Straight two-handed sword. How much did the knight's armor weigh? It must be understood that modern copies of historical weapons, even being approximately equal in weight, do not guarantee the same feeling of owning them as their ancient originals.
Mein Herz mein Geist meine Seele, lebt nur für dich, mein Tod mein Leben meine Liebe, ist nichts ohne Dich
The information that will be discussed below does not in any way relate to the realities of computer games, where anything is possible, even swords as tall as a person.
Some time ago, I wrote a story about LoS that featured swords. A boy of 8-9 years old, according to my plan, should not have lifted it due to the gravity of the sword. For a long time I suffered, I thought, how much does an ordinary knight's sword weigh, and is it really impossible for a child to lift it? At that time, I worked as an estimator, and the documents featured metal parts much larger than a sword, but weighing an order of magnitude less than the intended figure. And so, I went to the wide expanses of the Internet to look for the truth about the medieval knight's sword.
To my surprise, the knight's sword did not weigh much, about 1.5-3 kg, which shattered my theory to smithereens, and the heavy two-handed sword barely gained 6 kg!
Where do these myths about 30-50 kilogram swords come from, which the heroes swung so easily?
And myths from fairy tales and computer games. They are beautiful, impressive, but have no historical truth behind them.
Knightly uniforms were so heavy that only one armor weighed up to 30 kg. The sword was lighter, so that the knight would not give his soul to God at all in the very first five minutes of actively brandishing heavy weapons.
And if you think logically, could you work with a 30-kilogram sword for a long time? Can you lift it at all?
But some battles did not last five minutes, and not 15, they stretched out for hours, days. And your opponent is unlikely to say: “Listen, sir X, let's take a break, something I completely swung my sword”, “Come on, I'm tired no less than you. Let's sit under that tree."
And even more so, no one will say: “Battle! Stop! One-two! Who is tired, raise your hands! Yes, clearly. The knights can rest, the archers can continue."
However, try to work with a 2-3 kilogram sword in your hands for half an hour, I guarantee an unforgettable experience.
And so, so gradually, we came to the information already available, recorded by historians as a fact of information about medieval swords.
The Internet brought me to the country of Wikipedia, where I read the most interesting information:
Sword- melee weapons, consisting of a straight metal blade and handle. The blades of the swords are double-edged, rarely sharpened on one side only. Swords are chopping (Old Slavic and Old Germanic types), chopping and stabbing (Carolingian sword, Russian sword, spatha), piercing and chopping (gladius, akinak, xiphos), stabbing (konchar, estok). The division of double-edged cutting and stabbing weapons into swords and daggers is rather arbitrary, most often the sword is distinguished by a longer blade (from 40 cm). The mass of the sword ranges from 700 g (gladius) to 6 kg (zweihander, flamberg). The mass of a one-handed chopping or chopping-piercing sword ranged from 0.9 to 2 kg.
The sword was an offensive and defensive weapon of a professional warrior. To wield a sword required long training, years of practice and special physical training. A distinctive feature of the sword is its versatility:
- used both foot and horse soldiers;
- chopping blows with a sword are particularly powerful, especially when cutting from the saddle, both against unarmored warriors and warriors in armor (there were enough holes for a strike in early armor and the quality of the armor was always doubtful);
- with stabbing blows of the sword, you can pierce the cuirass and mirror, if the quality of the sword exceeded the quality of the armor;
- by hitting the sword on the helmet, you can stun the enemy or kill if the sword pierces the helmet.
Often, various types of curved bladed weapons are mistakenly attributed to swords, in particular: khopesh, kopis, falkata, katana (Japanese sword), wakizashi, as well as a number of types of straight bladed weapons with one-sided sharpening, in particular: scramasax, falchion.
The appearance of the first bronze swords is attributed to the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC. e., when it became possible to make blades larger than daggers. Swords were actively used until the end of the 16th century. In the 17th century, swords in Europe were finally replaced by swords and broadswords. In Russia, the saber finally replaced the sword by the end of the 14th century.
Swords of the Middle Ages (West).
In Europe, the sword was widely used in the Middle Ages, had many modifications and was actively used until the New Age. The sword changed at all stages of the Middle Ages:
Early Middle Ages. The Germans used single-edged blades with good cutting properties. A striking example is scramasax. On the ruins of the Roman Empire, spatha is the most popular. Fights are fought in open space. Defensive tactics are rarely used. As a result, a cutting sword with a flat or rounded point, a narrow but thick cross, a short hilt and a massive pommel dominates in Europe. There is practically no narrowing of the blade from the handle to the tip. The valley is quite wide and shallow. The mass of the sword does not exceed 2 kg. This type of sword is commonly called Merovingian. The Carolingian sword differs from the Merovingian mainly in its pointed end. But this sword was also used as a cutting weapon, despite the pointed end. The Scandinavian version of the ancient German sword is wider and shorter, since the ancient Scandinavians practically did not use cavalry due to their geographical location. Ancient Slavic swords in design practically did not differ from the ancient German ones.
Modern reconstruction of the cavalry spata II c.
High Middle Ages. Cities and crafts are growing. The level of blacksmithing and metallurgy is growing. There are Crusades and civil strife. Leather armor is being replaced by metal armor. The role of the cavalry is growing. Knightly tournaments and duels are gaining popularity. Fights often take place in close quarters (castles, houses, narrow streets). All this leaves an imprint on the sword. The slashing sword dominates. The blade becomes longer, thicker and narrower. The valley is narrow and deep. The blade tapers to a point. The handle lengthens and the pommel becomes small. The cross becomes wide. The mass of the sword does not exceed 2 kg. This is the so-called Romanesque sword.
Late Middle Ages. It is expanding to other countries. The tactics of warfare are becoming more and more diverse. Armor with a high degree of protection is used. All this greatly affects the evolution of the sword. The variety of swords is colossal. In addition to one-handed swords (handbrake), there are one-and-a-half-handed (one-and-a-half) and two-handed swords (two-handed). There are stabbing swords and swords with a wavy blade. A complex guard, which provides maximum protection for the hand, and a "basket" type guard begin to be actively used.
And here is what concerns the myths and legends regarding the weight of swords:
Like any other weapon that has a cult status, there are a number of myths and outdated ideas about this type of weapon, which sometimes to this day often slip even in scientific writings.
A very common myth is that European swords weighed several kilograms and were mainly used to concuss the enemy. The knight beat the sword like a club on the armor and achieved victory by knockout. Often called weight up to 15 kilograms or 30-40 pounds. These data are not true: the surviving originals of direct European combat swords range from 650 to 1400 grams. The large "Landsknechtian two-handers" are not included in this category, since they were not a classic knight's sword, but represented the final degradation of the sword as a personal weapon. The average weight of swords was therefore 1.1-1.2 kg. If we take into account that the weight of combat rapiers (1.1-1.4 kg), broadswords (up to 1.4 kg) and sabers (0.8-1.1 kg) was also basically not less than one kilogram, then their superiority and "grace", so often mentioned by swordsmen of the 18th and 19th centuries and allegedly opposed to the "heavy swords of antiquity", is more than doubtful. Modern rapiers, swords and sabers, designed for sports fencing, are not “lightweight” copies of combat originals, but objects originally created for sports, designed not to defeat the enemy, but to knock out points according to the relevant rules. The weight of a one-handed sword (type XII according to the typology of Ewart Oakeshott) can reach somewhere around 1400 grams with the following parameters: blade length 80 cm, width at the guard 5 cm, at the end 2.5 cm, thickness 5.5 mm. This strip of carbon steel is simply not physically able to weigh more. Only with a blade thickness of 1 cm can three kilograms be reached, or with the use of heavy metals as the material of the blade - which in itself is unrealistic and impractical. Such swords are unknown to either historians or archaeologists.
If a simple knight's sword did not have the weight attributed to it in many legends, could it be that the two-handed sword was that dinosaur in the knight's weapon camp?
A special, sharply limited in its purpose and method of use, a variety of straight swords were giants weighing 3.5-6 kg with blades 120-160 cm long - two-handed. They can be called swords among swords, because those possession techniques that were desirable for shorter options were the only possible ones for a two-handed sword.
The advantage of two-handers was their ability to penetrate solid armor (with such a blade length, its tip moved very quickly, and the weight provided great inertia) and long reach (A controversial issue - a warrior with a one-handed weapon had almost the same reach as a warrior with a two-handed sword. This occurred due to the impossibility of a full turn of the shoulders when working with two hands). These qualities were especially important if a footman fought against a horseman in full armor. The two-handed sword was used mainly for duels or in a broken formation, as it required a lot of space to swing. Against a spear, a two-handed sword gave a controversial advantage - the ability to cut the shaft of the enemy’s spear and, in fact, disarm him for a few seconds (until the spearman pulled out the weapon stored up for this occasion, if any) was negated by the fact that the spearman was much more mobile and agile. A heavy two-handed weapon (for example, a European espadon) could rather knock the sting of the spear to the side than cut it.
Two-handers forged from conversion steel, including “flaming blades” - flambergs (flambergs), mainly acted as weapons for hired infantry of the 16th century and were intended to fight against knightly cavalry. The popularity of this blade among mercenaries reached such an extent that, by a special bull of the Pope, blades with several bends (not only flambergs, but also swords with shorter "flaming" blades) were recognized as inhumane, not "Christian" weapons. A warrior taken prisoner with such a sword could have his right hand cut off or even killed.
By the way, there was nothing magical in the wavy blade of the flamberg - the curved edge had the best cutting properties and, when struck, a “saw effect” was obtained - each bend made its own cut, leaving petals of flesh in the wound, which became dead and began to rot. And besides, with glancing blows, the flamberg did more damage than a straight sword.
What is it? It turns out that everything we knew about knightly swords is not true?
True, but only partial. It was not realistic to control a very heavy sword. Not every warrior possessed the powers of Conan the Barbarian, and therefore, it is necessary to look at things more realistically.
More details about the swords of that era can be found at this link.
Despite the size, weight and sluggishness, the two-handed sword was widely used in battles in the Middle Ages. The blade usually had a length of more than 1 m. Such weapons are characterized by a handle over 25 cm with a pommel and a massive elongated crosshair. The total weight with the handle averaged from 2.5 kg. Only strong warriors could cut with such weapons.
Two-handed swords in history
Oversized blades appeared relatively late in the history of medieval warfare. In the practice of battles, an indispensable attribute of a warrior in one hand was a shield for protection, the second he could cut with a sword. With the advent of armor and the beginning of progress in metallurgical casting, long blades with a two-handed grip began to gain popularity.
Such a weapon was an expensive pleasure. Well-paid mercenaries or bodyguards of the nobility could afford it. The owner of a two-handed sword had to not only have strength in his hands, but also be able to handle it. The pinnacle of the skill of a knight or warrior in the security service was the thorough possession of such weapons. Fencing masters honed the technique of using two-handed swords constantly and passed on the experience to the elite class.
Purpose
A two-handed sword, the weight of which is over 3-4 kg, could only be used in battle by strong and tall warriors. They were put on the cutting edge at a certain point. They could not constantly be in the rearguard, because with the rapid convergence of the sides and the compaction of the human mass in hand-to-hand combat, there was not enough free space for maneuver and swings.
To deliver slashing blows, such weapons must be perfectly balanced. Two-handed swords could be used in close combat to punch holes in the dense defense of the enemy, or to repel the offensive of tightly closed rows of dive bombers and halberdiers. Long blades were used to cut their shafts and thus enable lightly armed infantry to get close to the ranks of the enemy.
In combat in open areas, a two-handed sword was used for chopping blows and for piercing armor with a thrust using a long lunge. The crosshair often served as an additional side point and was used in close combat for short blows to the face and unprotected neck of the enemy.
Design features
The sword is a melee weapon with a mutually sharpened blade and a sharp end. The classic blade with a grip for two hands - the espadon ("big sword") - is distinguished by the presence of an unsharpened section of the blade (ricasso) at the crosshair. This was done in order to be able to intercept the sword with the other hand to facilitate the swing. Often this section (up to a third of the length of the blade) was additionally covered with leather for convenience and had an additional crosshair to protect the hand from blows. Two-handed swords were not equipped with scabbards. They were not needed, since the blade was worn on the shoulder, it was impossible to fasten it to the belt due to its weight and dimensions.
Another equally popular two-handed sword - the claymore, whose homeland is Scotland, did not have a pronounced ricasso. Warriors wielded such weapons with a grip with both hands on the handle. The crosshair (guard) was forged by craftsmen not straight, but at an angle to the blade.
The occasionally encountered sword with a wavy blade - flamberg - did not differ significantly in characteristics. He cut no better than ordinary straight blades, although the appearance was bright and memorable.
Sword record holder
The largest combat two-handed sword that has survived to our time and is available for viewing is in the Netherlands Museum. It was made presumably in the 15th century by German craftsmen. With a total length of 215 cm, the giant weighs 6.6 kg. Its oak handle is covered with a single piece of goat skin. This two-handed sword (see photo below), according to legend, was captured from the German landsknechts. They used it as a relic for ceremonies and did not use it in battles. The blade of the sword is marked with Inri.
According to the same legend, the rebels later captured it, and it went to a pirate nicknamed Big Pierre. Due to his physique and strength, he used the sword for its intended purpose and was allegedly able to cut several heads with it at once with one blow.
Combat and ceremonial blades
The weight of the sword, 5-6 kg or more, testifies rather to its ritual purpose than to its use for combat battles. Such weapons were used at parades, at initiations, and were presented as a gift to decorate walls in the chambers of nobles. Simple swords could also be used by tutor swordsmen to develop hand strength and blade technique in training warriors.
A real combat two-handed sword rarely weighed 3.5 kg with a total length of up to 1.8 m. The handle had up to 50 cm. It was supposed to serve as a balancer in order to balance the overall design as much as possible.
Ideal blades, even with a solid weight in the hands, were not just a metal blank. With such weapons, with sufficient skills and constant practice, it was easy to cut heads at a decent distance. At the same time, the weight of the blade in its various positions was felt and felt by the hand in almost the same way.
The real combat samples of two-handed swords stored in collections and museums with a blade length of 1.2 m and a width of 50 mm have a weight of 2.5-3 kg. For comparison: one-handed samples reached up to 1.5 kg. Transitional blades with a handle of one and a half grips could weigh 1.7-2 kg.
National two-handed swords
Among the peoples of Slavic origin, a sword is understood as a double-edged blade. In Japanese culture, a sword is a cutting blade with a curved profile and one-sided sharpening, held by a hilt with protection against oncoming blows.
The most famous sword in Japan is the katana. This weapon is designed for close combat, has a handle (30 cm) for gripping with both hands and a blade up to 90 cm. One of the temples stores a large two-handed no-tachi sword 2.25 m long with a 50 cm handle. Such a blade can cut a person in half with one hit or stop a galloping horse.
The Chinese dadao sword was distinguished by a larger blade width. It, like the Japanese blades, had a curved profile and one-sided sharpening. They carried weapons in a sheath behind their backs on a garter. A massive Chinese sword, two-handed or one-handed, was widely used by soldiers in World War II. When there was not enough ammunition, with this weapon, the red units went into hand-to-hand attack and often achieved success in close combat.
Two-handed sword: advantages and disadvantages
The disadvantages of using long and heavy swords are low maneuverability and the inability to fight with constant dynamics, since the weight of the weapon significantly affects endurance. The grip with two hands eliminates the possibility of using a shield to protect against oncoming blows.
A two-handed sword is good in defense because it can block more sectors with great efficiency. In an attack, you can inflict damage on the enemy from the maximum possible distance. The weight of the blade allows for a powerful slashing blow that is often impossible to parry.
The reason why the two-handed sword was not widely used is irrationality. Despite a clear increase in the power of the chopping blow (twice), the significant mass of the blade and its dimensions led to an increase in energy costs (four times) during the duel.
The sword is a murder weapon with a touch of romance. In the hands of fearless warriors, a silent witness of terrible battles and the change of eras. The sword personified courage, fearlessness, strength and nobility. His blade was feared by enemies. With a sword, brave warriors were knighted and crowned persons were crowned.
Bastard swords, or swords with a handle of one and a half hands, existed from the Renaissance (13th century) until the late Middle Ages (16th century). In the 17th century, swords are replaced by rapiers. But the swords are not forgotten and the brilliance of the blade still excites the minds of writers and filmmakers.
Types of swords
longsword - long sword
The handle of such swords is three palms. When grasping the hilt of the sword with both hands, there were a few centimeters left for one more palm. This made complex fencing maneuvers and strikes possible using swords.
The bastard or "illegitimate" sword is a classic example of long swords. The handle of the "bastards" was less than two, but more than one palm (about 15 cm). This sword is not a longsword: neither two, nor one and a half - not for one hand and not for two, for which he received such an offensive nickname. The bastard was used as a weapon of self-defense, and was perfect for everyday wear.
I must say that they fought with this one and a half sword without using a shield.
The appearance of the first copies of bastard swords dates back to the end of the 13th century. Bastard swords were of different sizes and variations, but they were united by one name - the swords of war. This blade was fashionable, as an attribute to the saddle of a horse. One and a half swords were always kept with them on trips and campaigns, in which case they would protect themselves from an unexpected enemy attack.
A combat or heavy bastard sword in battles inflicted strong blows that did not give the right to life.
Bastard, had a narrow straight blade and was indispensable for stabbing. The most famous representative among narrow bastard swords is the blade of an English warrior and a prince who participated in the war of the 14th century. After the prince's death, the sword is placed over his grave, where it remains until the 17th century.
The English historian Ewart Oakeshott studied the ancient fighting swords of France and classified them. He noted gradual changes in the characteristics of one and a half swords, including changing the length of the blade.
In England, at the beginning of the 14th century, a “big fighting” bastard sword appeared, which was worn not in the saddle, but on the belt.
Characteristics
The length of a one and a half sword is from 110 to 140 cm, (weighing 1200 g and up to 2500 g). Of these, about a meter of the sword is part of the blade. The blades of bastard swords were forged in different shapes and sizes, but they were all effective in delivering various crushing blows. There were the main characteristics of the blade, in which they differed from each other.
In the Middle Ages, the blades of one and a half swords are thin and straight. Referring to Oakeshott's typology, the blades gradually stretch and thicken in cross section, but thin out at the end of the swords. The handles are also modified.
The cross section of the blade is divided into biconvex and diamond-shaped. In the latter version, the central vertical line of the blade provided hardness. And the features of forging swords add options to the sections of the blade.
Bastard swords, whose blades had valleys, were very popular. Dol is such a cavity that goes from the crosspiece along the blade. It is a delusion that the dols did it as a blood drawer or for easy removal of the sword from the wound. In fact, the absence of metal in the middle in the center of the blade made the swords lighter and more maneuverable. The valleys were wide - almost the entire width of the blade, to more numerous and thin. The length of dollars also varied: full length or a third of the total length of a half sword.
The crosspiece was elongated and had arms to protect the hand.
An important indicator of a well-forged bastard sword was its exact balance, distributed in the right place. Bastard swords in Russia were balanced at a point above the hilt. The marriage of the sword was necessarily revealed during the battle. As soon as the blacksmiths made a mistake and shifted the center of gravity of the bastard sword up, the sword, in the presence of a deadly blow, became uncomfortable. The sword vibrated from hitting the opponent's swords or armor. And this weapon did not help, but hindered the soldier. A good weapon was an extension of the war arm. Blacksmiths skillfully forged swords, correctly distributing certain zones. These zones are the nodes of the blade, when properly located, guaranteed a quality bastard sword.
Shield and bastard sword
Certain fighting systems and diverse styles made sword fighting akin to an art, rather than chaotic and barbaric. Various teachers taught the techniques of fighting with a bastard sword. And there was no more effective weapon in the hands of an experienced warrior. This sword didn't need a shield.
And all thanks to the armor that took the blow on itself. Before them, chain mail was worn, but she was not able to protect the war from the blow of edged weapons. Light plate armor and armor began to be forged in large quantities by master blacksmiths. There is a misconception that iron armor was very heavy and it was impossible to move in them. This is partly true, but only for tournament equipment that weighed about 50 kg. Military armor weighed less than half, they could actively move.
Not one blade of a long sword was used for attack, but also a guard as a hook, capable of knocking down and pommel.
Possessing the art of swordsmanship, the soldier received the necessary base and could take on other types of weapons: a spear, a shaft, and so on.
Despite the seeming lightness of bastard swords, battles with him required strength, endurance and dexterity. Knights, for whom war was everyday life, and swords were their faithful companions, did not spend a single day without training and weapons. Regular classes did not allow them to lose their martial qualities and die during the battle, which went on non-stop, intensely.
Schools and techniques of the bastard sword
The most popular are German and Italian schools. It was translated, despite the difficulties, the earliest manual of the German fencing school (1389)
In these manuals, swords were depicted held by the hilt with both hands. Most of the manual was occupied by the one-handed sword section, showing the methods and advantages of one-handed sword holding. Depicted as an integral part of the fight in armor, the half-sword technique.
The absence of a shield gave rise to new fencing techniques. There were such instructions for fencing - "fechtbukhs", with manuals from famous masters of this business. Excellent illustrations and a textbook, considered a classic, were left to us not only by the fighter, but also by the wonderful artist and mathematician Albert Dürer.
But fencing schools and military science are not the same thing. Fechtbuch knowledge is applicable to jousting tournaments and court fights. In the war, the soldier had to be able to keep the line, the sword and defeat the enemies standing opposite. But there are no treatises on this subject.
Ordinary citizens also knew how to hold weapons and a bastard sword as well. In those days, without weapons - nowhere, but not everyone could afford a sword. The iron and bronze that made a good blade were rare and expensive.
A special fencing technique with a bastard sword was fencing without any protection in the form of armor and chain mail. The head and upper body were not protected from the blow of the blade, except for ordinary clothing.
The increased protection of the soldiers contributed to a change in fencing techniques. And with swords they tried to inflict stabbing, not chopping blows. The technique of "half-sword" was used.
Special reception
There were many different ways. During the duel, they were used and, thanks to these techniques, many fighters survived.
But there is a technique that causes surprise: the technique of half the sword. When a warrior with one or even two hands took hold of the blade of the sword, directing it at the enemy and trying to stick it under the armor. The other hand rested on the hilt of the sword, giving the necessary strength and speed. How did the fighters not wound their hand on the edge of the sword? The fact is that swords were sharpened at the end of the blade. Therefore, the half-sword technique was a success. True, you can also hold a sharpened sword blade with gloves, but, most importantly, hold it tight, and in no case let the blade of the blade “walk” in the palm of your hand.
Later, in the 17th century, the Italian masters of swordsmanship focused on the rapier and abandoned the bastard sword. And in 1612, a German manual was published with the technique of fencing with a bastard sword. This was the last manual of combat techniques where such swords were used. However, in Italy, despite the increased popularity of the rapier, they continue to fence with the spadon (one and a half sword).
Bastard in Russia
Western Europe had a great influence on some peoples of medieval Russia. The West influenced geography, culture, military science and weapons.
As a fact, in Belarus and Western Ukraine there are knightly castles of those times. And a few years ago, on television, they reported about the discovery in the Mogilev region of knightly weapons of Western Europe, dating back to the 16th century. There were few finds of one and a half swords in Moscow and in Northern Russia. Since there military affairs were aimed at battles with the Tatars, which means that instead of heavy infantry and swords, another weapon was needed - sabers.
But the western and southwestern lands of Russia are a knightly territory. A wide variety of weapons and long swords, Russian and European, were found there during excavations.
One-and-a-half or two-handed
The types of swords differ from each other in terms of their mass; different lengths of the hilt, blade. If a sword with a long blade and hilt is easy to manipulate with one hand, then this is a representative of one and a half swords. And if one hand is not enough to hold a bastard sword, then most likely it is a representative of two-handed swords. Approximately, at the mark of a total length of 140 cm, there comes a limit for a half sword. More than this length, it is difficult to hold a bastard sword with one hand.
“Oh, knights, get up, the hour of deeds has come!
You have shields, steel helmets and armor.
Your dedicated sword is ready to fight for faith.
Give me strength, oh God, for new glorious battles.
I, a beggar, will take rich booty there.
I don't need gold and I don't need land,
But maybe I will, singer, mentor, warrior,
Heavenly bliss forever awarded "
(Walter von der Vogelweide. Translation by V. Levik)
A sufficient number of articles have already been published on the VO website on the topic of knightly weapons and, in particular, knightly armor. However, this topic is so interesting that you can delve into it for a very long time. The reason for the next appeal to her is a banal ... weight. Weight of armor and weapons. Alas, recently I again asked students about how much a knight's sword weighs, and received the following set of numbers: 5, 10 and 15 kilograms. They considered the chain mail of 16 kg to be very light, although not all of them, and the weight of the plate armor of 20 and a few kilos is simply ridiculous.
Figures of a knight and a horse in full protective gear. Traditionally, knights were imagined just like that - “chained in armor”. (Cleveland Museum of Art)
At VO, of course, “things with weight” are much better due to regular publications on this topic. However, the opinion about the exorbitant heaviness of the "knight's suit" of the classical type has not been outlived so far here. Therefore, it makes sense to return to this topic and consider it with specific examples.
Western European chain mail (hauberk) 1400 - 1460 Weight 10.47 kg. (Cleveland Museum of Art)
Let's start with the fact that British armament historians created a very reasonable and clear classification of armor according to their specific characteristics and eventually divided the entire Middle Ages, focusing, of course, on available sources, into three eras: the “epoch of chain mail”, “the era of mixed chain mail and plate protective weapons" and "the era of one-piece forged armor". All three eras together make up the period from 1066 to 1700. Accordingly, the first era has a framework of 1066 - 1250, the second - the era of mail-plate armor - 1250 - 1330. But then this: an early stage in the development of knightly plate armor (1330 - 1410), a "great period" in the history of knights in "white armor "(1410 - 1500) and the era of the sunset of knightly armor (1500 - 1700).
Chain mail with a helmet and aventail (aventail) of the 13th - 14th centuries. (Royal Arsenal, Leeds)
During the years of the “wonderful Soviet education”, we never heard of such a periodization. But in the school textbook "History of the Middle Ages" for the VΙ class for many years, with some rehashings, one could read the following:
“It was not easy for the peasants to defeat even one feudal lord. The equestrian warrior - a knight - was armed with a heavy sword and a long spear. With a large shield, he could cover himself from head to toe. The body of the knight was protected by chain mail - a shirt woven from iron rings. Later, chain mail was replaced by armor - armor made of iron plates.
Classic knightly armor, which was most often discussed in textbooks for schools and universities. Before us is Italian armor of the 15th century, restored in the 19th century. Height 170.2 cm. Weight 26.10 kg. Helmet Weight 2850 (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York)
The knights fought on strong, hardy horses, which were also protected by armor. The armament of the knight was very heavy: it weighed up to 50 kilograms. Therefore, the warrior was clumsy and clumsy. If the rider was thrown off his horse, he could not get up without outside help and was usually captured. To fight on a horse in heavy armor, a long training was needed, the feudal lords prepared for military service from childhood. They constantly practiced fencing, horseback riding, wrestling, swimming, and javelin throwing.
German armor 1535. Presumably from Brunswick. Weight 27.85 kg. (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York)
A war horse and knightly weapons were very expensive: for all this it was necessary to give a whole herd - 45 cows! The landowner, for whom the peasants worked, could carry out knightly service. Therefore, military affairs became almost exclusively the occupation of the feudal lords ”(Agibalova, E.V. History of the Middle Ages: Textbook for the 6th grade / E.V. Agibalova, G.M. Donskoy, M .: Enlightenment, 1969. P. 33; Golin, E.M. History of the Middle Ages: Textbook for the 6th grade of the evening (shift) school / E.M. Golin, V.L. Kuzmenko, M.Ya. Loyberg. M .: Education, 1965. P. 31- 32.)
Knight in armor and a horse in horse armor. The work of master Kunz Lochner. Nuremberg, Germany 1510 - 1567 It dates back to 1548. The total weight of the rider's equipment, together with horse armor and a saddle, is 41.73 kg. (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York)
Only in the 3rd edition of the textbook "History of the Middle Ages" for the 5th grade of secondary school V.A. Vedyushkin, published in 2002, the description of knightly weapons became somewhat truly thought out and corresponded to the above-mentioned periodization used today by historians around the world: “At first, the knight was protected by a shield, helmet and chain mail. Then the most vulnerable parts of the body began to be hidden behind metal plates, and from the 15th century chain mail was finally replaced by solid armor. The combat armor weighed up to 30 kg, so for the battle the knights chose hardy horses, also protected by armor.
Armor of Emperor Ferdinand I (1503-1564) Gunsmith Kunz Lochner. Germany, Nuremberg 1510 - 1567 Dated 1549. Height 170.2 cm. Weight 24 kg.
That is, in the first case, intentionally or out of ignorance, the armor was divided by era in a simplified way, while the weight of 50 kg was attributed to both the armor of the “epoch of chain mail” and the “era of all-metal armor” without dividing into the actual armor of the knight and the armor of his horse. That is, judging by the text, our children were offered information that "the warrior was clumsy and clumsy." In fact, the first articles about the fact that this is actually not the case were the publications of V.P. Gorelik in the magazines "Around the World" in 1975, however, this information did not get into the textbooks for the Soviet school at that time. The reason is clear. On anything, on any examples, to show the superiority of the military art of Russian soldiers over the “dog-knights”! Unfortunately, the inertia of thinking and the not too great significance of this information make it difficult to disseminate information that corresponds to the data of science.
Armor set of 1549, which belonged to Emperor Maximilian II. (Wallace Collection) As you can see, the variant in the photo is a tournament armor, since it has a grand guard. However, it could be removed and then the armor became combat. This resulted in significant savings.
Nevertheless, the provisions of the school textbook V.A. Vedyushkin completely correspond to reality. Moreover, information about the weight of the armor, well, let's say, from the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York (as well as from other museums, including our Hermitage in St. for some reason, it didn't get there at the time. However, why is understandable. After all, we had the best education in the world. However, this is a special case, although quite indicative. It turned out that there were chain mail, then - r-r-time and now armor. Meanwhile, the process of their appearance was more than lengthy. For example, only around 1350 was the appearance of the so-called “metal chest” with chains (from one to four) that went to the dagger, sword and shield, and sometimes a helmet was attached to the chain. Helmets at that time were not yet connected to the protective plates on the chest, but under them they wore chain mail hoods that had a wide shoulder. Around 1360, clasps appeared on armor; in 1370, the knights were already almost completely dressed in iron armor, and chain mail was used as a base. The first brigandines also appeared - caftans, and lined with metal plates. They were used both as an independent type of protective clothing, and were worn along with chain mail, both in the West and in the East.
Knightly armor with a brigandine over chain mail and a bascinet helmet. Around 1400-1450 Italy. Weight 18.6 kg. (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York)
Since 1385, the hips began to be covered with armor from articulated metal strips. In 1410 armor with a full cover of plates for all parts of the body spread throughout Europe, but the throat covering of mail was still used; in 1430, the first notches-grooves appeared on the elbow and knee pads, and by 1450, armor made of forged steel sheets had reached its perfection. Since 1475, the grooves on them have become increasingly popular, until fully fluted or so-called "Maximilian armor", the authorship of which is attributed to the Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I, becomes a measure of the skill of their manufacturer and the wealth of their owners. In the future, knightly armor again became smooth - fashion influenced their shape, but the skills achieved in the craftsmanship of their decoration continued to develop. Now not only people fought in armor. The horses also received it, as a result, the knight with the horse turned into something like a real statue of metal polished and sparkling in the sun!
Another "Maximilian" armor from Nuremberg 1525 - 1530. Belonged to Duke Ulrich, son of Henry of Württemberg (1487 - 1550). (Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna)
Although ... although there have always been fashionistas and innovators “running ahead of the locomotive”. For example, it is known that in 1410 a certain English knight named John de Fearles paid 1,727 pounds sterling to Burgundian gunsmiths for armor, a sword and a dagger made for him, which he ordered to be decorated with pearls and ... diamonds (!) - a luxury, not only unheard of by that time, but even for him it is not at all characteristic.
Field armor of Sir John Scudamore (1541 or 1542-1623). Gunsmith Jacob Jacob Halder (Greenwich Workshop 1558-1608) Around 1587, restored in 1915. Weight 31.07 kg. (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York)
Each piece of plate armor has its own name. For example, plates for the thighs were called cuisses, knee pads - logs (poleyns), jambers (jambers) - for the shins and sabatons (sabatons) for the feet. Gorget or bevor (gorgets, or bevors), protected the throat and neck, cutters (couters) - elbows, e (s) paulers, or half-drons (espaudlers, or pauldrons), - shoulders, rep (e) braces (rerebraces) - forearm , vambraces - part of the arm down from the elbow, and gant (e) years (gantelets) - these are “plate gloves” - they protected the hands. The full set of armor also included a helmet and, at least at first, a shield, which later ceased to be used on the battlefield around the middle of the 15th century.
Armor of Henry Herbert (1534-1601), 2nd Earl of Pembroke. Made around 1585 - 1586. in the armory of Greenwich (1511 - 1640). Weight 27.24 kg. (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York)
As for the number of parts in the "white armor", in the armor of the middle of the 15th century their total number could reach 200 units, and taking into account all the buckles and nails, along with hooks and various screws, even up to 1000. The weight of the armor was 20 - 24 kg, and it was evenly distributed over the body of the knight, unlike chain mail, which pressed the man on the shoulders. So “no crane was needed at all to put such a rider in his saddle. And knocked down from his horse to the ground, he did not at all look like a helpless beetle. But the knight of those years is not a mountain of meat and muscles, and he by no means relied only on brute strength and bestial ferocity. And if we pay attention to how knights are described in medieval works, we will see that very often they had a fragile (!) And graceful physique, and at the same time they had flexibility, developed muscles, and were strong and very agile, even when dressed in armor, with a well-developed muscular reaction.
Tournament armor made by Anton Peffenhauser around 1580 (Germany, Augsburg, 1525-1603) Height 174.6 cm); shoulder width 45.72 cm; weight 36.8 kg. It should be noted that tournament armor was usually always heavier than combat armor. (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York)
In the last years of the 15th century, knightly weapons became a matter of special concern for European sovereigns, and, in particular, Emperor Maximilian I (1493 - 1519), who is credited with creating knightly armor with grooves all over their surface, eventually called "Maximilian". It was used without any changes in the 16th century, when new improvements were required due to the ongoing development of small arms.
Now quite a bit about swords, because if you write about them in detail, then they deserve a separate topic. J. Clements, a well-known British expert on edged weapons of the Middle Ages, believes that it was the appearance of a multi-layered combined armor (for example, on the effigy of John de Kreke we see as many as four layers of protective clothing) that led to the appearance of a "sword in one and a half hands." Well, the blades of such swords ranged from 101 to 121 cm, and the weight was from 1.2 to 1.5 kg. Moreover, blades for chopping and stabbing are known, and already purely for stabbing. He notes that riders used such swords until 1500, and they were especially popular in Italy and Germany, where they received the names Reitschwert (horseman's) or knight's sword. In the 16th century, swords appeared that had wavy and even serrated sawtooth blades. At the same time, their length itself could reach human height with a weight of 1.4 to 2 kg. Moreover, in England, such swords appeared only around 1480. The average weight of the sword in the X and XV centuries. was 1.3 kg; and in the sixteenth century - 900 g. Bastard swords "one and a half hands" had a weight of about 1.5 - 1.8 kg, and the weight of two-handed swords was rarely more than 3 kg. The latter reached their heyday between 1500 and 1600, but have always been infantry weapons.
Cuirassier armor "in three quarters", ca. 1610-1630 Milan or Brescia, Lombardy. Weight 39.24 kg. Obviously, since they do not have armor below the knees, the excess weight is obtained by thickening the armor.
But shortened armor in three quarters for cuirassiers and pistols, even in their shortened form, often weighed more than those that assumed protection only from melee weapons and they were very heavy to wear. Cuirassier armor has been preserved, the weight of which was about 42 kg, i.e. even more than classic knightly armor, although they covered a much smaller surface of the body of the one to whom they were intended! But this, it should be emphasized, is not knightly armor, that's the point!
Horse armour, possibly made for Count Antonio IV Colallto (1548-1620), circa 1580-1590. Place of manufacture: probably Brescia. Weight with saddle 42.2 kg. (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York) By the way, a horse in full armor under a rider in armor could even swim. Horse armor weighed 20-40 kg - a few percent of the own weight of a huge and strong knightly horse.
What did Historical Swords Weight?
Translation from English: Georgy Golovanov
"Never overload yourself with heavy weapons,
for the mobility of the body and the mobility of the weapon
the essence of the two main assistants in victory "— Joseph Suitnam,
"School of the noble and worthy science of defense", 1617
How much did they weigh medieval and renaissance swords? This question (perhaps the most common on this topic) can be easily answered by knowledgeable people. serious scientists and fencing practices value knowledge of the exact dimensions of the weapons of the past, while the general public and even specialists are often completely ignorant in this matter. Find reliable information about the weight of real historical swords Those who really passed the weighing are not easy, but to convince skeptics and ignoramuses is a task no less difficult.
A weighty problem.
False claims about the weight of Medieval and Renaissance swords are unfortunately quite common. This is one of the most common misconceptions. And it's not surprising, considering how many errors about fencing the past is spread through the mass media. Everywhere from TV and movies to video games, historical European swords are portrayed as clumsy, and brandished in sweeping motions. Recently, on The History Channel, a respected academic and military technology expert confidently stated that swords XIV centuries sometimes weighed as much as "40 pounds" (18 kg)!
From simple life experience, we know perfectly well that swords could not be excessively heavy and did not weigh 5-7 kg or more. It can be endlessly repeated that this weapon was not bulky or clumsy at all. It is curious that although accurate information on the weight of swords would be very useful to weapons researchers and historians, a serious book with such information does not exist. Perhaps the vacuum of documents is part of this very problem. However, there are several reputable sources that provide some valuable statistics. For example, the catalog of swords from the famous Wallace Collection in London lists dozens of exhibits, among which it is difficult to find anything heavier than 1.8 kg. Most of the examples, from combat swords to rapiers, weighed much less than 1.5 kg.
Despite all assurances to the contrary, medieval swords were actually light, comfortable and weighed less than 1.8 kg on average. Leading Sword Expert Ewart Oakshot claimed:
“Medieval swords were neither unbearably heavy nor the same - the average weight of any sword of standard size ranged from 1.1 kg to 1.6 kg. Even large one and a half hand "military" swords rarely weighed more than 2 kg. Otherwise, they would certainly be too impractical even for people who learned to use weapons from the age of 7 (and who had to be strong in order to survive) ”(Oakeshot, Sword in Hand, p. 13).
Leading author and researcher of European swords of the 20th centuryEwart Oakshotknew what he was saying. He held thousands of swords in his hands and personally owned several dozen copies, from the Bronze Age to the 19th century.
medieval swords, as a rule, were high-quality, light, maneuverable military weapons, equally capable of inflicting chopping blows and deep cuts. They didn't look like the clumsy, heavy things that are often portrayed in the media, more like a "club with a blade." According to another source:
“The sword turned out to be surprisingly light: the average weight of swords from the 10th to the 15th centuries was 1.3 kg, and in the 16th century it was 0.9 kg. Even the heavier bastard swords, which were used by only a small number of soldiers, did not exceed 1.6 kg, and the horsemen's swords, known as "one and a half", weighed 1.8 kg on average. It is logical that these surprisingly low numbers also apply to huge two-handed swords, which were traditionally wielded only by "real Hercules". And yet they rarely weighed more than 3 kg” (translated from: Funcken, Arms, Part 3, p. 26).
Since the 16th century, there were, of course, special ceremonial or ritual swords that weighed 4 kg or more, however, these monstrous samples were not military weapons, and there is no evidence that they were generally intended for use in battle. Indeed, it would be pointless to use them in the presence of more maneuverable combat specimens, which were much lighter. Dr. Hans-Peter Hills in a 1985 dissertation dedicated to the great master of the 14th century Johannes Liechtenauer writes that since the 19th century, many museums of weapons have passed off large collections of ceremonial weapons as military weapons, ignoring the fact that their blade was blunt, and the size, weight and balance were impractical to use (Hils, pp. 269-286).
Expert opinion.
In the hands of a wonderful example of a military sword of the 14th century. Testing the sword for maneuverability and ease of handling.
The belief that medieval swords were unwieldy and clumsy to use has already acquired the status of urban folklore and still confuses those of us who begin swordsmanship. It is not easy to find an author of books on fencing of the 19th and even 20th centuries (even a historian) who would not categorically state that medieval swords were "heavy", "clumsy", "bulky", "uncomfortable" and (as a result of a complete misunderstanding of the possession technique, goals and objectives of such weapons) they were supposedly intended only for attack.
Despite the measurement data, many today are convinced that these great swords must be especially heavy. This opinion is not limited to our age. For example, a generally flawless booklet on army fencing 1746, "The Use of the Broad Sword" Thomas Page, spreads tales about early swords. After talking about how the state of affairs has changed from the early technique and knowledge in the field of combat fencing, Page declares:
“The form was crude, and the technique was devoid of Method. It was an Instrument of Power, not a Weapon or a Work of Art. The sword was enormously long and wide, heavy and heavy, forged only to be cut from top to bottom by the Power of a strong Hand” (Page, p. A3).
views Page shared by other fencers, who then used light small swords and sabers.
Testing a 15th century two-handed sword at the British Royal Armories.
In the early 1870s, Capt. M. J. O'Rourke, a little-known Irish-American, historian and swordsmanship teacher, spoke of early swords, characterizing them as "massive blades that required all the strength of both hands". We can also recall a pioneer in the field of historical swordsmanship research, Egerton Castle, and his notable comment about "rough antique swords" ( Castle,"Schools and masters of fencing").
Quite often, some scientists or archivists, connoisseurs of history, but not athletes, not swordsmen who have trained in swordsmanship since childhood, authoritatively assert that the knight's sword was "heavy". The same sword in trained hands will seem light, balanced and maneuverable. For example, the famous English historian and curator of the museum Charles Fulkes in 1938 stated:
“The so-called crusader's sword is heavy, with a wide blade and a short handle. It has no balance, as the word is understood in fencing, and it is not intended for thrusts, its weight does not allow for quick parries ”(Ffoulkes, p. 29-30).
Fulkes's opinion, completely unfounded, but shared by his co-author Captain Hopkins, was a product of his experience in gentlemanly duels with sporting weapons. Fulkes, of course, bases his opinion on the light weapons of his day: rapiers, swords, and dueling sabers (just as a tennis racket may seem heavy to a table tennis player).
Unfortunately, Fulkes in 1945 he even says:
“All swords from the 9th to the 13th centuries are heavy, poorly balanced and equipped with a short and uncomfortable handle”(Ffoulkes, Arms, p.17).
Imagine, 500 years of professional warriors being wrong, and a museum curator in 1945, who has never been in a real sword fight or even trained with a real sword of any kind, informs us of the shortcomings of this magnificent weapon.
famous french medievalist later repeated Fulkes's opinion literally as a reliable judgment. Dear historian and specialist in medieval military affairs, Dr. Kelly de Vries, in a book on military technology Middle Ages, still writes in the 1990s about "thick, heavy, uncomfortable, but exquisitely forged medieval swords" (Devries, Medieval Military Technology, p. 25). It is no wonder that such "authoritative" opinions influence modern readers, and we have to put in so much effort.
Testing of a 16th century bastard sword at the Glenbow Museum, Calgary.
Such an opinion about the "bulky old swords", as one French swordsman once called them, could be ignored as a product of their era and lack of information. But now such views cannot be justified. It is especially sad when leading swordsmen (trained only in the weapons of modern fake dueling) proudly make judgments about the weight of early swords. As I wrote in the book "Medieval Fencing" 1998:
“It is a pity that the presenters masters of sports fencing(wielding only light rapiers, swords, and sabers) demonstrate their delusions of "10-pound medieval swords that can only be used for 'embarrassing cuts and cuts'."
For example, a respected swordsman of the 20th century Charles Selberg mentions "heavy and clumsy weapons of early times" (Selberg, p. 1). BUT modern swordsman de Beaumont declares:
"In the Middle Ages, armor required that weapons - battle axes or two-handed swords - be heavy and clumsy" (de Beaumont, p. 143).
Did the armor require weapons to be heavy and clumsy? In addition, the 1930 Fencing Book stated with great certainty:
“With a few exceptions, the swords of Europe in 1450 were heavy, clumsy weapons, and in balance and ease of use did not differ from axes” (Cass, p. 29-30).
Even today this idiocy continues. In a book with an apt title "The Complete Guide to the Crusades for Dummies" informs us that the knights fought in tournaments, "chopping each other with heavy, 20-30 pounds swords" (P. Williams, p. 20).
Such comments speak more about the inclinations and ignorance of the authors than about the nature of real swords and fencing. I myself have heard these statements countless times in personal conversations and online from fencing instructors and their students, so I do not doubt their prevalence. As one author wrote about medieval swords in 2003,
"they were so heavy that they could even split armor", and great swords weighed "up to 20 pounds and could easily crush heavy armor" (A. Baker, p. 39).
None of this is true.
Weighing a rare example of a 14th century combat sword from the collection of the Arsenal of Alexandria.
Perhaps the most deadly example that comes to mind is Olympic fencer Richard Cohen and his book on fencing and the history of the sword:
"swords that could weigh over three pounds were heavy and poorly balanced and required strength rather than skill" (Cohen, p. 14).
With all due respect, even when he accurately states the weight (simultaneously downplaying the merits of those who wielded them), however, he is only able to perceive them in comparison with the counterfeit swords of modern sports, even considering that the technique of their use was predominantly "impact-crushing". According to Cohen, does it mean that a real sword, designed for a real fight to the death, should be very heavy, poorly balanced and do not require real skills? And are modern toy swords for pretend fights the right ones?
In the hands of a sample of the Swiss combat sword of the 16th century. Sturdy, lightweight, functional.
For some reason, many classical swordsmen still fail to understand that the early swords, being real weapons, were not made to be held at arm's length and twisted with only fingers. It is now the beginning of the 21st century, there is a revival of the historical martial arts of Europe, and swordsmen still adhere to the delusions of the 19th century. If you do not understand how a given sword was used, it is impossible to appreciate its true capabilities or understand why it was made the way it was. And so you interpret it through the prism of what you already know yourself. Even wide swords with a cup were maneuverable piercing and slashing weapons.
Oakeshott was aware of the existing problem, a mixture of ignorance and prejudice, even more than 30 years ago, when he wrote his significant book "The sword in the era of chivalry":
“Add to this the fantasies of the romantic writers of the past, who, wishing to give their heroes the features of a superman, make them brandish huge and heavy weapons, thus demonstrating strength far beyond the capabilities of modern man. And the picture is completed by the evolution of attitudes towards this type of weapon, up to the contempt that lovers of sophistication and elegance who lived in the eighteenth century, romantics of the Elizabethan era and admirers of magnificent art had for swords. renaissance. It becomes clear why a weapon that is only available for viewing in its degraded state can be considered ill-conceived, crude, heavy and ineffective.
Of course, there will always be people for whom the strict asceticism of forms is indistinguishable from primitivism and incompleteness. Yes, and an iron object a little less than a meter long may well seem very heavy. In fact, the average weight of such swords varied between 1.0 and 1.5 kg, and they were balanced (according to their purpose) with the same care and skill as, for example, a tennis racket or fishing rod. The prevailing opinion that they cannot be held in hands is absurd and long outdated, however, it continues to live, as well as the myth that only a crane could lift knights dressed in armor on a horse ”( Oakeshott, "The Sword in the Age of Chivalry", p. 12).
Even a similar broadsword of the 16th century is quite convenient to control for striking and jabbing.
Longtime researcher of arms and fencing at the British Royal Armories Keith Ducklin claims:
“From my experience at the Royal Armories, where I studied real weapons from various periods, I can state that a broad-bladed European battle sword, whether slashing, thrusting-slashing or thrusting, usually weighed from 2 pounds for a one-handed model to 4, 5 pounds for two-handed. Swords made for other purposes, for example, for ceremonies or executions, could weigh more or less, but these were not combat specimens ”(from personal correspondence with the author, April 2000).
Mr. Ducklin, no doubt knowledgeable, because he held and studied literally hundreds of excellent swords from the famous collection and considered them from the point of view of a fighter.
Training with a fine example of a real 15th century estoc. Only in this way can one understand the true purpose of such weapons.
In a brief article about the types of swords of the XV-XVI centuries. from the collections of three museums, including exhibits from Museum Stibbert in Florence, Dr. Timothy Drawson noted that none of the one-handed swords weighed more than 3.5 pounds, and none of the two-handed swords weighed more than 6 pounds. His conclusion:
“On the basis of these specimens, it is clear that the idea that the swords of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance were heavy and clumsy is far from the truth” (Drawson, p. 34 & 35).
Subjectivity and objectivity.
Obviously, if you know how to handle a weapon, the technique of its use, and the dynamics of the blade, then any weapon of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance will seem to you flexible and convenient to use.
In 1863, a sword maker and major specialist John Latham from "Wilkinson Swords" erroneously claims that some excellent specimen 14th century sword possessed "enormous weight" because "it was used in those days when warriors had to deal with opponents clad in iron." Latham adds:
"They took the heaviest weapons they could and applied as much force as they could" (Latham, Shape, p. 420-422).
However, commenting on the "excessive weight" of swords, Latham speaks of a 2.7 kg sword forged for a cavalry officer who thought it would strengthen his wrist, but as a result “not a single living person could chop with it ... The weight was so large that it was impossible to give it acceleration, so the cutting force was zero. A very simple test proves it” (Latham, Shape, p. 420-421).
Latham adds also: "Body type, however, greatly affects the result". He then deduces, repeating the common mistake, that a strong man will take a heavier sword in order to do more damage to them.
“The weight a person can lift at the highest speed will have the best effect, but a lighter sword may not necessarily move faster. The sword can be so light that it feels like a "whip" in the hand. Such a sword is worse than too heavy” (Latham, p. 414-415).
I must necessarily have enough mass to hold the blade and point, parry blows and give strength, but at the same time it must not be too heavy, that is, slow and awkward, otherwise faster weapons will describe circles around it. This necessary weight depended on the purpose of the blade, whether it should stab, cut, both, and what kind of material it might encounter.
Most of the swords of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance are so balanced and balanced that they seem to literally cry out to you: "Possess me!"
Fantastic tales of knightly prowess often mention huge swords that only great heroes and villains could wield, and with which they cut horses and even trees. But all these are myths and legends, they cannot be taken literally. In Froissart's Chronicle, when the Scots defeat the English at Mulrose, we read of Sir Archibald Douglas, who "held before him a huge sword, the blade of which was two meters long, and scarcely anyone could lift it, but Sir Archibald without labor owned it and inflicted such terrible blows that everyone it hit fell to the ground; and there was no one among the English who could resist his blows. Great swordsman of the 14th century Johannes Liechtenauer he himself said: "The sword is a measure, and it is large and heavy" and is balanced by a suitable pommel, which means that the weapon itself must be balanced and therefore suitable for combat, and not heavy. Italian master Filippo Wadi in the early 1480s he instructed:
"Take a light weapon, not a heavy one, so that you can easily control it so that its weight does not interfere with you."
So, the swordsman specifically mentions that there is a choice between "heavy" and "light" blades. But - again - the word "heavy" is not a synonym for the word "too heavy", or bulky and clumsy. You can just choose, like, for example, a tennis racket or a baseball bat lighter or heavier.
Having held in my hands more than 200 excellent European swords of the XII-XVI centuries, I can say that I have always paid special attention to their weight. I have always been struck by the liveliness and balance of almost all the specimens that I came across. Medieval and Renaissance swords, which I personally studied in six countries, and in some cases fenced with them and even chopped, were - I repeat - light and well balanced. Having considerable experience in the possession of weapons, I have very rarely seen historical swords that would not be easy to handle and maneuver. Units - if there were any - from short swords to bastards weighed over 1.8 kg, and even they were well balanced. When I came across examples that I found too heavy for me or not balanced for my taste, I realized that for people with a different physique or fighting style, they might fit well.
In the hands of weapons from the collection of the Swedish Royal Arsenal, Stockholm.
When I worked with two fighting swords of the 16th century, each 1.3 kg, they showed themselves perfectly. Dexterous blows, thrusts, defenses, transfers and quick counterattacks, furious slashing blows - as if the swords were almost weightless. There was nothing "heavy" in these frightening and elegant instruments. When I practiced with a real two-handed sword of the 16th century, I was amazed at how light the 2.7 kg weapon seemed, as if it weighed half as much. Even though it was not intended for a person of my size, I could see its obvious effectiveness and efficiency because I understood the technique and method of wielding this weapon. The reader can decide for himself whether to believe these stories. But those countless times when I held excellent examples of weaponry of the 14th, 15th or 16th centuries in my hands, stood up, made movements under the attentive glances of benevolent guardians, firmly convinced me of how much real swords weighed (and how to wield them).
One day, while examining several swords of the 14th and 16th centuries from the collection Ewart Oakeshott, we were even able to weigh a few pieces on a digital scale, just to make sure they weighed correctly. Our colleagues did the same, and their results matched ours. This experience of learning about real weapons is critical Association ARMA in relation to many modern swords. I'm becoming increasingly frustrated with the accuracy of many contemporary replicas. Obviously, the more a modern sword is similar to a historical one, the more accurate the reconstruction of the technique of using this sword will be.
In fact,
correct understanding of the weight of historical swords
necessary to understand their correct application.
Measuring and weighing samples of weapons from a private collection.
Having studied in practice many medieval and renaissance swords, having collected impressions and measurement results, dear fencer Peter Johnson He said that “I felt their amazing mobility. In general, they are fast, accurate and expertly balanced for their tasks. Often the sword seems much lighter than it actually is. This is the result of a careful distribution of mass, not just a point of balance. Measuring the sword's weight and its point of balance is only the beginning of understanding its "dynamic balance" (i.e., how the sword behaves in motion)." He adds:
“In general, modern replicas are very far from the original swords in this regard. Distorted ideas about what a real sharp military weapon is, is the result of training only on modern weapons.
So, Johnson also claims that real swords are lighter than many think. Even then, weight is not the only indicator, because the main characteristics are the distribution of mass on the blade, which in turn affects the balance.
We carefully measure and weigh samples of weapons of the 14th and 16th centuries.
Need to understand
that modern copies of historical weapons,
even being approximately equal in weight,
do not guarantee the same feeling of owning them,
like their old originals.
If the blade geometry does not match the original (including along the entire length of the blade, shape and crosshairs), the balance will not match.
Modern copy often feels heavier and less comfortable than the original.
Accurate reproduction of the balance of modern swords is an important aspect of their creation.
Today, many cheap and low-grade swords - historical replicas, theatrical props, fantasy weapons or souvenirs - are made heavy due to poor balance. Part of this problem arises from the sad ignorance of the geometry of the blade on the part of the manufacturer. On the other hand, the reason is a deliberate reduction in the price of manufacturing. In any case, sellers and manufacturers can hardly be expected to admit that their swords are too heavy or poorly balanced. It's much easier to say that real swords should be like that.
Testing of an original infantryman's two-handed sword, 16th century.
There is another factor why modern swords usually made heavier than the originals.
Due to ignorance, smiths and their clients expect the sword to feel heavy.
These sensations arose after numerous images of lumberjack warriors with their slow swings, demonstrating the heaviness "barbarian swords", because only massive swords can deal a heavy blow. (In contrast to the lightning-fast aluminum swords of the Oriental martial arts demonstrations, it's hard to blame anyone for this misunderstanding.) While the difference between a 1.7 kg sword and a 2.4 kg sword doesn't seem like much, when attempting to reconstruct the technique, the difference becomes quite tangible. Also, when it comes to rapiers, which typically weighed between 900 and 1100 grams, their weight could be misleading. All the weight of such a thin thrusting weapon was concentrated in the handle, which gave the point greater mobility despite the weight compared to wider slashing blades.