Thought Experiment - Origins of the longsword art

[Allen Johnson]

I think Stacy is getting there. Any decent fighter is going to have an intimate knowledge of biomechanics and how to optimally use his or her body in the most efficient way. If some medieval man at arms were to be transported into modern day and were suddenly given one of those tactical extendable batons, he's going to quickly understand it's abilities and probably be very effective with it. The other part is that the physical motions and philosophies of fighting with an arming sword and with a longsword are really not all that dissimilar. I think this is touching on what John Clements described very well in his article on the "Interrelatedness within the Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe". People weren't just longswords-men, or swords and buckler-men. Most were very likely just fighters who understood the art. So you shove a pointed stick in their hands or one of those newfandangled two handed longswords, it's not going to take long to maximize the knowledge they already carry into this new,,,and yet not new, weapon.

[Sripol Asanasavest]

What kind of longswords were commonly used back then? No, doubt it had to be something that was practical and easy to manufacture which is necessary for mass production. That's why the broad swords were popular among the Vikings because it was easy to make and they were efficient for the way they fought.

[william_cain_iii]

http://www.myarmoury.com/features.html

Go over to "Spotlight Series" on the right, Sripol.

The Oakshott Type series gives a good explanation of the many types of sword, including longswords, as defined by shape of the blade using Edward Oakshott's system. The system isn't flawless (some blades straddle two of his types), but is a good benchmark for learning about the types of blades in the medieval eras.

[CalebChow]

I thought about the Crusades, but the last Crusade ended in 1291 and the longsword doesn't become established in the literature (that we know of) until almost a hundred years later. My speculation is that if single swords were working well in the east as they did in the Crusades, then maybe they stuck with them while fighting the same enemies with little rest, while the west moved on to developing better ideas to compete against each other as the Crusades faded into history for them (except for Spain). It is just speculation and I'd welcome more information, but it fits the timeline.

Not in the literature, but the type XIIa warsword begins to be seen at exactly the time period in which the Crusades ended. It was seeing this weapon's 13th century date of origin that inspired me to make this thread, actually.

It seems that the general consensus here is that this weapon was developed primarily for European-European conflicts and not as a response to the failing Crusades?

I still feel like it's strange for a knight to be investing in a large warsword in Western Europe when all his peers are focusing on the lance and their fancy new coats of plates during the 13th century.
Seems like it'd make more sense if the warsword would have been better suited against lighter-armored targets like in the Middle East.
But of course, not everyone in Europe had heavy armor either...so I dunno. Maybe it was a "peasant killer"

The Type XIIa:
http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/alb ... rsword.htm

[Stacy Clifford]

I still feel like it's strange for a knight to be investing in a large warsword in Western Europe when all his peers are focusing on the lance and their fancy new coats of plates during the 13th century.
Seems like it'd make more sense if the warsword would have been better suited against lighter-armored targets like in the Middle East.
But of course, not everyone in Europe had heavy armor either...so I dunno. Maybe it was a "peasant killer"

I think I agree with the theory that a two-handed sword worked better in an environment where infantry was more effective. The steppes definitely favored mounted warfare and the Crusades took place mostly in the desert (the fighting part at least), where heavy armor could cook you to death and mobility is valuable just to be able to find water. The Balkans, however, is very mountainous and was constantly under attack from the east, so you would think there at least that infantry and longswords would have been more effective. How well do we actually know how much the longsword caught on in Hungary, Serbia, Greece, etc.?

[Sripol Asanasavest]

http://www.myarmoury.com/features.html

Go over to "Spotlight Series" on the right, Sripol.

The Oakshott Type series gives a good explanation of the many types of sword, including longswords, as defined by shape of the blade using Edward Oakshott's system. The system isn't flawless (some blades straddle two of his types), but is a good benchmark for learning about the types of blades in the medieval eras.

Hey, thanks!

[Allen Johnson]

What kind of longswords were commonly used back then? No, doubt it had to be something that was practical and easy to manufacture which is necessary for mass production. That's why the broad swords were popular among the Vikings because it was easy to make and they were efficient for the way they fought.

Practical? Yes.
Easy to manufacture? Certainly no.
Their skill and art of creating these weapons was a very valuable craft. Many cities and towns had guilds of people dedicated to keeping their craft "in house". The way the Vikings used pattern-welded weapons is an amazing art that very few even today can replicate. One only has to look at the blades on the market today to realize that very few people can re-create their skill at swordmaking. So yes the weapons were practical and efficient but they were not "easy" to make. Not only that, the skill of making a four foot blade is much greater than a two foot blade. They had to learn how to do that effectively. That's why you don't see longer swords prior to the early medieval period.

[Sripol Asanasavest]

Well, I'm sure not all the soldiers, especially the peasants, carried swords that required extremely a long time and difficult to make with intricate art designs; that would be very expensive. So I was wondering what design(s) was used for mass production to make swords for the common soldiers, not the nobility...?

[Allen Johnson]

If you look at real, antique swords most did not have intricate art designs. These were weapons, not prom dresses! Go here ( http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/index.php?cat=5 ) and spend some time looking at these weapons. While they certainly are beautiful pieces of art, their beauty is in their simplicity and effectiveness.

When we talk about the "art" of swordmaking we need to make sure that we understand that "art" of olden day was more akin to "skill" or "craft" than how we define "art" as some sort of decoration that is aesthetically pleasing. I think Albion has done a good job of creating replicas of upper middle class swords. While these weapons are gorgeous, they are not gaudy examples of a "kings" sword who would have never fought, but sat on his horse and watched the fight with a spyglass.

Also remember that prior to the Industrial Revolution, swords were all still hand made individually. There really was not "mass production" as we know it today or even in Victorian times. While it is certain that many swordmakers probably had large crews that turned out many weapons, especially in war time, they were still made by hand and individually.

[Greg Coffman]

I think that the evolution of the longsword was mostly due to the discovery that cut & thrust oriented blades [starting with the Oakeshott XV, XVI, and XVII] worked much better to defeat the maille and plate armor of the 13th and 14th centuries than the cut focused blades. Greatswords had already come about as swords that had blades a bit longer and handles a bit longer than contemporary swords. People realized that tapered blades were highly effective against armor and so tapered blades were mounted on both the one-hander and greatsword configurations. The longsword came about when the new tapered blade was combinded with the proportions of the greatsword. The easy balance of this new design allowed it to grow in size to be a bit larger than the earlier greatswords while still being quick and agile. Furthermore, fighters realized that this longer sword worked quite well out of amor as well as on the battlefield. At least that's how I see it.

The Turks didn't get farther into Europe because they were stopped at Vienna, by force, not because they lost interest. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Vienna

[RayMcCullough]

When we talk about the "art" of swordmaking we need to make sure that we understand that "art" of olden day was more akin to "skill" or "craft" than how we define "art" as some sort of decoration that is aesthetically pleasing.

Art=(from latin arc) 13th c. ; Skill aquired by experience, study, and observation; a branch of learning.

Just adding to Allen's post on art. This is the definition of art that the medieval and Renaissance Men understood. It is definitely the Art refered to in the term Martial Arts which is from 15th century Europe. It is not until after 1600 that the definition comes to also refer to 'fine art'.

Here is an excellent article with period definitions of art from Tom Leoni.
http://www.salvatorfabris.com/WhatIsArt.shtml

[Sripol Asanasavest]

Also remember that prior to the Industrial Revolution, swords were all still hand made individually. There really was not "mass production" as we know it today or even in Victorian times. While it is certain that many swordmakers probably had large crews that turned out many weapons, especially in war time, they were still made by hand and individually.

When I'm talking about mass production, I don't mean using machinery. What I mean by that is producing large numbers of swords as quickly as possible and costing them less for soldiers. I'm sure they could whip up something simple in design so it was easy and cheap to make and still be very effective.

[CalebChow]

Also remember that prior to the Industrial Revolution, swords were all still hand made individually. There really was not "mass production" as we know it today or even in Victorian times. While it is certain that many swordmakers probably had large crews that turned out many weapons, especially in war time, they were still made by hand and individually.

When I'm talking about mass production, I don't mean using machinery. What I mean by that is producing large numbers of swords as quickly as possible and costing them less for soldiers. I'm sure they could whip up something simple in design so it was easy and cheap to make and still be very effective.

I'd imagine the estoc would be a good example of that; literally just a long, sharp, metal rod with a hilt on it.

But just to follow up on the practicality aspect of developing swords used with two hands, is it reasonable to think that the use of the 13th century greatsword would look pretty much identical to what we currently practice? Of course there'd be less halfswording or thrusting, but as far as guards, mastercuts, etc?

And on that line of logic (and this is where I really, really extrapolate)--is it reasonable to think that all cultures that used weapons like it would employ them in pretty much identical fashions?

This is essentially a question based on the relationship between form and function.

[william_cain_iii]

It's pretty likely that the type XIIa and XIIIa blades were probably used quite similarly to later longswords. Consider what Von Danzig has to say about the Zornhau - that it's ready to hand, that it's powerful, and yet it's just a simple peasant's cut at the root of it.

Further, the Art (by the time of the manuscripts we have) is far too large for any one person to have come up with it. Liechtenauer codified what was probably an extant series of practices into one place, for simplicity's sake. Far more likely that the art was already well in use with these great swords of war and simply carried forward to the longsword with the addition of refined thrusting practices to account for more heavily armoured combat.

Just my take on it.