Earliest examples of European Long/H+H sword

CalebChow · Post by **CalebChow** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 9:36 pm

Archaeologically speaking, does anyone have any info on the earliest surviving specimens of hand+half swords or longswords, like date and specifications?

Or, if there is an obvious place to research this, feel free to redirect me.

Thanks.

Stacy Clifford · Post by **Stacy Clifford** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:59 pm

Oakeshott's books seem like the most likely place to start.

Benjamin Smith · Post by **Benjamin Smith** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:30 am

There was a post not long ago about a Viking sword from 900~ which had a 9" handle. William I's of England's Son was given the title "Longsword" just before 1100, though it may have referred to just a "long sword" instead of a longsword as we know it. Oakeshott's XIa, XIIa, XIIIa classifications all come from the height of the age of mail 1100-1300. So we can conclude that people started experimenting with the design perhaps as early as 900 and that it became established sometime before 1300.

Joel Norman · Post by **Joel Norman** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:38 pm

And as I've posted before, there were actually several people in that family with the title of 'Longsword' with the first William Longsword living in the 900s in Normandy. There are all kinds of theories as to what the name implies, some having to do with swords, all the way to some having to do with the anatomy of the men in that family. But there is no conclusive archaeological evidence that longswords were around that early; just some guesswork, really.

Benjamin Smith · Post by **Benjamin Smith** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:38 pm

Here is the picture of the Viking era sword's hilt:

http://forums.swordforum.com/attachment.php?s=6e2b6c7b07d2863c86e8ff63444c9639&attachmentid=41239&d=1125331036

While I don't have any evidence on the dating of this weapon assuming the fittings are original, and there is little reason to believe they aren't, I'd say this makes a case for fairly early development of the weapon.

Vincent Le Chevalier · Wed Mar 25, 2009 9:18 am

There's been an update about this viking sword recently, and apparently the case is not so clear that it's any longer than other viking swords:
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread ... ost1062735

Regards,

Sal Bertucci · Post by **Sal Bertucci** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 10:54 am

Hasn't anyone just taken a measuring tape to the thing? That would put aside all optical tricks, and help describe function.

Matt Easton · Post by **Matt Easton** » Thu Mar 26, 2009 7:24 am

Putting freak earlier occurrences aside, you can say that two-handed 'longswords' do start to appear in art with some frequency (although always far less than one-handed swords) from around 1200-1250 onwards. 'Longswords' were at their most popular, in art, between c.1370 and c.1440 - this being really the only period where they sometimes rival one-handed swords for frequency in art.

Regards,
Matt

CalebChow · Post by **CalebChow** » Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:24 am

1200-1250 you say? Interesting, that's only a little after the 3rd crusade.

Anyone have pictures of the aforementioned longsword appearances around that time?

Thanks again!

Matt Easton · Post by **Matt Easton** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:27 am

Well yes, a generation - of course a lot can change in one generation (for example, look at how much armour changes between 1340 and 1370).

Mid-13thC:
http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/gallery2/ ... emId=11974

If you're really interested in this topic then you need to buy Oakeshott's Archaeology of Weapons and Records of the Medieval Sword.

Matt

Benjamin Smith · Post by **Benjamin Smith** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:38 pm

Vincent, I've considered the post on SFI, and I'm going to respectfully disagree with Mr. Thompson's statement, that this specimen is "no bigger" than any other viking sword. By taking a long thin object and finding the width of the blade on your screen you can get a reasonably accurate blade width to tang length ratio, which happens to be about 3.5-4. A typical viking sword is closer to 2.5. Even with a second layer on the pommel that hilt is much longer than your typical viking sword. Now if there was a second layer it would probably be uncomfortable to grip with the off-hand directly, but using alternate grips only closing the first three or four fingers around the handle, and letting the others work around a curved pommel, and it does show a curve, would still work fine. Nor do I see any proof that there should be a second layer on the pommel. The cross is intact and the outer portion of the pommel is too, why would the inner portion be missing. Nor do all viking pommels come in two pieces, though I acknowledge that most do. Besides a longer tang increases the leverage a pommel asserts around the aft pivot point and center of gravity, a smaller pommel makes sense. In order for that sword to be using customary viking lengths for tangs that blade could be no thicker than 1&1/4." At the very least it has an unusually long hilt. Maybe I'm unimaginitive, but there is only one reason I can think of for putting an unusually long hilt on a sword, to get both of your hands on it.

I'd like to see someone find some accurate measurements for that specimen so we can put it to rest.

Vincent Le Chevalier · Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:35 am

Benjamin Smith wrote:Vincent, I've considered the post on SFI, and I'm going to respectfully disagree with Mr. Thompson's statement, that this specimen is "no bigger" than any other viking sword. [...] I'd like to see someone find some accurate measurements for that specimen so we can put it to rest.

Yes I'd like that too. However it seems that Mr. Thomson is located in Latvia, specialized in Viking age weapons, and could have actually seen the sword first-hand, so his opinion seems of more value than any conjecture about the dimensions.

That being said, I don't personally care one way or another, just saying that the matter is not closed. I'm not much into Viking swords nor two-handed swords anyway

Jay Vail · Post by **Jay Vail** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 3:37 am

Joel Norman wrote:And as I've posted before, there were actually several people in that family with the title of 'Longsword' with the first William Longsword living in the 900s in Normandy. There are all kinds of theories as to what the name implies, some having to do with swords, all the way to some having to do with the anatomy of the men in that family. But there is no conclusive archaeological evidence that longswords were around that early; just some guesswork, really.

What's your source on this whopper? I'm pretty up on medieval English history and this is the first time I've ever heard this. Edward I (17 June 1239 – 7 July 1307), was known as "longshanks" and the "hammer of the Scots." Is this the guy you're thinking of?

LafayetteCCurtis · Post by **LafayetteCCurtis** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 1:07 am

On how early the Longespee lineage was, or on the etymology? I don't know about the etymology, but there's plenty of information about our friend the 10th-century Longespee, like this:

http://www.robertsewell.ca/normandy.html#gen6