Of the Use of the Foil

Greetings,

The foil is a much misunderstood weapon. From the point of view of many historical fencers it is much maligned, and even from modern fencers it is misunderstood due to the rules which are associated with it. The following discussion attempts to shed some light on the use of the foil not only to the modern fencer, but to fencers in general as it can be a most useful tool when it is approached from the correct perspective.

The original purpose of the foil was as a training weapon for the smallsword. It was a lighter version created so that the weapon could be held for an extended period of time so more training could be done. Clearly it was blunted so that it could be used in training. The "right of way" rules which are associated and also its target area, limited to the torso, were both designed to protect the individuals who were practicing with it to prevent injury to them.

When the foil was first introduced, masks were not being used so removing the head from target was an effort to prevent damage to the vulnerable face. The "right of way" rules encouraged fencers to ensure that they had a defence presented before they launched an attack at their opponent, thus preventing two fencers from impaling one another and losing control of where the points of the weapons went. This training tool encouraged the fencer to prepare a proper defence, and penalised the fencer who did not defend themselves before attacking.

The foil's prime current use is in modern fencing where it is recognised as one of the three weapons used. This is the weapon which every beginner should start with as it teaches all of the basic fencing actions with the point and teaches the fencer form in these actions. Further, with the "right of way" rule, as it was previously stated, teaches the fencer to defend themselves before attacking. The foundation of a good modern fencing career starts with the foil. All of the actions of the foil transfer to the epee, and the "right of way" rules are used in sabre, with the addition of cuts.

The historical fencer can use the foil for its original purpose, as indicated, for practicing smallsword, but this is not the only purpose that the foil can serve. The nature of the weapon means that actions need to be performed with precision for them to work, so it encourages the individual who practices with the foil to increase their accuracy in their technique. This weapon has utility in practicing for rapier actions as well.

If the foil is used for practicing rapier actions one will find that accuracy in technique is required. There is no weight in the weapon to compensate for sloppy technique. Blade engagement actions need to be made accurately and so do actions on the blade. This is only accentuated where the foil is used for practice against a partner using a rapier, but if the actions are accurate in their performance then the actions will succeed. It is not recommended that the foil be taken against the rapier in any sort of antagonistic scenario as the foil is simply much too light physically to stand against the rapier and has a higher chance of breaking dangerously in this sort of scenario.

The foil is especially useful for those times when a person is restricted due to some illness or injury. The foil is much lighter than most other weapons and thus can still be carried and used for practice. I have done this myself when I was not able to use a rapier due to an injury and found that using the foil, I was able to participate in training exercises. I further found that such participation was useful because it made me perform the actions properly, due to the nature of the weapon that was being used.

To understand the use of a weapon means that a person must understand the weapon. This requires looking into the purpose of the weapon. The foil is a practice weapon and should be used as such. It is an often forgotten, and often maligned weapon that can be most useful to all sorts of fencers, should it be examined from the correct perspective. Take another look, have another go, the foil is more useful than you realise.

Cheers,

Henry.

A Discussion of the Form of the Longsword (Part 2)

Greetings,

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.

 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 15^th 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/098764470X
Booktopia: https://www.booktopia.com.au/un-blogged-henry-leigh-walker/book/9780987644701.html
Among 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: 15^th 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

A Discussion of the Form of the Longsword (Part 1)

Greetings,

What follows is 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.

Introduction
 

“a most noble weapon which once had high significance in the minds of men, and fulfilled the most vital and personal service in their hands.” (Oakeshott, 1998:11)

            The question of the sword is one which has delighted the minds of many for many years. For some reason this weapon above all others has excited and interested people of all kinds for many years, even into ancient history. There is no other weapon which, even cross-culturally, has achieved the level of attention of the sword.

There are many different types of swords over the ages in order to cover all of these swords over all of these times takes a great deal of work and time. It is better that efforts are more focused on single types of weapons and to this point, and as the title has indicated, the focus here will be the longsword. Some will question the time period of the weapon, and as such the focus will be on the medieval longsword, taking a lot of the information from the Oakeshott Typology of swords. This would seem to miss out the longsword of the Renaissance, but the weapon passes through into this age, the weapon was changed to the purpose to which it was suited, as will be demonstrated.

What needs to be emphasised is that what is presented here is foundation research. It lays the foundation for much a much more in depth study of the weapon, both as an artefact, but also as a weapon of use. The both of these are connected in that the form of the weapon will determine the most appropriate and effective use, this a weapon which is primarily designed for less armoured targets will do less well than a weapon which is designed for it. Thus part of the aim of what is presented here is to address practitioners and encourage them to investigate the weapon which is being used and consider whether or not the form of the longsword which they have chosen to use is actually the most appropriate for the actions and the form of combat that they have chosen.

            What will follow in the body of the discussion is three parts, each pertaining to the longsword in their own way. Each of the three sections is significant for the understanding of the weapon and to see the weapon in a different way. The order of the discussion proceeds from more general ideas about the longsword to the more specific elements present in the weapon.

The first part of the discussion is about terminology in order that the longsword may be found with regard to the terms used for it. This is in order that the weapon which is being discussed may be understood from a literary, and will address the varied names given to the weapon. This is followed by a general discussion of the form of the weapon from different points of view and will present some of the issues with regard to the classification of weapons by type and date. The final and most technically specific part of the discussion will look at Oakeshott’s Typology of the sword, and address the longsword by the type of weapon as specified in this typology.

As has been stated already this is an overview of the longsword as a weapon, and much more information can be found on this weapon in many different texts. Indeed more than what is being presented can be found in the Oakeshott sources and in museum pieces. This discussion presents the longsword not as a standardised weapon but one of many different forms which changed over time to suit the circumstances in which they were used. The changes in the weapon are as significant, if not more so, than what stayed the same as this also marks different usage of the weapon, affected by the form of the weapon and vice versa. These considerations should be significant for any person interested in the weapon either from a curatorial point of view or a more practical one.

A Question of Terminology: What is a Longsword?

“Sword types tend to blend into each other:” (Windsor, 2013:30)

            In the discussion of the longsword, one of the greatest issues is one of terminology. The issue of the of sword types blending into one another means it is difficult to identify the longsword, or even terms which mean similar or the same weapon. Unlike some weapons, there is no one single form of the weapon; so many terms are created to describe them. What is presented in this part of the investigation into the longsword is an introduction to terminology.

            The following discussion will attempt to clear up some of the issues with the identification of the longsword, especially with regard to terminology. What will be evident in this discussion is that the terminology which is presented here will re-appear in other sections of the investigation, and some other terminology, explained in the parts where they are found, will also emerge. The first discussion that will be made with regard to terminology is the difference between the longsword, the bastard sword and the two-hand sword. This will be followed by a more practical approach to the definition of the weapon from a certain point of view. These two questions, for the most part will cover the foundation questions with regard to the weapon and assist in its identification so that the form of the weapon can be discussed in a later section.

Sword Type Terms

            To begin with the weapon needs to be described at least in general. The weapon being discussed here is one which has a handle which can accommodate the use of one or two hands which has a blade which is of a length to be suited for this use and may be used for both cutting and thrusting. With this general idea of the weapon established, terms can be discussed. There are five terms which are often used with this form of weapon: longsword, bastard or hand-and-a-half sword, war sword, great sword and two-hand or two-handed sword. The fact that there are five terms would indicate five different weapons however this is not necessarily the case.

“In fifteenth-century English “longsword” referred to a two-handed sword. What we call a longsword today was, in English up to quite recently (late twentieth-century), usually called a hand-and-a-half sword, or bastard sword.” (Windsor, 2013:30)

            Already three of the terms have been used above to describe a single weapon; the first referring to the form of the weapon as being used with two hands, as it is referred to in the few English treatises on the weapon, and the other two being used to describe the weapon in a similar sense. It would seem by this that the terms have all been used either replacing or being used at the same time as one another to describe the same weapon. The clearest delineation in this with regard to the terms is the presence of one or two hands on the weapon, however as will be demonstrated this is not necessarily a clear line drawn, and it would seem neither is the purposed use of the weapon.

“We may perhaps take it, since there are as many references to "swords of war" as there are to "great swords" and since both seem to indicate the same sort of weapon that it was indeed so—the type was used in war, and was not the everyday sword of the knight such as might be shown on his monument.” (Oakeshott, 1998:46)

            So the terms “war sword” and “great sword” are also introduced into the question of terminology. As is stated above, at least it is indicated that both of these terms refer to the same sort of weapon, a weapon suited for use in war. These weapons would be indicated to be large, hence the use of the word “great” in their description, however this does not divorce them from any of the terms previous, thus also having these terms refer to the same weapons which have already been indicated previously.

“Thus it seems that the war-sword was not regarded as a two-hander. What other, then, can it be but this very big sword of a kind which, in its later forms, is familiar as the Bastard or hand-and-a-half sword? We find it distinguished in a class of its own, for instance, in the inventory of the effects of Humphrey de Bohun (ob. 1319)” (Oakeshott, 1998:43)

            So, it would seem that the war sword, and great sword by association of the terms, bastard or hand-and-a-half sword are the same weapon, and by association this would also mean that they are also longswords and two-handed swords as indicated above. Thus it would seem that all of these terms, rather than referring to separate weapons, actually refer to the same ones, or do in this particular case. Evidence for this is further supported by Philippo Vadi’s referring to his weapon as a “de ſpada da doi mane.” a two-handed sword (Porzio and Mele, 2002:44). A note should be made that this weapon is not to be confused with the much larger cousin of the longsword, which was a purpose-built weapon designed to be used with two hands, not the longsword, a weapon which could be comfortably used with one or two.

            What needs to be stated here is that there are five terms which have been indicated, and each has been used to describe the weapon about which this investigation is being made. Where a hand-use is indicated would imply the only time where some level of specificity may be made. For example a bastard, or hand-and-a-half sword, would indicate a weapon which has a handle which may accommodate one or two hands and be used with one or two hands, where as a two-hand sword would indicate a weapon which has a longer handle and thus is more suited to be used with two hands. This being said, in this particular context, both weapons could be referred to as longswords, or great swords, or even war swords, depending on their use. With this being said it is necessary that a practical definition of the longsword based upon its use, and clearly defining it, is most helpful.

A Practical Definition

“For convenience, I prefer to define them by the length of their handles. An arming sword’s handle con only comfortably fit one hand; a longsword can fit two, but the weapon is light enough and the handle short enough, to be wielded with one hand (a very long handle gets in the way if your other hand is not on it), and a two-handed sword has a handle and mass that clearly requires both hands.” (Windsor, 2013:30)

            Windsor (2013) describes the weapons from the single-handed sword, increasing in size to the two-handed sword. These definitions are based upon the use of the weapon and thus are useful, as it is the use of the weapon which gives us the best definition of the weapon. Curatorial descriptors can only do so much, especially for the practitioner. His definition of the longsword is broad enough that it does cover the five terms which have been indicated, and focuses on the use of the weapon, which leads to the form of the weapon, which is often the best way to describe the weapon.

            There are many terms which are used to describe weapons of many different forms, not just the longsword. There is a certain assumption in the discussion that the reader will already understand the parts of the sword, and thus no description or explanation has been of these. These parts of the weapon are an inevitable part of the discussion as are other terms and elements which have not been described here. Where necessary, these terms will be indicated and discussed within the text as it follows. What has been presented is the idea of the weapon which is being discussed and the terms which have been used, and are being used to describe it indicated. With this foundation laid it is possible to move on to the general form of the weapon.

The Form of the Longsword

            The terminology which was discussed in the previous section lays a simple literary foundation ...

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/098764470X
Booktopia: https://www.booktopia.com.au/un-blogged-henry-leigh-walker/book/9780987644701.html
Among other places...

It is also available in electronic format (pdf) from: https://buy.stripe.com/fZecP419c7CB9VKeUV

... or direct from the author.