# Different types of mediaeval sword



## Brian G Turner (Dec 17, 2014)

I remember I used to get confused over the different names for swords, and would even use them interchangeably.

More recently, I think I have a better understanding of what the different terms for swords means, so I thought I'd list some of them here.

And, if I'm wrong on anything, no doubt I'll be corrected. 


_Arming sword_ - general term for a standard-length mediaeval sword, that can also be simply called _a sword_. Though there are many variations possible in shape, blade length, and ornamentation, is it basically a typical sword you can wield with one-hand, and is not going to be confused with a dagger.

_Broadsword _- this is a post-Renaissance term! And basically means a sword that has a wide blade by comparison to a _rapier_. In other words, a mediaeval _arming sword_ that appeared in the post-Renaissance would be referred to as a _broadsword _- but in the mediaeval period, before the era of rapiers, an arming sword would _not _be called a _broadsword_!

_Longsword _- a sword that is typically longer than an arming sword, hence the term _long_sword! This might also be referred to as a _******* sword_, or a _hand-and-a half sword_ - not least because these swords typically had a long hilt that allowed for a grip with one or two hands, plus a generally longer blade than your average arming sword.

_Greatsword_ - a general term for any sword that was typically wielded with two hands. The blade would normally be longer than a longsword, hence the need to use two hands! A greatsword could be used on the battlefield (cf, landsknecht), but there are also forms which were made to be entirely ceremonial and never for combat.


Of course, there are more specific names for different types of sword - I just thought I'd keep to some general terms.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Dec 17, 2014)

Brian Turner said:


> _Greatsword  ... _entirely ceremonial and never for combat.


Because for most people they were too heavy!
This also was the snag with a full size long bow. More powerful than a carbine / musket and many rifles. But not many people are strong enough.

Some writers seem to think crossbows are stronger than bows ... Only big ones that took ages to wind. Or compared to  a very small bow used on horseback (not normal in Medieval Europe I think). Three main kinds of crossbow
Feeble pull it back
Foot cocked
Winder cranked  


If it's too big to jab bits of meat to eat, it's a sword. The specific eating cutlery came in different times and places.

You are of course referring mainly to Europe, as other places had different things then.


----------



## The Judge (Dec 17, 2014)

Not medieval but if I could sneak it in, my favourite is from the Renaissance, not used outside Italy and even then probably only in a few cities for a few years, the *cinquedea*.  I've seen some at the Wallace Collection and they are wonderful -- about a third of the way down this blog post you can see the case of them but that doesn't show the beauty of the hilts.  http://margaret-cooter.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/tuesday-is-drawing-day-armour-at.html


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Dec 17, 2014)

In a related topic I was reading how armour was light enough for knights to mount unaided, but that jousting perhaps used heavier armour. The Knight being hoisted on seems to be a myth?

@The Judge 
Those swords are a bit mad. Double for removing bread and pizza from oven?


----------



## Dinosaur (Dec 17, 2014)

By and large, as far as I certainly tell, having a distinct characterisation and name for weapon types is an internet phenomenon.

As for armour, there was some jousting armour that requires a winch but they were custom builds. The Royal Armoury did some interesting studies with historical armour and despite 're-enacator claims it does has a serious effect on mobility and endurance. Which spooky enough matches the written accounts.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Dec 18, 2014)

Ray McCarthy said:


> In a related topic I was reading how armour was light enough for knights to mount unaided



From what I've read, it was common training for a knight to learn to vault into the saddle while wearing armour.

I saw a re-enactment at the Royal Armouries in Leeds, where two men in full plate armour told how the distributed weight meant that plate barely impeded them - and proceeded to demonstrate this by leaping about and doing forward rolls.

Knights were expected to be strong and athletic - sparring and hunting helped develop physique and skills. Someone might struggle to wear plate if they were grossly unfit. Else, as at Agincourt, they're wading through deep mud.



Dinosaur said:


> By and large, as far as I certainly tell, having a distinct characterisation and name for weapon types is an internet phenomenon.



My reading has this as specifically document in the Anglo-Saxon period onwards. _Swords and Swordsmen_ by Mike Loades mentions some of the names Saxon swords were inscribed with. Curiously, some Saxon swords were of a strength and purity that would not be seen again until the industrial revolution. Ulfbrecht swords were a prime example of this.


----------



## thaddeus6th (Dec 18, 2014)

Brian, there's also a video there showing a chap in armour cartwheeling. 

I think Ulfbrechts are mentioned in the Unofficial Manual for Vikings as being excellent. 

On that note (same period), the Viking swords were apparently made using basically the same method as the katana. There's also a Lindy Beige video where he states that the best such swords were actually made by the ancient Celts, and the only reason the katana's so well-known is that (a bit like the English [and Welsh] longbow) the katana's a part of Japan's cultural identity and so people are a bit credulous regarding how super-awesome it is/was.

And, whilst I'm rambling, steel from Damascus was, for a time, much better than elsewhere. That was because of vanadium impurities which made it stronger. So, all steel can make swords, but some steel is more steely than others.


----------



## Vertigo (Dec 18, 2014)

My understanding of the greatsword was that its use in battle was primarily a brief one. A large powerful person or persons would stand at the front of the advancing line and get the sword swinging in a figure of eight with the two apexes to the left and right. They would then advance into the enemy ranks like this creating (hopefully) a breach into which the others would follow. As soon as the sword's momentum was lost it was dropped and a more conventional broadsword/arming sword (usually scabbarded on the back) was then drawn and used for more conventional fighting. This was certainly my understanding of how the Vikings used them.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Dec 18, 2014)

@Vertigo - for me the German Landsknecht are the most famous users of the greatsword, but I haven't yet read much about them. I have the Osprey book in my TBR pile.


----------



## Vertigo (Dec 19, 2014)

I have handled one once (my brother does re-enactments and was an himself an armourer with some missing bits made for museums to his name) and, whilst the length and weight meant it would strike with enormous force, it was incredibly ungainly even for an extremely powerful man (even the smithy who made it struggled to handle it other that how I already described). Certainly once it has lost its momentum in a close melee it would be pretty much useless. However I think it was a pretty effective terror weapon!


----------

