Sharpness of battle sword?

I don't really wanna clog this thread up, but I just don't understand the above mindset. . .

. . .if you aren't going to add anything meaningful (clear up said misconceptions and/or add knowledge to the discussion) then why say anything at all. . .it comes across as just a smart-alek remark from someone who doesn't really have anything to add.

I'm not trying to be a smart-alek, you may know what you are talking about, and there may be misconceptions. . .but by keeping said knowledge to yourself you are not contributing to the commmunity and you are helping to continue the tradition of said ignorance.

That being said. . .if you have something useful to contribute and add to all of our knowledge then by all means say it. . .if you only have snide comments to make then don't expect a rosy reception. . .enough of the above type of comments and you may find yourself recieving a cold shoulder on the forum(s). . .

. . .nuff said, back to the discussion.
 
Please note my second and third post in this thread and my excusing myself from the conversation in which others now persist in insisting I contribute "more" to BF. I have been a person of few words here at BF since 2000 but most of it has been contribution rather than bickering.



Cheers

GC
 
Last edited:
I think any conversation that addresses how sharp the edges on 'swords' were is going to run into problems from trying to cover such a large time period, different cultures, different contexts, and different purposes. A broadsword made in 900 in N Europe will not be made or used the same way as a two-handed thrusting sword made in N Europe in the 1300s or a scimitar made in Persia in 900 and certainly not the same way as a Japanese tachi made in 1500. Different metallurgy. Different types of armor. Different edge-holding capabilities. Different tactics.

Any particular sword is going to be as sharp as is practical to get the job done. Some may have even been sharpened at the end and kept more dull a the ricasso in order to allow the wielder to reinforce his grip with a second hand. It depends on the sword, the wielder, and the job they have to do.
 
in reference to the movie ironclad, his fighting style seemed perfectly suited for his sword which seemed pretty blunt. in the movie which were crusader times, it seemed the sword was a great piercing weapon and a sword shaped bludgeoning weapon. his chainmail gloves allowed him to hold his sword reverse and smash people in the head with the cross guard. the tip, most likely having a distal taper, was probably the only sharp part of the sword because the maximum velocity and range of a cut would be at the tip. chain mail which was encounted through out the movie would protect a warrior from a broad cut, nullifying the cut of a blow at least somewhat. or his sword culd have been just mangled from use as he had returned from fighting in the holy land.
 
When I saw that sword in Ironclad the first thing I thought was that it was a mild steel movie sword that was built for edge-to-edge contact because the light kept glinting off of the big deformations on the corners where it had smacked into other props. I used a 'sword' like that when I was part of a troupe that did stage combat. That sucker in the film was full-on blunt and were it a real fight rather than a movie it would have been an impact weapon rather than a cleaver.

It was a fun movie, but it had a stronger imaginative impulse than a historical one. The 'Danes' were a particular historical mess for the film. Not what I would fall back on for solid information about medieval combat.
 
Love that thought. All sword types, and edge profiles, were made for a specific purpose and style. You would not use the same style for a claymore that you would use for a tachi or even an odachi. No one sword or edge profile is perfect.



SeaxyBeast said:
I think any conversation that addresses how sharp the edges on 'swords' were is going to run into problems from trying to cover such a large time period, different cultures, different contexts, and different purposes. A broadsword made in 900 in N Europe will not be made or used the same way as a two-handed thrusting sword made in N Europe in the 1300s or a scimitar made in Persia in 900 and certainly not the same way as a Japanese tachi made in 1500. Different metallurgy. Different types of armor. Different edge-holding capabilities. Different tactics.

Any particular sword is going to be as sharp as is practical to get the job done. Some may have even been sharpened at the end and kept more dull a the ricasso in order to allow the wielder to reinforce his grip with a second hand. It depends on the sword, the wielder, and the job they have to do.
Click to expand...
 
horseclover said:
We have a way to go then. Pick a post above and I'd probably disagree with most of them. ;) No biggie. The Hollywood attributions, edge bevels, sword use, durabilit.....
Where to start? I'm still counting.

Cheers

Don't mind me, I'm just thinking out loud again.

GC
Click to expand...

Well, hack away at some of them. :D
 
Luis G. said:
Well one sword I can think of to put this sharpness is the Sword of Saint Maurice. Which is an antique sword from the 13th century which was immaculately preserved.
Peter Johnsson studied the Sword of Saint Maurice:
"The edges were otherwise well preserved and as good as sharp (you cold probably sharpen a pencil with this sword as it is today)."

Insane that this sword could be 500-700 years old huh?
How about some pictures? (Pictures by Lunaman of SBG)
LondonandParis2011633.jpg

LondonandParis2011632.jpg

LondonandParis2011631.jpg

LondonandParis2011667.jpg

LondonandParis2011668.jpg


If you guys want to see more antique swords:
http://forum.sword-buyers-guide.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4694
Click to expand...

Those are some excellent pictures of that piece, and for me even more importantly of the scabbard. Thanks!
 
I would guess that they vary the same way knives do today, depending on skill and knowledge of the guy making the sword and the skill of the owner in maintaining it - similar to how some people in a modern military have an immaculate, well-cleaned rifle and others not so much.

I can definitely imagine some having thinned, fine edge swords for doing demonstrations or competitions at a local festival and majority having a toothy, sturdy, easy to make and keep edge that would get from a file and no stones.
 
never shaving sharp. but the blade width and bevel angle allows one to cleave pretty well. and they "sharpen" their swords against a stone before deployment.

heavy tausog krises (jolo) are a bit like stippled edges: dull and tough at the convexes, thin and sharp at the concaves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top