baldric. It was carried into battle by hand. It wasn't the sort of thing you'd draw in self-defense. The arming sword or riding sword was the go-to in a spur-of-the-moment fight.

How did people back then weld the steel edge on an iron core? Do you mean they heated both items and hammered them into one blade?

Exactly this. Heated and hammered together. There's a link on my blog in the Armor Basics post about making shear steel. Also, this.

You wrote as a side note "authentic swords didn’t have secondary bevels the way modern kitchen knives do." Does that apply to swords from that era? Why didn't they have a secondary bevel?

This applies to almost all warswords. Secondary bevels reduce the durability of an edge while accentuating sharpness. People today aren't using their wall-hanger swords - or even their expensive reproductions like you get from artisans like Michael Tinker Pearce, Hanwei, Albion, etc. - for beating the hell out of people in iron armor. They're used to cut apart watermelons and 32 oz. bottles of Dasani.

Finally, if the object was to damage armor and pass the force through to the flesh below, why were these swords more popular than a spiked hammer?

Because the sword was a nobleman's weapon. The hammer and military pick were weapons of conscripts and were somewhat more limited in their application. Also, the spiked hammer and pick came about later, mostly as a response to plate iron.

The armor of the period Malik's talking about was mail. Mail resists cuts well, but it does nothing about impact trauma, so if you failed to penetrate it you could still beat hell out of the guy inside it. Padded garments were worn, but prior to the advent of plate beating the man up inside his armor was a perfectly viable option. Once plate became more common, penetrating spikes became more common.

Mail does a fair amount against impact trauma but the gran espee de guerre excelled at delivering impact trauma and was even better at quickly ruining mail. The gran espee de guerre / great sword of war kept its utility and usefulness until the advent of full harness in the mid 1300's and even later. Eventually, the great sword of war was upsized into the Type XX -- the Danish two-hander, the Claymore, the six-foot Zwiehander, the Flamberge, etc.

Good article, Malik. What were your sources?

Most of this is just applied analysis.

I have the good fortune to have one of the world's foremost swordmakers, Michael Tinker Pearce, as my mentor, my Fior de Battaglia coach, my writing partner and technical consultant, and, while the story is longer than I want to get into, here, for all intents and purposes my brother. I've spent a good chunk of my adult life talking swords with Tinker, performing and attending demonstrations with him, and beating the crap out of each other in our backyards fencing, grappling, working out knife techniques, and generally alarming the hell out of our neighbors.

I've researched the history of a few specific styles of swords and weapons in the twenty years that I've been researching my book, and I settled on the gran espee de guerre as the primary battlefield weapon in my milieu.

I have studied edged-weapon and hand-to-weapon combat and advanced combatives, which include combat in modern armor, in the military. I have carried both a tomahawk and a khukri downrange and I won't say any more about that so don't ask. I box competitively and taught at a boxing gym, which has ingrained the finer points and practical considerations of battering a physically comparable human being until he no longer represents a threat.

What I wrote in the article is mostly just critical thinking applied to all of the above.

Thanks for the kind words. Keep those questions coming.

 

[Guy]

I've got a couple of Pearce's swords through Hanwei, the one-hander and the great sword of war. Love 'em.

 

[Ankari]

Concerning affordability of swords. How much wealth would they fork over for a quality sword?

You never mention this, but I'm curious about what happens after a sword is broken. Would they melt it down and make a new sword?

Someone on Reddit (I posted a link to this article there) raised a question concerning this statement:

it was likely the single greatest casualty-producing weapon on the medieval battlefield until the development of the longbow.

Could you address that?

 

[Malik]

Ankari,

Prices would vary. I really have no idea; economics isn't my thing. It'd be pricey, though.

A sword would likely not be melted down. Most swords were iron spines with steel edges. There'd really be no way to melt it down without mixing the iron and steel into something that the swordmaker may not want. I guess the piece closest to the handle could be ground into a shorter sword, though. If the smith was really good, he could work in some other metals and fold into a Damascus-type alloy.

I believe that the great sword of war was, in all likelihood, the greatest casualty-producing weapon of its time. It was fairly common and devastatingly effective and specifically built to do only one job, which is to neutralize opponents very quickly. Spears certainly killed more people overall -- the spear was the most common weapon on the field but that's another article -- but the guy with the great sword of war would have a very impressive scoreboard at the end of the day. It was the medieval equivalent, tactically, of a belt-fed weapon: it was big and heavy, supported by smaller weapons, and it caused catastrophic damage in a very short amount of time.

Today the M249 "SAW" (Squad Automatic Weapon) is the largest casualty-producing weapon in the U.S. military arsenal. Do M16's and M4's kill more badguys overall? Yes; there are many more M16's and M4's issued. A fire team fields three M4's to every M249. But when the SAW opens up, it tips the odds. I see the gran espee de guerre as its equivalent at the time.

 

[Ankari]

Another question about this sword versus metal shields. If the sword could dent a helmet, did it do the same to a shield? Or, because of physics (the give or swivel of your arm mitigates some of the force), shields didn't suffer as much physical damage?

 

[Guy]

Another question about this sword versus metal shields. If the sword could dent a helmet, did it do the same to a shield? Or, because of physics (the give or swivel of your arm mitigates some of the force), shields didn't suffer as much physical damage?

Most shields at this time were made of wood. Repeated blows from this sword would eventually compromise a wooden shield.

 

[Ankari]

Most shields at this time were made of wood. Repeated blows from this sword would eventually compromise a wooden shield.

And what of metal shields?

 

[Malik]

I don't know why anyone would use a metal shield. A metal shield would typically be iron, and any shield made of iron thick enough to be of use would be insanely heavy. Metal shields were used in jousting, but they were usually attached to the armor mechanically.

Some shields were banded and/or edged with iron or even steel, but generally a shield was made of wood or leather. Cuir boulli would have made terrific shields; very light and very tough.

Any shield you could reasonably wield in combat is going to be lighter than the force of a greatsword blow, so the sword will have a pool-ball / cue-ball effect. The edge of the shield would likely dent your armor and leave your ears ringing. If you parried by punching outward with the edge of the shield, the sword would hack into it; if the blade wedged, you'd both have a whole new set of problems to solve.

 

[Guy]

And what of metal shields?

Most any metal shields that would've existed would've been small bucklers, perhaps a foot or so in diameter. They were typically used in deflective beats and I suppose would've worked against a large sword, but I don't think I'd want to bet my life on it. A large metal shield would've been constructed from several small pieces riveted together, so it probably would've come down to how well the rivets held, but they would've been very few in number.

One of the things that's very important to keep in mind is all these arms and armor were hand crafted. We're accustomed to assembly line manufacture, a world were one G.I. issue rifle will perform pretty much like another. In a world were it was all hand crafted, there was huge variation in quality, even in products from the same maker, so it's difficult to say with any authority how one piece of equipment would've fared against another. One small buckler might've held up well to an onslaught from a greatsword while another would've been smashed.

 

[Ankari]

Guy and Malik, those two posts are insanely helpful.

 

[Malik]

Guy's last post might be one of the best answers to anything that I've read on this forum, ever.

 

[Guy]

Guy's last post might be one of the best answers to anything that I've read on this forum, ever.

Thank you very much. I is but a humble little history major.

 

[Malik]

They were typically used in deflective beats and I suppose would've worked against a large sword, but I don't think I'd want to bet my life on it.

Agreed. There is not enough beer in the world to ever make me think that engaging a greatsword with a small buckler was a good idea.

 

[Guy]

Like blocking a Danish axe, it's technically feasible but in the words of Malcolm Reynolds, "That ain't exactly Plan A."

 

[Feo Takahari]

Most of this is just applied analysis.

I have the good fortune to have one of the world's foremost swordmakers, Michael Tinker Pearce, as my mentor, my Fior de Battaglia coach, my writing partner and technical consultant, and, while the story is longer than I want to get into, here, for all intents and purposes my brother. I've spent a good chunk of my adult life talking swords with Tinker, performing and attending demonstrations with him, and beating the crap out of each other in our backyards fencing, grappling, working out knife techniques, and generally alarming the hell out of our neighbors.

I've researched the history of a few specific styles of swords and weapons in the twenty years that I've been researching my book, and I settled on the gran espee de guerre as the primary battlefield weapon in my milieu.

I have studied edged-weapon and hand-to-weapon combat and advanced combatives, which include combat in modern armor, in the military. I have carried both a tomahawk and a khukri downrange and I won't say any more about that so don't ask. I box competitively and taught at a boxing gym, which has ingrained the finer points and practical considerations of battering a physically comparable human being until he no longer represents a threat.

What I wrote in the article is mostly just critical thinking applied to all of the above.

I know it's rude to say this, and I know you know more about this subject matter than me. It's not my intent to insult you. And yet . . .

It's a clear statement of fact to say "the swords of this type that have survived are blunt." You could probably demonstrate "swords of this type are good at breaking armor." But if you're going to make the statement "swords of this type were made to break armor," you should probably cite a historical account or two of them breaking armor. Even if "breaking armor" is the most obvious use for this sword type, it's not good practice to make such detailed, confident statements without sources (and it's not unheard of for a new source to undermine previous assumptions about what some historical implement actually did.)

(I have the feeling you do have an account or two of them breaking armor, and you just haven't pulled it out yet. I really do want to see any sources you can provide--I put a lot of value on firsthand accounts.)