Once again to the question of the weight of knightly armor... How much did historical swords weigh? John Clements

I was wondering whether it was worth publishing in the journal those articles that had already been published earlier on Russian sites. I decided that this would be useful. Subsequently, the articles will be combined into groups, which will allow us to get a fairly broad understanding of European fencing and study points of view taken from different sources. I do not exclude that points of view may be different, but it is “in a dispute that the truth is born.”

Personally, in foreign museums where this is allowed, I have had the opportunity to truly appreciate the sensations that you experience while holding a bladed weapon in your hands that is hundreds of years old. It is then that you understand how far we are from fully understanding how they could actually act, and how imperfect the replicas that they are trying to make within the framework of historical movements that are now popular are. 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 mastery of perfection in everything bladed weapons. I think you will find it interesting to know the opinion of experts...

The original was taken from the website of the Renaissance Martial Arts Association and is 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
are the two main helpers in victory"
— Joseph Suitnam, "The School of 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 knowledgeable people. Serious scholars and fencing practitioners value knowledge of the exact dimensions of weapons of the past, while general public and even experts are often completely ignorant of this issue. Finding reliable information about the weight of real historical swords that have actually been weighed is not easy, but convincing skeptics and the ignorant is an equally difficult task.

A SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM

False statements 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, considering how many errors about fencing of the past are spread through the media. Everywhere from television and film to video games, historical European swords are portrayed as clumsy and swung around with wide movements. 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)!

From simple life experience, we know very well that swords could not be excessively heavy and did not weigh 5-7 kg or more. It can be repeated endlessly that this weapon was not at all bulky or clumsy. It is curious that although accurate information on the weight of swords would be very useful to weapons researchers and historians, there is no serious book with such information. Perhaps the document vacuum 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 examples, from battle swords to rapiers, weighed much less than 1.5 kg.

Despite all claims to the contrary, medieval swords were in fact light, handy and weighed on average less than 1.8 kg. Leading sword expert Ewart Oakeshott stated: “Medieval swords were neither unbearably heavy nor uniform - average weight any standard size sword ranged from 1.1 kg to 1.6 kg. Even large one-and-a-half-handed “military” swords rarely weighed more than 2 kg. Otherwise they would undoubtedly be too impractical even for people who learned to wield weapons from age 7 (and who had to be tough to survive)” (Oakeshot, “Sword in Hand,” p. 13). Leading author and researcher of 20th-century European swords, Ewart Oakeshott, knew what he was talking about. He held thousands of swords in his hands and personally owned several dozen copies, from Bronze Age until the 19th century.

Medieval swords, as a rule, were high-quality, lightweight, maneuverable military weapons, equally capable of delivering severing blows and deep cuts. They didn't look like the clunky, heavy things that are often portrayed in the media, more like a "club with a blade." According to another source, “the sword turns out to be surprisingly light: the average weight of swords from the 10th to the 15th centuries is 1.3 kg, and in the 16th century - 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 "bastard swords", weighed on average 1.8 kg. 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 examples were not military weapons, and there is no evidence that they were even intended for use in battle. Indeed, it would be pointless to use them in the presence of more maneuverable combat units, which were much lighter. Dr. Hans-Peter Hils, in a 1985 dissertation on the great 14th-century master Johannes Liechtenauer, writes that since the 19th century, many weapons museums have passed off large collections of ceremonial weapons as military weapons, ignoring the fact that their blades were blunt and their size weight and balance - impractical to use (Hils, pp. 269-286).

EXPERT OPINION

The belief that medieval swords were bulky and awkward to use has become urban folklore and still baffles those of us new to fencing. 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 assert that medieval swords were “heavy”, “clumsy”, “bulky”, “inconvenient” 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 these measurements, many today are convinced that these large swords must be especially heavy. This opinion is not limited to our century. For example, Thomas Page's generally excellent 1746 booklet on army fencing, The Use of the Broad Sword, spreads tall tales about early swords. After talking about how things had changed from early technique and knowledge in the field of combat fencing, 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 cut from top to bottom with Might strong hand"(Page, p. A3). Page's views were shared by other fencers 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, characterizing them as "massive blades that required the full strength of both hands." We can also recall the pioneer in the study of historical fencing, Egerton Castle, and his remarkable commentary on the “rude swords of old” (Castle, “Schools and Masters of Fencing”).

Quite often, some scientists or archivists, experts in history, but not athletes, not fencers, who trained in swordsmanship from childhood, authoritatively assert that 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 hilt. 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 the product of his experience of gentleman's duels with sporting weapons. Foulkes, of course, bases his opinion on the light weapons of his day: foils, swords and dueling sabers (just as a tennis racket may seem heavy to a table tennis player).

Unfortunately, Ffoulkes even stated this in 1945: “All swords from the 9th to the 13th centuries are heavy, poorly balanced and equipped with a short and awkward hilt” (Ffoulkes, Arms, p.17). Imagine, 500 years of professional warriors have been wrong, and a museum curator in 1945, who had 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.

A famous French medievalist later repeated Fulques's opinion literally as a reliable judgment. Dear historian and specialist in medieval military affairs, Dr. Kelly de Vries, in a book about military technology Middle Ages, nevertheless writes in the 1990s about “thick, heavy, uncomfortable, but exquisitely forged medieval swords” (Devries, Medieval Military Technology, p. 25). It is not surprising that such “authoritative” opinions influence modern readers, and we have to make so much effort.

This opinion of “bulky old swords,” as one French swordsman once called them, could be ignored as a product of its era and lack of information. But now such views cannot be justified. It is especially sad when leading fencing masters (trained only in the weapons of modern fake duels) proudly express judgments about the weight of early swords. As I wrote in the 1998 book Medieval Fencing, “It is a great pity that the leading masters of sport fencing (who wield only light rapiers, épées, and sabers) display their misconceptions about the “10-pound” medieval swords, which can only be used for “awkward blows and chopping." For example, respected 20th-century swordsman Charles Selberg refers to the “heavy and clumsy weapons of early times” (Selberg, p. 1). And the modern fencer de Beaumont declares: “In the Middle Ages, armor required that the weapon - battle axes or two-handed swords were heavy and clumsy” (de Beaumont, p. 143). Did the armor require the weapon to be heavy and clumsy? In addition, the 1930 Book of Fencing stated with great confidence: “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, pp. 29-30). Even today this idiocy continues. The aptly titled book, The Complete Guide to the Crusades for Dummies, tells us that knights fought in tournaments by “cutting at each other with heavy, 20-30 pound swords” (P. Williams, p. 20).

Such comments say more about the inclinations and ignorance of the authors than about the nature of actual 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 about 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, which could weigh more than 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 (while belittling the merits of those who owned them), nevertheless, he is able to perceive them only in comparison with the fake swords of modern sport, even believing that the technique of their use was predominantly “impact-crushing”. If you believe Cohen, it turns out that a real sword, intended for a real fight to the death, should be very heavy, poorly balanced and require no real skill? Are modern toy swords for make-believe battles as they should be?

For some reason, many classical swordsmen still cannot understand that early swords, while real weapons, were not made to be held at arm's length and twirled with just the fingers. Now beginning of XXI century, there is a revival of the historical martial arts of Europe, and fencers still adhere to the misconceptions inherent 19th century. If you don't understand how a given sword was used, it's 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 cutting weapons.

Oakeshott was aware of the problem, a mixture of ignorance and prejudice, more than 30 years ago when he wrote his significant book The Sword in the Age of Chivalry. “Add to this the fantasies of the romantic writers of the past, who, wanting to give their heroes the characteristics of Superman, made them brandish huge and heavy weapons, thus demonstrating strength far beyond their capabilities. modern man. And the picture is completed by the evolution of attitudes towards this type of weapon, right down to the contempt that lovers of sophistication and elegance who lived in the eighteenth century, the romantics of the Elizabethan era and admirers of the magnificent art of the Renaissance had for swords. It becomes clear why weapons, visible only in their degraded state, can be considered ill-conceived, crude, ponderous and ineffective. Of course, there will always be people for whom strict asceticism of forms is indistinguishable from primitivism and incompleteness. 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 popular belief that they could not be held in the hands is absurd and long outdated, but continues to live, as does the myth that armored knights could only be lifted onto horses by a crane" (Okeshott, The Sword in the Age of Chivalry , pp. 8-9).

Training with a fine example of a true 15th century Estoc. Long-time researcher of weapons and fencing at the British Royal Armories, Keith Ducklin, states: “From my experience at the Royal Armories, where I studied actual weapons from various periods, I can say that the European broad-bladed fighting sword, whether cutting, piercing or piercing, usually weighed from 2 pounds for a one-handed model to 4.5 pounds for a two-handed model. Swords made for other purposes, such as ceremonies or executions, may have weighed more or less, but these were not combat examples” (personal correspondence with the author, April 2000). Mr. Ducklin is undoubtedly knowledgeable, having handled and examined literally hundreds of fine 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 15th-16th centuries. from the collections of three museums, including exhibits from the Stibbert Museum in Florence, Dr. Timothy Drawson noted that none of the one-handed swords weighed more than 3.5 pounds, and none two-handed sword did not weigh more than 6 pounds. His conclusion: “From these examples it is clear that the idea that medieval and Renaissance swords were heavy and clumsy is far from true” (Drawson, pp. 34 & 35).

SUBJECTIVITY AND OBJECTIVITY

In 1863, sword maker and expert John Latham of Wilkinson Swords erroneously claimed that a fine example of a 14th-century sword had “enormous weight” because it was “used in the days when warriors had to deal with iron-clad opponents.” . Latham adds: “They took the most heavy weapons as much as they could, and exerted as much force as they could" (Latham, Shape, p. 420-422). However, commenting on the "excessive heaviness" of swords, Latham talks about a 2.7 kg sword forged for a cavalry officer who believed it would strengthen his wrist, but as a result "no living man could cut with it... The weight was so large that it could not be accelerated, so the cutting force was zero. A very simple test proves this" (Latham, Shape, p. 420-421).

Latham also adds: “Body type, however, greatly influences the result.” He then concludes, repeating the common mistake, that strong man will take a heavier sword to deal more damage. "The weight that a person can lift with highest speed, will produce the best effect, but he won't necessarily be able to move a lighter sword faster. The sword can be so light that it feels like a “whip” in your hand. Such a sword is worse than one that is too heavy" (Latham, pp. 414-415).

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

Fantastic stories about knightly valor often mention huge swords that only great heroes and villains could wield, and with which they cut horses and even trees. But these are all myths and legends; they cannot be taken literally. In Froissart's Chronicles, 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 wielded it and inflicted such terrible blows that everyone he hit fell to the ground; and there was no one among the English who could withstand his blows.” The great 14th century fencing master Johannes Liechtenauer himself said: “The sword is the measure, and it is large and heavy” and is balanced with a suitable pommel, which means that the weapon itself should be balanced and therefore suitable for battle, and not weighty. The Italian master Filippo Valdi instructed in the early 1480s: “Take light weapons, and not heavy, so that you can easily control it so that its weight does not bother you.” So the fencing teacher specifically mentions that there is a choice between "heavy" and "light" blades. But - again - the word "heavy" is not synonymous with the word "too heavy", or cumbersome and unwieldy. You can simply choose, for example, a tennis racket or a baseball bat that is lighter or heavier.

Having held in my hands more than 200 excellent European swords from the 12th to 16th centuries, I can say that I always special attention gave them weight. I have always been amazed by the liveliness and balance of almost all the specimens that I have come across. The swords of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, which I personally studied in six countries, and in some cases fought with and even cut with, were - I repeat - light and well balanced. Having considerable experience in owning weapons, I very rarely encountered historical swords, which would not be easy to handle and maneuverable. Units - if there were any - from shortswords to bastards weighed over 1.8 kg, and even these were well balanced. When I came across examples that I found too heavy for me or unbalanced for my tastes, I realized that they might be a good fit for people with different body types or fighting styles.

When I worked with two 16th century combat swords, each weighing 1.3 kg, they performed excellently. Deft blows, thrusts, defenses, transfers and quick counterattacks, furious cutting blows - as if the swords were almost weightless. There was nothing “heavy” about these intimidating and graceful instruments. When I practiced with a real 16th-century two-handed sword, I was amazed at how light the 2.7 kg weapon seemed, as if it weighed half as much. Even if 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 wielding this weapon. The reader can decide for himself whether to believe these stories. But the countless times I held excellent examples of 14th, 15th, or 16th-century swordsmanship in my hands, stood in stances, and moved around under the attentive gaze of benevolent guardians, firmly convinced me of how much real swords weighed (and how to wield them).

On one occasion, while examining several 14th- and 16th-century swords from Ewart Oakeshott's collection, we were even able to weigh a few on a digital scale, just to make sure the weight was correct. Our colleagues did the same, and their results coincided with ours. This experience of studying real weapons makes the ARMA Association critical of many modern swords. I'm becoming increasingly disillusioned with the neatness of many modern replicas. Obviously, the more similar a modern sword is to a historical one, the more accurate the reconstruction of the technique of wielding this sword will be. In fact, a proper understanding of the weight of historical swords is essential to understanding their proper use.

Having examined many medieval and Renaissance swords in practice, collecting impressions and measurements, respected swordsman Peter Johnson said that he “felt their amazing mobility. Overall they are fast, accurate and expertly balanced for their tasks. Often a sword appears much lighter than it actually is. This is the result of a careful distribution of mass, not just a balance point. Measuring the weight of a sword and its balance point is only the beginning of understanding its "dynamic balance" (i.e., how the sword behaves when in motion)." He adds: “In general, modern replicas are quite far from the original swords in this regard. Distorted ideas about what a real sharp military weapon is are the result of training only on modern weapons" So Johnson also claims that real swords are lighter than many people think. Even then, weight is not the only indicator, because the main characteristics are the distribution of mass across the blade, which in turn affects the balance.

You need to understand that modern copies of historical weapons, even being approximately equal in weight, do not guarantee the same feeling of ownership as their ancient originals. If the geometry of the blade does not match the original (including along the entire length of the blade, shape and crosshair), the balance will not match.

A modern copy often feels heavier and less comfortable than the original. Accurately reproducing 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 due to the sad ignorance of the blade geometry on the part of the manufacturer. On the other hand, the reason is a deliberate reduction in manufacturing costs. 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 this is how real swords should be.

There is another factor why modern swords are usually made heavier than the originals. Due to ignorance, blacksmiths and their clients expect the feeling of the weight of the sword. These feelings arose from numerous images of woodcutter 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 Eastern martial arts demonstrations, it is hard to blame anyone for such a lack of understanding.) Although the difference between a 1.7 kg sword and a 2.4 kg sword does not seem that big, when trying to reconstruct the technique, the difference becomes quite tangible. Additionally, 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 piercing weapon was concentrated in the handle, which gave greater mobility to the tip despite the weight compared to wider cutting blades.

FACTS AND MYTHS

Several times I was lucky enough to carefully compare 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 modern copies next to the originals. Despite the same dimensions, small and insignificant changes in geometry (mass distribution of the tang, shoulder, blade angle, etc.) were enough to affect the balance and "feel" of the sword. I had the opportunity to examine 19th-century fake medieval swords, and in some cases the difference was immediately noticeable.

When demonstrating swords in my lectures and performances, 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 often hear them complain about the heaviness of swords that older students consider light and well-balanced.

Good swords were light, fast, balanced and, while strong enough, retained flexibility and elasticity. These were tools for killing, and they need to be studied from that point of view. The weight of a weapon cannot be judged solely by its size and blade width. For example, the weight of medieval and Renaissance swords can be accurately measured and recorded. What is called heavy depends on perspective. A weapon weighing 3 pounds may 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.

Despite its size, weight and clumsiness, the two-handed sword was widely used in battles in the Middle Ages. The blade usually had a length of more than 1 m. Such weapons are characterized by a handle over 25 cm with a pommel and a massive elongated crosshair. The total weight with the handle averaged 2.5 kg. Only strong warriors could cut with such weapons.

Two-handed swords in history

Large blades appeared relatively late in the history of medieval warfare. In the practice of battles, an indispensable attribute of a warrior was to have a shield in one hand for protection, and with the other he could cut with a sword. With the advent of armor and the beginning of progress in metallurgical casting, long blades with a handle for gripping with two hands began to gain popularity.

Such weapons were an expensive pleasure. Well-paid mercenaries or bodyguards of the nobility could afford it. Holder two-handed sword he had to not only have strength in his hands, but also be able to handle it. The pinnacle of skill of a knight or warrior in security service was thorough mastery of such weapons. Fencing masters constantly honed the technique of wielding two-handed swords and passed on their experience to the elite class.

Purpose

The two-handed sword, whose weight was over 3-4 kg, could only be used in battle by strong and tall warriors. They were put on the front line at a certain point. They could not constantly be in the rearguard, since with the rapid convergence of the sides and the compaction of the human mass in hand-to-hand combat, there was not enough free space for maneuver and swings.

To deliver slashing blows, such weapons must be perfectly balanced. Two-handed swords could be used in close combat to punch holes in the enemy’s dense defenses or to repel the advance of tightly closed ranks of dive bombers and halberdiers. Long blades were used to cut down their shafts and thus enable lightly armed infantry to get closer to the enemy ranks.

In a fight in open areas, a two-handed sword was used for slashing blows and for piercing armor with a thrust using a long lunge. The crosshair often served as an additional side point and was used in close combat for short blows to the face and unprotected neck of the enemy.

Design Features

A sword is a melee weapon with a double-sharpened blade and a sharp end. The classic blade with a two-handed grip - espadon ("big sword") - is distinguished by the presence of an unsharpened section of the blade (ricasso) at the crosshair. This was done so that the sword could be intercepted with the other hand to facilitate the swing. Often this section (up to a third of the length of the blade) was, in addition, covered with leather for convenience and had an additional crosshair to protect the hand from blows. Two-handed swords were not equipped with sheaths. They were not needed, since the blade was worn on the shoulder; it could not be attached to the belt due to its weight and dimensions.

Another, no less popular two-handed sword, the claymore, whose homeland is Scotland, did not have a pronounced ricasso. Warriors wielded such weapons with a two-handed grip on the handle. The crosshair (guard) was forged by craftsmen not straight, but at an angle to the blade.

A rare sword with a wavy blade - a flamberge - did not differ significantly in characteristics. It cut no better than ordinary straight blades, although it had a bright and memorable appearance.

Record-breaking sword

The largest combat two-handed sword that has survived to this day and is available for viewing is in a Dutch museum. It was presumably made in the 15th century by German craftsmen. With a total length of 215 cm, the giant weighs 6.6 kg. Its oak handle is covered with a single piece of goatskin leather. This two-handed sword (see photo below), according to legend, was captured from German landsknechts. They used it as a relic for ceremonies and did not use it in battle. The blade of the sword bears the Inri mark.

According to the same legend, it was later captured by rebels, and it went to a pirate nicknamed Big Pierre. Due to his physique and strength, he used the sword for its intended purpose and was allegedly able to cut off several heads with one blow.

Combat and ceremonial blades

The weight of a sword of 5-6 kg or more indicates, rather, its ritual purpose rather than its use for combat battles. Such weapons were used in parades, during initiations, and were presented as gifts to decorate the walls in the chambers of nobles. Simple-to-use swords could also be used by fencing mentors to practice hand strength and blade technique when training warriors.

A real combat two-handed sword rarely reached a weight of 3.5 kg with a total length of up to 1.8 m. The handle accounted for up to 50 cm. It was supposed to serve as a balancer in order to balance the overall structure as much as possible.

Ideal blades, even with a considerable weight in the hands, lay not just like a metal blank. With such a weapon, with sufficient skill and constant practice, it was possible to easily chop off heads at a decent distance. At the same time, the weight of the blade in its various positions was felt and felt by the hand almost the same.

Real ones kept in collections and museums combat samples two-handed swords with a blade length of 1.2 m and a width of 50 mm have a weight of 2.5-3 kg. For comparison: one-handed samples reached up to 1.5 kg. Transitional blades with a handle of one and a half grips could weigh 1.7-2 kg.

National two-handed swords

Among peoples of Slavic origin, a sword is understood as a double-edged blade. IN Japanese culture a sword is a cutting blade with a curved profile and one-sided sharpening, held by a hilt with protection from oncoming blows.

The most famous sword in Japan is the katana. This weapon is intended for close combat, has a handle (30 cm) for gripping with both hands and a blade up to 90 cm. In one of the temples there is a large two-handed no-tachi sword 2.25 m long with a handle of 50 cm. With such a blade you can cut a person in half with one blow or stop a galloping horse.

The Chinese Dadao sword had a wider blade. It, like Japanese blades, had a curved profile and one-sided sharpening. They wore weapons in sheaths behind their backs on a garter. The massive Chinese sword, either two-handed or one-handed, was widely used by soldiers in World War II. When there was not enough ammunition, the red units launched a hand-to-hand attack with these weapons and often achieved success in close combat.

Two-handed sword: advantages and disadvantages

The disadvantages of using long and heavy swords are low maneuverability and the inability to fight with constant dynamics, since the weight of the weapon significantly affects endurance. A two-handed grip eliminates the possibility of using a shield to protect against oncoming blows.

A two-handed sword is good in defense because it can cover more sectors with great efficiency. In an attack, you can inflict damage on the enemy from the maximum possible distance. The weight of the blade allows you to deliver a powerful cutting blow, which is often impossible to parry.

The reason why the two-handed sword was not widely used was irrationality. Despite the obvious increase in the power of the chopping blow (twofold), the significant mass of the blade and its dimensions led to an increase in energy expenditure (fourfold) during the fight.

Antique edged weapons leave no one indifferent. It always bears the imprint of remarkable beauty and even magic. It feels like you are stepping back into the legendary past, when these items were used very widely.

Of course, such weapons serve as an ideal accessory for decorating a room. An office decorated with magnificent examples of ancient weapons will look more impressive and masculine.

Objects such as, for example, medieval swords become of interest to many people as unique evidence of events that took place in ancient times.

Antique edged weapons

The weapons of medieval infantrymen are similar to a dagger. Its length is less than 60 cm, the wide blade has a sharp end with blades that diverge.

Mounted warriors were most often armed with daggers a rouelles. This antique weapons It's getting harder and harder to find.

The most terrible weapon of that time was the Danish battle axe. Its wide blade is semicircular in shape. The horsemen held it with both hands during the battle. The axes of the infantrymen were mounted on a long shaft and made it possible to perform piercing and slashing blows and pull them out of the saddle equally effectively. These axes were first called guizarmes, and then, in Flemish, godendaks. They served as the prototype of the halberd. In museums, these antique weapons attract many visitors.

The knights were also armed with wooden clubs filled with nails. The combat whips also had the appearance of a club with a movable head. A leash or chain was used to connect to the shaft. Such weapons of knights were not widely used, since inept handling could do more harm to the owner of the weapon than to his opponent.

Spears were usually made of very long lengths with an ash shaft ending in a pointed leaf-shaped iron. To strike, the spear was not yet held under the armpit, making it impossible to ensure an accurate strike. The shaft was held horizontally at leg level, extending about a quarter of its length forward, so that the enemy received a blow to the stomach. Such blows, when the battle of the knights was going on, were greatly amplified by the rapid movement of the rider and brought death, despite the chain mail. However, it was difficult to handle a spear of such length (it reached five meters). it was very difficult. To do this, remarkable strength and dexterity, long-term experience as a rider and practice in handling weapons were needed. When crossing, the spear was carried vertically, putting its tip into a leather shoe that hung near the stirrup on the right.

Among the weapons there was a Turkish bow, which had a double bend and threw arrows over long distances and with great strength. The arrow hit the enemy two hundred steps away from the shooters. The bow was made of yew wood, its height reached one and a half meters. The tail part of the arrows was equipped with feathers or leather wings. The iron of the arrows had different configurations.

The crossbow was very widely used by infantrymen, since, despite the fact that preparing for a shot took more time compared to archery, the range and accuracy of the shot was greater. This feature allowed it to survive until the 16th century, when it was replaced by firearms.

Damascus steel

Since ancient times, the quality of a warrior's weapons has been considered very important. Metallurgists of antiquity sometimes managed, in addition to ordinary malleable iron, to obtain durable steel. Swords were mainly made from steel. Due to their rare properties, they personified wealth and strength.

Information about the production of flexible and durable steel is contacted by Damascus gunsmiths. The technology for its production is shrouded in an aura of mystery and amazing legends.

Wonderful weapons made from this steel came from forges located in the Syrian city of Damascus. They were built by Emperor Diocletian. Damascus steel was produced here, reviews of which went far beyond the borders of Syria. Knives and daggers made from this material were brought back by knights from the Crusades as valuable trophies. They were kept in rich houses and passed from generation to generation, being a family heirloom. A Damascus steel sword has always been considered a rarity.

However, for centuries, craftsmen from Damascus strictly kept the secrets of making a unique metal.

The mystery of Damascus steel was fully revealed only in the 19th century. It turned out that the original ingot should contain alumina, carbon and silica. The hardening method was also special. Damascus craftsmen cooled hot steel forgings using a stream of cool air.

Samurai sword

The katana was released around the 15th century. Until she appeared, the samurai used the tati sword, which was much inferior in its properties to the katana.

The steel from which the sword was made was forged and tempered in a special way. When mortally wounded, the samurai sometimes handed over his sword to the enemy. After all, the samurai code says that weapons are destined to continue the path of the warrior and serve the new owner.

The katana sword was inherited according to the samurai will. This ritual continues to this day. Starting at the age of 5, the boy received permission to wear a sword made of wood. Later, as the warrior’s spirit gained strength, a sword was forged for him personally. As soon as a boy was born into the family of ancient Japanese aristocrats, a sword was immediately ordered for him from a blacksmith’s workshop. At the moment when the boy turned into a man, his katana sword was already made.

It took a master up to a year to make one unit of such weapons. Sometimes it took ancient craftsmen 15 years to make one sword. True, the craftsmen were simultaneously making several swords. It is possible to forge a sword faster, but it will no longer be a katana.

Going to battle, the samurai removed all the decorations that were on it from the katana. But before meeting with his beloved, he decorated the sword in every possible way, so that the chosen one would fully appreciate the power of his family and masculine wealth.

Two-handed sword

If the hilt of a sword is designed to require a grip with only two hands, the sword in this case is called two-handed. The length of the knights reached 2 meters, and they wore it on the shoulder without any sheath. For example, Swiss infantrymen in the 16th century were armed with a two-handed sword. Warriors armed with two-handed swords were given a place in the front rows order of battle: they were given the task of cutting and knocking down the spears of enemy warriors, which were of great length. As military weapons two-handed swords did not last long. Since the 17th century, they have played the ceremonial role of an honorary weapon next to the banner.

In the 14th century in Italian and spanish cities began to use a sword that was not intended for knights. It was made for city residents and peasants. Compared to a regular sword, it had less weight and length.

Now, according to the classification existing in Europe, a two-handed sword should have a length of 150 cm. The width of its blade is 60 mm, the handle has a length of up to 300 mm. The weight of such a sword ranges from 3.5 to 5 kg.

The biggest swords

A special, very rare type of straight sword was the great two-handed sword. It could weigh up to 8 kilograms and be 2 meters long. In order to control such a weapon, a very special strength and unusual technique was required.

Curved Swords

If everyone fought for themselves, often falling out of the general formation, then later on the fields where the battle of knights took place, other battle tactics began to spread. Now protection in the ranks was required, and the role of warriors armed with two-handed swords began to be reduced to organizing separate centers of battle. Being actually suicide bombers, they fought in front of the line, attacking the spearheads with two-handed swords and opening the way for the pikemen.

At this time, the sword of knights, which had a “flaming” blade, became popular. It was invented long before and became widespread in the 16th century. Landsknechts used a two-handed sword with such a blade, called flamberge (from the French “flame”). The length of the flamberge blade reached 1.40 m. The 60 cm handle was wrapped in leather. The blade of the flamberges was curved. It was quite difficult to operate such a sword, since it was difficult to sharpen a blade with a curved cutting edge well. This required well-equipped workshops and experienced craftsmen.

But the blow of the flamberge's sword made it possible to strike deep wounds cut type, which were difficult to treat given the state of medical knowledge. The curved two-handed sword caused wounds, often leading to gangrene, which meant that the enemy’s losses became greater.

Knights Templar

There are few organizations that are surrounded by such a shroud of secrecy and whose history is so controversial. The interest of writers and historians is attracted by the rich history of the order and the mysterious rituals performed by the Knights Templar. Particularly impressive is their ominous death at the stake, which was lit by the French Knights, dressed in white cloaks with a red cross on the chest, are described in a huge number of books. For some, they appear as stern-looking, impeccable and fearless warriors of Christ, for others they are two-faced and arrogant despots or arrogant moneylenders who have spread their tentacles throughout Europe. It even got to the point that they were accused of idolatry and desecration of shrines. Is it possible to separate truth from lies in this mass of completely contradictory information? Turning to the most ancient sources, let's try to figure out what this order is.

The order had a simple and strict charter, and the rules were similar to those of the Cistercian monks. According to these internal rules, knights must lead an ascetic, chaste life. They are required to cut their hair, but they cannot shave their beard. The beard made the Templars stand out from total mass, where most aristocratic men were shaven. In addition, knights had to wear a white cassock or cape, which later turned into a white cloak, which became their business card. The white cloak symbolically indicated that the knight had exchanged his gloomy life for serving God, full of light and cleanliness.

Templar sword

The sword of the Knights Templar was considered the most noble among the types of weapons for members of the order. Of course, the results combat use depended largely on the skill of the owner. The weapon was well balanced. The mass was distributed along the entire length of the blade. The weight of the sword was 1.3-3 kg. The Templar sword of the knights was forged by hand, using hard and flexible steel as the starting material. An iron core was placed inside.

Russian sword

The sword is a double-edged melee weapon used in close combat.

Until approximately the 13th century, the edge of the sword was not sharpened, since it was used primarily for chopping blows. Chronicles describe the first stabbing blow only in 1255.

They have been discovered in the graves of ancient people since the 9th century, however, most likely, these weapons were known to our ancestors even earlier. It’s just that the tradition of definitively identifying the sword and its owner dates back to this era. At the same time, the deceased is provided with weapons so that in another world it continues to protect the owner. In the early stages of the development of blacksmithing, when the cold forging method, which was not very effective, was widespread, the sword was considered a huge treasure, so the thought of burying it never occurred to anyone. Therefore, discoveries of swords by archaeologists are considered a great success.

The first Slavic swords are divided by archaeologists into many types, differing in hilt and crosspiece. Their blades are very similar. They are up to 1 m long, up to 70 mm wide at the handle, gradually tapering towards the end. In the middle part of the blade there was a fuller, which was sometimes mistakenly called a “bloodletter.” At first the doll was made quite wide, but then it gradually became narrower, and in the end it completely disappeared.

The dole actually served to reduce the weight of the weapon. The flow of blood has nothing to do with it, since stabbing blows with a sword were almost never used at that time. The metal of the blade was subjected to special processing, which ensured its high strength. The Russian sword weighed approximately 1.5 kg. Not all warriors possessed swords. It was very much in that era expensive weapons, since the work of making a good sword was long and difficult. In addition, it required enormous physical strength and dexterity from its owner.

What was the technology used to make the Russian sword, which had well-deserved authority in the countries where it was used? Among the bladed weapons high quality For close combat, it is especially worth noting damask steel. This special type of steel contains carbon in an amount of more than 1%, and its distribution in the metal is uneven. The sword, which was made from damask steel, had the ability to cut iron and even steel. At the same time, it was very flexible and did not break when it was bent into a ring. However, damask steel had a big drawback: it became fragile and broke in conditions low temperatures, therefore it was practically not used in the Russian winter.

To obtain damask steel, Slavic blacksmiths folded or twisted rods of steel and iron and forged them many times. As a result of repeated execution of this operation, strips of strong steel were obtained. It was this that made it possible to make fairly thin swords without losing strength. Often, strips of damask steel were the basis of the blade, and blades made of steel with a high carbon content were welded along the edge. Such steel was produced by carburizing - heating using carbon, which impregnated the metal and increased its hardness. Such a sword easily cut through the enemy’s armor, since it was most often made from lower-grade steel. They were also capable of cutting the blades of swords that were not so skillfully made.

Any specialist knows that welding iron and steel, which different temperature melting, a process that requires great skill from the master blacksmith. At the same time, archaeological data confirms that in the 9th century our Slavic ancestors possessed this skill.

There was an uproar in science. It often turned out that the sword, which experts classified as Scandinavian, was made in Rus'. In order to distinguish a good damask sword, buyers first checked the weapon this way: from a small click on the blade, a clear and long sound is heard, and the higher it is and the purer the sound, the higher the quality of the damask steel. Then the damask steel was tested for elasticity: would it warp if the blade was applied to the head and bent down to the ears. If, having passed the first two tests, the blade easily coped with a thick nail, cutting it without becoming dull, and easily cut through thin fabric that was thrown onto the blade, it could be considered that the weapon passed the test. The best swords were often decorated with jewelry. They are now the target of numerous collectors and are literally worth their weight in gold.

As civilization develops, swords, like other weapons, undergo significant changes. At first they become shorter and lighter. Now you can often find them 80 cm long and weighing up to 1 kg. Swords of the 12th-13th centuries, as before, were more used for slashing, but now they also gained the ability to stab.

Two-handed sword in Rus'

At the same time, another type of sword appeared: two-handed. Its weight reaches approximately 2 kg, and its length reaches 1.2 m. The technique of fighting with a sword is significantly modified. It was worn in a wooden sheath covered with leather. The sheath had two sides - the tip and the mouth. The scabbard was often decorated as richly as the sword. There were cases when the price of a weapon was much higher than the value of the rest of the owner’s property.

Most often, a prince’s warrior could afford the luxury of having a sword, sometimes a wealthy militiaman. The sword was used in infantry and cavalry until the 16th century. However, in the cavalry it was pretty much replaced by the saber, which is more convenient on horseback. Despite this, the sword is, unlike the saber, a truly Russian weapon.

Romanesque sword

This family includes swords from the Middle Ages up to 1300 and later. They were characterized by a pointed blade and a longer handle. The shape of the handle and blade can be very diverse. These swords appeared with the emergence of the knightly class. A wooden handle is placed on the shank and can be wrapped with leather cord or wire. The latter is preferable, since metal gloves tear the leather braid.

Claymore (claymore, claymore, claymore, from the Gaulish claidheamh-mòr - “ big sword") - a two-handed sword that received widespread among the Scottish Highlanders from the end of the 14th century. Being the main weapon of infantrymen, the claymore was actively used in skirmishes between tribes or border battles with the British. Claymore is the smallest among all its brothers. This, however, does not mean that the weapon is small: the average length of the blade is 105-110 cm, and together with the handle the sword reached 150 cm. distinctive feature there was a characteristic bend in the arms of the cross - downwards, towards the tip of the blade. This design made it possible to effectively capture and literally pull out any long weapon from the enemy’s hands. In addition, the decoration of the horns of the bow - pierced in the shape of a stylized four-leaf clover - became a distinctive sign by which everyone easily recognized the weapon. In terms of size and effectiveness, the claymore was perhaps the most the best option among all two-handed swords. It was not specialized, and therefore was used quite effectively in any combat situation.

Zweihander

The Zweihander (German: Zweihänder or Bidenhänder/Bihänder, “two-handed sword”) is a weapon of a special unit of landsknechts who are on double pay (doppelsoldners). If the claymore is the most modest sword, then the zweihander was indeed impressive in size and in rare cases reached two meters in length, including the hilt. In addition, it was notable for its double guard, where special “ boar tusks“The unsharpened part of the blade (ricasso) was separated from the sharpened part.

Such a sword was a weapon of very narrow use. The fighting technique was quite dangerous: the owner of the zweihander acted in the front ranks, pushing away with a lever (or even completely cutting) the shafts of enemy pikes and spears. To own this monster required not only remarkable strength and courage, but also significant swordsmanship, so the mercenaries did not receive double pay for beautiful eyes. The technique of fighting with two-handed swords bears little resemblance to conventional blade fencing: such a sword is much easier to compare with a reed. Of course, the zweihander did not have a sheath - it was worn on the shoulder like an oar or spear.

Flamberge

Flamberge ("flaming sword") is a natural evolution of the ordinary straight sword. The curvature of the blade made it possible to increase the lethality of the weapon, but in the case of large swords, the blade was too massive, fragile and still could not penetrate high-quality armor. In addition, the Western European school of fencing suggests using the sword mainly as a piercing weapon, and therefore curved blades were not suitable for it. By the XIV-XVI centuries. /bm9icg===>ekam, advances in metallurgy led to the fact that the chopping sword became practically useless on the battlefield - it simply could not penetrate armor made of hardened steel with one or two blows, which played a critical role in mass battles. Gunsmiths began to actively look for a way out of this situation, until they finally came to the concept of a wave blade, which has a series of successive anti-phase bends. Such swords were difficult to manufacture and expensive, but the effectiveness of the sword was undeniable. Due to a significant reduction in the area of ​​the damaging surface, upon contact with the target, the destructive effect was increased many times over. In addition, the blade acted like a saw, cutting the affected surface. The wounds inflicted by the flamberge did not heal for a very long time. Some commanders sentenced captured swordsmen to death solely for carrying such weapons. Catholic Church She also cursed such swords and branded them as inhumane weapons.

Slasher

Espadon (French espadon from Spanish espada - sword) is a classic type of two-handed sword with a tetrahedral cross-section of the blade. Its length reached 1.8 meters, and the guard consisted of two massive arches. The center of gravity of the weapon often shifted towards the tip - this increased the penetrating ability of the sword. In battle, such weapons were used by unique warriors who usually had no other specialization. Their task was to, waving huge blades, destroy the enemy’s battle formation, overturn the first ranks of the enemy and pave the way for the rest of the army. Sometimes these swords were used in battles with cavalry - due to the size and weight of the blade, the weapon made it possible to very effectively chop the legs of horses and cut through the armor of heavy infantry. Most often, the weight of military weapons ranged from 3 to 5 kg, and heavier examples were awarded or ceremonial. Sometimes weighted replicas of combat blades were used for training purposes.

Estoc

Estoc (French estoc) is a two-handed piercing weapon designed to pierce knightly armor. A long (up to 1.3 meters) tetrahedral blade usually had a stiffening rib. If previous swords were used as a means of countermeasures against cavalry, then the estok, on the contrary, was the weapon of the horseman. Riders wore it on the right side of the saddle so that in case of loss of the pike they would have an additional means of self-defense. In horse fighting, the sword was held with one hand, and the blow was delivered due to the speed and mass of the horse. In a foot skirmish, the warrior took it in two hands, compensating for the lack of mass own strength. Some examples of the 16th century have a complex guard, like a sword, but most often there was no need for it.

In the mail that comes to the editorial e-mail, the same question often appears.

People want to know how much the sword of Prince Alexander Nevsky weighs. Alas, everything is not at all simple here.

There are three known swords that are attributed to Russian princes. This is the Carolingian sword of Prince Svyatoslav Igorevich, the Gothic sword of Prince Dovmont of Pskov and the one-and-a-half-handed sword of another Prince of Pskov - Vsevolod. Let's briefly touch on each of them.

Sword of Prince Svyatoslav Igorevich

In a word, there is a substitution. Apparently, the real sword of Prince Vsevolod became unusable over time or was lost. It was then that it was replaced with the best sword, the most worthy of the memory of the Grand Duke.

Sword of Prince Dovmont of Pskov

Not everything is simple with Prince Dovmont’s sword either. Let's start with the fact that Prince Dovmont himself is very interesting personality. He was expelled from the Baltic states, where he reigned and found a new homeland in Pskov. The Pskovites, under his command, defeated the Teutonic Order in the battle of the knightly castle of Rakvere - this battle is also called the Battle of Rakovor.

The legendary researcher and sword collector Ewart Oakeshott points out that Gothic-type swords were used at the end of the century, but they came into widespread use in the 14th century.

And here the situation is “50/50”. In principle, Dovmont could have wielded such a sword, but then it must have been one of the very first swords of its type. And if this turns out to be true, then we have another reason for national pride.

Sword of Prince Boris, brother of Gleb

Back in ancient Russian literature the sword of Prince Boris is mentioned - this refers to the holy martyrs Princes Boris and Gleb, highly revered in ancient Russian squads.

It is also believed that the sword of Prince Boris hung in the room of Prince Andrei Bogolyubsky. After the conspirators killed the prince, one of the killers took this sword for himself. Subsequently, the weapon was never mentioned anywhere else.

But what about the sword of Prince Alexander?

It is unknown to science. However, you don't have to give up. Now we'll decide everything.

Of course, Alexander Nevsky had a sword, and, most likely, more than one. Perhaps this is even one of those swords that lie in our museums, in storerooms or on display cases. Another thing is that we don’t know him by sight.

But we can use old Holmes' deductive method. So, first let’s remember when Alexander Nevsky lived.

Dates of his life: May 13, 1221 - November 14, 1263. In other words, the middle of the 13th century.
This is the time of the Romanesque type sword.

At the top is a sword of a transitional type, from Carolingian to Romanesque. Below is a Romanesque type sword. It has a long thin guard that protects the warrior’s hand, and a fuller that is noticeably shorter than the blade itself.

Consequently, the sword of Prince Alexander Nevsky, as a typical weapon of its time, should also have weighed about a kilogram and a quarter.