People have been designing swords since the discovery and use of copper. They found that copper, even with a central rib down the blade, was not really a good material for swords. With the invention of bronze, swords became more practical. But even here the material helps to dictate the shape of the sword and consequently its capabilities and usage.
Iron gave a much wider range, and steel increased it even more. But there is so much more involved in sword design than merely the material involved. How was the sword to be used? How was it to be carried? What was the type armor it was likely to face? How strong was the individual carrying the weapon? And just as important, what was the fashion of the day? These are just a few of the questions that might be asked regarding the design of the sword. So let's examine it bit by bit.
PARTS OF THE SWORD
In discussing the sword most people like to start with the blade and separate it into three parts: the forte, which is the strong section of the blade near the hilt; the middle of the blade; and the foible, which is the weak section of the point. [Figure: Drawing of rapier parts.] This is fine if you happen to be talking about rapiers or nothing but straight-bladed European weapons. If you happen to be talking about a kora it makes no sense at all. (The kora is a down-curved Nepalese blade that ends in two cusps.) [Figure: Photo of kora from the collection of Hank Reinhardt] To me, when talking about swords and sword design it makes more sense to divide the sword into two basic parts, and then subdivide them and discuss each.
The two basic parts of the sword are the blade and the handle. The handle can be broken down into the grip, the guard (if it has one) and the pommel (if it has one). [Figure: Drawing of grip, guard & pommel]
The blade can be broken down into the body of the sword, the edge, and the point. Now it is quite possible for the sword not to have a point, as in the case of the above mentioned kora. It can also not have an edge (many thrusting swords did not have edges). [Figure: Drawing of sword, edge, point.]
The body of the sword, the blade, governs which working part, the point or the edge, is the most important, and it also governs how the sword is to be used in general.
There is some confusion about the development of fighting styles and swords. I have encountered people who believe that the fighting style was projected, and the sword designed around it, and others who believed that the sword was developed and the style evolved around it. Both of these ideas are true, and both are false. Confusing, isn't it?
The truth is that swords and fighting styles revolved and evolved around each other. This was particularly true in Europe, if less so in other parts of the world. A sword can have many purposes. It can be a cutting sword, it can be piercing sword, it can be both a cut and thrust weapon. It can be made to oppose lightweight armor, heavy mail, or even plate. It can be made to slice cleanly or to rip and tear, or even to crush. Japan, for instance, developed a particularly effective sword that was suited for their early forms of combat. Fighting and dueling styles evolved around this sword, and the sword remained essentially the same for close to a thousand years. Now, I know that the purist will scream that there were many differences over the years. But all of these differences are rather subtle, and to the casual observer, they all look pretty much the same.
Europe, however, seemed to revel in constantly trying new sword forms. This was due to constantly shifting and improving armor, as well as to changing tactics and concepts on the battlefield. Social changes allowed the carrying of swords during the normal course of the day, and this also caused differences in the style of swords. But it is not the purpose of this book to discuss all of the relevant sociological changes that took place. Nor, as it has been previously stated, to discuss the history of the European sword. Ewart Oakeshott has covered this better than anyone else, and I strongly recommend his books. You should start with The Archeology of Weapons.
THE EDGE
For a sword that has a cutting function, the working part of the blade is the edge. There is nothing mysterious about an edge, it is simply a wedge. It cuts by exerting a tremendous amount of pressure on a very small area. It will also cut when the blade is slid along material being cut. This is a result of both the wedge and the friction that the blade encounters. In addition to this, in many blades there will be very tiny teeth (when observed through a microscope), and these act as a saw by actually tearing the material.
Now, not wishing to be particularly bloody, I still have to point out that the sword is basically designed to cut flesh and bone. However, most people are rather reluctant to be cut, so they make many efforts to defend themselves with armor. So the swordmaker has to take into account the armor that his sword will be facing. This is reflected in the type of edge, as well as the shape and dimensions of the sword.
But let's look at the edge.
The edge of a sword must have support, and it must have mass to allow it to cut. The mass is achieved by either the width or the thickness of the blade, and this also supports the edge. Generally speaking a thin, flat blade will cut quite well. When a blade cuts into a substance, it must displace the substance it is cutting. Therefore, it is an advantage for the blade to be flat, and thus offer less resistance. There are problems with blades that are too thin. The temper of these blades must be exactly right. If the blade is too hard and not flexible enough, it will break. If it is too flexible, then the blade will flex during the cut, and may even turn slightly and thus not hit the object properly. In the many years that I have been playing with swords, I have seen both. I have encountered one sword that is extremely flexible and have seen a gentleman in India so skilled in its use that he could cut a lime while a friend stood on it, and not take off his friend's foot. But this takes skill and practice time far beyond that allotted to the ordinary soldier. Nor would it work particularly well in battle, as there is not the time to get set up.
Another way to overcome the resistance that the blade will encounter is the hollow ground blade. Although we usually think of a hollow ground blade in terms of a razor, many of the old blades are also ground this way. This type of grind has certain advantages. It lightens the blade, yet keeps it stiff and strong. On a double-edged blade this allows for an excellent cutting action, while keeping the rigidity needed for effective thrusting. [Figure: Drawing of hollow ground blade.]
In Westminster Abbey there is a truly beautiful little sword that is believed to have belonged to Henry V. This sword has a flat blade with a ridge in the center, and the grind that is called hollow ground. It is a very fast sword. I had an exact copy made for me, and the little blade is unbelievably fast. It would be quite effective against mail armor. One must always remember that not everyone on the battlefield wore plate. [Figure: Photo: Henry V sword from Hank's collection. #69]
But any flat or hollow ground blade will generally not be as strong as a blade with a greater thickness and more support for the edge. As with everything in life, you have a trade-off. The thicker the blade the stronger, but thickness comes with an increase in resistance and greater weight. The secret is, of course, a compromise between the two.
This is why many European swords have flat grinds. The single-edged swords, such as a falchion, are almost always flat ground, with wide, flat blades. The double-edged knightly sword, if it has a fuller—a groove down the blade—will have a flat grind from the fuller to the edge. [Figure: Photo of a antique falchion blade with modern hilt material from the collection of Hank Reinhardt. #41] [Figure: Photo of a double-edged sword reproduction from Hank's collection with fuller. #19]
The fuller, by the way, has nothing to do with channeling blood from your enemy. It is there to lighten the sword blade, while still leaving enough metal to support the edge.
The Japanese did an excellent job of combining cutting power and strength. On most European swords, the blade is ground almost to the edge. Then a different bevel, called the cutting bevel, is put on the final edge. The Japanese forego this last step, and grind the blade down to create a very sharp edge.
HOW THE SWORD WILL BE USED
Now that we have named the parts of the sword, we can take each type of sword in turn. But we must also look at how the sword is intended to be used, since form follows function. Swords can be roughly broken down to: cutting swords, thrusting swords, and cut-and-thrust swords. Actually they can be broken down much, much further, but that isn't necessary in a discussion of design.
THRUSTING SWORDS
In thrusting swords, and in cut-and-thrust weapons where the thrust is the dominant feature, care must be taken that the point is effective. In many swords that are designed to go up against both plate and mail, you will often have a point that is thicker than the rest of the blade. [Figure: Peter illo of point thicker than rest of blade] This reinforced point is excellent for splitting the links of mail, both butted and riveted. [Figure—Photo by Peter Fuller of Hank cutting mail] It can also find the small openings in the plate armor and force its way in. This reinforcement is found on swords, but also in spears and the spikes of many polearms. [Figure—photo reinforced point on polearm, one of Hank's antiques?] The point acts as a wedge and, due to the small surface area, will exert many tons of force on a small area. But the point must also have the support of a stiff blade in order to exert the force needed to penetrate. Even the unarmored human body can offer a surprising amount of resistance if the thrust is not straight on, or a bone is hit.
RAPIERS
The most obvious sword that one thinks of in regards to thrusting is the rapier. Hollywood has made it seem that the rapier must have a highly flexible blade. How many times have you seen the hero flexing his rapier before engaging in a deadly duel with the villain? Hollywood was so in love with fencing that it borrowed many fencing conventions and passed them off as real combat methods. Many fencers will flex their blades before a bout. This limbers up the blade, and it will also give it a slight set. This slight bend will allow a fencer to go over an opponent's blade, while it will also assure that the blade will bend, which you want in a sport fencing blade. Fencing swords are designed not to hurt people, exactly the opposite of real swords. A good fighting rapier needs to be stiff enough to puncture, but not so stiff as to be brittle should the sword be hit a hard blow in a parry to drive it aside. This combination of stiffness and flexibility must be achieved through tempering. Merely adding material to the sword blade to make it stiffer only adds weight, and this would slow down a rapier.
As the rapier became established as the European civilian weapon of choice, starting in the 1500s, efforts were made to improve it. This led, at first, to extremely long rapier blades, swords with a blade length of 54 inches, or even more. The idea was that if your blade was longer, then you had a chance of hitting your opponent before he hit you. This is only partially correct, as a slightly longer blade helped, but not a great deal. It was found that they were quite clumsy, and an opponent could close inside the point and then you were at his mercy. Just as bad, and maybe even worse, they were damnably hard to wear, as you were forever knocking over things and causing people to trip. Having attended some event where many were wearing rapiers, I can testify that they can be quite annoying when the wearer does not hold it close to his body.
As a fencing style of swordplay became more and more popular as a method for settling various disagreements of a serious social nature, efforts were made to improve the sword. Early in the 17th century the cup hilt was developed, and then the dish hilt. [Figure: photo of antique cup hilt sword in Hank's collection. #25A] Various blade lengths and sections were tried, until the small sword was developed. This is considered by many to be the ultimate fencing weapon. Generally a hollow triangle in cross section, with a blade length between 31–36 inches, it was very light and very fast. One variation, called the "colichemarde" had a blade that thickened at the forte of the blade. [Figure: Peter drawing of a colichemarde] This allowed it to be used to parry cuts from heavy blades. Although as stated, it was quite fast, it suffered from the problem of not having any edges. In a really nasty fight this made gripping the blade a viable and useful tactic.
THE TUCK
However, this was done to another kind of thrusting sword, the tuck or the estoc from northern Europe. [Figure: photo of tuck from Hank's collection. #25C] This long, straight sword of the 15th century was intended solely for thrusting and the earlier versions were designed to penetrate armor, either mail or plate. Some of the later versions do not have quite the thick, heavy blades of the earlier models, but have blades that are almost heavy rapiers. Many think that these weapons were the ancestor of the rapier, but I do not think it is possible to know this for sure.
As an interesting side note: many are not aware that the Turks used a large number of estocs. There are many in the museums in Istanbul. Although I have not been fortunate enough to study them personally, a fellow sword lover has sent me some photos and descriptions. They are impressive, and are truly bars of sharpened steel. The blades appear to be about one-half inch in thickness, square in section, with a smooth, even taper and a very strong point. You have no doubt that in the hands of a strong man it would penetrate plate armor.
CUTTING SWORDS
Not all swords are for thrusting, and for many the primary purpose is the cut. Even so, there are very few who wish to do away with the point entirely. Thus cut-and-thrust swords have a point, just not as pronounced as on the thrusting sword. The blade in back of the point is somewhat wider, and thus able to give a stronger blow than the narrow blade of a thrusting sword. It is an effective sword, doing both cutting thrusting with equal facility. [Figure: photo from Hank's collection of cut-and-thrust sword. #53?]
But there is one type of point that has been generally ignored, and that is the cutting point. I know that it sounds like a contradiction in terms, but it really isn't.
When you cut with a sword you usually try to hit with the optimal striking point. This is the area of the blade where you will encounter the least amount of vibration. This is the same as the sweet spot on a baseball bat or a tennis racket. Swords will have two such spots, one well up the blade and one close to the hilt. To find them all you need to do is to tap the sword on a stump or something of that nature (whatever you do, don't use a piece of furniture; wives are quite unreasonable about this sort of thing). When you find the area that does not produce vibration, this is the sweet spot. When you strike with this area you are able to deliver the greatest amount of force to the given area. But there is a problem with this. When you strike with this area, you are effectively shortening your sword. I have a superb recent copy of an early medieval sword. The blade is 32 inches long. However, the sweet spot is only 22 inches from the hilt. When I strike with this section, I am reducing the length of my sword. [Figure: photo of reproduction early medieval sword from the collection of Hank Reinhardt, sweetspot indicated] This is true with swords such as the katana, which don't have very long blades to start with. Now, the katana overcomes this problem easily. The Japanese developed a very effective cutting technique.[Figure: photo of reproduction katana #105 from the collection of Hank Reinhardt with sweet spot indicated]
But we are talking about the design of swords. So look at the history and the development of the rapier to small sword, and then look at the Japanese katana.
There is no question that the katana is perfectly suited for the style of combat in which it is used. A relatively short blade (about 28 inches average) with a two-handed handle, it was capable of delivering some truly terrifying cuts, and also some perfectly acceptable thrusts. The sword was in use for close to a thousand years, and in that time there was very little change other than in materials and the skill of manufacture.
Japan, having a very stable (some might say static) culture, with very little outside contact, saw no reason to change. Whereas Europe, quite dynamic, with plenty of outside contact, was constantly changing.
If you cut with a broad-bladed strongly tapering medieval style sword you will use the optimal striking area. Should you happen to hit with the top 3–6 inches of the blade, you will not be able to deliver a very strong cut. A thickened thrusting point produces a great deal of drag, enough to reduce the depth of the cut fifty per cent or even more.
The katana has a point that is rounded, and every bit as sharp as the rest of the sword. This allows a cut with no drag, as the point slices its way through the material. In most cases the katana was used so that the attacks were made with the front 6 inches of the sword. This also prevented the sword from being hung up in the body of the opponent. Remember, we are talking war and killing. People do not remain still when hit with a sharp sword, and it is possible for the sword to be trapped in the body, and pulled from the hand. This was also one of the reasons that the curved cavalry saber was popular.
This rounded cutting point is, however, also quite effective in the thrust. The edges of the curve are sharp and are able to penetrate well by simply cutting its way in. The shape of the point, almost a quarter circle, is quite strong, and with sufficient force able to cut through mail. [Figure: Drawing of quarter circle point]
Now, I can't say that the development of the curved point was done deliberately; it could have easily been accidental. But it does work.
But the Japanese were not the only ones to develop a cutting point. The Europeans did it, particularly the Vikings. It has often been said that the Vikings and the medieval knight did not know about the thrust. This is based on the frequency of somewhat rounded points and that it is often said that the Viking and medieval sword are "far too heavy to fence with."
Well, that's true, they are too heavy to fence with. But they were never made for fencing, they were made for fighting and killing your enemy. As for thrusting, the Vikings used spears a great deal, and the sagas record many instances of someone thrusting his sword into his opponent's body.
For instance, in Njal's Saga, one sea battle is related that occurred between Hrut and Atli Arnvidarson, who was a pirate. When the two fleets converged and Atli found out that Hrut served King Harald Grey Cloak, battle was imminent. Atli remarked that, "your Norwegian kings have had much for my father and myself." And Hrut replied, "That's your hard luck, not theirs." Atli snatched up a spear and hurled it at Hrut's ship, where it struck a man and killed him. That was the beginning of the battle and it was quite a fierce one. The pirates had trouble gaining a foothold on Hrut's ship. Ulf the Unwashed (wonderful name, that) was laying about him with sword and spear when one of Atli's men, called Asolf, leapt on to Hrut's ship before Hrut became aware of him and turned to face him. Asolf lunged with his spear and drove it through Hrut's shield before Hrut, with a single blow, killed him. Ulf the Unwashed remarked, "That was a heavy blow, Hrut." At that very moment Atli noticed a gap in Ulf's defense and hurled a spear that went right through him.
My own experiments have shown that a rounded sword point can be used successfully in the thrust provided that the sword is sharp. It should be remembered that mail was not worn all the time, nor was it worn by everyone, even in a battle. The improvement in range and cutting ability more than makes up for a slight decrease in cutting power.
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.
CURVED SWORDS
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). [Figure: Drawing of a Magyar curved saber] 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.
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. [Figure: Photo of antique kilij from the collection of Hank Reinhardt] It ended up with the beautiful, but ineffective shamshir of Persia. [Figure: Photo of shamshir from the collection of Hank Reinhardt. #539]
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. [Figure: Photo of Hank's collection, British Lifeguards Saber with metal scabbard. #324] 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.
The adherent 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.*
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!"
HOW SWORDS WORK
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 1600AD. The blade was curved, and the edge was composed of many small teeth, almost serrated. My thought on the sword is that it was 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.
Suggested reading by Hank:
Oakeshott, Ewart, The Archeology of Weapons. The Boydell Press, Woodbridge, first printed in 1960.
Also suggested by the editors:
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.
* 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 time, "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