Edge to Edge Contact

J

jmknife

Joined
Dec 8, 2002
Messages
99
Did swords ever make edge to edge contact in real encounters? Did fighters use the back of the blade to stop their opponent's blade or did they use the flat of the blade to deflect their opponent's blade? How common were broken or shattered blades? If you knew there was a good chance to break your sword, what kind of backup weapon did you carry?

This question was prompted by another posting that questioned whether anyone had ever banged two knives together by their edges. I thought there would be more expertise in this forum to answer my off topic question.

I tried the search function, but its not working right now.

Thanks.
 
Great question, edge on edge contact is usually not a good idea with a sword because of obvious damage to the blade. To deflect the blade or counter, or parry they would usually use the flat of the blade to do this. However blade on blade contact does occur and it is never pretty. There is 99% damage to both blades. A broken blade is EXTREMELY uncommon, but not unheard of. A shattered blade I have never heard of except in stories.

In response to a back up weapon, it would depend on which culture we are talking about. English usually used a dagger, Japanese a short sword called a wakazashi I believe; the list will go on and on depending on the culture and the personal preferences of the individual.

These essays and articles can answer your questions a lot better than I can.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/impacts.htm

http://www.thearma.org/essays/damagededge.htm

http://www.thehaca.com/essays/edgemyth.htm

Hope I was of some help, if not let me know.
 
That was exactly what I needed. Thanks a bunch. I guess Errol Flynn and Basil Rathbone had a stage hand to fix their blades in the old Robin Hood movie.
 
Parrying sword strikes was what you had ayour shield for. But I will also note that many historical swords have the sorts of edge damage that indicates that the were used on occasion to parry another sword. it wasn't something that you tried to do, but it was better than being sliced open by the other guy's sword.
 
Also, much of the stage sword fighting you see in the movies is based on fencing that is typically done with swords with minimal edge anyway (like the foil and epee simulating a rapier). When people actually fought with the kind of swords you see in Robin Hood and movies with knights, they used shields to block the other guy's blows for the most part.
 
Well you've opened one of the larger can of worms in sword circles. There are probably hundreds of pages on various fora devoted to this debate. I think I'm going to settle for we don't know... under optimal conditions you would want to preserve your sword. In combat conditions are rarely optimal and one would expect the sword to stand up to a good bit of abuse. Also it is worth remembering that often the sword WAS the backup weapon. Daggers and such would have been the weapon of last resort. Polearms being generally the weapon of first choice amongst infantry and the lance the weapon of the heavy cavalry. Shields were used but eventually went out of style as plate armor became better. As plate got better impact and chopping weapons were the primaries.
 
There is this mythology that has been pushed by professors and by Brit re-enactors that Roman legionaries NEVER chopped with their gladii. They used them only for thrusting, stabbing. Well, Polybius and Livy both comment upon the horror experienced by the Greeks after their first encounters with the Romans in the First Century BCE when the Romans decided to conquer Macedonia and Greece. They saw bodies with limbs and heads lopped off by the Roman Gladius Hispaniensis and it really did horrify them. This was not a style of fighting with which the Greeks were accustomed. But it says volumes about the fact that the Roman soldiers did, indeed, use thair short swords as choppers and, if you have ever looked at one, let alone played with one, you will know that they are equally well suited both for stabbing and for chopping.

Now, considering how badly the modern academics have misinterpreted something as basic as how the legions used their shortswords, ask yourself how silly this absolute rule that swords were never used edge on edge must be when exposed to the real world of down and dirty combat. Of course you tried not to use them that way, but a chipped or dented edge is a damned sight better than a split head or a gashed arm.
 
Couldnt put it better myself fuller. Finally somebody who agrees with me about the gladius issue. Somebody would be a fool not to chop with a gladius if the situation permited it. ANd i do agree with you that swords were supposed to be used to parry with the flat of the blade and not the edge. Supposed is the key word there, thats why museum replicas have dents and nicks on the blades. In a real life situation, things dont always go ideally or according to plan.
 
A couple of things...

There are, in fact, some fencing systems which make use of edge parries--the European cut-and-thrust broadsword/backsword/military saber/cutlass systems certainly did, as did the Italian ("Radaellian") method of dueling saber. However, it must be stressed that the parries are taken on the forte of the blade, which is typically blunt.

FullerH made a great point about the gladius; this dual-purpose capacity has been noted by others as well, including Hunter Armstrong, who, in addition to being a protege of the late Donn F. Draeger in the hoplology field, is also a practitioner of classical Japanese weapons.

Nor are the only references to cuts with the gladius from the Macedonian Wars. Examination of skeletons at Maiden Castle indicate that native Celtic tribesmen felt not only the wicked point of the gladius, but its keen edge as well. In addition, there is a reference to a battle between the Romans and the Gauls by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and the Romans made use of the hamstring cut.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top