Hank Reinhardt's The Book of the Sword

by Hank Reinhardt

  This led to many heated debates regarding the cavalry saber. One side insisting on straight-bladed swords and the other on curved blades.

  The substance of the two arguments went like this:

  Straight Blade—An enemy combatant, stabbed with a sword, is highly unlikely to continue fighting. Even if the wound is not fatal, if it is in the arm it is likely to render the opponent ineffective. The straight blade can be used to cut with, if needed, and it can be used to reach down and stab an enemy lying on the ground.

  Counter Argument against the straight blade—The thrust is harder to master than the cut. There is a strong likelihood that the blade can be lost in a thrust, wedged in the body, or broken as the horse moves past quicker than the blade can be withdrawn, or almost as bad, the wielder's wrist can be broken before the sword can be released if caught. In an encounter between units of heavy cavalry, the cutting sword is easier to use than a thrusting one.

  Curved Blade—The curved sword is easier to use since the cut allows the arm to move in a very natural motion. With a properly curved sword it can be used to thrust as well. Aside from the hooking thrust, by turning the wrist over, you get a "natural" downward motion of the arm. By cutting an opponent, the sight of blood is likely to cause him to withdraw and tend his wounds.

  Counter Argument against the curved blade—Numerous references are cited of soldiers of both sides receiving numerous cuts about the head and shoulders and continuing to fight. (No mention was made about dull swords.) Also there were rare instances of a soldier in the heat of battle striking his horse, which he was unlikely to do with a straight sword. (Although there was no PETA at the time, this was still looked on as not being proper. Even killing your opponent's horse was considered not very sporting, and something a real gentleman would not do, but okay for rankers.)

  There was a small amount of logic on both sides. (Personally I prefer a curved sword, but I would also keep it quite sharp.) The arguments raged on and on, with first one side winning, and then the other.

  Quill back blade; silhouette view from above shows rounded spine.

  The 19th century saw the introduction of a really nice saber design, and one that I quite like, the quill back, or pipe back, blade. This blade had a round back, with the edge extending downward. The thick round portion of the blade extended almost to the point, but several inches from the point is a back edge. This gave you a slightly curved blade with excellent rigidity for thrusting, yet great strength of cutting. It had two flaws. The round back edge would prevent the sword from cutting very deeply, and it was expensive to make. Other than that it would make a fine weapon for unarmored combat.

  The final saber issued for combat was a single-edged straight-bladed sword with a thick back, and really useless for cutting. To many people this signaled that the straight-bladed thrusting sword was the ultimate cavalry weapon. I would like to point out that this was also the group that sent the cavalry charging machines guns—and that was the end of the saber as a weapon of war.

  This leads us to modern saber fencing. Saber fencing is based on the use of the cavalry saber. Since a cavalry saber is used on a horse, and it doesn't make much sense to cut at a man's leg when he's on a horse (except to be mean and spiteful), leg blows are not allowed. Sabers were heavy swords, usually the weight ran between 2-3/4 to 4 pounds. Now, the reality of combat dictated that a man had to be a good horseman and his horsemanship was actually more important than his skill with a sword.

  Modern sport fencers use sabers that weigh 13 ounces and fight on foot. Go figure.

  THE SHORT SABER, THE HANGER, THE CUTLASS

  The advantage of a short close combat weapon has long been known. Although called by many names, the above swords are all basically the same weapon. None of the above-listed swords was ever intended to be the primary weapon of the individual. The closest would have been the cutlass. Even on the confines of a small ship the preferred weapon would have been the short pike or a brace of pistols. But going into combat with one weapon is foolish, so there was always a backup.

  Reproduction Sinclair saber. HRC44.

  British naval cutlass from the late 1700s, 33 inches overall length. HRC40.

  The hanger was a favorite infantry weapon as well as a civilian one. Anytime there was a chance of miscreants or rascals being about, the knowledgeable gentleman might have a small pistol, plus some type of edged weapon. In the narrow streets of the European cities the small sword was favored. However, in the wilder regions of the world a good stout hanger was preferred. The very sight of such a weapon could put off an attack. Thugs are not interested in fighting for fighting's sake, they're interested in plunder. A few coins, even gold ones, are not worth a split skull or a severed limb.

  Hanger.

  From a military point of view the short saber was also a useful tool. It could be used in pioneer work and building fortifications. It was so popular that one version was made with a saw back, and issued to engineering and pioneer troops. It did cause some outcry, as it was really mean looking (just like mean looking "assault rifles" today) and it was rumored that any soldier found with one of these swords was shot on the spot. Since it was used in several armies, Russian, French, German to name a few, the rumor could have been just wartime propaganda.

  Saw-backed short saber.

  Some of these swords are really ugly, and some are quite beautiful. In the Tower of London there is a particularly nice short saber and Museum Replicas, Ltd., made a superb copy of the sword. I grabbed the first one, and still have it. It is a very effective and attractive sword. The American Cutlass, model 1862, is another sword that is really attractive. You can compare it with the last issued cutlass of the US Navy, the 1917 Model. No comparison in looks.

  Reproduction US Navy 1917 model cutlass.

  Photo by Mike Stamm.

  Suggestions for further reading from Hank:

  Komaroff, Linda, and Stefano Carboni, editors, The Legacy of Genghis Khan: Courtly Art and Culture in Western Asia, 1250–1353. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 2002.

  Suggestions for further reading from the editors:

  Farwell, Byron, Eminent Victorian Soldiers: Seekers of Glory, WW Norton & Co., New York, 1985.

  Farwell, Byron, Queen Victoria's Little Wars, WW Norton & Co., New York, 1985.

  9: European Two-Handed Swords

  Of all of the two-handed swords in the world, none are as impressive as the European two-hander. Although the Japanese no-dachi is fearsome and most impressive, it is not quite as awesome as the Swiss or German two-hand sword.

  In many of the action films dealing with swords that are not rapiers, the combatants are shown using their weapons with two hands. This is fine if it's appropriate to the country and period, as for instance when they show the Japanese katana or the larger European versions. But this does give a skewed version of history, as the sword and shield were the preferred weapons for most of the time when swords were used. Still, it is easily understandable when you realize the difficulties in choreographing a fight with sword and shield.

  But just how popular were these two-handed weapons in reality? When did they start to be used and how effective were they?

  No one is able to say for sure just how early the two-handed sword began to be used in Europe. It seems only logical that in battle when one has lost his shield to continue to fight using both hands on the sword. Given the wide range of individual preference, I feel certain that there were a very few people who actually preferred a two-handed sword. But these early medieval swords appear to have been merely outsized versions of the standard sword blade of the various periods. Rather than two-handed swords, these are called "bastard swords" or a "sword of war." These were swords that could be swung with one hand, but had space in the grip for an additional hand should the user feel it was needed.

  Great sword, early 15th century, steel, 68 inches overall length.

  From the collection of Glenbow Museum. R1945.285.

  Although the two-
handed sword had not gained any great popularity, there were still very large two-handers in existence. There is one in the Glenbow Museum in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. This is a huge sword, well over 6 feet long, and weighing about 12 pounds. It dates from the early 15th century and I would consider it an important sword in the history of arms.

  Two things brought about the development of the two-hand sword in the 14th century. One was the improvement of armor. As mail was superseded by plate armor, the sword became less and less effective. When an infantryman of the period was forced to face a fully armored knight, a two-hand crushing or cutting weapon was needed: a halberd, a bill, or a two-hand sword. This was also true for the fully armored knight when fighting on foot. With no need for a shield, then a two-handed weapon was the most practical. While a staff weapon was impractical to carry on horseback, a two-handed sword could easily be strapped to the saddle. All of these weapons could deliver tremendous blows capable of crushing the new steel armor that was spreading across Europe.

  Reproduction two-handed sword. HRC64.

  The second was the development of new tactics and a new appreciation for infantry. The Scots Schiltroon and the Swiss pike phalanx both utilized the long 12 to 16 foot pike as their major weapon. This would stop cold the charge of the knights and, once demoralized and in confusion, the men armed with shorter, crushing weapons, the aforesaid halberd or two-hand sword, could rush in and dispatch them. When pike formation fought pike formation, the two-hand sword was used to break the pikes of the opposing force. This use brought about a redesign in the two-hand sword.

  Parrying hooks on a two-hand sword.

  Whereas the knightly fighting weapon was a big sword, shaped much the same as the smaller version, this weapon was different. The guards were quite large, sometimes as wide as 16 inches, often with steel rings on both sides as additional protection for the hand. The most unusual feature was the added parrying hooks that projected out from the blade about one foot or so below the guard. The hooks not only provided additional resistance from a blade cutting down the sword, but were the main protection for the hand when the sword was shortened. This was a favorite tactic when the fighting got to close quarters. The hand could be shifted to the unsharpened portion of the blade below the hooks, called the "ricasso," and thus the sword could be used for short cuts and as a short spear.

  This was quite an impressive sword, and very popular with the Swiss and their arch foes, the German Landsknechts, in the later Middle Ages. These swords quickly spread throughout Europe and also became a favorite dueling weapon, and whole schools developed on the use of the two-hand sword in duels.

  A double pay soldier.

  The soldiers that carried these swords in war were called "double pay" soldiers, and usually wore half armor. They were invariably big strong tough types. Although these swords are not as heavy as they look—most weigh between 6 and 8-1/2 pounds—it still requires a strong man to swing and control the weapon for long periods of time. During the engagements of the pikes, their job was to rush between the lines of pikemen, and when they reached the front they were to swing and smash the pikes of the opposing line. You almost never sheared the tough oak or ash staff, but you could splinter and break them. Once the shaft splintered then the point became useless. Of course you can imagine what would happen should the Landsknechts send their double pay soldiers forward at the same time that the Swiss sent theirs! A brutal battle royal, between the two double pay units, huge swords flailing about and blood and limbs all over the place. Not the clean puncture wound of a pike, but a ghastly harvest of body parts, blood and brains. But then war has never been pretty, and as that Yankee general Sherman put it properly: "War is Hell!"

  SWISS/GERMAN TWO-HANDERS

  The designation "Swiss or German" is frequently used to denote the uncertainty of geographic origin, as well as a specific style of sword. This is a very large sword, often over 6 feet in length, with a wide crossguard, long grip, and a long ricasso that extends from 8 to 15 inches. At the end of the ricasso there are two large horns or parrying hooks that project toward the point of the blade. From here the blade proper extends to the point. The blade is usually about two inches wide, sometimes even wider. Often the blade was composed of a series of half circles and this type of sword was often referred to as a "flamberge." (Rapiers with these styles of blades were also at times called a flamberge. It was easy to distinguish the two once you saw them together.)

  Reproduction two-handed flamberge. HRC66.

  The weight of a sword depends on its size. A good plain fighting weapon for the ordinary soldier weighs about 7–9 pounds. But here confusion really starts. It also made a most impressive display when being carried by the guards of some noble or very rich person. To be even more impressive, some of them began to grow in size!

  These bearing swords were not really intended for use. They were intended for display and ornamentation. It still took a big strong man to carry one, but he wasn't really expected to have to fight with it. So there are a lot of "bearing" swords found throughout Europe, about which more below.

  But what about a sword made for a really big man? There is a common and mistaken belief that the soldier of the Middle Ages was quite small. Well, he wasn't a giant, but he also wasn't tiny, either. Full grown, the average guy was in the range of 5 feet 7 inches to 5 feet 10 inches. Henry VIII (1491–1547) was 6 feet 4 inches. Most of the German Landsknechts were big burly men, so it is in the realm of possibility that some of these big swords were actually used by big men. Remember, diet plays an important role in growth and they ate well then.

  As you might have already expected, once the swords became popular for display, they also became popular for dueling. By the 16th century there were schools dedicated to the art of dueling and not only with the rapier, but with the hand-and-a-half sword, the halberd and the two-hand sword. There were fencing blades developed for both the hand-and-a-half (also known as "great sword" or "long sword"—names being much more variable then than they are now) and the two-hand sword.

  Although over the years I have played and sparred with many types of swords and weapons, including halberds and pikes, the two-hand sword is one that I have been unable to play with. I've cut things with them, but have never been able to actually spar with a dummy two-hander that would behave like a real sword. The reason is weight. Even a padded staff that weighs 7 to 8 pounds will do a great deal of damage, and can possibly break bones or inflict some severe bruises. I have found that most people are quite reluctant to be hit with one, even in the pure pursuit of knowledge of real swordplay.

  Swinging a real two-hand sword can give you an idea of how strong and tough some of these guys were. Of course, infantry walked most of the time, and they didn't have cars to use to run to the store, nor did they smoke or sit about watching TV. What I did learn was also how fearsome a weapon it could be in the hands of a strong man. The one drawback is that if you should miss, recovery can be time consuming. A full arm swing could brush aside a shield and crumple armor, including the guy inside it. When shortened with the hand grasping the ricasso it becomes a formidable short polearm. The very weight gives great authority to a thrust, making it hard to turn aside. Overall, I think I would prefer a halberd or a bill, but they do not look nearly as impressive.

  Antique halberd, circa 1600, head 17.5 inches, with replaced shaft 91 inches long. HRC9.

  Like a halberd, the two-hand sword was rarely fully tempered. Only the Swiss were known to always temper their halberds, many of the others were forge tempered, or slack tempered. The same with the two-hander. The very size of the sword made full tempering difficult. Once the blade had been forged, and still while it was quite hot, it would be cooled, pulled out of the cooling medium, letting the residual heat build up, then cooled again. This is not as slipshod as you might think. A weapon that size, with that much mass, is quite destructive even it if wasn't tempered at all.

  But there is another mystery about these two-hand swords. Why are ther
e so many of them? They abound in private collections, museums all over Europe and the US and Canada have large numbers of these swords, and dealers have no problems in finding them for sale. True, they are rather expensive nowadays, but they are still available. (I had a chance to buy a beautiful Swiss two hander in Zurich in 1957. But I didn't have the $150.00. I saved the whole time I was in Germany, finally got the money, and never was able to get back to Zurich before I rotated back home. One of the swords that got away.)

  I can't say that this is the answer, but consider this. They were quite popular both for looks and for use, and they remained in use until well into the 17th century, even being in use during the Thirty Years War (1618–1648). There were a lot of fakes made during the Victorian period when collecting of arms and armor became a status game of rich people. These fakes are now difficult to distinguish from older swords unless you are really well versed in their identification. They may have been made in 1860, so now they have 150 years of time to age them even more!