What follows is the second part of a discussion of the longsword. This is from a more curatorial examination rather than a practical "how to" discussion of the weapon. This is designed to introduce the reader to the form of the weapon and encourage some thought as to the weapons actually being used to recreate what is presented in the manuals.
Cheers,
Henry.
Oakeshott’s Typology
“So the following typologies are
based purely and simply upon an aesthetic standard, form and proportion being
the only criteria. This may seem to be a serious archaeological heresy; the
only excuse I can offer for it is that it works.” (Oakeshott, 1998:22)
Oakeshott’s
Typology has become the standard for the classification of the medieval sword
at least. One of the reasons for this is the fact that the typology works for
the higher proportion of weapons, more to the point it is based upon the actual
form of the weapon and in comparison to other weapons rather than some
arbitrary classification. These two keys to the classification of the weapons
takes into account not only their form but also their use and this is because
it is based upon blade forms.
Blade Classification
The
previous section on the form of the longsword introduced the idea of the
classification of the sword and indicated that this was based on blade
classification. The blade is used because it is the truly operational part of
the weapon, “for the form of their blades gives the essential key to any
classification. In fact, to attempt to classify these later weapons on hilt
forms alone is impossible;” (Oakeshott, 1998:21). This is especially the case
as hilts could be removed and replaced. A weapon of one nationality could be
re-hilted with a hilt from an entirely different region, and especially in the
case of generational swords, could be replaced to suit the current fashion.
Thus the classification of “the sword itself must depend upon its blade-form
and the relative proportions of its parts,” (Oakeshott, 1998:22). Of course,
even with this foundation for the basis of classification, it does not mean
that external factors may not alter the form of a blade and thus possibly its
classification.
“one thing about these
sword-blades needs to be said: the variations in their form for the most part
are very subtle, especially between Types XII and XIV; many surviving swords
cannot be pigeon-holed into a type at all, because the shape of their blade’s
outline has been changed either by corrosion or by grinding.” (Oakeshott,
1996:212)
The fact
that there are subtle differences between the types in many instances, and
changes in the blade through various factors can change the classification
means that some weapons are difficult to classify as one or the other type.
This makes dating and classification somewhat difficult and the examiner of the
weapon needs to take into account various factors in the classification of any
single weapon, and in some cases the weapon cannot be classified due to these
external factors.
Weapon Types
“The typology of swords may seem
to have serious omissions, but these are deliberate. It is for the straight,
two-edged, cross-hilted sword of the kind which is generally (and very rightly,
if somewhat romantically) called "Knightly". ... Two-hand swords,
before about 1520, are only very big examples of some of the ordinary types,”
(Oakeshott, 1998:23)
In some
ways this simple statement should invalidate much of what is presented,
especially in relation to the longsword, however the typology is still useful
even for the longsword, as will be demonstrated as even though double-handed
weapons seem to be omitted, they are present in the typology and it will be
these weapons which are the focus of this investigation. More to the point, as
has been previously presented the longsword is clearly not simply a two-handed
weapon but one which may be use with one or two hands.
The process of the investigation
will highlight those types found in the typology which are most clearly weapons
of the appropriate type to be called longswords and will highlight their
characteristics. This will enable the reader to get an appreciation of the
development of the weapon over time in somewhat more detail than has been
previously presented. These weapons will be presented in the same order as they
are found in Oakeshott’s typology.
Type XII
While the
Type XII is not identified as a longsword per se, and is clearly a
single-handed weapon, “The grip is a little
longer than in the preceding types, averaging about 4½".” (Oakeshott,
1998:37). This weapon could indicate a pre-cursor weapon to the longsword
having a blade of the same length as a single-handed weapon but a longer handle
to accommodate the use of a second hand. This general shape and development in
the style of the weapon is continued into the Type XIII.
Type XIII
“Swords of Type XIII are of a
very striking and individual shape; some of them are very large – “swords of
war” they were called in the time of their popularity between about 1280 and
1340. These Epées de Guerre are
massive weapons, but are not to be confused with two-handed swords. There were
a few such as early as 1350, but they were considerably bigger and were always
referred to as Epées a deux Mains or
even “Twahandswerds”. The War Sword had a blade some 36 in. to 40 in. long with
a very long hilt, from 6 in. to 8 in. between cross and pommel, but it can be
wielded in one hand, though provision is made for using it with both. Most Type
XIII swords are large like this, but there are several of more ordinary
dimensions, though they have hilts long in proportion to their blades. These
are broad and flat, with edges running nearly parallel to a spatulate point;”
(Oakeshott, 1996:207)
The form of
the Type XIII is clearly in a longsword form, this is evident by the image in
the typology, but also by the description of the weapon given. These war swords
were clearly a development to allow the use of a second hand on the weapon, as
indicated in their description. What needs to be noted here is the clearly
defined difference, as asserted by Oakeshott between these weapons and the
Renaissance two-handed sword. The naming of two-hand here is based upon the use
of the weapon; indeed the weapon described above is clearly a longsword.
The blade length of these weapons
along with the handle length means that the weapon could be comfortably used
with either a single or two hands, thus falling into the definition of a
longsword as established. This weapon shows the clear progression toward a weapon
which was purposefully designed for the dual use of either one-handed or
two-handed operation. Further to this particular element is the form of the
weapon itself, tending toward a weapon which has a dual purpose of cut and
thrust.
“During the second quarter of the
fifteenth century swords seem to have reverted to the dual function of cut and
thrust. A type of blade which appears early in this century gives an admirable
all-purpose sword, much lighter than the massive late fourteenth-century
thrusting swords (about 2½ to 3
lb. as against 4 to 5 lb.) with very sharp points but of sufficient breadth at
the centre of percussion, and a flat enough section, to provide perfect cutting
edges. This blade, with minor variations of breadth and taper, was used extensively
throughout the fifteenth century and remained popular until the eighteenth.”
(Oakeshott, 1996:303)
The
indicated weapon is one which fell out and came back into favour due to its
shape and its ability to be used for both cut and thrust. What will be found in
this discussion is that some weapons were clearly biased toward one direction
or another, obviously in order to deal with armour however the dominant weapon
form will be one which serves the dual purpose of both cut and thrust. The
weight of the weapon is significant as indicated in the form previously, the
fact that these weapons were lighter means that they could more easily be
wielded by the combatant, and thus used more effectively. The form of the
weapon clearly indicates a multi-purpose weapon designed to be used single- or
double-handed.
“A broad blade,
nearly as wide at the tip as at the hilt. Most examples show a
distinct widening immediately below the hilt, thereafter the edges run with an
imperceptible taper to a spatulate point. The fuller generally occupies a
little more than half of the blade's length. The grip
is long in proportion to the blade—average length 6".”
(Oakeshott, 1998:41)
Type XIIIa
The
separation of Type XIII and Type XIIIa is a matter of size. The Type XIIIa is a
larger sword as depicted in the image for the typology presented in the early
part of this presentation. “This is generally the same shape as Type XIII, only
much larger. The blade, of similar form, is generally from 37" to 40"
long, while the grip ranges from 6½" to 9" in length.” (Oakeshott,
1998:42). The separation between Type XIII and Type XIIIa would seem to be a
piece of pedantry however the size difference is significant as this would
affect the operation of the weapon. This is one of the few times in the
typology in which the size is the determining factor for the type.
“The size of a sword has not
hitherto determined its type, but here, and in swords of the 14th and 15th
centuries, it will be found to do so. The reason here is partly that the
XIIIa's are very big weapons, partly because in their own time they were distinguished
from their smaller contemporaries by the term "espées de Guerre" or
"Grete Swerdes".” (Oakeshott, 1998:42)
The term
“great sword” has often been used to refer to a two-handed sword in the spirit
of the two-handed sword of the sixteenth century. What is of significance here
is that the term is being used to describe a weapon, admittedly large by
comparison to other contemporary weapons, but clearly in the same class as the
longsword as it has been so far depicted. This idea of the “great sword” is
more likely a nomenclature in order to describe the size of the weapon in
comparison to other weapons of a similar period, namely single-handed or arming
swords.
“The expression "Grant
Espée" would distinguish Types XIIIa from the "epée courte" or
"parvus ensis" which may have been the short weapon of Types XIV or
XV, better known by its 15th century name of "arming
sword".” (Oakeshott, 1998:44)
More to the
point, and especially with regard to the relative size of this weapon as
compared to other weapons in the “longsword” category, this weapon while
clearly larger than some, was clearly one which could be used in a
single-handed fashion or a two-handed fashion. Further to the point and going
back to the previous description of a longsword as one which could be worn and
drawn from the belt there is evidence of this type of sword being worn on a
belt (Oakeshott, 1998:45), clearly placing this weapon, while large, in the
longsword category. What is even more interesting with regard to this is the
evidence presented that not only was this weapon worn and used alone, but also
the distinction is clear that the longsword was considered a separate weapon
type.
Type XV
“A strongly tapering, acutely
pointed blade of four-sided "flattened
diamond" section. The edges are straight, and taper without noticeable
curves to the point, which may be strongly reinforced. The blade may be broad
at the hilt (some 2"–2¼") or quite narrow (about 1¼").”
(Oakeshott, 1998:56)
The Type XV
presents a weapon which was clearly biased toward the use of the point, merely
due to its shape. This is further evidenced by the reinforced point of the
weapon. This is a weapon which was designed to defeat the armour of the day.
“Type XV seems first to have appeared in the second half of the thirteenth
century.” (Oakeshott, 1996:307), about the time that armour was changing and
the addition of plates on armour was beginning to occur. This weapon was
clearly designed to punch through mail and get in the gaps in plate. This form
of weapon has clear trends toward the form of the longsword as depicted.
“Many swords of this type [XV]
have long grips, like the war-swords of Type XIII. After about 1350 nine swords
out of ten seem to have such grips, and are to-day variously referred to as
“Hand-and-a-half” or “Bastard” swords. The latter term was used in the
fifteenth century, but it is not certain that it was applied to this particular
kind of weapon. “Hand-and-a-half”, though modern, is a name far more apt for
it; these swords were single-handed weapons, but being furnished with long
grips, could at need be wielded easily in both.” (Oakeshott, 1996:308)
The idea of
the “bastard sword” is one where the hilt of the weapon was suitable for the
use of one or two hands. This obviously would have to be complemented by the
rest of the weapon in the form of balance and length in order for this to be
useful. These weapons were referred to as “bastard” due to the hand-and-a-half
grip which was neither single- nor two-handed in nature. The advantage in this
design was the resulting versatility presented by the use of one or both hands
if required.
“All these [Type XV] are
hand-and-a-half swords, with grips about 7 in. long, sharply tapering blades of
four-sided section about 32 in. long, straight crosses tapering towards the
tips, which are abruptly turned downwards and large pommels of Type J.”
(Oakeshott, 1996:309)
Once again,
the description presents a weapon which has a substantial grip presented, which
could be used for single or double-handed use. The blade sharply tapers toward
the tip giving it a great advantage in the thrust, rather than a broad blade
for use in the cut. This is a weapon by its form is able to be used in true
longsword-fashion, utilising its shorter blade and longer handle for speed and
accuracy, while maintaining the advantage of a double-handed grip should the
wielder require.
“The type [Type XV] seems to have
gone out of favour for a time in the early fifteenth century, but after about
1440 it became extremely popular again in its earliest form, particularly in
Italy.” (Oakeshott, 1996:309)
This is no
doubt the type of weapon which Filippo Vadi describes as being his perfect
weapon in his treatise, and which Fiore dei Liberi alludes to in his. This is a
weapon which is designed for the use of both edge and point, but would seem to
bias itself toward the point. The Type XVa which follows is a clear follow on
from the principles of this weapon.
Type XVa
“The blade
is similar [to the XV], though generally narrow and slender. The grip
is much longer, from 7" to 9" or even 10". Forms of pommel
and cross are the same as
for Type XV.” (Oakeshott, 1998:59)
Once again,
as with the Type XV, a weapon with a slender and pointed blade is presented
with a longer handle to be used by one or two hands depending on what is
required by the user at the time. In this particular instance the weapon is
clearly biased toward the use of two hands due to the extended handle as
compared to its predecessor. What is even more interesting is that this weapon
was heavily biased toward use against armoured opponents in the additions to
the form of the weapon.
“In the Tower of London is
another (with a "scent-stopper" pommel) of Type XVa; this is
particularly interesting as it has, just below the hilt, a piece about 6"
long where the edges are thickened and squared off, forming a long
"ricasso". The purpose of this was to enable the wielder to bring his
left hand forward to grasp the sword below the cross, so that he could make a
powerful two-handed thrust with a shortened blade in close fighting.”
(Oakeshott, 1998:60)
While this
is a specific example of the Type XVa sword, the addition of the ricasso,
combined with the already tapered and reinforced point of the weapon heavily
biases this weapon toward foot combat between armoured opponents. The
two-handed thrust of the weapon in what is known as “half-swording” is evident
in many period manuals. This is designed to allow the weapon to be levered into
place so that a short hard thrust may be made between plates, or in some
instances, to punch through the plates of the opponent. Just like their parent
type, the XV, they are well known in form as “bastard swords”, having utility
for actions with both one and two hands.
“These swords are of the
well-known "Bastard" or "hand-and-a-half" kind. Eight out
of ten military effigies and brasses of the period 1360–1420 show swords like
this; there is only a limited variety in the forms of hilt, and the blades are
long and slender.” (Oakeshott, 1998:60)
Type XVI
The Type
XVI is a single-handed form of weapon and thus would seem to be out of the
scope of this investigation however it does form the basis of the following
longsword form which follows it. Thus an examination of this weapon will reveal
some of the characteristics which are found in the following type. The first
note which needs to be made about this type is in comparison to two previous
types the XIV and XV.
“Type XVI is really a compromise
between Types XIV and XV, for the upper half of the blade retains the old flat
fullered section while the lower half (the business end of the sword) is
four-sided and acutely-pointed.” (Oakeshott, 1996:309)
This is a
weapon which is clearly designed for both cut and thrust actions. It has the
tapered point for thrusting actions while retaining a broad blade clearly
designed for cutting actions. This demonstrates a shift in ideas about how the
weapon can be utilised against an opponent and the realisation that both cut
and thrust can be effective.
“The most striking thing about
these blades [Type XVI] is that they seem very clearly to be made to serve the
dual purpose of cutting and thrusting. The upper part of the blade is in the
old style, while the lower part is acute enough, and stiff enough to thrust
effectively.” (Oakeshott, 1998:61)
The idea of
the utilisation of the weapon for both cut and thrust is one which forms the
basis for the following Type XVIa, a larger weapon, formed in such a way that
it can be equally used for both cut and thrust. This is weapon is based on the
form of the single handed Type XVI, which is presented above. It is necessary
to see the foundation of the weapon in order to understand it.
Type XVIa
“A long tapering blade,
broad at the hilt, with a sharp point often strongly reinforced. The
fuller is well-marked, often quite short (about 1/3 of the blade's length)
rarely more than half the length. The lower part of the blade is not of diamond
section, but of a stout, flat hexagonal section. The grip
is long, as in Types XIIIa and XVa, the tang
of stout rectangular section, often with the fuller running up into
it.” (Oakeshott, 1998:63)
What can be
seen in the description above is a lot of similarities in the form of the
weapon between it and the previous XVI. Both have blades which are quite wide
at the hilt and with a strongly reinforced point, thus giving the weapon the
dual function of both cut and thrust. The grip in the case of the XVIa is long,
as can be expected and thus it clearly falls into the idea of the longsword in
form. Much has been argued about the origin and dating of these weapons and their
relationships to other types.
“These swords are generally said
to belong to the late 14th—early 15th centuries, but the evidence does not
uphold this. It might be said that Type XVIa is merely another variety of Type
XIIIa, but it does seem, on the whole, to be a development of it, though
undoubtedly in use at the same time.” (Oakeshott, 1998:63)
The
questions of dating and form in this particular case highlight the issues of
dating and classification in general. The similarities between the Type XVIa and
the Type XIIIa bring in questions about the form and the dating of the weapon,
and as to whether or not they are too similar not to be ignored. The biggest
difference is in the point, where it is tapered and reinforced in the Type XVIa
and not so in the Type XIIIa. Further questions arise as to the dating of this
particular type.
“There are many of these swords,
nearly all once thought to be of the late 14th or early 15th centuries. The
earlier dating which I suggest is well supported by a number of clearly shown
swords in Italian paintings of the early 14th century.” (Oakeshott, 1998:65)
Regardless
of the dating of the weapon, what is presented in the form of the weapon is
clearly that the weapon is presented in such a form that it would be utilised for
both cut and thrusting effectively by the user of the weapon. The addition of
the longer handle and the longer blade from the previous single-handed type,
XVI, clearly puts this weapon in the hand-and-a-half or longsword bracket. The
type which follows, the Type XVII, is an interesting weapon as it seems to be
designed for a single purpose, rather than the dual of the XVIa.
Type XVII
“Type XVII ... was perhaps the
sword most in use during the period 1370-1425. Its section is usually hexagonal
and very solid with sometimes a very shallow fuller in its upper half.”
(Oakeshott, 1996:311)
The fact
that this type was most used during this period is fascinating in some ways and
quite expected in others. More detail is required to examine the weapon more
fully, but needless to say it is the shape of this weapon which is the most
significant in this instance. In some ways it is similar to the previous
weapon, but there are also significant differences which must also be noted.
“A long, slender blade
acutely tapering. Many are reminiscent of 16th century rapier
blades, but others are nearly as broad at the hilt (1½"–2") as some
of the XVIa blades. The section is generally hexagonal. Many examples have a
shallow fuller in the upper quarter of the blade,
though some do not. The grip is always long.
The tang usually very stout, of a quadrangular
section.” (Oakeshott, 1998:65)
Being that
the blade of the weapon is most significant to the use of the weapon this is
the focus of the description above. The form of the cross-guard and pommel has
no real significant effect on the use of the weapon, at least in comparison to
the blade of the weapon. The slender form of the blade would imply that the
primary purpose of this weapon is thrusting. This is further reinforced by the
solid shape of the weapon.
The form of the weapon is similar
to the XVIa; however this weapon is heavily biased in favour of the thrust,
with much less cutting ability. In some ways it is much like an estoc, a
specialised thrusting weapon, “It is essentially a thrusting sword, some being
more like stout, sharp-pointed bars of steel.” (Oakeshott, 1998:65). This is a
weapon which is designed to either punch through the armour of an opponent, or
have the point moved around the plates to find the gaps in the armour. The idea
of using the weapon to thrust with and thus get around armour is reinforced by
the presence of the ricasso.
“Type XVII with one of these
pommels [T3]. Its blade, incidentally, has a ricasso about 6 in. long, the
purpose of which seems to have been to allow the left hand of the man wielding
it to be brought forward to grasp the blade below the hilt so that the sword
can be “shortened” in close fighting on foot.” (Oakeshott, 1996:315)
Clearly
this weapon was designed primarily for armoured foot combat against an opponent
who had a significant amount of armour and plated at that. The shortened grip on
the weapon is designed for a much stronger thrust against an opponent in
armour, and images of the weapon used in this fashion can be found in the
manuals of the period such as Fiore dei Liberi’s Flos Duellatorum.
Fiore dei Liberi Flos Duellatorum (1410)
This shortened grip is also
designed so that the weapon can be more easily used in close quarters combat
for leverage against the opponent’s weapon and also to move the point of the
weapon into a position to thrust against any gap in the armour. While this is
not the common form of the weapon its presence does easily represent this idea
and direction in use.
Type XVIII
The Type
XVIII is an interesting weapon to say the least. This is one weapon which could
be really referred to as general purpose and generic, both in terms of use and
also in terms of form, “Type XVIII is a general all-purpose sword which varies
a good deal in the shape of its blade’s outline as well as in its hilt styles.”
(Oakeshott, 1996:313). The variation in the weapon is one thing which makes
this type difficult to isolate, and thus there are some sub-types present. The
weapon is depicted as a single-handed weapon going by the image of the
typology, so the question is why is it present in this discussion? The
description of the weapon assists with this.
“A broad blade (2"–2½" at the hilt) of four-sided "flattened diamond" section; the edges taper in graceful curves to a sharp point. The grip is of moderate length (3¾"–4") but some are big swords with grips over 5" long. A feature of the grips of these swords—many are preserved—is a noticeable swelling in the middle (as plate 46D, fig. 75, p. 104).” (Oakeshott, 1998:67)
What the
description gives is a weapon which has a hilt which can vary in length, along
with variation in the blade length. This means that there are examples of the
Type XVIII which quite comfortably fit into the form of the longsword as well
as those which do not. The sub-typing of the weapon presented by Oakeshott,
some of which will be discussed in the following types assists with
classification of this type. The form of the weapon was very much generic in
form having various variations depending on the actual weapon.
“This type [XVIII] of blade was
used extensively all through the fifteenth century, some being broad like Henry
V’s and others much narrower. Most of them had a four-sided section showing a
definite mid-rib and slightly concave faces to each of the four sides, but
after about 1450 many of them had sharply defined ribs and flat faces, similar
to the later blades of Type XV” (Oakeshott, 1996:313)
These
variations make it a little difficult to specify exactly the form and
attributes of this particular type, however the variations do fall within a
general form and thus type of weapon. What should be noted, and is of real
interest in the actual use of the weapon, is that unlike the Type XVII which
came before it, the XVIII reverts back to the idea of the use of the edge as
well as the point, thus cut and thrust in operation, rather than purely thrust.
“In XVIII, the edges run in
curves, and the lower part of the blade looks broader. The type is, in fact,
admirably adapted for a cut-and-thrust style of fighting, and seems to be a
logical development of Type XVI. The strong midrib gives great rigidity, yet
toward the point at the centre of percussion there is plenty of width to each
edge.” (Oakeshott, 1998:68)
The form of
the weapon allows it to be used equally effectively for both cutting and
thrusting actions, and as indicated, it bears resemblance to the Type XVI which
came before it, and carrying much of the same characteristics. Needless to say
this generic form of weapon would have great advantages being able to cut and
thrust and this would assist in its longevity simply due to its utility. Being
that this is the primary weapon and having sub-types, it is of importance that
such sub-types, and such a wide variety of sub-types, would have only
eventuated had the original type been of such use, and also in such a generic
form that modifications could be made from it. Needless to say, as far as types
go the XVIII and its sub-types have one of the greatest sustained longevities.
“This type, and its four
sub-types, were the most widely used swords between c. 1410 and 1510 all over
Europe. It may well have been in use in the late 14th century, but the earliest
date we so far have for it is 1419;” (Oakeshott, 1998:68)
Type XVIIIb
Three of
the sub-types of the XVIII will be discussed being XVIIIb, XVIIIc, and XVIIIe.
These weapons are the ones which conform to the idea of the longsword the
closest. While the others may have similar characteristics, they are missing an
element which is necessary for this classification, and thus have been omitted
from the discussion. What will be noted are their common characteristics which
can be found in the parent-type, the XVIII.
“A long, slender, acutely pointed
blade, generally of "flattened
diamond" section, often with the point reinforced. The grip
is very long, often as much as 10"–11". The pommel
is most frequently of one of the wheel forms, but second to those in
popularity seem to have been the scent-stopper and fruit shaped ones of Types T
and T5. Crosses are generally long and slender,
more often straight than curved. The grip is of a very
characteristic shape, with a waisted lower half which merges with a slender
upper half.” (Oakeshott, 1998:70)
The Type
XVIIIb has the main characteristics of its parent-type, as can be expected. The
reinforced point on this type is one area in which this sub-type varies with
the original. This is continued with the extended and waisted shape of the grip
on the weapon. The flattened diamond cross-section of the blade allows it to
give it the extra length of the weapon while maintaining a true cutting edge.
Thus the weapon has equal utility for cutting as it does for thrusting. The
characteristics of this weapon clearly place it in the expected form of the
longsword as presented previously.
“One may unhesitatingly say that
here [Type XVIIIb] is the very epitome of a "hand-and-a-half" sword
of the second half of the 15th century, a German one exactly similar to so many
carried by Dürer's saints and knights.” (Oakeshott, 1998:70)
Type XVIIIc
“A broad, heavy blade,
of "flattened diamond" section, the faces nearly always
flat or slightly convex, generally about 34" long. The grip
is long, rather like those grips of some type XVIII swords with a
sharp swelling in the middle. As these big swords are hand-and-a-half weapons,
the swelling is nearer to the cross than to the pommel. The pommel
is generally of one of the wheel forms.” (Oakeshott, 1998:71)
The Type
XVIIIc conforms to the “classic” form of its parent-type. It has the flattened
diamond cross-section on the blade. This weapon is a little shorter than the
Type XVIIIb, both in the blade and the handle, but it has the same shaped
handle with the swelling in the middle of it. The weapon here is broader than
the previous one thus giving it more ability to cut, however it retains the
tapered point typical to the parent-type, thus also giving it thrusting
capability. This weapon has more in common with the parent-type than it does
differences.
Type XVIIIe
“A long, narrow blade
generally with a long (5"–6") ricasso narrower than the
blade itself; occasionally with a fuller running most of
the length, but more commonly of "flattened diamond" section. Pommel
of pear form, and the cross is curved
sharply downward.” (Oakeshott, 1998:72)
The basic
design of the Type XVIIIe is much the same as the parent-type for the XVIII
however it is not all the same. The addition of the ricasso is significant as
it allows the user to gain more leverage over the opponent when placing a hand
on the weapon, known as half-swording. This idea has been presented previously
in the form of the Type XVII. This weapon is more unique in form however and is
most likely Danish in origin going by examples of the weapon; this is a
different form of weapon, purpose designed (Oakeshott, 1998:73). This makes
this type one of the few which can, for the most part, be identified by
location. This is rather unique amongst swords, as has been previously
indicated. This weapon, purely by its longer shape and the presence of the
ricasso would be more likely used for thrusting than cutting, while retaining
at least some ability to cut.
Type XX
“A large, broad blade
sometimes extremely wide at the hilt. Many examples have three
shallow fullers in the upper half, two side by side immediately below the hilt,
and a single one in the middle of the blade below them. Others may have two
very narrow, deep fullers side by side extending about a quarter of the blade
length. Hilts are usually long (about
8"–10") with scent-stopper pommels of Type T. Some may have wheel pommels. Crosses
are generally long and slender, curved slightly—or rather, each arm
inclines at an angle downward, but remains straight” (Oakeshott, 1998:75)
The
reinforcing fullers on the weapon are designed to both strengthen the blade but
also to keep it reasonably light in the hand. The longer handle places it
clearly in the form of the longsword, being able to be used either with one or
two hands. The Type XX has a broad blade, much like the earlier types. This
makes the weapon primarily designed for cutting rather than thrusting. “Some of
these swords are war-swords, a sort of late development of Type XIIIa, in use
at the same time as the late examples of that type.” (Oakeshott, 1998:76). This
relationship demonstrates how the weapons were very much developed based on the
experiences gained from the previous forms.
Longsword “Type”
After
examining the thirteen types of sword as presented by Oakeshott, what can be
clearly said is that there is no one type of sword which is clearly “the”
longsword type. Rather that the longsword came in many different variations and
shapes. These shapes were heavily dictated by the use of the weapon, and thus
the weapon needs to be classified by the blade of the weapon rather than by any
other part. Hilts and other attachments can and often were changed to suit the
style at the time.
What have
been presented are some different forms of the longsword for examination. What
is important is that this is merely a glossing over of the information which is
presented by Oakeshott and a person should treat it as such. This is an introduction
to the Oakeshott’s Typology and much more can be said of it. What has been
presented here is designed to point the researcher in the right direction as to
where to find the longsword in amongst the many weapons which are described,
and also to demonstrate that this weapon is present in the Typology even if it
is not clearly separated from other weapons.
The modern
researcher and indeed the modern recreationalist should take note of which
weapon that they are using and how it is being used; ask whether or not it is
actually the best weapon to be recreating what they are doing. The information
found in more curatorial sources such as Oakeshott’s Typology is significant as
it details much of the form of the weapon and also approximately when this weapon
would have been in use. It is important to be able to match the appropriate
weapon to the appropriate use in order to perform the actions presented in
manuals of the period properly.
Conclusion
The
discussion which has been presented has been designed to present the longsword
as a weapon and it has been designed to discover the form of the longsword and
what the weapon actually is. This means that the discussion, for the most part,
has been from a curatorial standpoint in order to classify the weapon and
demonstrate its differences and similarities with other weapons.
The first
place for identifying the longsword was with regard to terminology. This did
not go into the very simple aspects common amongst all swords but kept to terms
which are more directly associated with the longsword, and like terms. The
result of this was that the weapon now called the longsword was also called a
two-handed sword, a hand-and-a-half sword, a bastard sword, a great sword and
also a war sword. All of these terms were demonstrated to indicate the same
general form of weapon, while having some particular characteristics of their
own.
This then
moved on to a practical definition of the weapon, one which was based on how
the weapon is handled and fits into the hand. In this particular case the
longsword was identified as a weapon which had the facility to be wielded with
two hands due to the grip, but also had the length and weight characteristics
which enabled it to be used with a single hand. Thus the longsword was identified
as a weapon of great utility.
The second
part moved on to the form of the longsword. This searched for common physical
characteristics of the weapon which could be identified easily. The first
identifier was that the usage of the weapon affected its form. Thus it was long
enough to be used two-handed but short enough to be used single-handed. This
measurement characteristic was further emphasised in the weight and length
aspects which were identified both as a matter of fact and also advice from one
of the masters of the period. This led on to the discussion of the changes in
the weapon due to the developments in armour. The weapon changed to suit the
situation in which it was found some weapons having distinctive thrusting
aspects while many retained the equal ability for both cut and thrust. This led
on to the question of classification and dating which set up for the discussion
of the Oakeshott Typology.
The
Oakeshott Typology has been used, and various weapons selected from the
typology to fit into the form which is the longsword, and these types were
discussed in some detail. The idea of this was to identify the longsword of
various periods in a curatorial form in order that the changes in the weapon
could be identified. What should be noted here are the difficulties in clearly
stating to which period or even nationality a weapon belongs due to the many
influences the weapon may be subject to. Thirteen types were identified as
either distinctively longsword in form or at least related to a form which was.
These forms give us an idea about how the weapon changed and the various
different forms of the longsword. Its place in history and the location and use
of a particular type should be at least in the back of a practitioner’s mind in
order that the correct or at least passingly similar form of longsword is used
for the method that is being used.
There are
many different forms of the weapon which is called the longsword. This
investigation has identified a general form of the weapon and also some more
specific examples of the weapon. The research presented is designed to
introduce the idea of the form of the longsword and what it was, and to clear
up some of the confusion with regard to terminology. What is presented is
foundation and introductory research; there is much more to be found about the
longsword and it is encouraged that further research is made upon this subject.
For convenience a pdf version of the complete discussion is available here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/32538238/Discussion%20of%20the%20Form%20of%20the%20Longsword%20-%20v1.pdf
For convenience a pdf version of the complete discussion is available here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/32538238/Discussion%20of%20the%20Form%20of%20the%20Longsword%20-%20v1.pdf
Bibliography
dei Liberi, Fiore
(1410) Flos Duellatorum,
Oakeshott, R. E. (1996) The
Archaeology of Weapons: Arms and Armour From Prehistory to the Age of Chivalry,
Dover Publications, Inc., New York
Oakeshott, R. E. (1998) The
Sword in the Age of Chivalry, The Boydell Press, Woolbridge
Porzio, L. and Mele, G. (2002) Arte Gladiatoria Dimicandi: 15th Century Swordsmanship of
Master Filippo Vadi, Chivalry Bookshelf, Union City
Windsor, G. (2013) The
Swordsman’s Companion: A Modern Training Manual for Medieval Longsword, Guy
Windsor
