Hank Reinhardt's The Book of the Sword

by Hank Reinhardt

  There is one way that can help in distinguishing a Victorian copy from an original. Most all of the original swords I have seen have a ricasso that is thick, sometimes as much as 5/8 of an inch. Modern copies, and in these I include the Victorian copies, always have ricassos of the same thickness as the blade. It is simply too expensive to forge one in the old manner.

  CLAYMORES

  The Swiss/German style swords were not the only two-handers in use. This same period saw a rise in the use of other two-hand swords. Many of the other two-handers were quite effective, and they did not weigh as much as the big German types. Even the Swiss and the Landsknechts might carry one of these. These swords are quite varied, some are purely two-hand estocs, while others are pure cutting swords. In general, these swords reflect what you might consider the standard European sword, a broad slightly tapering double-edged blade.

  Antique tuck (estoc). HRC25C.

  The name "claymore" comes from the Gaelic, claidheamh-mor, and means "great sword." This has caused some confusion, as the term "claymore" is also used for the classic Scottish basket hilted sword. Sir Guy Laking, with no knowledge of Gaelic, proceeded to call the basket hilt "claybeg," meaning "little sword."

  Claude Blair did an excellent article on this in the book Scottish Weapons and Fortifications. He showed that both weapons were referred to as "claymores" by the Scots themselves. Since it is a Scottish sword, and it is their language, I will abide by it. However, I will try to make it clear when I use the word "claymore" to which sword I am referring.

  There were two varieties of two-hand claymores. One is the lowland variety, which is actually nothing but the standard two-hand sword: long blade, long grip and long straight crossguard, often with ring guards as well. But the classical Highland claymore is quite distinct. It has down sloping guards that end in quatrefoils. This seems to be typical of the Highlands, as older one-hand swords also have the down sloping guard.

  A note of warning about the large claymore. This sword was romanticized in the 19th century. As a result, as with other two-handed swords, there were a large number of Victorian copies made. Now that over a hundred years have passed, it is difficult to tell which are actual originals and which are Victorian copies. I doubt if there are more than two dozen originals still in existence, but there are large numbers of copies.

  It is easy to believe that these swords also had specialized uses and even "secret" techniques, but such was not the case. When used in single combat, they were used much the same way as the hand-and-a-half, or the "long" sword of the period. Often the blade was grasped and used to parry, sometimes to shorten for a strong thrust, or as is shown in the some of the old manuals, to actually strike with the pommel. The actual utility of that move I doubt rather strongly.

  These regular size two-handers were lighter and could be moved with a lot of speed. They were also quite intimidating. Even a knight in full plate, when faced with a whistling sword that weighed between 5–7 pounds, knew that he had problems. A sword of that size, swung hard and fast, could deal a deadly blow even to a man in armor. True, it did not have the force of a halberd, but dead is dead, whether cleaved in twain or merely cut halfway through.

  Reproduction two-hand claymore. HRC68.

  The two-hand claymore is not as impressive a weapon as the Swiss/German two-hand sword. It does not have the wide guards nor the parrying hooks. But it does have that quite distinct crossguard. Generally the guards are bronze or brass, and usually the pommel is a steel sphere. However, there were other metals and pommel shapes used. One thing always present is the distinct guard.

  The origin of this guard is not fully known. There are a few Scottish medieval swords with down-sloping guards but none of them end in quatrefoils. All of these swords are single-handed swords.

  Blade size varies, but all the others can be classed as two-hand weapons. Some of these are large swords, with blades up to 50 inches, while there are smaller versions with blades of 36 inches. I have heard that many preferred their sword pommel to reach eye level. But personally I think this is a modern idea. Certainly I have never seen it sourced anywhere but in someone's imagination.

  Curiously, this is one of two swords that was actually carried on the back.

  Hollywood is in love with warriors carrying their swords slung across their backs. There is a problem with this. If you have to draw the sword in a hurry, your arms—if you are human—are simply not long enough to draw a sword of any length. (In Ceylon, Sri Lanka, the ayda katti was worn slung on the back. But it has a blade only about 17–18 inches.)

  The Scots never worried about this. The sword was in a scabbard, and the scabbard was slipped off of the back, belt and all, the sword drawn—then all hell would break loose. If the Scotsman won, then he had time to look for his scabbard, and if he lost . . . well, he didn't need it anyway.

  This is a very effective sword. I have had a chance to play with a really superb copy that I had made several years ago. The blade is 41 inches and the guard is well over 17 inches. A young strong man can move and swing this with terrifying speed. The weapon is not designed for defensive work, but on the offense, it is scary.

  Scotland always seemed to be about a hundred years behind the Continent when it came to weaponry. The two-hand claymore is recorded to have been used at Culloden Moor in 1745. It was a fearsome weapon for the Scots—but it just couldn't stand up to a loaded musket.

  BEARING SWORDS & EXECUTIONER'S SWORDS

  There was another development of the two-hand sword that really had nothing to do with war, and that was the bearing sword. These are often confused with fighting weapons, and have given rise to the fiction that two-hand swords were very heavy, since these bearing swords can weigh up to 15 pounds!

  These are very big swords, with some exceeding 6 feet in length. But these are processional swords, and used only to impress the populace during parades, gatherings, civic investments, and at times to surround a person of high nobility. They were never intended for use, and frequently are not tempered.

  There is an easy way to tell if the sword was intended to be used in battle. If you pick it up, and you think that if you were in shape to swing it, it would make a nice weapon, then it was a weapon. But if you pick it up, and wonder about someone so strong he could actually swing this, then it was never intended to be used.

  There's another telling clue: if the sword was inscribed, and the inscription can only be read if the blade is held point up, then it is a bearing sword.

  There is another two-hand sword used a great deal in Europe, and it has a less than savory reputation. That was the executioner's sword. This sword had a blade of roughly 30 inches in length, and was wide, usually about 2-1/2 inches. The blades were flat, or a flattened oval in cross section, and never had fullers. The blade was never made with a point, instead it was cut straight across and often three holes were drilled close to the end, so that the sword could never be made into a fighting weapon. These swords are frequently engraved with gallows and wheels, and words like "justice" and "mercy." This method of execution was favored on the Continent, with the condemned having to kneel upright and hold his head up. Anne Boleyn requested a headsman from Europe when Henry VIII had her executed.

  On that cheerful note we will leave the European Sector and go East.

  Suggestions for further reading from Hank:

  Blair, Claude, Scottish Weapons and Fortifications 1100–1800. John Donald Publishers Ltd., Edinburgh, 1981.

  Suggestions for further reading from the editors:

  Blair, Claude, European Armour circa 1066–circa 1700. B.T. Batsford, Ltd., London, 1958.

  Ffoulkes, Charles J., Inventory and Survey of the Armouries of the Tower of London, Vol. I. His Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1916.

  10: The Katana and

  Other Japanese Swords

  The sword that we call the katana was the primary sword of the Japanese warrior from roughly the 11th century on into the 20th century. Although the firearm w
as the principal weapon in modern times, many Japanese officers led charges with the katana during the Second World War.

  Japanese officer's saber from World War II, 35 inches overall length. HRC323.

  Prior to the 11th century the sword in use seems to have been a straight, single-edged blade with a curious down dropping pommel. Even as far back as this the sword seems to have been quite important to the Japanese. But little is known about this weapon, and we are more concerned with the katana.

  The katana seems to have been developed sometime in what is known as the late Heian Period, which is usually listed as 1100–1230 AD. The early Heian Period, 794–1099 AD, obviously saw the beginnings of the katana, but exact information is not known. As you will find stated throughout this book, do not take these dates as hard and fast. These are merely reference points. I can assure you that at the end of 1099 AD (or whatever date the Japanese used), warriors did not say, "Okay, that's it. Throw away these boring old swords and take up these new ones."

  The katana is a beautiful weapon, single-edged, two-handed, with a gently curving blade, and a point that is most distinctive. Instead of tapering to a point, the katana curves abruptly to its point. This curve is just as sharp as the body of the sword. This produces a point that is excellent for cutting, with no drag on the point at all, and yet, because of its sharpness, one that will penetrate in a thrust as well as a much more pointed weapon.

  Reproduction katana. HRC105.

  The Japanese sword—no, all Japanese weapons—are interesting and quite attractive. The Japanese sword alone has spawned many books, and one can devote a lifetime to its study and not know all there is to know. (Of course, that is true of weapons in general.) But to study the Japanese sword, you need a very good memory. The Japanese are fanatics about detail, and they have a name for every thing you can think of. Even the most minute detail of decoration will have its own name. This does have one advantage: a katana can be perfectly described and visualized by a person without ever having seen it. I have deliberately refrained from using the Japanese terms in this book. There are too many, and I don't feel the reader should have to have a translator to figure out what I am talking about. If the early Japanese had had beer bottles, and one had ever been broken and used in a brawl, they would then immediately decide on the technique for breaking the bottle, and how to get the properly jagged edge. And they would have had names for the different kinds of edges, strikes, and all of it.

  The Japanese sword is one of the most studied in history. It is probably the most renowned, and certainly it is the most hyped. The tales told about the sword are many and varied, but all emphasize the incredible sharpness and power of the blade. And most are utter nonsense. The one that I have encountered the most often is that during WWII a Japanese officer cut a machine gun barrel in half with his sword. I was even consulted on an episode of the TV show Mythbusters about this. (I've often pointed out that it would have made more sense to cut down the gunner rather than the barrel, but that wouldn't have been as impressive). Several cousins of a person someone met, or some distant relative who also had it from a friend witnessed this incredible feat. It occurred on Guadalcanal, Bougainville, Iwo Jima or someplace in China.

  But it just isn't true. The human body simply can't generate enough speed and force to slice through tough tempered steel. If you can generate enough speed, you can drive a straw through a telephone pole, but a straw is still a straw. Like the legend of the Saracen scimitar cutting through a floating silk handkerchief, it's really impressive, but it isn't true. You cannot generate enough force to cut through a machine gun barrel, nor can you get a blade sharp enough to slice through floating silk.

  But don't let the reaction to the hype fool you. The Japanese sword is a superb sword even without the hype. Certainly no weapon in the history of man has had as much care, attention and love devoted to it as the Japanese katana. Old heirlooms are treasured and kept, and have been throughout the history of Japan. As a result there are swords extant that are over a thousand years old still capable of being used in combat.

  I have had a chance to examine one of these rare treasures, and will relate the anecdote. I have to admit the anecdote is rather flattering. (If it were unflattering, I wouldn't mention it.)

  Back in the mid 1970s, I was attending a weapons show with a close friend who is a knife maker, and can produce Damascus blades of exceptional beauty, toughness, and sharpness. While chatting with a dealer who had a few modern katanas, the subject of the old Japanese swords came up. It turns out that the dealer was also a collector and had just recently sold an old katana to the Japanese government for "over $150,000" and was delivering it that evening to their rep. The sword had been dated to the 13th century and authenticated to the name of the maker (which I have forgotten). He asked if I would like to see it, and I immediately agreed. From under the table he took out a box, opened it, unwrapped a sheathed sword and handed it to me. Not wishing to be gauche, I went through the usual formalities of unsheathing a sword, but as the sword started to clear the sheath I was unable to contain myself, and fully unsheathed the blade and held it in both hands.

  Let me say up front that I am not a metaphysical type. I am a hard-nosed realist, and I don't believe in crystals, spirits or magic. I will, when frustrated, curse an inanimate object with great venom and originality, but I really don't think it works.

  I held the sword in my hands, glanced around the show, and realized that I could cut down everyone in the place, and no one could stop me. I held the sword in my hands; I did not make any silly passes or poses or any of the nonsense that is designed to impress the onlookers. Instead I held the sword, and I felt a strange power course through my body. It was with great reluctance that I handed the sword back. Had I had $200,000 in my pocket I would have paid it even if it meant starving for months. Alas, I did not have the money. We continued talking, and he commented that my friend's Damascus knives were incredibly good, and shortly I took my leave.

  At last I fully understood Ewart Oakeshott's comment about "a sword that woos you to strike!"

  Shortly afterwards, the blacksmith friend (Jim Fikes of Jasper, Alabama) came back from talking to the collector, and he was laughing. I asked him what was so funny and he wanted to know what I did when I held the sword. I told him that I didn't do anything.

  "Waal," he said in his Alabama drawl, "he said you had a touch of the samurai about you. I told him you were crazy as hell, and asked him what he meant. He said that when you picked up the sword, it looked like you thought you could cut down everyone here without any problem, and would really like to do it."

  I hadn't realized it showed. . . .

  But how good is the Japanese sword, and what is the truth about it?

  The Japanese are a most meticulous people. A great deal of their handiwork is not merely excellent, but actually borders on genius. Metal serpents, with each scale articulated, birds of steel, with wings that hold whatever position you put them in, and so lifelike that you expect them to fly: in so many areas the handiwork is incredible.

  So too with the sword. The Japanese sword makers created truly beautiful weapons, and it is easy to see why the Japanese sword was traditionally regarded as the "soul of the samurai."

  HISTORY OF THE KATANA

  A brief history of this sword is in order.

  Early Japanese weapons were directly descended from swords from the mainland. We know this because there are many excavated swords that are very similar to Chinese swords of the same periods. Aside from the single-edged swords mentioned above, there are swords that are straight, with parallel double edges and a sharp point. Modern terminology would call them cut-and-thrust weapons, since they were capable of both. These early swords are of iron, and do not appear to have been of layered construction. However, I have not been able to find any reports of any metallurgical analysis of these blades in the various books and papers on these early swords.

  While the Japanese will admit to the influence of China
in the early blades, they feel that the later developments are strictly their own. This is particularly true in the manufacturing process (which we will deal with a little later in this chapter).

  Sometime between 400–500 AD the Japanese increased the use of both horse and bow, eventually combining them to produce horse archers. This is a little strange, as the majority of Japan is quite mountainous. But there are central flatlands, and it is probably there that the Japanese horse archer developed. This adoption and reliance on the horse could easily have been a contributing factor toward the development of the katana. Regardless of how effective the horse archer is, there are times when combat comes down to swordplay, whether afoot or on horseback, and curved swords have been preferred by horsemen all over the world.

  This is not to say that horse archers were the only force, but only that they were the dominant one. The spear was also used on horseback, not in the European mode of couching the lance, but rather in stabbing and cutting on both sides of the rider. But the horse archer was favored, and even today they still practice the art of the bow while on horseback.

  The samurai class began to develop in the early Heian period. The social forces that combined with both religious and economic forces are not fully known, and it is not in the province of this book to go into this type of detail. Suffice it to say that the samurai class developed into the upper crust of Japanese society, and remained that way until the 19th century. But do not think that all warriors were samurai, or that all samurai were warriors. This varied greatly both with time and location.