My own experiments have shown that a rounded sword point can be used successfully in the thrust provided that the sword is sharp. It should be remembered that mail was not worn all the time, nor was it worn by everyone, even in a battle. The improvement in range and cutting ability more than makes up for a slight decrease in cutting power.
Let me add something to the above. The rapier and the small sword were never military weapons. They may have been carried by some officers, but the rank and file used other weapons. By the time the two swords became popular in the 16th and 17th centuries, firearms had became the dominant feature of European battlefields. The katana, however, was used both as a battlefield weapon and for personal defense and dueling by the classes allowed to carry it. When firearms arrived in Japan in 1543, they were used to win major victories, then quickly banned. The Shogun wasn't stupid, and he could easily see the danger to the social order that firearms represented.
CURVED SWORDS
There are other examples, but let it suffice to say that the sword in Europe was a constantly evolving weapon, responding to styles of fighting, military needs, and fashion, whereas in the rest of the world the sword changed, but much more slowly.
A good example of this is the curved sword. Although there are curved Bronze Age swords, the weapon really came into its own with the development of iron and steel. It was widely used on the steppes of Central Asia, as the curved blade was most effective as a horseman's weapon. It gave more power to the slashing stroke and was not as likely to get caught in the body of the foe, which might cause you to lose your weapon.
The ancient Hungarians used a slightly curved saber during the period of the Magyar invasions (9th century AD). Although the Europeans became familiar with this sword, they do not seem to have adopted it. Just the reverse: after the Magyars settled down and became Hungarians they adopted the straight double-edge sword.
A Magyar type saber.
An 18th century Turkish kilij, 34 inches overall length. HRC25.
Antique shamshir, circa 1800, 36 inches overall length. HRC39.
In the Middle East the story was different. Most early Islamic swords, under the influence of the conquering Arabs, were straight and double-edged. With the Turkish invasion the curved sword found some acceptance, but did not become truly widespread until the Mongol invasion of the 13th century. Many types of curves were tried. Some were quite effective, like the Turkish kilij. It ended up with the beautiful, but ineffective shamshir of Persia.
The curved sword appears to be ideally suited for the swirling, flowing and ebbing tactics of steppe warfare. While many warriors carried, and used, lances and lassoes, their primary weapon was the bow. The steppe warrior avoided close personal combat if at all possible, preferring instead to kill from a distance. Once the battle was won, the curved sword was well suited for cutting down a retreating enemy, whether they were on foot or horseback.
But just because the curved sword was used on the steppes does not mean that it was the ideal cavalry weapon. The European medieval knight preferred the straight double-edged sword. The fight over which blade shape was best for cavalry lasted until the 20th century when both the British Army and the US Army adopted the straight thrusting sword as their cavalry weapon. The fight was rancorous and bitter, and the proponents of the straight blade barely won. I am sure that if horse cavalry were still around, the fight would still be going on.
British Life Guards saber with metal scabbard, circa 1850–1880, 39 inches overall length. HRC324.
The adherents of the straight blade pointed out that the thrust was more deadly than the cut, that many men had continued to fight even after receiving several saber blows to the head. Despite bleeding badly, they were able to continue the fight, while the man who had received a thrust almost never continued to fight.
The curved blade proponents would point out how often the cavalryman lost his weapon in the thrust, the number that had their wrists broken before the sword could be retrieved, and the terrifying effect of seeing a fellow soldier with large slashes on his face and body. Rarely were military sabers of the 18th and 19th century fully sharpened. Usually the blade of the saber was sharpened the last 7–8 inches below the point. The cavalry trooper was trained to try to strike with the last several inches, and this was very effective and also allowed the sword to free itself from the victim. The swords were also kept in metal scabbards, and of course this would wear off a sharp edge pretty quickly, but if the blade was sharpened only in the top portion, this would be unlikely to contact the metal scabbard.
Some cavalry sabers were not sharpened much at all. The Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest was roundly criticized for having his men sharpen their sabers. The theory was that a hard blow, even with an unsharpened blade, would split the skin, possibly crack the skull, and do a fair amount of damage. This is true to a degree, but there is no question that a sharper sword would do more damage.[1]
There is another tale that I always found interesting. During one of the numerous small wars fought by the British in India (I believe this was during the Mahratta Wars in the first decade of the 1800s), a group of British soldiers were badly cut up by native warriors. The wounds were most extraordinary. One man is reported to have been cut deep into the chest, another with having his cartridge box cut in two and he was still severely wounded by the sword blow. A young British officer was sent to investigate and see what type of mystical swords the Indians were using. It turned out they were using discarded British cavalry sabers. When questioned about their swordsmanship, one of the native troops is reported to have said, "Sahib, we run in and hit very hard!"
HOW SWORDS WORK
Anecdotal comments are all very well, but how do swords actually work? We understand how piercing works. The point is quite small, and just a small amount of pressure exerts tremendous force, several tons per square inch, and the point separates the material and enters it. The width of the blade will also govern just how much damage is done. A very thin blade can enter, and may not do much damage, whereas a large blade can cause severe damage. There are many cases of duels with small swords where one duelist received several thrusts and continued fighting. However, with a wide-bladed sword a thrust into the body will almost always cause the recipient to cease fighting. This is easy to understand as the wide blade will cause a great deal more trauma.
Cutting with a sword is somewhat more complex. Swords will cut using the principle of the wedge, but it can also cut as a saw. For a sword to cut the blade must be sharp. It would seem to follow that the sharper the sword the better it would cut. But this is dependent on the materials being cut. So let's start with the edge. There is nothing mysterious about an edge, it is simply a wedge, and the thinner it is, the sharper.
The edge acts on the wedge principle same as the point. The tremendous force concentrated on such a small space will cause the edge to penetrate the material. But there has to be force. Merely laying the edge on a surface will not cause it to cut. Even a razor can be touched to the skin without cutting. But the moment you put any pressure, or if you draw the blade along the surface, it cuts. This has frequently been explained by stating that most sharp edges, when examined under a microscope, show very tiny saw teeth. This is true for only a few edges. A great many edges will be somewhat smooth. But they will cut just as well. The reason is that even a small amount of friction will cause the blade to cut into the material.
One of the most fascinating swords I've encountered was a Persian blade, I estimated the date at about 1600 AD. The blade was curved, and the edge was composed of many small teeth, almost serrated. My thought on the sword was that it would work quite well against the usual mail shirt worn in the East. The mail was generally butted, and a downward blow from this sword would catch and tear the mail, while the following portion of the blade would cut and tear flesh. Alas, this is only speculation, as I have never had a chance to try this out.
But just any edge won't do. The edge needs to be backed up and
it also needs mass. The backing and strength is provided by the blade itself, and the mass is furnished by the width and thickness of the blade. A light hit with a sharp blade may not penetrate even lightweight cloth armor. However, if you change the action from a straight downward force to one that even slightly slices, the blade will cut much quicker and deeper. This action, while more effective with a curved blade, will also work with a straight-bladed sword.
For a more detailed discussion of cutting with different swords, please see Chapter 13.
Suggestions for further reading from Hank:
Oakeshott, Ewart, The Archeology of Weapons. The Boydell Press, Woodbridge, first printed in 1960.
Suggestions for further reading from the editors:
Ffoulkes, Charles J., Inventory and Survey of the Armouries of the Tower of London, Vol. I. His Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1916.
Menghin, Wilfried, Das Schwert im Fruehen Mittelalter. Konrad Theiss Verlag, Stuttgart, 1983.
Seitz, Heribert, Blankwaffen I. Klinkhardt & Bierman Gmbh., Muenchen, 1981.
[1] According to The Deadliest Men by Paul Kirchner, page 91, Forrest was surrounded and attacked by six Federals using sabers in April of 1865. He was struck repeatedly without effect, because the sabers were dull, and eventually killed several by pistol and escaped the rest. He later remarked, in reference to one who had hit him several times, "If that boy had known to give me the point of his saber instead of its edge, I should not have been here to tell you about it." —Whit Williams
4: Wounds and the Effects of Swords
The carnage of modern war is horrible, but make no mistake, the carnage of medieval battle was no less so. Although bows, crossbows, javelins and a few other missiles were used, the majority of the combat took place hand to hand. The weapons used were spear, sword, axe, mace, and variations of the above.
Until plate armor dulled the effectiveness of the sword (pun intended), it was the most popular of weapons. But axes, maces, and polearms were also much in evidence. The sword, however, due to its versatility, was the preferred close-quarters weapon.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
There are three major sources for information dealing with the cutting power of the sword. One is archeological evidence. Although it is rare that one can say for sure what weapon caused a particular kind of wound, when taken in conjunction with literary sources, the second source, one can make safe assumptions. The third is experimentation. Now, while it isn't moral, legal or practical to go out and chop on people, one can test the sword against other objects, up to and including sides of beef.
Surprisingly enough, archeological evidence is fairly plentiful. There are skeletal remains that show the effects of combat, and I feel sure that many of these were inflicted with a sword.
On July 27, 1361, Waldemar, King of Denmark, attacked the city of Visby on the Isle of Gotland in the Baltic Sea. Visby had long been an important way station for trade with the east and was very wealthy. With avarice worthy of his Viking ancestors, Waldemar launched the attack, quickly overcame the city's defenses, and sacked the city.
Reproduction Viking sword. HRC410.
It is doubtful that the defenders were trained warriors. Contemporary chronicles considered them poorly armed and largely peasants. Considering the percentage killed over the number taking part in the battle, it must have been a terrible slaughter. Close to 2,000 defenders were killed, and it is doubtful if they had fielded more than 4,000 in all.
After Waldemar gathered up his treasure and left, which probably took two or three days, the inhabitants started about the mournful business of burying the dead. It was July, and warm, and after a few days the bodies were not in the best of condition. This may account for why so many were buried in their armor rather than being stripped. (There were a few who were cleaned and buried properly, but it is uncertain why they were singled out.)
The mass burial sites were excavated in the early part of the 1900s and the analytical work continued for several years. As graphic and distasteful as it may be to many, the information it has provided gives a very good picture of the horror and berserk fury that must have been a routine part of medieval warfare.
There is one skeleton of a man who has had both legs severed, and it appears to have been done with one blow! The blow landed on the right leg below the knee on the outside, and then struck the left leg slightly below and on the inside. Since it appears to be unreasonable that someone would stand still with one leg hewn off, that one blow cut off both legs below the knee. As can be seen in another section of this book, that is not so astounding after all. There are several skeletons where a foot has been severed, and there are many with cuts to the lower leg. Indeed, this seems to have been a major target. A rough estimate is that close to 70 percent of the blows detected at Visby were aimed at the lower leg. This is quite understandable, as the lower leg is hard to protect, even with a shield. When you consider that these fighters were not well equipped with leg defenses it explains why they were targeted.
Reproduction Viking axe. HRC257.
The head also took many blows. There are several skulls from Visby that received so many blows that you would think the enemy would have gotten tired of hitting the poor devils. Many of the skulls still have their mail hoods, and although the hoods did provide some protection, many of the blows cut through the mail and into the bone.
One of the most unsettling skulls is one where the victim had been hit a sharp blow right at the bridge of the nose. The blow was so hard that it cut through the upper jaw. When I visited Sweden I was able to view the skull and I could see that the deepest part of the cut was in the center, indicating that it was caused by a crescent-type axe blade, or possibly the point of a sword on a hard sweeping cut. Whatever caused the damage, it wasn't enough to kill quickly. The one good thing is that the skull also shows marks from several other cuts and one hole in the side close to the temple. One can only hope that the guy didn't suffer too long.
But Visby is not the only archeological source. There are a great many sources scattered all over. In Ireland there is a skull from the Viking Age that has had the whole right side sheared off. In Lima the skeleton of Francisco Pizarro, the Conqueror of Peru, showed the marks where he was stabbed repeatedly in the neck when he was murdered in 1541.[1] Numerous burial mounds in Europe have been opened and skeletons exhumed that show the results of many wounds. A surprising number of them show old wounds that have healed over. It is interesting to note that many of these skeletons show the wear and tear that comes from heavy physical labor.
The tomb of Charles the Bold was opened in the 19th century. He had been slain by Swiss halberdiers during the battle of Nancy (1477 AD). To quote from Oman's Art of War in the Middle Ages, a halberdier "struck down Charles of Burgundy, all his face one gash from temple to teeth." When the tomb was opened it was found that he had been stabbed in the side, also in the fundament, and indeed his skull had been split down to his teeth! All of the wounds probably had been made by halberds. It is easy and gory to visualize what happened. He was struck a downward blow by some stout Swiss with a halberd. The force of the blow would force him down and off of his saddle, and two other Swiss, seeing openings, would have stabbed with spear or halberd. Not that either blow was needed.
Reproduction halberd. HRC251.
Of course these blows were not struck with a sword, but it does show the amount of information that is available to a patient researcher. It is my hope that one day someone with the time and resources can gather up all of this information about ancient hand-to-hand combat and publish it. What a fascinating book it would be! This chapter can only touch on some of the rich information available.
Literary sources are another important area to explore. However, these have to be taken with a grain of salt, backed up and verified
with experimentation when possible. Man has not changed any in the past several thousand years. He was just as given to hype in 3000 BC as in 2000 AD, and in England as well as Jap
an. When we read in "The Song of Roland" of some knight skewering a bunch of Saracens on his lance at one time we have a right to feel somewhat skeptical. When we read in early tales of some warrior bragging that the sword "Quernbiter" cut a millstone in half, we should raise an eyebrow rather than being convinced that it was evidence of some incredible new steel.
Of all the literary sources, my personal opinion is that the Icelandic sagas are probably the most reliable. They are written in a laconic straightforward style that does not allow for flights of hyperbole. When we read that a sword flashed and someone had their leg cut off at the knee, we feel that it is very likely exactly what happened. There is a pragmatic acceptance of life and its trials and tribulations that runs through the sagas, coupled with the acceptance of death that makes them very believable. Iceland has excellent historical records, and events recorded in the sagas are also mentioned in other sources. There are some sagas, such as The Saga of Grettir the Strong, that many consider romance rather than a tale of actual happenings. Even so, they have the feeling of, "Been there. Done that."
Hank Reinhardt's The Book of the Sword Page 6
