Hank Reinhardt's The Book of the Sword (10 page)

Let me add something to the above. The rapier and the small sword were never military weapons. They may have been carried by some officers, but the rank and file used other weapons. By the time the two swords became popular in the 16th and 17th centuries, firearms had became the dominant feature of European battlefields. The katana, however, was used both as a battlefield weapon and for personal defense and dueling by the classes allowed to carry it. When firearms arrived in Japan in 1543, they were used to win major victories, then quickly banned. The Shogun wasn't stupid, and he could easily see the danger to the social order that firearms represented.

There are other examples, but let it suffice to say that the sword in Europe was a constantly evolving weapon, responding to styles of fighting, military needs, and fashion, whereas in the rest of the world the sword changed, but much more slowly.

A good example of this is the curved sword. Although there are curved Bronze Age swords, the weapon really came into its own with the development of iron and steel. It was widely used on the steppes of Central Asia, as the curved blade was most effective as a horseman's weapon. It gave more power to the slashing stroke and was not as likely to get caught in the body of the foe, which might cause you to lose your weapon.

The ancient Hungarians used a slightly curved saber during the period of the Magyar invasions (9th century AD). Although the Europeans became familiar with this sword, they do not seem to have adopted it. Just the reverse: after the Magyars settled down and became Hungarians they adopted the straight double-edge sword.

A Magyar type saber.
An 18th century Turkish kilij, 34 inches overall length. HRC25.
Antique shamshir, circa 1800, 36 inches overall length. HRC39.

In the Middle East the story was different. Most early Islamic swords, under the influence of the conquering Arabs, were straight and double-edged. With the Turkish invasion the curved sword found some acceptance, but did not become truly widespread until the Mongol invasion of the 13th century. Many types of curves were tried. Some were quite effective, like the Turkish kilij. It ended up with the beautiful, but ineffective shamshir of Persia.

The curved sword appears to be ideally suited for the swirling, flowing and ebbing tactics of steppe warfare. While many warriors carried, and used, lances and lassoes, their primary weapon was the bow. The steppe warrior avoided close personal combat if at all possible, preferring instead to kill from a distance. Once the battle was won, the curved sword was well suited for cutting down a retreating enemy, whether they were on foot or horseback.

But just because the curved sword was used on the steppes does not mean that it was the ideal cavalry weapon. The European medieval knight preferred the straight double-edged sword. The fight over which blade shape was best for cavalry lasted until the 20th century when both the British Army and the US Army adopted the straight thrusting sword as their cavalry weapon. The fight was rancorous and bitter, and the proponents of the straight blade barely won. I am sure that if horse cavalry were still around, the fight would still be going on.

British Life Guards saber with metal scabbard, circa 1850–1880, 39 inches overall length. HRC324.

The adherents of the straight blade pointed out that the thrust was more deadly than the cut, that many men had continued to fight even after receiving several saber blows to the head. Despite bleeding badly, they were able to continue the fight, while the man who had received a thrust almost never continued to fight.

The curved blade proponents would point out how often the cavalryman lost his weapon in the thrust, the number that had their wrists broken before the sword could be retrieved, and the terrifying effect of seeing a fellow soldier with large slashes on his face and body. Rarely were military sabers of the 18th and 19th century fully sharpened. Usually the blade of the saber was sharpened the last 7–8 inches below the point. The cavalry trooper was trained to try to strike with the last several inches, and this was very effective and also allowed the sword to free itself from the victim. The swords were also kept in metal scabbards, and of course this would wear off a sharp edge pretty quickly, but if the blade was sharpened only in the top portion, this would be unlikely to contact the metal scabbard.

Some cavalry sabers were not sharpened much at all. The Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest was roundly criticized for having his men sharpen their sabers. The theory was that a hard blow, even with an unsharpened blade, would split the skin, possibly crack the skull, and do a fair amount of damage. This is true to a degree, but there is no question that a sharper sword would do more damage.
^[1]

There is another tale that I always found interesting. During one of the numerous small wars fought by the British in India (I believe this was during the Mahratta Wars in the first decade of the 1800s), a group of British soldiers were badly cut up by native warriors. The wounds were most extraordinary. One man is reported to have been cut deep into the chest, another with having his cartridge box cut in two and he was still severely wounded by the sword blow. A young British officer was sent to investigate and see what type of mystical swords the Indians were using. It turned out they were using discarded British cavalry sabers. When questioned about their swordsmanship, one of the native troops is reported to have said, "Sahib, we run in and hit very hard!"

Anecdotal comments are all very well, but how do swords actually work? We understand how piercing works. The point is quite small, and just a small amount of pressure exerts tremendous force, several tons per square inch, and the point separates the material and enters it. The width of the blade will also govern just how much damage is done. A very thin blade can enter, and may not do much damage, whereas a large blade can cause severe damage. There are many cases of duels with small swords where one duelist received several thrusts and continued fighting. However, with a wide-bladed sword a thrust into the body will almost always cause the recipient to cease fighting. This is easy to understand as the wide blade will cause a great deal more trauma.

Cutting with a sword is somewhat more complex. Swords will cut using the principle of the wedge, but it can also cut as a saw. For a sword to cut the blade must be sharp. It would seem to follow that the sharper the sword the better it would cut. But this is dependent on the materials being cut. So let's start with the edge. There is nothing mysterious about an edge, it is simply a wedge, and the thinner it is, the sharper.

The edge acts on the wedge principle same as the point. The tremendous force concentrated on such a small space will cause the edge to penetrate the material. But there has to be force. Merely laying the edge on a surface will not cause it to cut. Even a razor can be touched to the skin without cutting. But the moment you put any pressure, or if you draw the blade along the surface, it cuts. This has frequently been explained by stating that most sharp edges, when examined under a microscope, show very tiny saw teeth. This is true for only a few edges. A great many edges will be somewhat smooth. But they will cut just as well. The reason is that even a small amount of friction will cause the blade to cut into the material.

One of the most fascinating swords I've encountered was a Persian blade, I estimated the date at about 1600 AD. The blade was curved, and the edge was composed of many small teeth, almost serrated. My thought on the sword was that it would work quite well against the usual mail shirt worn in the East. The mail was generally butted, and a downward blow from this sword would catch and tear the mail, while the following portion of the blade would cut and tear flesh. Alas, this is only speculation, as I have never had a chance to try this out.

But just any edge won't do. The edge needs to be backed up and it also needs mass. The backing and strength is provided by the blade itself, and the mass is furnished by the width and thickness of the blade. A light hit with a sharp blade may not penetrate even lightweight cloth armor. However, if you change the action from a straight downward force to one that even slightly slices, the blade will cut much quicker and deeper. This action, while more effective with a curved blade, will also work with a straight-bladed sword.

For a more detailed discussion of cutting with different swords, please see Chapter 13.

Oakeshott, Ewart,
The Archeology of Weapons.
The Boydell Press, Woodbridge, first printed in 1960.

Ffoulkes, Charles J.,
Inventory and Survey of the Armouries of the Tower of London
,
Vol. I
. His Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1916.

Menghin, Wilfried,
Das Schwert im Fruehen Mittelalter
. Konrad Theiss Verlag, Stuttgart, 1983.

Seitz, Heribert,
Blankwaffen I.
Klinkhardt & Bierman Gmbh., Muenchen, 1981.

[1] According to
The Deadliest Men
by Paul Kirchner, page 91, Forrest was surrounded and attacked by six Federals using sabers in April of 1865. He was struck repeatedly without effect, because the sabers were dull, and eventually killed several by pistol and escaped the rest. He later remarked, in reference to one who had hit him several times, "If that boy had known to give me the point of his saber instead of its edge, I should not have been here to tell you about it." —Whit Williams

The carnage of modern war is horrible, but make no mistake, the carnage of medieval battle was no less so. Although bows, crossbows, javelins and a few other missiles were used, the majority of the combat took place hand to hand. The weapons used were spear, sword, axe, mace, and variations of the above.

Until plate armor dulled the effectiveness of the sword (pun intended), it was the most popular of weapons. But axes, maces, and polearms were also much in evidence. The sword, however, due to its versatility, was the preferred close-quarters weapon.