Dean's World

Yet another example of modern "experts" talking down what worked well for centuries, without stopping to consider that fact. Happens all the time, and with things a lot more significant to the general population than the weight of ancient swords -- take, for example, the ideas that "baby formula is just as good as mother's milk," and "saturated fat and red meat are bad for you."

At least now we have the 'net to post correctives, and blogs to spread the word. It's a fine time to be alive.

I held an ancient sword at the Florence (Alabama) Rennaissance Festival, and yes, that thing was light. I'm thinking maybe 2.5 pounds.

And I've fought with boffer swords, and even with those, let me tell you, you get tired. It really brings home that statement I've read in a number of old time fiction books...

...And then fresh troops came over the hill, turning the tide of battle...

What they mean is that those troops weren't red-faced, panting for breath, and dripping with sweat and they slaughtered the guys who could barely hold their swords up.

I have to add, though, that I would have liked to have seen some swords from the Crusades. Those had style.

In the Roman era, swords were designed (and legionaries trained) mainly for stabbing, not slashing. My understanding is that in the dark ages that followed, the grunts on either side would mainly hack away at each other, and swords were used interchangeably with axes. Fancy dueling, in which you expected to run your opponent through with the point of your sword, didn't start again until much later.

I would think that in order to chop through the relatively well-made chain mail that whose usage prevailed well into the 13th century and which was only replaced by plate armor over a lengthy period of time, that swords used by anybody who had to stand up to an armored knight would have been heavy enough to stand a good chance of chopping through it.

Remember, it was not until the battle of Crecy in the middle of the 14th century that the English army learned to forget all about their swords, and use their knights to protect their even more valuable archers, who in turn murdered the French chivalry with yard-long arrows fired off at relatively high velocity.

(Sort of like US battleships in World War II being used mainly to protect the aircraft carriers, using their comparatively vast arsenals of anti-aircraft gunnery for this seemingly mundane purpose. After Pearl Harbor, the big 16-inch guns were mainly used to bombard enemy shore installations.)

But I'm not that much of an antiquarian in regard to medievel swords. So if you say they were light as fly-swatters, so be it.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Also, AH, most of the martial arts manuals that are being restored and re-enacted/deciphered by modern martial experts penned in the late middle ages are showing that the combat schools then were nowhere near as one dimensional as "hacking away". Parries, stabbing, slashing, beating -- all were used (which makes sense when your life is on the line.)

A long, straight edged sword with a point (like a crusader sword) is superb for stabbing and adequate for slashing, and it makes sense that any prudent warrior would do both.