is there a difference between a messer and a short sword?

[Benedict Haefeli]

I got a bit confused on finding Talhoffers manual on "Messer" (http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Hans_Talhoff ... and_Swords)

Probably my confusion stems from the fact that "Messer" in modern german means "knive", while on the drawings it looks pretty much like Messer at the time were more akin to short swords (or generally, swords that you wouldn't use wield both hands). Is that observation correct, or am I missing something here?

[william_cain_iii]

Generally when the manuals say messer, they're referring to this:

http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/alb ... soldat.htm

A one handed, sometimes hand and a half, fighting knife/short sword.

It's in essence a variation on the falchion concept (whether a derivative of or a parallel design I think is still out for discussion, but I'm not sure). The grip tends to be furnished like a knife, rather than a sword (small, capped pommel), most often with a hand-guard called a nagel.

It has a single edge, with perhaps a bit of sharpening along the false edge. The fighting systems based on it tended to blur the line between a single handed sword and a large knife.

Hope that helps.

[Benedict Haefeli]

Ah, thanks.

I'm getting a bit confused on my research trip, as I find more and more of my preconceptions to be plainly wrong. After finding that longswords are usually used with both hands, I thought the single handed swords are the Messer, but again it turns out not to be so...

Do you happen to know any manual where fighting with a "true" single-hand sword is described, or were they only used in combination with a buckler or shield?

[william_cain_iii]

Depends on what you're going for.

I think there are some sidesword manuals that go into one-handed stuff. Fabris might, I'm not sure if he's sword and dagger though.

I think most of the early one-hander stuff is pretty sword-and-buckler centric though (I know Ringeck has a section on it, and MS I.33 / walpurgis is solely SnB).

[Stacy Clifford]

Giacomo Di Grassi, Achille Marozzo, Vincentio Saviolo, Henry de Sainct-Didier, George Silver and Joseph Swetnam all covered single sword (or sidesword, if you prefer), most of them both with and without an offhand weapon. There are others as well, but those are the best known.

[Benedict Haefeli]

great, not a single german... will have to find translations somewhere of some of them, I guess. Thanks a lot for the names, anyways!

[Alex Bourdas]

Well, if you want something more German, Joachim Meyer and Jacob Sutor both cover single sidesword as well.

[Benedict Haefeli]

The simple reason why that would be better is that I understand german, as opposed to italian or french...
Thanks!

Edit: hmmm, just looked up Meyer. So a side-sword seems more in the likes of a rapier (indeed Meyer calls it a rapier, but as I understand it the term is not too fixed in its aplication. It's majorly thrusting blades, though, as far as I can make it out) than of a single-handed cutting sword. I guess Messer is still the best match for what I'm currently looking for...

[Stacy Clifford]

Silver and Swetnam were both English, and Di Grassi and Saviolo were both translated into English in the 1590s. You can find them all here (along with other goodies):

http://www.umass.edu/renaissance/lord/collection.html

A modern translation of Sainct-Didier has been published also. Sorry I forgot the Germans, I've been working on Di Grassi's single sword and had Italians on the brain.

[John Farthing]

While Meyer does indeed call it a "Rappier" (spelled with two 'P's) it is an earlier incarnation leading towards the eventual development of the 'true' Rapier (the foyning weapon seen in later works such as Fabris, Giganti, Capo Ferro, etc.).

The weapon Meyer describes as a Rappier is more akin to the sidesword seen in DiGrassi and similar works. It is essentially the 'Reitenschwert' (riding sword) and is often refered to in some circles as a Cut & Thrust Sword (although this is modern nomenclature and not a historically accurate term). While the term 'Cut & Thrust' is ahistorical it does provide the distintion of how the sword was used and thereby creates a clear separation between it and the foyning style employed in the practice of the later "true" rapier.

[Benedict Haefeli]

Silver and Swetnam were both English, and Di Grassi and Saviolo were both translated into English in the 1590s. You can find them all here (along with other go

yay, moar links! Thanks!

The weapon Meyer describes as a Rappier is more akin to the sidesword seen in DiGrassi and similar works. It is essentially the 'Reitenschwert' (riding sword) and is often refered to in some circles as a Cut & Thrust Sword (although this is modern nomenclature and not a historically accurate term). While the term 'Cut & Thrust' is ahistorical it does provide the distintion of how the sword was used and thereby creates a clear separation between it and the foyning style employed in the practice of the later "true" rapier.

Oooook... The puzzle is slowly comming together. Just as a matter of interest: Were longswords more typically used two-handed, or was it more typicall to see them used one-handed with bucklers or shields?

[Stacy Clifford]

Just as a matter of interest: Were longswords more typically used two-handed, or was it more typicall to see them used one-handed with bucklers or shields?

Longswords are designed to be used two-handed the majority of the time, and almost all the images in the manuals show it held with two hands, but it is still small enough to be used effectively with one hand (by most fighters, anyway) on occasion if needed. Keep in mind we are using "longsword" to describe the most commonly seen two-handed sword in most of the manuals, but there is no definition of the term set in stone and some may exist that are too unwieldy to use single-handed. With a buckler, shield or dagger you're mostly going to see a sword that's made for one hand, but there will always be a few people with odd preferences, so a longsword in those combinations isn't impossible, just unlikely.

[Benedict Haefeli]

This is kind of a re-learning for me... Now I wonder what a one-and-a-half hander (called Bastard, if I'm not mistaken) actually is. I always thought it is a longsword with a hilt that can comfortably accomodate two hands, but obviously that assumption is wrong too. Is a bastard actually shorter than the usual longsword so it can more easily be used with one hand?

[Jonathan Hill]

Longswords are also called Hand and a Half in some circles, just look at the Lutel web site, and a Bastard sword can fit as a Longsword as well. This may be to differentiate it from the very large two handers, or it may be because for some people a longsword can be used in one had quite easily. Many of what I call ‘smaller’ longswords feel and weigh the same as some single handers I use thus making me wonder why I need to use the other hand on this thing. Just take all of it to mean that names for swords are a grey line, what is more appropriate is usage of the blade.

One distinction of most longswords is the room for a second hand. When using a shield, or using a sword from horseback the extra grip and pommel can ‘get in the way.’ Thus while it is possible to use the sword with a shield or from horseback, it is not optimal. A single hander with a short grip/pommel with suite you better when using most things in your offhand.

[Benedict Haefeli]

A single hander with a short grip/pommel with suite you better when using most things in your offhand.

So there were "longsword" designs specifically designed for one hand? Then what has led to them being called longswords as opposed to the previously discussed side swords? I imagine they are generally longer, especially if designed for mounted combat, but with a shorter hilt?