Christopher Lee Discusses Sword Fighting On Film

My personal observation has been that swords weighed more than we give them credit for now. One of the first historic swords I ever got my hands on was an Australian Army Sword from about WWI - very similar to this model: www.awm.gov.au/sites/default/files/exhibitions/alliesinadversity/images/enlarge/relawm24941.jpg

I was amazed by how heavy it really was, and how thick the blade was. Before then I'd read lots of people online saying how they were amazed "how incredibly light" a heavily restored excavated Viking Sword they held was. As time went by and I got a hold of more and more historic swords I started to get the impression that corrosion and restoration was giving people the mistaken impression that all historic swords were incredibly light and thin. Now I remind myself when weights are quoted on historic swords that restoration (especially of excavated examples) can remove a third of the material of the original sword.

There are some exceptions however. Smallswords, machetes (particularly modern ones) and others.

I think an overlooked function of the sword though is stopping power. It's not unusual for a sword not to cut something - all you need to do is try cutting things that have a few layers of clothing over them (let alone armour or a padded gambeson or boot). In this case I believe that swords were designed, for the most part, to have enough weight that if the cut failed (as often cuts do if they are not perfectly aimed or armour intervenes) to stop the opponent. When I use the word stop I mean for the sword to have the weight and momentum to say for instance take someone's legs out from under them (even if the cut fails) or if the sword strikes a shield with a hard cut and the shield remains intact there should be enough physical force behind it to drive the shield back. I think this is an important function of almost all swords because one could never be certain of the variety and comprehensiveness of the armour one would be using a sword against. For instance a Viking Sword might see action against unfortunate villagers during a pillage, and the villagers might have the misfortune of having little or no armour but may show up to the fight with stout pikes or spears. That same Viking Sword might then be part of a fight against a Byzantine Garrison where even the rank and file have exceptionally well made armour. In either case it is the ability to not only cut and thrust, but also use a sword's mass as a weapon that will be an important consideration.

It wouldn't surprise me at all Josh. All you have to do is cut with a sharp sword a few times and it quickly becomes less sharp - a less than razor sharp blade is much less likely to stick into a carcass I've found, and the same applies for heavy cardboard (the kind they ship dishwashers and washing machines in). Whereas a super sharp sword gets stuck because the material around it fits so tightly, the slightly blunter blade tends to bounce out as it begins to tear at the end of the cut.

Another interesting thing I've noticed is that a super sharp sword will cut a watermelon with relatively little impact shock around the cut - a stouter blade with a slightly less sharp edge tends to turn everything around the cut to mush even if the cut proceeds perfectly through the watermelon. A comparable result has been identified with regard to musket balls versus modern pointed bullets - musket balls can cause alot more damage though they may not penetrate as well, this damage can in some circumstances be much more troublesome to deal with in the field. Given the other numerous advantages of modern shells however I think it is unlikely that modern Armies will start using muskets or spherical rounds again any time soon! (With the exception of the shotgun)

There was a Vietnam Veteran who used to tour around schools in Australia called Peter Lee and he would give seminars to students about modern, medieval and ancient combat. He was a great guy, at least what I knew of him, though I'm told unfortunately he passed away in the mid nineties. I strongly remember that one of the observations he had made about many medieval swords is that razor sharp was not necessarily optimal; this was borne out by originals he had inspected and his own deduction that it requires the removal of quite a bit of material to keep a sword paper cutting sharp, and that the lifespan of an expensive sword would be considerably shortened if it were subjected to repeated intense sharpening after use - and repeated intensive sharpening coupled with the prerequisite loss of metal that it requires goes against what we know regarding swords remaining in continual use for hundreds of years from the migration era onward; a parabolic edge or secondary bevel where most of the sharpening takes place on the last milimeter of the blade edge seems more likely to me. John Clemens has made a video on Youtube pointing out that even an untouched factory fresh budget sword like a Tinker Bastard Sword from Hanwei can cut Tatami just fine, and I tend to agree. For the record I am not implying there is anything wrong with Hanwei or the Tinker Line, I think John Clemen's point is that even a sword with just a basic edge put on in it in a factory en masse with other swords can be perfectly fit to task - one does not need to hone an edge for two months as the Japanese do in order to create a sword that cuts efficiently - you only need to contemplate the straight edge razor or the guillotine for proof of this.

The convex edge found on executioner's swords is a good example. Swords of Justice as they were euphemistically referred to were expected to cut and do so regularly, as are Kuhkris - many of which double as tools in the case of the latter. Swords of Justice have a sharp, but well supported edge, Kukris tend to be sharpish with an even stouter reinforcement behind the cutting edge. The "pillow profile" that is typical of swords of justice was unpopular in Western Europe, but very popular in Byzantium where they were manufactured with a more slender blade silhouette to compensate for the extra weight a fuller might normally remove, these "pillow profile" or lenticular bladed swords were used by regular soldiers as well as prestige troops like Kataphracts. There is even an example of one such sword which probably belonged to a Varangian Guardsman - the elite bodyguard of the Emperor, or the Caesar's wine sacks depending on your perspective!

Byzantine Manufactured Viking Sword of Almost Certainly Having Belonged to a Varangian Guardsman

Kopis Style Byzantine Knife w/ Stout Blade Reinforcing Its Edge

Lenticular Byzantine Sword Also Probably From the Varangian Guard Given Its Unique Mixed Form of Viking Hilt and Bzyantine Style Blade

Another Similar Example of a Possibly Varangian Sword Which May Be One of The Only Two Hander Viking Swords Extant (That I know of)

This Stunning Ghurkha / Kukri Shows a Prominent Secondary Bevel & There Can Be No Argument This Knife is a Cheap One As It Was a Gift to None Other Than a Prime Minister!

A Sword of Justice Showing Distinct Evidence of a Lack Sharpening on the Very Last Milimeter or Two of the Edge and Nowhere Else