Real life swords....

[DamonJynx]

I'm a bit confused about sword edges. I went to a Highland Games event and there was a chap there who seemed quite knowledgeable on the way Celts fought back in the day (basically sword and spiked shield). He mentioned that most of the swords used by the Celts didn't have a fine edge as such because they would be too easy to damage. Is this true? I realise that Katana's and similar swords would have a sharpened cutting edge, but it seems (according to him) the majority have more axe-like edges rather than knife-like edges. Is he barking up the wrong tree?

 

[Jujitsudave]

From my amateur understanding, he's probably right. The europeans going way back to the Celts, used swords with heavy chopping blades. These weapons would hack through leather armour and although they were sharp, they were not razors like a Katana. Even against the Romans, the Celts used heavy hacking blades while the Romans favoured the gladius that emphasised stabbing.
Swords from feudal Japan were exceptional works of art that were designed with a superior edge that could even split a man's body in half. Set those same swords against chainmail, and it becomes utterly useless. This is not so with a Zweihander or Claymore. Japanese armour was very effective and resiliant, but did not offer full coverage like chainmail provided. It was mainly designed piecemail to protect vulnerable areas and was expensive for all but the wealthiest Samurai to procure.

 

[Dan True]

He is correct. The quality of iron ore found on the surface in most of Europe isn't fine enough to make sharp swords where the edge simply won't break of when used to parry. On top of this, if you made a sword sharp, it's edge would probably don't hold more than the first few hits.

In medieval reenactment, our swords often get cracks and bruises - from parrying blunted swords with less-than-I-Want-To-Kill-You force - imagine how damaged the blade must be if both swords have been sharpened, or by grinding into chainmail... After the first few blows the edge would be ruined anyway.

This does not mean that people back then did not maintain and sharpen their swords however, just that they were not as sharp as our kitchen knives.

- Dan

 

[Mixster]

I think he is right. The celtic blades were Iron, while Katanas are folded steel. Katanas would be a lot sharper, however, the blade would lose the fine edge much faster.
Iron swords do have the added drawback of low flexibility, which would make it break or bend from blows to it.

Do note that a Katana is technologically superior by between 500 and 2000 years (depending on whether you'd think the celts used the most advanced technology, and what period of the Katana you look at), so comparing the weapons is sort of like comparing a bow to an M1 Garand.

Btw, wikipedia has a decent article about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword

EDIT:
Not that they needed the extreme sharpness though. A sharp blade doesn't do much for armour penetration, and since you use a western sword in a hacking fashion, you could still penetrate limbs and make an arm worthless from a single blow. You probably wouldn't cut it straight off like when doing a cutting Katana blow. But does it matter whether your opponent dies instantly or lies screaming in the mud for a few minutes? He's out of the combat and you can move on.

 

[Lord Kruge]

I'm a bit confused about sword edges. I went to a Highland Games event and there was a chap there who seemed quite knowledgeable on the way Celts fought back in the day (basically sword and spiked shield). He mentioned that most of the swords used by the Celts didn't have a fine edge as such because they would be too easy to damage. Is this true? I realise that Katana's and similar swords would have a sharpened cutting edge, but it seems (according to him) the majority have more axe-like edges rather than knife-like edges. Is he barking up the wrong tree?

Basically. Google Oakeshott, the master historian of western swords, he'll dismiss much of the incorrect stereotypes of western swords such as the kind you get from katana-philes.

 

[Mixster]

I thought Michael Oakeshott was a philosopher?

 

[Vagni]

I agree with him.

I also believe swords would have been sharper nearer the tip for the first 1/3 or so maybe, the rest of the blade you use for parrying would have had a blunter edge.

Even a fairly dull edge can still split a shield or chop through leather with enough force.

 

[HalfOrc HalfBiscuit]

There's a story from the time of the Third Crusade that Richard the Lionheart and Saladin met to parley. In the course of their meeting they discussed the relative strengths of their weapons. Richard demonstrated the force of the western European longsword by cleaving through a helmet set on top of a wooden post. Saladin demonstrated the sharpness of his scimitar by throwing a piece of silk into the air and slicing it in two as it drifted to the ground.

 

[Mixster]

I agree with him.

I also believe swords would have been sharper nearer the tip for the first 1/3 or so maybe, the rest of the blade you use for parrying would have had a blunter edge.

Even a fairly dull edge can still split a shield or chop through leather with enough force.

Yeah, I've chopped wood with a dulled Falchion used for re-enactment fights.

 

[Ultor]

Not that they needed the extreme sharpness though. A sharp blade doesn't do much for armour penetration, and since you use a western sword in a hacking fashion, you could still penetrate limbs and make an arm worthless from a single blow. You probably wouldn't cut it straight off like when doing a cutting Katana blow. But does it matter whether your opponent dies instantly or lies screaming in the mud for a few minutes? He's out of the combat and you can move on.

The Spike TV show Deadliest Warrior does experiments with ancient (and modern) weaponry. One of the things that amazes me is just how deadly most close combat weapons are. The Gladius, the Roman Shortsword, for instance, was easily capable of chopping an arm off in one blow. Interestingly, the single biggest determinant of how much damage a weapon does appears to be correct weighting. The most impressive close combat weapon they've seen so far (according to the show's experts) was the Wallachian Kilij, a scimitar weighted at the tip, which cut clean through a whole pig carcass on one swing, just like a Katana.

As for the Celtic longsword, "The longsword decapitated a gel torso in three hits at 74 mph, breaking through the spinal cord on the first swing and through the cheekbone on the second swing. Tested against the Persian Immortal's armor, the longsword struck off metal scales with a force of 280 psi, enough to break a rib behind the armor. It cut a gel head through the nose and to the brain from the back of a chariot."

Gloranthaphiles should watch the Persian Immortal vs Celtic Warrior episode - it's as close as you'll get to Dara Happan vs Sartarite in real life...

 

[Mixster]

Yeah, but Deadliest warrior does some things very silly. They are probably right on the sword. But they set the effective range of the sling to be around 50 meters. I was like, wtf!?

Also, since they redefined the modern vs. ancient system, they've never tested the knight against anything that didn't use blackpowder. (they tested him against a pirate). I'm pretty sure that a full plate will break most things that doesn't have blackpowder.

The show is pretty good though, I'm looking forward to season 3.

 

[havercake lad]

Samurai armour was originally maximized to give optimum protection for a functioning horse archer facing arrow fire hence flared helmet and shoulder protection.

Warrior comparisons are often slightly invalid if the overall effect of strategy, tactics and economics are ignored. 'Warriors' do better one-on-one but usually get drubbed by soldiers in open battle.

Dropping into pedant mode ....If this thread is getting into 'historic' can we drop reference to 'chain mail' a word coined I believe in the 19th century to describe mail but which simple repeats a word using English and French forms.

 

[havercake lad]

A lot of dismembering blows would generally occur against foes who were not presenting an immediate threat in a melee. Most combatants have a tendancy to hold back somewhat on there exertions if they feel that it would leave them vulnerable.'

 

[Mixster]

Dropping into pedant mode ....If this thread is getting into 'historic' can we drop reference to 'chain mail' a word coined I believe in the 19th century to describe mail but which simple repeats a word using English and French forms.

Oh, I actually thought there was a difference between Ringmail and Chainmail? Something about the ring sizes or something. Must have been wrong, as I can find no source on this.

 

[Mikko Leho]

Oh, I actually thought there was a difference between Ringmail and Chainmail?

I think they are called mail (chain mail) and ring armour (ring mail). Ring armour has base to which rings are sewn, mail consists only interlocking rings.

 

[Jujitsudave]

Warrior comparisons are often slightly invalid if the overall effect of strategy, tactics and economics are ignored. 'Warriors' do better one-on-one but usually get drubbed by soldiers in open battle.

Exactly why I'm stoked about Season 3 of Deadliest Warrior. They are actually bringing in a third guy to explore the more tactical side of things That ought to look at things at a whole new angle. I love this show, but I agree with the other posters; the knight got a raw deal and I believe the Centurion as well.

 

[Redcrow]

I'm not a big fan of 'Deadliest Warrior'. While I find the weapon demonstrations interesting the matchups between warriors, more often than not, seems silly and ruins it for me.

 

[havercake lad]

An asset of the Japanese was actually the quantity of arms production the Nation was capable of rather than just quality. The adoption and manufacture of firearms was at a staggering rate compared to Europe until the Shogunate decided to deliberately slow the rate down with a licensing system.

 

[Simulacrum]

Not a big fan either. From what I have seen the science or at least the conclusions are pretty spurious. Just a bit of TV fun maybe, but the Taliban vs IRA episode was in particularly poor taste.

 

[Mixster]

Not a big fan either. From what I have seen the science or at least the conclusions are pretty spurious. Just a bit of TV fun maybe, but the Taliban vs IRA episode was in particularly poor taste.

Yeah, especially the fact that IRA was the one using set bombs. And they thought it was worse than a rocket launcher.
What do you think kills more people well placed C4 or rocket launcher? I know what I'd choose if fighting a resistance war.