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.
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.
Oakeshott Typology (Oakeshott, 1998:24)
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 ...
The rest of this article can be found in
Un-Blogged: A Fencer's Ramblings by Henry Walker, which is available in paperback from:
Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/Blogged-Ramblings-Henry-Leigh-Walker/dp/098764470XBooktopia:
https://www.booktopia.com.au/un-blogged-henry-leigh-walker/book/9780987644701.htmlAmong other places...
It is also available in electronic format (pdf) from:
https://buy.stripe.com/fZecP419c7CB9VKeUV... or direct from the author.
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
