home » Summer clothes » The heaviest two-handed sword in the world. How much did the heaviest sword in history weigh?

The heaviest two-handed sword in the world. How much did the heaviest sword in history weigh?

What did Historical Swords Weight?

Translation from English: Georgy Golovanov

"Never overload yourself with heavy weapons,
for the mobility of the body and the mobility of the weapon
the essence of the two main assistants in victory "

— Joseph Suitnam,
"School of the noble and worthy science of defense", 1617

How much did they weigh medieval and renaissance swords? This question (perhaps the most common on this topic) can be easily answered by knowledgeable people. serious scientists and fencing practices value knowledge of the exact dimensions of the weapons of the past, while the general public and even specialists are often completely ignorant in this matter. Find reliable information about the weight of real historical swords Those who really passed the weighing are not easy, but to convince skeptics and ignoramuses is a task no less difficult.

A weighty problem.

False claims about the weight of Medieval and Renaissance swords are unfortunately quite common. This is one of the most common misconceptions. And it's not surprising, considering how many errors about fencing the past is spread through the mass media. Everywhere from TV and movies to video games, historical European swords are portrayed as clumsy, and brandished in sweeping motions. Recently, on The History Channel, a respected academic 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 perfectly well that swords could not be excessively heavy and did not weigh 5-7 kg or more. It can be endlessly repeated that this weapon was not bulky or clumsy at all. It is curious that although accurate information on the weight of swords would be very useful to weapons researchers and historians, a serious book with such information does not exist. Perhaps the vacuum of documents 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 of the examples, from combat 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 1.8 kg on average. Leading Sword Expert Ewart Oakshot claimed:

“Medieval swords were neither unbearably heavy nor the same - the average weight of any sword of standard size ranged from 1.1 kg to 1.6 kg. Even large one and a half hand "military" swords rarely weighed more than 2 kg. Otherwise, they would certainly be too impractical even for people who learned to use weapons from the age of 7 (and who had to be strong in order to survive) ”(Oakeshot, Sword in Hand, p. 13).

Leading author and researcher of European swords of the 20th centuryEwart Oakshotknew 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, light, maneuverable military weapons, equally capable of inflicting chopping blows and deep cuts. They didn't look like the clumsy, heavy things that are often portrayed in the media, more like a "club with a blade." According to another source:

“The sword turned out to be surprisingly light: the average weight of swords from the 10th to the 15th centuries was 1.3 kg, and in the 16th century it was 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 samples were not military weapons, and there is no evidence that they were generally intended for use in battle. Indeed, it would be pointless to use them in the presence of more maneuverable combat specimens, which were much lighter. Dr. Hans-Peter Hills in a 1985 dissertation dedicated to the great master of the 14th century Johannes Liechtenauer writes that since the 19th century, many museums of weapons have passed off large collections of ceremonial weapons as military weapons, ignoring the fact that their blade was blunt, and the size, weight and balance were impractical to use (Hils, pp. 269-286).

Expert opinion.

In the hands of a wonderful example of a military sword of the 14th century. Testing the sword for maneuverability and ease of handling.

The belief that medieval swords were unwieldy and clumsy to use has already acquired the status of urban folklore and is still confusing for those of us who begin swordsmanship. 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 state that medieval swords were "heavy", "clumsy", "bulky", "uncomfortable" and (as a result of a complete misunderstanding of the possession technique, goals and objectives of such weapons) they were supposedly intended only for attack.

Despite the measurement data, many today are convinced that these great swords must be especially heavy. This opinion is not limited to our age. For example, a generally flawless booklet on army fencing 1746, "The Use of the Broad Sword" Thomas Page, spreads tales about early swords. After talking about how the state of affairs has changed from the early technique and knowledge in the field of combat fencing, Page declares:

“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 be cut from top to bottom by the Power of a strong Hand” (Page, p. A3).

views Page shared by other fencers, who then used light small swords and sabers.

Testing a 15th century two-handed sword at the British Royal Armories.

In the early 1870s, Capt. M. J. O'Rourke, a little-known Irish-American, historian and swordsmanship teacher, spoke of early swords, characterizing them as "massive blades that required all the strength of both hands". We can also recall a pioneer in the field of historical swordsmanship research, Egerton Castle, and his notable comment about "rough antique swords" ( Castle,"Schools and masters of fencing").

“The so-called crusader's sword is heavy, with a wide blade and a short handle. 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 a product of his experience in gentlemanly duels with sporting weapons. Fulkes, of course, bases his opinion on the light weapons of his day: rapiers, swords, and dueling sabers (just as a tennis racket may seem heavy to a table tennis player).

Unfortunately, Fulkes in 1945 he even says:

“All swords from the 9th to the 13th centuries are heavy, poorly balanced and equipped with a short and uncomfortable handle”(Ffoulkes, Arms, p.17).

Imagine, 500 years of professional warriors being 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 on military technology Middle Ages, still writes in the 1990s about "thick, heavy, uncomfortable, but exquisitely forged medieval swords" (Devries, Medieval Military Technology, p. 25). It is no wonder that such "authoritative" opinions influence modern readers, and we have to put in so much effort.

Testing of a 16th century bastard sword at the Glenbow Museum, Calgary.

“It is a pity that the presenters masters of sports fencing(wielding only light rapiers, swords, and sabers) demonstrate their delusions of "10-pound medieval swords that can only be used for 'embarrassing cuts and cuts'."

For example, a respected swordsman of the 20th century Charles Selberg mentions "heavy and clumsy weapons of early times" (Selberg, p. 1). BUT modern swordsman de Beaumont declares:

"In the Middle Ages, armor required that weapons - battle axes or two-handed swords - be heavy and clumsy" (de Beaumont, p. 143).

Did the armor require weapons to be heavy and clumsy? In addition, the 1930 Fencing Book stated with great certainty:

“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, p. 29-30).

Even today this idiocy continues. In a book with an apt title "The Complete Guide to the Crusades for Dummies" informs us that the knights fought in tournaments, "chopping each other with heavy, 20-30 pounds swords" (P. Williams, p. 20).

"they were so heavy that they could even split armor", and great swords weighed "up to 20 pounds and could easily crush heavy armor" (A. Baker, p. 39).

None of this is true.

Weighing a rare example of a 14th century combat sword from the collection of the Arsenal of Alexandria.

Perhaps the most deadly example that comes to mind is Olympic fencer Richard Cohen and his book on fencing and the history of the sword:

"swords that could weigh over 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 (simultaneously downplaying the merits of those who wielded them), however, he is only able to perceive them in comparison with the counterfeit swords of the modern sport, even considering that the technique of their use was predominantly "impact-crushing". According to Cohen, does it mean that a real sword, designed for a real fight to the death, should be very heavy, poorly balanced and do not require real skills? And are modern toy swords for pretend fights the right ones?

In the hands of a sample of the Swiss combat sword of the 16th century. Sturdy, lightweight, functional.

For some reason, many classical swordsmen still fail to understand that the early swords, being real weapons, were not made to be held at arm's length and twisted with only fingers. It is now the beginning of the 21st century, there is a revival of the historical martial arts of Europe, and swordsmen still adhere to the delusions of the 19th century. If you do not understand how a given sword was used, it is 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 slashing weapons.

Oakeshott was aware of the existing problem, a mixture of ignorance and prejudice, even more than 30 years ago, when he wrote his significant book "The sword in the era of chivalry":

“Add to this the fantasies of the romantic writers of the past, who, wishing to give their heroes the features of a superman, make them brandish huge and heavy weapons, thus demonstrating strength far beyond the capabilities of modern man. And the picture is completed by the evolution of attitudes towards this type of weapon, 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 a weapon that is only available for viewing in its decadent state can be considered ill-conceived, crude, heavy and ineffective.

Of course, there will always be people for whom the strict asceticism of forms is indistinguishable from primitivism and incompleteness. Yes, 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 outdated, however, it continues to live, as well as the myth that only a crane could lift knights dressed in armor on a horse ”( Oakeshott, "The Sword in the Age of Chivalry", p. 12).

Even a similar broadsword of the 16th century is quite convenient to control for striking and jabbing.

Longtime researcher of arms and fencing at the British Royal Armories Keith Ducklin claims:

“From my experience at the Royal Armories, where I studied real weapons from various periods, I can state that a broad-bladed European battle sword, whether slashing, thrusting-slashing or thrusting, usually weighed from 2 pounds for a one-handed model to 4, 5 pounds for two-handed. Swords made for other purposes, for example, for ceremonies or executions, could weigh more or less, but these were not combat specimens ”(from personal correspondence with the author, April 2000).

Mr. Ducklin, no doubt knowledgeable, because he held and studied literally hundreds of excellent swords from the famous collection and considered them from the point of view of a fighter.

Training with a fine example of a real 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 XV-XVI centuries. from the collections of three museums, including exhibits from Museum Stibbert in Florence, Dr. Timothy Drawson noted that none of the one-handed swords weighed more than 3.5 pounds, and none of the two-handed swords weighed more than 6 pounds. His conclusion:

“On the basis of these specimens, it is clear that the idea that the swords of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance were heavy and clumsy is far from the truth” (Drawson, p. 34 & 35).

Subjectivity and objectivity.

Obviously, if you know how to handle weapons, how to use them, and the dynamics of the blade, then any weapon from the Middle Ages and the Renaissance will seem flexible and comfortable to use.

In 1863, a sword maker and major specialist John Latham from "Wilkinson Swords" erroneously claims that some excellent specimen 14th century sword possessed "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 weight" of swords, Latham speaks of a 2.7 kg sword forged for a cavalry officer who thought it would strengthen his wrist, but as a result “not a single living person could chop with it ... The weight was so large that it was impossible to give it acceleration, so the cutting force was zero. A very simple test proves it” (Latham, Shape, p. 420-421).

Latham adds also: "Body type, however, greatly affects the result". He then deduces, repeating the common mistake, that a strong man will take a heavier sword in order to do more damage to them.

“The weight a person can lift at the highest speed will have the best effect, but a lighter sword may not necessarily move faster. The sword can be so light that it feels like a "whip" in the hand. Such a sword is worse than too heavy” (Latham, p. 414-415).

I must necessarily have enough mass to hold the blade and point, parry blows and give strength, but at the same time it must not be too heavy, that is, slow and awkward, otherwise faster weapons will describe circles around it. This necessary weight depended on the purpose of the blade, whether it should stab, cut, both, and what kind of material it might encounter.

Most of the swords of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance are so balanced and balanced that they seem to literally cry out to you: "Possess me!"

Fantastic tales of knightly prowess often mention huge swords, which could only be wielded by great heroes and villains, and with which they cut horses and even trees. But all these are myths and legends, they cannot be taken literally. In Froissart's Chronicle, 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 owned it and inflicted such terrible blows that everyone it hit fell to the ground; and there was no one among the English who could resist his blows. Great swordsman of the 14th century Johannes Liechtenauer himself said: "The sword is a measure, and it is large and heavy" and balanced with a suitable pommel, which means that the weapon itself must be balanced and therefore suitable for combat, and not heavy. Italian master Filippo Wadi in the early 1480s he 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 swordsman specifically mentions that there is a choice between "heavy" and "light" blades. But - again - the word "heavy" is not a synonym for the word "too heavy", or bulky and clumsy. You can just choose, like, for example, a tennis racket or a baseball bat lighter or heavier.

Having held in my hands more than 200 excellent European swords of the XII-XVI centuries, I can say that I have always paid special attention to their weight. I have always been struck by the liveliness and balance of almost all the specimens that I came across. Medieval and Renaissance swords, which I personally studied in six countries, and in some cases fenced and even chopped with them, were - I repeat - light and well balanced. Having considerable experience in the possession of weapons, I have very rarely seen historical swords that would not be easy to handle and maneuver. Units - if there were any - from short swords to bastards weighed over 1.8 kg, and even they were well balanced. When I came across examples that I found too heavy for myself or not balanced for my taste, I realized that they might work well for people with a different physique or fighting style.

In the hands of weapons from the collection of the Swedish Royal Arsenal, Stockholm.

When I worked with two fighting swords of the 16th century, each 1.3 kg, they showed themselves perfectly. Dexterous blows, thrusts, defenses, transfers and quick counterattacks, furious slashing blows - as if the swords were almost weightless. There was nothing "heavy" in these frightening and elegant instruments. When I practiced with a real two-handed sword of the 16th century, I was amazed at how light the 2.7 kg weapon seemed, as if it weighed half as much. Even though 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 using this weapon. The reader can decide for himself whether to believe these stories. But those countless times when I held excellent examples of weaponry of the 14th, 15th or 16th centuries in my hands, stood up, made movements under the attentive glances of benevolent 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 Ewart Oakeshott, we were even able to weigh a few pieces on a digital scale, just to make sure they weighed correctly. Our colleagues did the same, and their results matched ours. This experience of learning about real weapons is critical Association ARMA in relation to many modern swords. I'm becoming increasingly frustrated with the accuracy of many contemporary replicas. Obviously, the more a modern sword is similar to a historical one, the more accurate the reconstruction of the technique of using this sword will be.

Actually,
correct understanding of the weight of historical swords
necessary to understand their correct application.

Measuring and weighing samples of weapons from a private collection.

Having studied in practice many medieval and renaissance swords, having collected impressions and measurement results, dear fencer Peter Johnson He said that “I felt their amazing mobility. In general, they are fast, accurate and expertly balanced for their tasks. Often the sword seems much lighter than it really is. This is the result of a careful distribution of mass, not just a point of balance. Measuring the sword's weight and its point of balance is only the beginning of understanding its "dynamic balance" (i.e., how the sword behaves in motion)." He adds:

“In general, modern replicas are very far from the original swords in this regard. Distorted ideas about what a real sharp military weapon is, is the result of training only on modern weapons.

So, Johnson also claims that real swords are lighter than many think. Even then, weight is not the only indicator, because the main characteristics are the distribution of mass on the blade, which in turn affects the balance.

We carefully measure and weigh samples of weapons of the 14th and 16th centuries.

Need to understand
that modern copies of historical weapons,
even being approximately equal in weight,
do not guarantee the same feeling of owning them,
like their old originals.

If the blade geometry does not match the original (including along the entire length of the blade, shape and crosshairs), the balance will not match.

Modern copy often feels heavier and less comfortable than the original.

Accurate reproduction of 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 from the sad ignorance of the geometry of the blade on the part of the manufacturer. On the other hand, the reason is a deliberate reduction in the price of manufacturing. 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 real swords should be like that.

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, smiths and their clients expect the sword to feel heavy.

These sensations arose after numerous images of lumberjack warriors with their slow swings, demonstrating the heaviness "barbarian swords", because only massive swords can deal a heavy blow. (In contrast to the lightning-fast aluminum swords of the Oriental martial arts demonstrations, it's hard to blame anyone for this misunderstanding.) While the difference between a 1.7 kg sword and a 2.4 kg sword doesn't seem like much, when trying to reconstruct the technique, the difference becomes quite tangible. Also, when it comes to rapiers, which typically weighed between 900 and 1100 grams, their weight could be misleading. All the weight of such a thin thrusting weapon was concentrated in the handle, which gave the point greater mobility despite the weight compared to wider slashing blades.

Around the weapons of the Middle Ages, many stories, epics, legends and inventions of people have been created. So the two-handed sword is shrouded in secrets and allegories. People have always doubted the huge size of the sword. Indeed, for combat, it is not the size that is important in the first place, but the effectiveness and combat power of the weapon. Despite the size, the sword was a success and was very popular among the warriors. But using such a sword was within the power of exceptionally strong, powerful warriors. The total weight of this instance of the sword is about two kilograms five hundred grams, the length is about a meter, and the handle is a quarter of a meter.

Historical facts

A two-handed sword of this type in the battles of the Middle Ages became widespread in rather late times. All the equipment of a warrior consisted of metal armor and a shield to protect against enemy blows, a sword and a spear. Gradually, the masters learned to cast weapons from metal with better quality, new types of swords appeared, compact in size and much more effective.

Such weapons were expensive, not every soldier could afford to buy a sword. The sword was wielded by the most dexterous, courageous, brave and fairly wealthy warriors and guards. The experience of owning a sword was passed from father to son, constantly improving skills. The warrior had to have heroic strength, excellent reaction, masterfully wield a sword.

The purpose of the two-handed sword

Due to the huge dimensions and heavy weight, only soldiers of a heroic physique owned a two-handed sword. In close combat, they were very often used in the front ranks to break through the first ranks of the enemy. To deprive the shooters and soldiers with halberds following them of the opportunity to strike. Since the dimensions of the sword required a certain free perimeter so that the warrior could swing, close combat tactics had to be changed periodically. The soldiers were forced to constantly change their place of deployment; in the center of the battle, due to the large concentration of soldiers, it was very difficult for them to fight.

In close combat, swords were used mainly to deal a crushing blow and break through the enemy's defenses. In battles in open areas, soldiers used the sword to strike from above and below the opponent in battle. The hilt of the sword could be struck in the face of the enemy as close as possible to each other.

Design features

There were several types of two-handed swords:

At military ceremonies, for various rituals, as a gift for rich, noble people, large two-handed swords were most often used, the weight of each such instance reached five kilograms. Some individual specimens were very often used as a special simulator for improving combat skills and hand training.
A two-handed sword for combat battles weighing about three and a half kilograms and had a length of about one meter seventy centimeters. The length of the handle of such specimens was about half a meter and served as a sword balancer. A soldier who is fluent in combat tactics, has excellent dexterity and dexterity, practically did not notice the dimensions of the sword. For comparison, it is worth noting that the total weight of a one-handed sword was about one and a half kilograms.
A classic two-handed sword from the floor to the shoulder of a soldier, and a hilt from the wrist to the elbow.

Positive and negative qualities of the sword

If we consider the advantages of two-handed swords, we can distinguish the most basic:

The warrior using this sword was protected around a fairly large perimeter;
Crushing slashing blows inflicted by a two-handed sword are very difficult to repulse;
The sword is universal in use.

It is worth paying attention to the negative qualities:

The sword had to be held with two hands, therefore, the possibility of additional protection in the form of a shield was excluded.
The dimensions of the sword did not allow to move quickly, and the large weight led to the warrior's rapid fatigue and, as a result, to low efficiency in battle.

Types of two-handed swords

. The compact Scottish weapon, among the various specimens of two-handed swords, is distinguished by its relatively small dimensions. The length of the blade was about one hundred and ten centimeters. Another important distinguishing feature of this sample is a special design, thanks to which the warrior could pull any weapon out of the hands of the enemy. The small size of the sword makes it possible to use it as efficiently as possible in combat battles, it is rightfully considered the best specimen among two-handed swords.
Zweihander. This sample is characterized by huge dimensions, the length of the sword reaches two meters. The design of the sword is very specific, the paired cross (guard) serves as the boundary between the double-edged blade, the hilt and the unsharpened part of the sword. Such an instance was used in battle to crush the enemy, armed with spears and halberds.
Flamberg. A type of two-handed sword with a special wave-shaped blade. Thanks to such an unusual design, the effectiveness of a soldier armed with such a sword in combat battles has increased many times over. A warrior wounded by such a blade recovered for a long time, the wounds healed very poorly. Many military leaders executed captured soldiers for carrying such a sword.

A little about other varieties of swords.

Cavalrymen very often used the Estoc sword to pierce through the armor of the enemy. The length of this specimen is one meter thirty centimeters.
The next classic variety of a two-handed sword. "Espadon" its length is one hundred and eighty centimeters. It has a cross (guard) of two arches. The center of gravity of such a blade is shifted to the tip of the sword blade.
Sword "Katana". Japanese copy of the sword, with a curved blade. It was used by soldiers mainly in close combat, the length of the blade is about ninety centimeters, the handle is about thirty centimeters. Among the swords of this variety, there is a sample with a length of two hundred and twenty-five centimeters. The power of this sword allows you to cut a person into two parts with one blow.
Chinese two-handed sword "Dadao". A distinctive feature is a wide blade, curved, sharpened on one side. Such a sword found its use even during the war with Germany in the forties of the twentieth century. The soldiers used the sword in hand-to-hand combat with the enemy.

In one of the historical museums of Holland, a two-handed sword is exhibited, which has been preserved in excellent form to this day. This is a huge specimen two meters and fifteen centimeters long and weighing six kilograms six hundred grams. Historians suggest that the sword was made in the fifteenth century in Germany. In combat battles, the sword was not used, it served as a festive attribute for various military holidays and ceremonies. In the manufacture of the sword handle, oak was used as a material and decorated with a piece of goat skin.

In conclusion about the two-handed sword

Only real, mighty heroes, for whom the Russian land has been famous since ancient times, could manage such a powerful, impressive, frightening-looking weapon. But not only our land can boast of effective weapons and brave warriors, in many foreign countries similar weapons were made, with various distinctive features. In the combat battles of the Middle Ages, this weapon witnessed numerous victories and defeats, brought a lot of joy and grief.

Mastery of the sword is implied not only in the ability to deal crushing blows, but also in the dexterity, mobility and resourcefulness of a warrior.

I was thinking about whether to publish in the journal those articles that had already been published earlier on Russian sites. Decided it would be helpful. Subsequently, the articles will be combined into groups, which will allow you to get a fairly broad idea of European fencing and study points of view taken from different sources. I do not rule out that points of view may be different, but it is precisely “truth is born in a dispute”.

Personally, I have had occasion in foreign museums, where it is allowed, to appreciate the feelings that you experience while holding in your hands edged weapons, which are hundreds of years old. It is then that you realize how far we are from a complete understanding of how they could actually act, and how imperfect the replicas that are trying to be made within the historical movements that are now popular. 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 under the possession of a bladed weapon that was perfect in everything. I think you will be interested to know the opinion of experts ...

Original taken from the website of the Renaissance Martial Arts Association and 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
the essence of the two main assistants in victory "
— Joseph Suitnam, The School for 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 practitioners of swordsmanship value knowledge of the exact dimensions of past weapons, while the general public and even specialists are often completely ignorant of the matter. Finding reliable information about the weight of real historical swords that have really passed the weighing is not easy, but convincing skeptics and the ignorant is no less difficult.

A BIG PROBLEM

False claims 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 swordsmanship of the past are spread through the media. Everywhere from TV and movies to video games, historical European swords are portrayed as clumsy, and brandished in sweeping motions. 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)!

Despite claims to the contrary, medieval swords were actually light, handy, and weighed less than 1.8kg on average. Leading sword expert Ewart Oakeshot stated: “Medieval swords were neither unbearably heavy nor uniform – the average weight of any standard size sword ranged from 1.1 kg to 1.6 kg. Even large one and a half "military" swords rarely weighed more than 2 kg. Otherwise, they would certainly be too impractical even for people who learned to use weapons from the age of 7 (and who had to be strong in order to survive) ”(Oakeshot, “Sword in Hand”, p. 13). Leading author and researcher of 20th-century European swords, Ewart Oakeshot, 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, light, maneuverable combat weapons, equally capable of inflicting chopping blows and deep cuts. They didn't look like the clumsy, heavy things that are often portrayed in the media, more like a "club with a blade." According to another source, “the sword turned out to be surprisingly light: the average weight of swords from the 10th to the 15th centuries was 1.3 kg, and in the 16th century it was 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 samples were not military weapons, and there is no evidence that they were generally intended for use in battle. Indeed, it would be pointless to use them in the presence of more maneuverable combat specimens, which were much lighter. Dr. Hans-Peter Hills, in a 1985 dissertation dedicated to the 14th-century great master Johannes Liechtenauer, writes that since the 19th century, many weapon museums have passed off large collections of ceremonial weapons as military weapons, ignoring the fact that their blades were blunt, and the size, weight and balance impractical to use (Hils, pp. 269-286).

EXPERT OPINION

The belief that medieval swords were unwieldy and clumsy to use has already acquired the status of urban folklore and is still confusing for those of us who begin swordsmanship. 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 state that medieval swords were “heavy”, “clumsy”, “bulky”, “uncomfortable” 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 the measurement data, many today are convinced that these great swords must be especially heavy. This opinion is not limited to our age. For example, the generally flawless 1746 booklet on army swordsmanship, The Use of the Broad Sword by Thomas Page, spreads tales about early swords. After talking about how things have changed from the early techniques and knowledge of martial swordsmanship, 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 be cut from top to bottom by the Power of a strong Hand” (Page, p. A3). Page's views were shared by other swordsmen, 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, describing them as "massive blades that required all the strength of both hands." We can also recall the pioneer in the study of historical swordsmanship, Egerton Castle, and his remarkable commentary on "rough antique swords" (Castle, "Schools and Masters of Swordsmanship").

Quite often, some scientists or archivists, connoisseurs of history, but not athletes, not swordsmen who have trained in swordsmanship since 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 handle. 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' opinion, completely unfounded, but shared by his co-author Captain Hopkins, was a product of his experience in gentlemen's duels with sporting weapons. Fulkes, of course, bases his opinion on the light weapons of his day: rapiers, swords, and dueling sabers (just as a tennis racket may seem heavy to a table tennis player).

Unfortunately, Foulkes in 1945 even says: "All swords from the 9th to the 13th centuries are heavy, poorly balanced and equipped with a short and uncomfortable handle" (Ffoulkes, Arms, p.17). Imagine, 500 years of professional warriors being 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.

The well-known French medievalist later repeated Fulkes' opinion literally as a reliable judgment. A respected historian and specialist in medieval military affairs, Dr. Kelly de Vries, in a book on military technology of the Middle Ages, nevertheless writes in the 1990s about “thick, heavy, uncomfortable, but exquisitely forged medieval swords” (Devries, Medieval Military Technology, p. 25). It is no wonder that such "authoritative" opinions influence modern readers, and we have to put in so much effort.

Such an opinion about the "bulky old swords", as one French swordsman once called them, could be ignored as a product of their era and lack of information. But now such views cannot be justified. It is especially sad when leading swordsmen (trained only in the weapons of modern fake dueling) proudly make judgments about the weight of early swords. As I wrote in the 1998 book Medieval Fencing, “It is a pity that the leading sports fencing masters (wielding only light rapiers, epees and sabers) demonstrate their delusions about the “10-pound” medieval swords, which can only be used for “embarrassing blows and cuts. For example, the respected 20th-century swordsman Charles Selberg mentions "heavy and clumsy weapons of early times" (Selberg, p. 1). And the modern swordsman de Beaumont states: “In the Middle Ages, armor required that weapons - battle axes or two-handed swords - be heavy and clumsy” (de Beaumont, p. 143). Did the armor require weapons to be heavy and clumsy? In addition, the 1930 Book of Fencing stated with great certainty: “With 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, p. 29-30). Even today this idiocy continues. In the aptly titled The Complete Dummies' Guide to the Crusades, we are told that knights fought in tournaments "cutting each other with heavy 20-30 pound swords" (P. Williams, p. 20).

Such comments speak more about the inclinations and ignorance of the authors than about the nature of real 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 of 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 that could weigh over 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 (simultaneously downplaying the merits of those who wielded them), however, he is only able to perceive them in comparison with the counterfeit swords of the modern sport, even considering that the technique of their use was predominantly "impact-crushing". According to Cohen, does it mean that a real sword, designed for a real fight to the death, should be very heavy, poorly balanced and do not require real skills? And are modern toy swords for pretend fights the right ones?

Oakeshott was aware of the problem, a mixture of ignorance and prejudice, over 30 years ago when he wrote his landmark book The Sword in the Age of Chivalry. “Add to this the fantasies of the romantic writers of the past, who, wishing to give their heroes the features of a superman, make them brandish huge and heavy weapons, thus demonstrating strength far beyond the capabilities of modern man. And the picture is completed by the evolution of attitudes towards this type of weapon, up to the contempt that lovers of sophistication and elegance, who lived in the eighteenth century, had for swords, the romantics of the Elizabethan era and admirers of the magnificent art of the Renaissance. It becomes clear why a weapon that is only available for viewing in its decadent state can be considered ill-conceived, crude, heavy and ineffective. Of course, there will always be people for whom the strict asceticism of forms is indistinguishable from primitivism and incompleteness. Yes, 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 could not be held in hands is absurd and long outdated, but it continues to live, as does the myth that only a crane could lift knights dressed in armor on a horse ”(Oakeshott, “The Sword in the Age of Chivalry” , pp. 8-9).

Training with a fine example of a real 15th century estoc. Longtime researcher of arms and swordsmanship at the British Royal Armories, Keith Ducklin, states: “In my experience at the Royal Armories, where I studied real weapons of various periods, I can say that a European battle sword with a wide blade, whether slashing, stabbing-slashing or piercing, usually weighed from 2 pounds for a one-handed model to 4.5 pounds for a two-handed one. Swords made for other purposes, for example, for ceremonies or executions, could weigh more or less, but these were not combat specimens ”(from personal correspondence with the author, April 2000). Mr. Ducklin is certainly knowledgeable, having held and studied literally hundreds of excellent 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 XV-XVI centuries. From the collections of three museums, including exhibits from the Stibbert Museum in Florence, Dr. Timothy Drowson noted that none of the one-handed swords weighed more than 3.5 pounds, and no two-handed swords weighed more than 6 pounds. His conclusion: "From these specimens it appears that the idea that the swords of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance were heavy and clumsy is far from the truth" (Drawson, p. 34 & 35).

SUBJECTIVITY AND OBJECTIVITY

In 1863, sword maker and expert John Latham of Wilkinson Swords erroneously asserted that a fine example of a 14th-century sword had "tremendous weight" because it was "used at a time 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 weight" of swords, Latham speaks of a 2.7 kg sword forged for a cavalry officer who believed that it would strengthen his wrist in this way, but as a result "no living person could cut with it ... The weight was so large that it was impossible to give it acceleration, so the chopping power was zero. A very simple test proves it” (Latham, Shape, p. 420-421).

Latham also adds: "Body type, however, has a very strong effect on the result." He then deduces, repeating the common mistake, that a strong man will take a heavier sword in order to do more damage to them. “The weight a person can lift at the highest speed will have the best effect, but a lighter sword may not necessarily move faster. The sword can be so light that it feels like a "whip" in the hand. Such a sword is worse than too heavy” (Latham, p. 414-415).

Fantastic tales of knightly prowess often mention huge swords, which could only be wielded by great heroes and villains, and with which they cut horses and even trees. But all these are myths and legends, they cannot be taken literally. In Froissart's Chronicle, 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 owned it and inflicted such terrible blows that everyone it hit fell to the ground; and there was no one among the English who could resist his blows. The great 14th-century swordsman Johannes Liechtenauer himself said: “The sword is a measure, and it is large and heavy” and balanced with a suitable pommel, which means that the weapon itself should be balanced and therefore suitable for combat, and not heavy. The Italian master Filippo Valdi instructed in the early 1480s: "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 swordsman specifically mentions that there is a choice between "heavy" and "light" blades. But - again - the word "heavy" is not a synonym for the word "too heavy", or bulky and clumsy. You can just choose, like, for example, a tennis racket or a baseball bat lighter or heavier.

Having held in my hands more than 200 excellent European swords of the XII-XVI centuries, I can say that I have always paid special attention to their weight. I have always been struck by the liveliness and balance of almost all the specimens that I came across. The swords of the Middle Ages and Renaissance, which I personally studied in six countries, and in some cases fenced and even chopped with them, were - I repeat - light and well balanced. Having considerable experience in the possession of weapons, I have very rarely seen historical swords that would not be easy to handle and maneuver. Units - if there were any - from short swords to bastards weighed over 1.8 kg, and even they were well balanced. When I came across examples that I found too heavy for myself or not balanced for my taste, I realized that they might work well for people with a different physique or fighting style.

When I worked with two 1.3 kg fighting swords of the 16th century, they performed perfectly. Dexterous blows, thrusts, defenses, transfers and quick counterattacks, furious slashing blows - as if the swords were almost weightless. There was nothing "heavy" in these frightening and elegant instruments. When I practiced with a real two-handed sword of the 16th century, I was amazed at how light the 2.7 kg weapon seemed, as if it weighed half as much. Even though 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 using this weapon. The reader can decide for himself whether to believe these stories. But those countless times when I held excellent examples of weaponry of the 14th, 15th or 16th centuries in my hands, stood up, made movements under the attentive glances of benevolent guardians, firmly convinced me of how much real swords weighed (and how to wield them).

Once, while examining several swords from the 14th and 16th centuries from the collection of Ewart Oakeshott, we were even able to weigh several pieces on a digital scale, just to make sure that their weight was correctly estimated. Our colleagues did the same, and their results matched ours. This experience of studying real weapons is critical for the ARMA Association in relation to many modern swords. I'm becoming increasingly frustrated with the accuracy of many contemporary replicas. Obviously, the more a modern sword is similar to a historical one, the more accurate the reconstruction of the technique of using this sword will be. In fact, a proper understanding of the weight of historical swords is essential to understanding their proper use.

Having examined in practice many swords of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, collecting impressions and measurements, the respected swordsman Peter Johnson said that he “felt their amazing mobility. In general, they are fast, accurate and expertly balanced for their tasks. Often the sword seems much lighter than it really is. This is the result of a careful distribution of mass, not just a point of balance. Measuring the sword's weight and its point of balance 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 different from the original swords in this respect. Distorted ideas about what a real sharp military weapon is, is the result of training only on modern weapons. So, Johnson also claims that real swords are lighter than many think. Even then, weight is not the only indicator, because the main characteristics are the distribution of mass on the blade, which in turn affects the balance.

It must be understood that modern copies of historical weapons, even when approximately equal in weight, do not guarantee the same feeling of owning them as their ancient originals. If the blade geometry does not match the original (including along the entire length of the blade, shape and crosshairs), the balance will not match.

The modern copy often feels heavier and less comfortable than the original. Accurate reproduction of 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 souvenir items - are made heavy due to poor balance. Part of this problem arises from the sad ignorance of the geometry of the blade on the part of the manufacturer. On the other hand, the reason is a deliberate reduction in the price of manufacturing. 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 real swords should be like that.

There is another factor why modern swords are usually made heavier than the originals. Due to ignorance, smiths and their clients expect the sword to feel heavy. These sensations arose after numerous images of lumberjack 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 the Oriental martial arts demonstrations, it's hard to blame anyone for this misunderstanding.) While the difference between a 1.7 kg sword and a 2.4 kg sword doesn't seem like much, when trying to reconstruct the technique, the difference becomes quite tangible. Also, when it comes to rapiers, which typically weighed between 900 and 1100 grams, their weight could be misleading. All the weight of such a thin thrusting weapon was concentrated in the handle, which gave the point greater mobility despite the weight compared to wider slashing blades.

FACTS AND MYTHS

Several times I was lucky enough to carefully compare the 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 minor changes in geometry (shank mass distribution, shoulder, blade angle, etc.) were enough to affect the balance and "feel" of the sword. I have had the opportunity to study 19th century forgeries of a medieval sword, and in some cases the difference was immediately noticeable.

Showing swords in my lectures and speeches, I constantly see the surprise of the audience when they first pick up a sword, 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 very often hear complaints from them about the weight of swords, which older students find light and well balanced.

Good swords were light, fast, balanced and, being strong enough, retained flexibility and resilience. They were tools for killing, and they must be studied from this point of view. The weight of a weapon cannot be judged only by its size and the width of the blade. For example, the weight of medieval and Renaissance swords can be accurately measured and recorded. What to call heavy depends on the perspective. A 3-pound weapon might 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.

And Princess Toropetskaya, Rostislava Mstislavovna, left an unforgettable mark on the history of Russia. As soon as a conversation comes up about him, most of us remember the Battle on the Ice. It was then that the troops under the command of the prince drove out the Livonian knights. Not everyone remembers that he got his nickname for another feat. Then the legendary sword of Alexander Nevsky was first mentioned. This event dates back to 1240. In a place called Ust-Izhora, the Swedes were completely defeated in battles led by the prince.

In 1549, he was canonized for the fact that he refused to unite with the Catholic Church, and thus preserved Orthodoxy in Russia. The Grand Duke was also famous for not losing a single battle.

mystical sword

Russian troops won, despite their minority. Nevsky was an amazing tactician, so thanks to his intelligence and fearlessness, the soldiers defeated the enemy. There is also a mystical episode in this story. According to legend, the enemy was mortally frightened by the sword of Alexander Nevsky, which glowed very strangely. Alexander perfectly mastered this weapon, with one blow blowing off the heads of three Swedes at once. But, as they say, fear has big eyes. The mystical halo to the weapon was most likely given by the Swedish soldiers to justify their defeat. And the sword of Alexander Nevsky just fell under the rays of the sun.

The fact is that the Russian troops were located facing the heavenly body. His beam hit the raised sword, and the frightened Swedish army mistook him for something supernatural. In addition, in this battle, the prince broke the gun on the head of Birger, the leader of the enemies. Having won this battle, Prince Alexander received his sonorous nickname - Nevsky.

Finding monks

After the legendary battle, the sword of Alexander Nevsky was placed in the house of Pelgus. Later, this building burned down and all property, including weapons, remained under its ruins. There is also evidence that in the 18th century, some agricultural monks discovered a sword while plowing the land.

How it was? The incident dates back to 1711. On the site of the Battle of the Neva, following the decree of Peter I, a temple was founded. Not far from him, the monks cultivated the land for crops. Here they found the legendary weapon, or rather, parts of it. They were placed in a chest. The clergy decided that the sword should be in the temple. When its building was completely rebuilt, they put parts of the weapon under the foundation so that the blade would become a talisman of this place. And the most extraordinary thing is that since then no natural disaster has really been able to destroy the church.

The October Revolution made its own adjustments to history: all the documents that were in the temple were burned. Not so long ago, historians found a manuscript of a white officer and a true patriot. He devoted several pages from his diary to describing the sword of Alexander Nevsky. The White Guard warrior believed that Russia would remain invincible as long as the mystical blade was kept on its territory.

How much did the average sword weigh

A warrior in the 13th century handled well with a sword weighing about 1.5 kg. There were also blades for tournaments, they pulled 3 kg. If the weapon was ceremonial, that is, not for battles, but for decoration (made of gold or silver, decorated with gems), then its weight reached 5 kg. It was impossible to fight with such a blade. The heaviest weapon in history is the sword that belonged to Goliath. The Bible testifies that the opponent of David, the future king of Judah, was simply of enormous growth.

How much did the sword of Alexander Nevsky weigh?

So, we have already figured out that the prince's weapons are identified with Slavic relics. There is talk among the people that allegedly his weight was 82 kg, that is, 5 pounds (16 kilograms are equal to 1 pood). Most likely, this figure is greatly embellished by the chroniclers, because information about the power of the blade could reach the enemies. These data were invented to intimidate them, and the sword of Alexander Nevsky weighed 1.5 kg.

As you know, at the time of the battle, Alexander Yaroslavovich was 21 years old. His height was 168 cm, and his weight was 70 kg. With all his desire, he could not fight with a sword weighing 82 kg. Many Soviet viewers imagined the prince as two meters after the release of the famous film "Alexander Nevsky" in 1938. There, the prince was played by Cherkasov - an actor with outstanding physical data and a height of about two meters.

Below is a photo of the sword of Alexander Nevsky, of course, this is not an original weapon, but simply a stylization of a Romanesque type sword, which was the prince's blade.

And if you look at the picture below with the image of Prince Alexander Nevsky, it can be noted that the blade in his hands is depicted as too large.

No one can unequivocally answer the question: "Where is the legendary sword now?" Surely historians know only one thing: so far the blade has not been discovered in any of the expeditions.

Sword in Russia

In Russia, only the Grand Duke and his squad had the right to constantly carry a sword with them. Other warriors, of course, also had blades, but in peacetime they were kept away from human eyes, because the man was not only a warrior, but also a farmer. And carrying a sword in peacetime meant that he saw enemies around him. Just for bragging, not a single warrior wore a blade, but used it only to protect his homeland or his own home and family.

Few other weapons have left a similar mark on the history of our civilization. For thousands of years, the sword has been not just a murder weapon, but also a symbol of courage and valor, a constant companion of a warrior and a source of his pride. In many cultures, the sword personified dignity, leadership, strength. Around this symbol in the Middle Ages, a professional military class was formed, its concepts of honor were developed. The sword can be called the real embodiment of war; varieties of this weapon are known to almost all cultures of antiquity and the Middle Ages.

The knight's sword of the Middle Ages symbolized, among other things, the Christian cross. Before being knighted, the sword was kept in the altar, cleaning the weapon from worldly filth. During the ceremony of initiation, the priest gave the weapon to the warrior.

With the help of a sword, knights were knighted; this weapon was necessarily part of the regalia used at the coronation of crowned heads of Europe. The sword is one of the most common symbols in heraldry. We find it everywhere in the Bible and the Koran, in medieval sagas and in modern fantasy novels. However, despite its great cultural and social significance, the sword primarily remained a melee weapon, with which it was possible to send the enemy to the next world as quickly as possible.

The sword was not available to everyone. Metals (iron and bronze) were rare, expensive, and it took a lot of time and skilled labor to make a good blade. In the early Middle Ages, it was often the presence of a sword that distinguished the leader of a detachment from an ordinary commoner warrior.

A good sword is not just a strip of forged metal, but a complex composite product, consisting of several pieces of steel of different characteristics, properly processed and hardened. The European industry was able to ensure the mass production of good blades only by the end of the Middle Ages, when the value of edged weapons had already begun to decline.

A spear or a battle ax was much cheaper, and it was much easier to learn how to use them. The sword was the weapon of the elite, professional warriors, a uniquely status item. To achieve true mastery, a swordsman had to practice daily, for many months and years.

Historical documents that have come down to us say that the cost of an average quality sword could be equal to the price of four cows. Swords made by famous blacksmiths were much more expensive. And the weapons of the elite, adorned with precious metals and stones, were worth a fortune.

First of all, the sword is good for its versatility. It could be used effectively on foot or on horseback, for attack or defense, as a primary or secondary weapon. The sword was perfect for personal defense (for example, on trips or in court fights), it could be carried with you and quickly used if necessary.

The sword has a low center of gravity, which makes it much easier to control it. Fencing with a sword is considerably less tiring than brandishing a mace of similar length and mass. The sword allowed the fighter to realize his advantage not only in strength, but also in dexterity and speed.

The main drawback of the sword, which gunsmiths tried to get rid of throughout the history of the development of this weapon, was its low "penetrating" ability. And the reason for this was also the low center of gravity of the weapon. Against a well-armored enemy, it was better to use something else: a battle ax, a chaser, a hammer, or an ordinary spear.

Now a few words should be said about the very concept of this weapon. A sword is a type of edged weapon with a straight blade and is used to deliver chopping and stabbing blows. Sometimes the length of the blade is added to this definition, which must be at least 60 cm. But the short sword was sometimes even smaller, as examples are the Roman gladius and the Scythian akinak. The largest two-handed swords reached almost two meters in length.

If the weapon has one blade, then it should be classified as broadswords, and weapons with a curved blade - as sabers. The famous Japanese katana is not actually a sword, but a typical saber. Also, swords and rapiers should not be classified as swords; they are usually distinguished into separate groups of edged weapons.

How the sword works

As mentioned above, a sword is a straight double-edged melee weapon designed for stabbing, slashing, cutting and slashing and stabbing. Its design is very simple - it is a narrow strip of steel with a handle at one end. The shape or profile of the blade has changed throughout the history of this weapon, it depended on the combat technique that prevailed in a given period. Combat swords of different eras could "specialize" in chopping or stabbing.

The division of edged weapons into swords and daggers is also somewhat arbitrary. It can be said that the short sword had a longer blade than the actual dagger - but it is not always easy to draw a clear line between these types of weapons. Sometimes a classification is used according to the length of the blade, in accordance with it, they distinguish:

Short sword. Blade length 60-70 cm;
Long sword. The size of his blade was 70-90 cm, it could be used by both foot and horse warriors;
Cavalry sword. Blade length over 90 cm.

The weight of the sword varies over a very wide range: from 700 g (gladius, akinak) to 5-6 kg (large sword of the flamberg or espadon type).

Also, swords are often divided into one-handed, one-and-a-half and two-handed. A one-handed sword usually weighed from one to one and a half kilograms.

The sword consists of two parts: the blade and the hilt. The cutting edge of the blade is called the blade, the blade ends with a point. As a rule, he had a stiffener and a fuller - a recess designed to lighten the weapon and give it additional rigidity. The unsharpened part of the blade, adjacent directly to the guard, is called the ricasso (heel). The blade can also be divided into three parts: the strong part (often it was not sharpened at all), the middle part and the tip.

The hilt includes a guard (in medieval swords it often looked like a simple cross), a hilt, as well as a pommel, or an apple. The last element of the weapon is of great importance for its proper balance, and also prevents the hand from slipping. The crosspiece also performs several important functions: it prevents the hand from slipping forward after striking, protects the hand from hitting the opponent's shield, the crosspiece was also used in some fencing techniques. And only in the last place, the crosspiece protected the swordsman's hand from the blow of the enemy's weapon. So, at least, it follows from medieval manuals on fencing.

An important characteristic of the blade is its cross section. There are many variants of the section, they changed along with the development of weapons. Early swords (during barbarian and viking times) often had a lenticular section, which was more suitable for cutting and slashing. As armor developed, the rhombic section of the blade became more and more popular: it was more rigid and more suitable for injections.

The blade of the sword has two tapers: in length and in thickness. This is necessary to reduce the weight of the weapon, improve its handling in combat and increase the efficiency of use.

The balance point (or balance point) is the weapon's center of gravity. As a rule, it is located at a distance of a finger from the guard. However, this characteristic can vary over a fairly wide range depending on the type of sword.

Speaking about the classification of this weapon, it should be noted that the sword is a "piece" product. Each blade was made (or selected) for a specific fighter, his height and arm length. Therefore, no two swords are completely identical, although blades of the same type are similar in many ways.

The invariable accessory of the sword was the scabbard - a case for carrying and storing this weapon. Sword scabbards were made from various materials: metal, leather, wood, fabric. In the lower part they had a tip, and in the upper part they ended with a mouth. Usually these elements were made of metal. The scabbard for the sword had various devices that allowed them to be attached to a belt, clothing or saddle.

The birth of the sword - the era of antiquity

It is not known exactly when the man made the first sword. Their prototype can be considered wooden clubs. However, the sword in the modern sense of the word could only arise after people began to melt metals. The first swords were probably made of copper, but very quickly this metal was replaced by bronze, a stronger alloy of copper and tin. Structurally, the oldest bronze blades differed little from their later steel counterparts. Bronze resists corrosion very well, so today we have a large number of bronze swords discovered by archaeologists in different regions of the world.

The oldest sword known today was found in one of the burial mounds in the Republic of Adygea. Scientists believe that it was made 4 thousand years before our era.

It is curious that before burial, together with the owner, bronze swords were often symbolically bent.

Bronze swords have properties that are in many ways different from steel ones. Bronze does not spring, but it can bend without breaking. To reduce the likelihood of deformation, bronze swords were often equipped with impressive stiffeners. For the same reason, it is difficult to make a big sword out of bronze; usually, such a weapon had a relatively modest size - about 60 cm.

Bronze weapons were made by casting, so there were no particular problems in creating blades of complex shape. Examples include the Egyptian khopesh, the Persian kopis, and the Greek mahaira. True, all these types of edged weapons were cleavers or sabers, but not swords. Bronze weapons were poorly suited for breaking through armor or fencing, blades made of this material were more often used for cutting than stabbing.

Some ancient civilizations also used a large sword made of bronze. During excavations on the island of Crete, blades more than a meter long were found. They are believed to have been made around 1700 BC.

Iron swords were made around the 8th century BC, and by the 5th century they had already become widespread. although bronze was used along with iron for many centuries. Europe quickly switched to iron, since this region had much more of it than the deposits of tin and copper needed to create bronze.

Among the currently known blades of antiquity, one can distinguish the Greek xiphos, the Roman gladius and spatu, the Scythian sword akinak.

Xiphos is a short sword with a leaf-shaped blade, the length of which was approximately 60 cm. It was used by the Greeks and Spartans, later this weapon was actively used in the army of Alexander the Great, the warriors of the famous Macedonian phalanx were armed with xiphos.

The Gladius is another famous short sword that was one of the main weapons of the heavy Roman infantry - legionnaires. The gladius had a length of about 60 cm and a center of gravity shifted to the hilt due to the massive pommel. This weapon could inflict both chopping and stabbing blows, the gladius was especially effective in close formation.

Spatha is a large sword (about a meter long), which, apparently, first appeared among the Celts or Sarmatians. Later, the cavalry of the Gauls, and then the Roman cavalry, were armed with spats. However, spatu was also used by foot Roman soldiers. Initially, this sword did not have a point, it was a purely slashing weapon. Later, the spata became suitable for stabbing.

Akinak. This is a short one-handed sword used by the Scythians and other peoples of the Northern Black Sea region and the Middle East. It should be understood that the Greeks often called Scythians all the tribes roaming the Black Sea steppes. Akinak had a length of 60 cm, weighed about 2 kg, had excellent piercing and cutting properties. The crosshair of this sword was heart-shaped, and the pommel resembled a beam or crescent.

Swords of the age of chivalry

The “finest hour” of the sword, however, like many other types of edged weapons, was the Middle Ages. For this historical period, the sword was more than just a weapon. The medieval sword developed over a thousand years, its history began around the 5th century with the advent of the Germanic spatha, and ended in the 16th century, when it was replaced by a sword. The development of the medieval sword was inextricably linked with the evolution of armor.

The collapse of the Roman Empire was marked by the decline of military art, the loss of many technologies and knowledge. Europe plunged into dark times of fragmentation and internecine wars. Battle tactics have been greatly simplified, and the size of armies has decreased. In the era of the Early Middle Ages, battles were mainly held in open areas, defensive tactics were usually neglected by opponents.

This period is characterized by the almost complete absence of armor, except that the nobility could afford chain mail or plate armor. Due to the decline of crafts, the sword from the weapon of an ordinary fighter is transformed into the weapon of a select elite.

At the beginning of the first millennium, Europe was in a "fever": the Great Migration of Peoples was going on, and the barbarian tribes (Goths, Vandals, Burgundians, Franks) created new states in the territories of the former Roman provinces. The first European sword is considered to be the German spatha, its further continuation is the Merovingian type sword, named after the French royal Merovingian dynasty.

The Merovingian sword had a blade about 75 cm long with a rounded point, a wide and flat fuller, a thick cross and a massive pommel. The blade practically did not taper to the tip, the weapon was more suitable for applying cutting and chopping blows. At that time, only very wealthy people could afford a combat sword, so Merovingian swords were richly decorated. This type of sword was in use until about the 9th century, but already in the 8th century it began to be replaced by a sword of the Carolingian type. This weapon is also called the sword of the Viking Age.

Around the 8th century AD, a new misfortune came to Europe: regular raids by the Vikings or Normans began from the north. They were fierce fair-haired warriors who did not know mercy or pity, fearless sailors who plied the expanses of European seas. The souls of the dead Vikings from the battlefield were taken by the golden-haired warrior maidens straight to the halls of Odin.

In fact, Carolingian-type swords were made on the continent, and they came to Scandinavia as war booty or ordinary goods. The Vikings had a custom of burying a sword with a warrior, so a large number of Carolingian swords were found in Scandinavia.

The Carolingian sword is in many ways similar to the Merovingian, but it is more elegant, better balanced, and the blade has a well-defined edge. The sword was still an expensive weapon, according to the orders of Charlemagne, cavalrymen must be armed with it, while foot soldiers, as a rule, used something simpler.

Together with the Normans, the Carolingian sword also came to the territory of Kievan Rus. On the Slavic lands, there were even centers where such weapons were made.

The Vikings (like the ancient Germans) treated their swords with special reverence. Their sagas contain many tales of special magic swords, as well as family blades passed down from generation to generation.

Around the second half of the 11th century, the gradual transformation of the Carolingian sword into a knightly or Romanesque sword began. At this time, cities began to grow in Europe, crafts developed rapidly, and the level of blacksmithing and metallurgy increased significantly. The shape and characteristics of any blade were primarily determined by the enemy's protective equipment. At that time it consisted of a shield, helmet and armor.

To learn how to wield a sword, the future knight began training from early childhood. Around the age of seven, he was usually sent to some relative or friendly knight, where the boy continued to learn the secrets of noble combat. At the age of 12-13, he became a squire, after which his training continued for another 6-7 years. Then the young man could be knighted, or he continued to serve in the rank of "noble squire." The difference was small: the knight had the right to wear a sword on his belt, and the squire attached it to the saddle. In the Middle Ages, the sword clearly distinguished a free man and a knight from a commoner or a slave.

Ordinary warriors usually wore leather shells made from specially treated leather as protective equipment. The nobility used chain mail shirts or leather shells, on which metal plates were sewn. Until the 11th century, helmets were also made of treated leather reinforced with metal inserts. However, later helmets were mainly made from metal plates, which were extremely problematic to break through with a chopping blow.

The most important element of the warrior's defense was the shield. It was made from a thick layer of wood (up to 2 cm) of durable species and covered with treated leather on top, and sometimes reinforced with metal strips or rivets. It was a very effective defense, such a shield could not be pierced with a sword. Accordingly, in battle it was necessary to hit the part of the enemy’s body that was not covered by a shield, while the sword had to pierce enemy armor. This led to changes in sword design in the early Middle Ages. They usually had the following criteria:

Total length about 90 cm;
Relatively light weight, which made it easy to fence with one hand;
Sharpening of blades, designed to deliver an effective chopping blow;
The weight of such a one-handed sword did not exceed 1.3 kg.

Around the middle of the 13th century, a real revolution took place in the armament of a knight - plate armor became widespread. To break through such protection, it was necessary to inflict stabbing blows. This led to significant changes in the shape of the Romanesque sword, it began to narrow, the tip of the weapon became more and more pronounced. The section of the blades also changed, they became thicker and heavier, received stiffening ribs.

From about the 13th century, the importance of infantry on the battlefield began to grow rapidly. Thanks to the improvement of infantry armor, it became possible to drastically reduce the shield, or even completely abandon it. This led to the fact that the sword began to be taken in both hands to enhance the blow. This is how a long sword appeared, a variation of which is a bastard sword. In modern historical literature, it is called the "bastard sword." The bastards were also called "war swords" (war sword) - weapons of such length and mass were not carried with them just like that, but they were taken to war.

The bastard sword led to the emergence of new fencing techniques - the half-hand technique: the blade was sharpened only in the upper third, and its lower part could be intercepted by hand, further enhancing the stabbing blow.

This weapon can be called a transitional stage between one-handed and two-handed swords. The heyday of long swords was the era of the late Middle Ages.

During the same period, two-handed swords became widespread. They were real giants among their brethren. The total length of this weapon could reach two meters, and weight - 5 kilograms. Two-handed swords were used by foot soldiers, they did not make scabbards for them, but wore them on the shoulder, like a halberd or pike. Among historians, disputes continue today as to exactly how this weapon was used. The most famous representatives of this type of weapon are the zweihander, claymore, espadon and flamberg - a wavy or curved two-handed sword.

Almost all two-handed swords had a significant ricasso, which was often covered with leather for greater fencing convenience. At the end of the ricasso, additional hooks (“boar fangs”) were often located, which protected the hand from enemy blows.

Claymore. This is a type of two-handed sword (there were also one-handed claymores), which was used in Scotland in the 15th-17th centuries. Claymore means "big sword" in Gaelic. It should be noted that the claymore was the smallest of the two-handed swords, its total size reached 1.5 meters, and the length of the blade was 110-120 cm.

A distinctive feature of this sword was the shape of the guard: the arches of the cross were bent towards the tip. Claymore was the most versatile "two-handed", relatively small dimensions made it possible to use it in different combat situations.

Zweihender. The famous two-handed sword of the German landsknechts, and their special division - doppelsoldners. These warriors received double pay, they fought in the front ranks, cutting down the peaks of the enemy. It is clear that such work was deadly, in addition, it required great physical strength and excellent weapon skills.

This giant could reach a length of 2 meters, had a double guard with “boar fangs” and a ricasso covered with leather.

Espadon. A classic two-handed sword most commonly used in Germany and Switzerland. The total length of the espadon could reach up to 1.8 meters, of which 1.5 meters fell on the blade. To increase the penetrating power of the sword, its center of gravity was often shifted closer to the point. Espadon weight ranged from 3 to 5 kg.

Flamberg. A wavy or curved two-handed sword, it had a blade of a special flame-like shape. Most often, this weapon was used in Germany and Switzerland in the XV-XVII centuries. Flambergs are currently in service with the Vatican Guards.

The curved two-handed sword is an attempt by European gunsmiths to combine the best properties of a sword and a saber in one type of weapon. Flamberg had a blade with a series of successive bends; when applying chopping blows, he acted on the principle of a saw, cutting through armor and inflicting terrible, long-term non-healing wounds. A curved two-handed sword was considered an "inhumane" weapon; the church actively opposed it. Warriors with such a sword should not have been captured, at best they were immediately killed.

The flamberg was about 1.5 m long and weighed 3-4 kg. It should also be noted that such weapons cost much more than conventional ones, because they were very difficult to manufacture. Despite this, similar two-handed swords were often used by mercenaries during the Thirty Years' War in Germany.

Among the interesting swords of the late Middle Ages, it is worth noting the so-called sword of justice, which was used to carry out death sentences. In the Middle Ages, heads were cut off most often with an ax, and the sword was used exclusively for the beheading of representatives of the nobility. Firstly, it was more honorable, and secondly, execution with a sword brought less suffering to the victim.

The technique of decapitation with a sword had its own characteristics. The plaque was not used. The sentenced person was simply put on his knees, and the executioner blew his head off with one blow. You can also add that the "sword of justice" did not have a point at all.

By the 15th century, the technique of owning edged weapons was changing, which led to changes in bladed edged weapons. At the same time, firearms are increasingly being used, which easily penetrate any armor, and as a result, it becomes almost unnecessary. Why carry around a bunch of iron if it can't protect your life? Along with the armor, heavy medieval swords, which clearly had an “armor-piercing” character, also go into the past.

The sword is becoming more and more of a thrusting weapon, it narrows towards the point, becomes thicker and narrower. The grip of the weapon is changed: in order to deliver more effective thrusting blows, swordsmen cover the crosspiece from the outside. Very soon, special arms for protecting fingers appear on it. So the sword begins its glorious path.

At the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th century, the guard of the sword became much more complicated in order to more reliably protect the fingers and hands of the fencer. Swords and broadswords appear, in which the guard looks like a complex basket, which includes numerous bows or a solid shield.

Weapons become lighter, they gain popularity not only among the nobility, but also among a large number of townspeople and become an integral part of everyday costume. In war they still use a helmet and cuirass, but in frequent duels or street fights they fight without any armor. The art of fencing becomes much more complicated, new techniques and techniques appear.

A sword is a weapon with a narrow cutting and piercing blade and a developed hilt that reliably protects the fencer's hand.

In the 17th century, a rapier comes from a sword - a weapon with a piercing blade, sometimes without even cutting edges. Both the sword and the rapier were meant to be worn with casual attire, not armor. Later, this weapon turned into a certain attribute, a detail of the appearance of a person of noble birth. It is also necessary to add that the rapier was lighter than the sword and gave tangible advantages in a duel without armor.

The most common myths about swords

The sword is the most iconic weapon invented by man. Interest in him does not weaken even today. Unfortunately, there are many misconceptions and myths associated with this type of weapon.

Myth 1. The European sword was heavy, in battle it was used to inflict concussion on the enemy and break through his armor - like an ordinary club. At the same time, absolutely fantastic figures for the mass of medieval swords (10-15 kg) are voiced. Such an opinion is not true. The weight of all surviving original medieval swords ranges from 600 grams to 1.4 kg. On average, the blades weighed about 1 kg. Rapiers and sabers, which appeared much later, had similar characteristics (from 0.8 to 1.2 kg). European swords were handy and well balanced weapons, efficient and comfortable in combat.

Myth 2. The absence of sharp sharpening in swords. It is stated that against the armor, the sword acted like a chisel, breaking through it. This assumption is also not true. Historical documents that have survived to this day describe swords as sharp-edged weapons that could cut a person in half.

In addition, the very geometry of the blade (its cross section) does not allow sharpening to be obtuse (like a chisel). Studies of the graves of warriors who died in medieval battles also prove the high cutting ability of swords. The fallen had severed limbs and serious stab wounds.

Myth 3. “Bad” steel was used for European swords. Today, there is a lot of talk about the excellent steel of traditional Japanese blades, which, supposedly, are the pinnacle of blacksmithing. However, historians know for sure that the technology of welding various grades of steel was successfully used in Europe already in the period of antiquity. The hardening of the blades was also at the proper level. Were well known in Europe and the manufacturing technology of Damascus knives, blades and other things. By the way, there is no evidence that Damascus was a serious metallurgical center at any time. In general, the myth about the superiority of eastern steel (and blades) over the western was born in the 19th century, when there was a fashion for everything oriental and exotic.

Myth 4. Europe did not have its own developed fencing system. What can I say? One should not consider the ancestors more stupid than themselves. The Europeans waged almost continuous wars using edged weapons for several thousand years and had ancient military traditions, so they simply could not help but create a developed combat system. This fact is confirmed by historians. Many manuals on fencing have survived to this day, the oldest of which date back to the 13th century. At the same time, many of the techniques from these books are more designed for the dexterity and speed of the swordsman than for primitive brute strength.

Views