On
Damaged Edge…
Historical
Evidence,
Practical Experience
By J. Clements
Though perishable tools that wore eventually worn out with usage, swords were expensive, difficult to make and prized, and a keen edge could mean the difference between life and death.
It is the stuff of Hollywood sword-fights and renaissance-faire fight shows: a
swordsman cuts with his or her blade and in defense the
opponent lifts their own sword to directly receive the
blow at 90-degrees on the center of their blade. The two
blades clash in the middle edge-on-edge with a loud “clang!” There is just one problem. No two cutting-swords—historical
or replica, authentic or modern, Asian or European —would
withstand such abuse without their edges being severely
gouged in the process. This
is a problematic issue of historical fencing exploration
that can be addressed reasonably and factually.
When it comes to historical swordsmanship, such a
description stands in direct contrast to how edged weapons
were actually handled and employed. It contradicts the
very dynamic of effective and efficient fighting and resembles
little in the way of sword combat described in Medieval
and Renaissance fencing literature.
With
sharp swords fighting like this instantly results in deep
nicks on their edges thereby rendering them in a matter
of minutes nearly ruined for cutting.
The phenomenon worsens when both combatants simultaneously cut at the same
angle, causing the two edges to bite even more forcibly
into one another. This
aftermath of trashed edges is the reality never shown
in Hollywood
fight scenes and seldom paid attention to in staged combat
displays or stunt-fencing shows.
When the edges of
a cutting-sword become severely gouged and nicked there
is no question that as a weapon it was considered less
effective and much less valuable. This is exactly why
taking a cut on your edge in defense or bashing blades
edge against edge was avoided whenever possible.
The issue of proper edge alignment for counter-striking
defense is itself something that has already been covered
and explained on this subject. But, the myth persists among many sword aficionados
today that historical sword blades were either able to
sustain such damage without being quickly ruined, or else,
were readily abused in this way as perishable tools with
no noticeable deficiency in their function. As we shall
see neither argument is supported by historical evidence.
Historical Evidence on the Issue
Discussing Viking sword and shield combat,
the late sword authority Ewart Oakeshott himself recognized:
“It was only when the shield had been so cut up that it
was useless that one used one’s sword to parry with, and
then one would try only to use the flat of it, for if
sword-edge clashed with edge much damage resulted.” (Oakeshott,
The Archaeology
of Weapons, p. 158-159). Examples of the Medieval
view toward occurrences of such “edge against edge” trauma,
whether from simultaneous strikes or accidental parry,
are clear in their meaning.
In the Norse tale, Kormac’s
Saga (Chapter 11, The Fight On Leidarholm),
Kormac parries Bersi’s
sword, Hviting
(“Whitting”), using the edge
of the sword, Skofnung,
which he had borrowed from his friend, Skeggi. In the process he breaks the point off of Bersi’s sword but also badly nicks Skofnung and this upsets him, since, being Skeggi’s
sword, Skeggi was “greatly annoyed.”
Later we read how, “The notch in Skofnung
they whetted, but the more they whetted the bigger it
was.” In other words, because they did not like this
kind of edge damage they tried but failed to polish it
out.
From the 12th century Norse saga of Grettir the Strong, a passage in chapter 82 reads:
“So mighty was the blow that the sword could not hold
against it, and a piece was broken out of the edge” (http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/OMACL/Grettir).
This description does not mean the edge was
supposed to be able to take the blow, however,
and the example is entirely consistent with modern experiments
in which sections of sword edges are literally shorn off
from strong cuts of other sword edges.
In Snorri Sturlson’s
13th century saga, Heimskringla,
a sea battle occurs between the Norse King Olaf and a
crew of Danes and Swedes: “Tryggveson’s men, he observed
with surprise, were striking violently on Eric’s; but
to no purpose: nobody fell. ‘How is this?’ asked Tryggveson. ‘Our swords are notched and blunted, King; they
do not cut.’ Olaf stept down
to his arm-chest [and] delivered out new swords.”
(Chapter III, Early Kings of Norway.
Thomas Carlyle. Volume 19. http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/OMACL/Heimskringla).
Thus, we have here a specific example of complaints about
damaged swords failing in combat and needing to be replaced.
A dramatic example of the rapidity by which terrific
edge damage is produced on sharp blades hacking at one
another can be seen in the Viking Sword video by sword expert Hank Reinhardt (Paladin Press,
2001). Even from only moderately strong blows the hardened
steel blades quickly end up looking like they were gnawed
by beavers.
From c.1170 in the Medieval text, Yvain or, The Knight with the Lion, by the French poet, Chretien deTroyes (author of the
first major version of Arthurian legends), we read of
a knightly combat wherein the arms and armors are ruined
from heavy use: “The condition of the swords is not improved,
nor that of the helmets and shields, which are dented
and split; and the edges of the swords are nicked and
dulled. For they strike each other violently, not with
the flat of the swords, but with the edge.” (Part III:
Vv. 4635-Vv. 6818. English translation by W.W. Comfort). In Hartmann von Aue’s 12th century Arthurian epic, Erec, we also read how the title hero while dealing strong blows against the sturdy maile armor of his opponent, “his blade lost much of its sharpness.” (Lines 9219-9246, Resler edition).
In the chronicle of the deeds of the
15th century knight, Don Pero Niño, we read
how in a fight against the Moors, “the blows fell upon
good armour, though not so good but that it was broken
and bent in many places.
The sword he used was like a saw, toothed in great
notches, the hilt twisted by dint of striking mighty blows,
and all dyed in blood.”
At the end of the siege of the City of Tuy
in 1397, we are also told again how Niño’s sword “blade
was toothed like a saw and dyed with blood.”
Later, Pero Niño sent this sword by a page to France,
“with other presents to my Lady of Serifontaine.”
(De Gamez,
p. 196.) Given the context of this description, where
Nino’s shield, armor, and sword are all damaged from especially
heavy fighting, it would not seem unreasonable that he
then gives his ruined sword away as a token of his chivalric
courage. Certainly, we have no way of knowing if his sword
edge was damaged from striking armor and shield rims or
from striking other blades, let alone from parrying cuts
(something less likely if he had a shield and full armor
as described). Regardless,
the recognition that Nino’s sword edge had sustained heavy
damaged so that it looked “like a saw” and was “toothed
in great notches” from use is indicative that such a condition
was certainly not a good thing for a functional blade.
Above all, he did not enter combat with his prized weapon
in such a condition.
In
1476, it was recorded that sixty sous parisis were paid to the executioner of Paris
“for having bought a large espée à
feuille,” used for beheading the condemned, and “for having
the old sword done up, which was damaged, and had become
notched whilst carrying out the sentence of justice upon
Messire Louis de Luxembourg.”
(Paul Lacroix. Manners,
Custom and Dress During the Middle Ages and During the
Renaissance Period. Chapter on Punishments. 1875.
http://www.gutenberg.net/1/0/9/4/10940/10940-h/10940-h.htm).
That an executioner’s sword, with its especially broad
and thin blade not intended for combat, would have its
edge “notched” from chopping through bare stationary necks,
is perhaps odd. Unless we consider that as it sheared
through its target it either was affected by bone or struck
something resistant underneath. That it was being re-polished
(”done up”) however is not surprising since such beheading
swords were quite wide and capable of repeated sharpening.
In
Shakespeare’s 1599 play, Twelfth Night (Act 3,
Scene 4), Sir Toby Belch declares of a man, “He is knight,
dubbed with unhatched rapier...”
Although in this case, “hatch” could possibly mean
simply decorated with etched markings or holes, it may
also refer to a pristine unused weapon without sign of
trauma from forcible contact on targets or other blades.
In Shakespeare’s 1597, The First Part of King Henry IV, set in c.1415, Falstaff after having
fought several opponents refers with disgust to his own
damaged sword edge, saying: “I am a rogue, if I were not
at half-sword with a dozen of them two hours together…my
sword hacked like a hand-saw—ecce signum!” [i.e., behold the mark]. While Falstaff is being deceitful, he wants
to be believed and as the play is no farce his account
must be considered reasonably plausible. When Prince Henry
comes to ask how Falstaff’s sword came to be so hacked,
Peto answers, “Why, he hacked
it with his dagger, and said he would swear…he would make
you believe it was done in fight.” (act II, scene IV).
This would indicate that sword edges were (not surprisingly)
damaged through intense combat. But it says nothing as
to how it technically might occur or what
the consequences of such damage would be to the weapon’s
utility. The mention of half-swording, where a sword is
used almost like a short staff, is interesting. In Macbeth
(c1605), at one point in scene VII the lead character
contemplates killing himself rather than fighting his
enemy, MacDuff. Macbeth refers to his “sword with an unbatter’d edge, I sheathe again undeeded.” Once more the reference is made to a blade that
has not seen use as being one that has received no edge
trauma. Yet, we are not told precisely what portion
of the blade would be marked or what degree of damaged
could be expected. Is it to the edge or the flat? Near
the hilt where you defend or near the point where you
strike? Or perhaps in the middle where you engage and
bind on other blades?
Describing a clownish bumbler
in his 1607 poem, The Begger’s
Ape (published anonymously in 1627), Richard Niccols
wrote: “A rusty Sword hee carryed
by his side, And at his backe a Dagger well ytide,
For many hackes therein made long agoe, Sufficient
proofes did of the mettall
show.” Whether
Niccols meant the dagger or
the rusty sword (or both) had the “many hackes”
of “proof” is not clear, but his intention that the character
was ill-equipped and in disarray was unmistakable. Given
that parrying daggers of this time were specifically designed
to catch or block the cuts (and thrusts) of swords, his
meaning must be taken in light of other similar examples.
It
should be noted that the same physical laws regarding
edge damage also apply to the use of traditional Asian
swords. For example, in one interview an expert of the
Japanese, Daito-Ryu style, senior swordmaster
Tokimune Takeda noted: “In order to cut your opponent, you
need to set the blade of your sword in a specific position;
you need to turn your sword this way [gesturing]. You
receive your opponent’s sword with the [blunt] back of
your sword and then you turn your sword to cut him. This
is not how you hit your opponent with a bokken [wooden
sword]. Since a real sword has a sharp blade, you need
to receive your opponent’s blade with the back of your
sword. You should not receive it with your blade [edge]
because if you do so using a real sword, the blade will
be nicked. But if you receive your opponent’s sword with
the back of your sword and then go to cut him with your
blade, the cutting edge will never be nicked.” However,
the interview author also comments that: “Other classical
sword schools, such as the Tenshin
Shoden Katori
Shinto-ryu, the Yagyu
Shinkage-ryu and the Tatsumi-ryu,
taught to receive cuts with either the side of the blade
or the lower edge. This is because the metal making up
the back of a Japanese sword is softer, and a direct blow
to the back of the blade would 'likely' cause it to snap.
Practitioners of these schools were evidently willing
to risk a nick to avoid breaking the sword.” (Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu: Conversations with Daito-ryu
Masters, edited by Stanley A. Pranin. Koryu Books, 2000. Copyright 1995 by Aiki News.) However, noted
swordsmith Paul Champagne, who studies the historical
technology of both European and Asian blades, notes that
softer steel, by its nature, does not "snap"
but rather, simply dings more easily. He adds that not
all of the construction techniques for Japanese swords
had soft backs. A strong cut on the back can cause an
edge defect to open up with the natural rebound of the
blade. (Personal correspondence with the author, September,
2004). In contrast to Japanese, Medieval European cutting-swords
do not have an outer layer of softer metal and were designed
to be especially resilient when receiving blows on their
flat sides.
Employing the flat rather than the edge
to parry and deflect is also prominent in traditional
Chinese cut and thrust swordsmanship as is the familiar
use of the forte to close and bind. Unlike what is constantly
depicted in the exaggerated and fantastical operatic forms
of Chinese swordplay, the combat effective style does
not clash sharp edges. Dr. Jwing-Ming
Yang, who while holding a MS in physics and a PhD in mechanical
engineering, is a 37 year veteran martial artist and author
of six books on Chinese martial arts, notes:
“Since the sword is double-edged, using either
edge to block will dull or nick the blade. With the sword,
only that third of the blade nearest the hilt is designed
for vigorous blocking. The sharpened part of the blade
should not be allowed to contact the opponent’s weapon.
Therefore, a defensive attack, without blocking, is the
best sword technique, and a sliding block, followed by
an attack, is the second best. The least desirable defense
is to block with the dull area of the blade.” (Taiji Sword, Classical Yang Style. Jwing-Ming Yang. YMAA Publications,
Boston 1999,
page 20). Again, we see preferred defensive techniques
and then others that damage blades deemed less desirable.
Chinese sword researcher and authority
on Chinese swordsmanship, Scott Rodell,
similarly writes: “Generally speaking, all deflections
should be with the flat of the blade.” When parrying he adds, “the edges do not meet
perpendicular to each other, and no edge damage should
occur.” Just as in Medieval and Renaissance European swordplay,
he adds it is important that “any deflection should be
executed as close to the guard as possible.” Rodell also complains that because modern exponents of Chinese
sword styles are “never called upon to defend their lives
with a sword” it “has led virtually all of today’s practitioners
to go for flash instead of accuracy. They might be waving
a magic wand, considering the sloppiness of their cuts
and the flimsiness of the practice weapon in general use.”
(Chinese Swordsmanship – The Yang Family Taiji Jian Tradition. Annandale,
VA. Steven Stars Books,
2003. p. 23-25). We
can sympathize with his observations. The same problem
exists in the modern practice of all historical sword
arts today.
The Technicalities of the Issue
We might ask what about all those 18th
and 19th century fencing styles that specifically
instructed to “parry with the edge”? How later texts on swordplay using broadsword,
saber, cutlass, or spadroon taught
using the edge to receive cuts is
a largely misunderstood and misinterpreted area of fencing
history. These works are explicit—and specific—in that
this is to be performed only using the lower quarter of the blade above the
hilt (the forte or strong). They do not
instruct to use the entire length or the sharp portion
of the blade to block with. This receiving of cuts
with the forte in broadsword and sabre texts is actually
consistent with earlier 16th century cut-and-thrust swordplay
where closing and binding against the opponent’s own forte
was standard. The
manner in which these later styles differed in their parrying
from earlier methods has
been discussed elsewhere.
Yet, even in the 18th and
19th centuries there were those who went out
of their way to address how edges were damaged when this
rule was ignored and the sword was passively held out
to block cuts. H. Blackwell, in his 1705, English Fencing
Master, even declared, "The ancients parried with
their bucklers. They never parried with their blade."
In the English army’s 1796 Rules
and Regulations for the Sword Exercise of the Cavalry,
we have among the clearest examples of a later fencing
style that continued the older method of using the flat
and not the edge to receive blows: “The utmost attention
must be paid not to oppose the edge to the enemy’s sabre
when it can be avoided.” (p. 28). Additionally, in the Instruction pour la cavalerie (“Instruction
for the Cavalry”), first published in Berlin,
1796, all the parries are apparently made with the flat
or with the back of the saber.
Frederick Wroughton’s 1830, The Broad
Swordsman’s Pocket Companion,
instructed that a vertical cut to the head was
guarded by a side cut hitting edge on flat, a cut to the
wrist was guarded by receiving it on the flat of the ricasso,
and a cut to the left side was guarded by receiving it
on the back of the blade. In their 1890 book, Broadsword
and Single-Stick, Lord Headley & C. Phillipps
Wolley stated: “It is important to bear in mind that the
cut should be received with the guard as much as possible
on the slant; i.e. you should endeavor to make the opponent’s
blade glance off yours at an angle...” (Headley, p. 25).
As did almost all the texts on this subject from
the 18th and 19th centuries, they
also instructed, “with all guards and parries in actual
practice, the 'forte,' or half nearest the hilt, should
be the portion of the blade which meets the opponent’s
sword when the attack is made.” (Headley, p. 40).
These two statements cannot be taken out of context
and together their meaning is clear. But, such instructions are routinely ignored
by modern enthusiasts who permit cuts from any portion
of the attacker’s edge to be received on any part of their
own edge.
In the broadsword fencing section of, Defensive Exercises, from 1840, Donald Walker stated for instance, “Great care should be taken to preserve the edge of the blade, by allowing the back alone to bear upon the scabbard.” (Walker, p. 109). We might ask if harm can come to an edge merely by scraping it along a metal sheath, imagine what the damage would be when forcibly struck by a direct blow?
The 1853, Cavalry: Its History &
Tactics, by Captain Louis Nolan, addressed how in the
Crimean war, "The swords, blunted by steel scabbards,
are not efficient weapons." (Chapter III, Cavalry
in General). One French cavalry general from 1863 commenting
on sword sharpness similarly described that, “It is no
trifling matter to sharpen the edge of a sabre. The French
sabre has a bevel (a fault tolerated by no other people
whose cavalry knows how to use the sabre); the greater
the angle of this bevel the less deeply can the blade
penetrate. If,
in sharpening the blade, you increase instead of diminish
this fault, you render the blade almost useless—a stick
would be better than your sabre. Remember, then, that
the sharper the angle of the bevel, the more deeply your
sabre will cut.” We
can add, the more acute this bevel is the more easily
the edge succumbs to being gashed, folded over, turned,
and blunted. The general then proceeded to explain that
troopers during the Napoleonic period preserved the upper
part of the blade “as intact as possible…for use in combat,”
even carrying small files with them to sharpen it when
it became dull. He further declared, “Two things contribute
largely to the rapid destruction of the edge of a blade:
The first is the carelessness with which it is pushed
into the scabbard, or drawn out of it; the second is the
shaking and rubbing of the blade in the scabbard while
kept there.” It instructs to therefore avoid “rubbing
of the edge.” (De Brack, p.
44).
An 1857 account from a British Officer in Northern India facing down a Sikh swordsman described how his sword was ruined as a result: “He was a strong, powerful man...From this gentleman there was no escape; and, fortunately for me, I had my old twenty-fourther [regulation broadsword] with me, which I had two or three days before put in good shaving order [made sharp]. With this I was obliged to act on the defensive, till I could catch my formidable opponent off his guard. He cut, I guarded; he thrust, I parried; until he became aggravated, and set to work with that impetuosity and determination pretty generally understood by the phrase “hammer and tongs;” in the course of which he nearly cut my poor twenty-fourther in pieces.” (Shipp, p. 191). To go at something “hammer and tongs” is an old blacksmith’s phrase (cited as early as 1708 by the OED) meaning to work hard at shaping the metal. In this case it refers to the opponent having repeatedly struck hard at his weapon so that it was damaged as a result.
If damage
to the sharp upper edge portion of a blade is to be avoided,
and a sharp edge is so easily damaged by even a scabbard,
we can well appreciate what would happen when it forcibly
struck another hard thin edge. This
author had the occasion to once play with actual specimens
of late 19th century regulation British military issue
heavy military sabers, the edges of which indeed gouged
significantly upon simple edge-on-edge parries.
The Mechanics of the Issue
When we consider how powerful sword blows
were that could damage armor and split helms, it is easy
to imagine what they did to thin sword edges.
Even blades without any real edge sharpness such
as rapiers will quickly accumulate a multitude of tiny
dints and nicks along their length from the simple blade-to-blade
contact occurring during practice. This applies even more
so to wider swords with dedicated cutting edges used in
earnest. On such cutting blades, edges may be quite hard but they are very
thin after all. They
are too fine to be intentionally placed in the path of
oncoming strikes. These edges need to be kept sharp and free of
nicks or gouges. How
could a dented, nicked, and chewed-up edge on a real blade
possibly cut effectively? How then blades with edges horribly
serrated along their length from constant edge-on-edge
parrying properly slice, draw, or shear targets?
If such damage is limited to the thicker
forte this is not an issue, but otherwise it is of fundamental
importance. For example, the anonymous 1796, Rules and Regulations for the Sword Exercise of the Cavalry (p. 73),
states that in cutting effectively, “Precision
in the application of the edge is…necessary…It is
therefore requisite to acquire correctness of execution
by frequent practice, which in order to preserve the swords,
must be addressed to substances of least resistance.”
In the war of 1812, a British naval captain
received a letter of reprimand for the poor condition
of his ship’s swords. Their edges had been damaged in
practice by inexperienced crewmen. As the record attested,
the captain, “knowing nothing gave sailors so much confidence
in [combat] boarding as the knowledge of the use of the
broadsword, he had caused his crew to be regularly exercised
by the serjeant of marines.”
But as the letter states, “In consequence of drilling
the crew of one of his Majesty’s ships to the broad-sword
exercise, the edges of the cutlasses had been jagged,
as might naturally be expected. On the cutlasses being
returned into store, the…Board of Ordinance considered
the subject as one which deserved their interference;
and without entering into the merits of the case, despatched
the captain a letter, officially reprimanding him for
his negligence in permitting these weapons to be thus
abused.” (Gilkerson, p. 102-103, citing The Naval Sketch-Book, Vol. I, 1831).
Thus, here we have a modern admission that using sharp
swords incorrectly obviously produces unnecessary edge
damage. This is undeniably apparent today when we conduct
experiments blocking even moderately strong cuts with
the edge or in clashing two sharp edges together.
Sword historian and expert fencer, Captain R. F. Burton, in
his 1876 text on infantry sword exercise pointed this
out clearly when he commented: “The ‘Febble’,
or weak half, is that contained between the point and
the centre; this, the proper part for the Cut or attack
is ground to a thinner edge, and consequently is more
liable to an injury from another sword if the Cut be not
very true.” (Burton, A New System of Sword Exercise for Infantry,
p. 32). A cut was “not true” when it missed its target
and instead struck the opponent’s own edge. This would
not be mentioned by Burton
if such damage wasn't something to be concerned about
and avoided.
When
real swords were damaged on their edges, they could, depending
upon the severity of the distress, be reground or re-polished
to remove the trauma. This would of course require the
entire edge of hardened steel be ground down, not just
the damaged portion. A blade could only sustain so much
of this before the edge’s bevel extended into the softer
inner core of sandwiched steel. At this point, an edge
of particular sharpness could no longer be maintained.
Swedish archaeologist and Bronze Age
sword researcher Kristian Kristiansen notes that on ancient swords, “the blade
below the hilt is the area of defence and here one often
finds severe damage and resharpening.” He adds, “On some
swords, transverse line or ridges on the midrib of the
sword blade suggest that a technique of warding off with
the flat side of the blade was used as well.” (Kristiansen,
p. 323). His findings are entirely consistent with those
frequently found on wide cutting blades of the Medieval
and Renaissance eras as well as the techniques for parrying
found in their associated martial arts literature. He
further notes that, “On older swords with a long history
of combat leading to frequent damage and repair/resharpening,
the lower part of the shoulders would sometimes break,
due to combined resharpening and blows from enemy swords.”
(Kristiansen, p. 323).
Edge
damage does more to a sword than make it cut less efficiently;
each nick acts as a focal point for impact stress which
can lead to catastrophic failure of the blade, i.e. breaking.
When a sword with chips or heavy gouges on its edge (or
even internal forging flaws) struck a hard resistant material
such as maile armor or another sword edge, it could fracture
and split. Once this tempered portion is breached by deep
nicks and burs the blade is also susceptible to cracking
(and internal rust) and will no longer hold a keen edge
on that portion.
Accomplished
bladesmith and researcher of historical swordmaking, Dan
Maragni, states he has seen considerable evidence of this
kind of reworking having been performed on the blades
of historical European swords. But he is quick to add
that this rework is essentially limited to “stone work,”
that is, where the edges and the bevel have been reground
to remove nicks and/or dinks in the edge. The term
“nicks” he uses to describe edge failures by chipping,
that is, brittle failure.
The term “dinks” he uses to describe edge failures
due to bending or folding, that is, malleable failure.
These two forms make up the nature of edge trauma
on sword blades. The damage on antique blades of the Middle Ages
which Dan Maragni has examined have usually been, as he
describes, “bends” in the plane of the blade. That is,
the edge had struck something unyielding and caused the
blade to minutely “wrap” around the target. He adds
that large nicks and/or dinks in the edge were usually removed
by grinding. As he describes, often a fair amount of material
was removed in this way because not only did the nick
have to be eliminated, but also the edge then needed to
be restored so that the entire blade bevel had to be reshaped.
This could only be done a certain number of times before
the edge was permanently ground down past a desirable
portion. Often, when looking closely down the blades of
swords that have been reworked noticeably dips in the
profile and ripples in the bevels can be seen from such
“repairs.” Dan also states he believes that men
would not willingly suffer their edges to be trashed “as
every nick or dink has the possibility of being the end
of the life of a blade if a crack is formed which penetrates
into the body of the blade.”
But, he adds at the same time it is his opinion
that the reality of fighting was that not every strike
is going to be predictable or planned and inevitably, “damage
will be done to every blade that enters battle.”
(Personal correspondence with the author. January,
2003).
There is no evidence however that damaged blades would be
repaired by “reforging.” Ask a qualified bladesmith about
“repairing” heavy nicks on knife or sword and you will
learn it’s not an easy task and even borders on the impossible.
Once the gouges were ground down, the process of reheating
a blade to the degree that it would permit working the
metal of the edge back into shape to re-welded the chips
would still require it being re-tempered and re-hardened
afterwards. Doing this would also entail removing the
hilt and the whole thing would need to be re-polished.
Given all the work this would require the swordsmith might
as well make an entirely new blade instead.
Small deformations (ductile damage) to the edge of softer
steels can actually be cold reformed by light careful
hammering. But on edges of harder steel it re-stoned or
refilled.
Distinguished swordsmith Paul Champagne notes that in
attempting to polish out and reshape a damaged edge in
this way will affect the original shape and thus the feel
of the weapon: "After a repair at the sword polishers
you might barely recognize the feel of your own blade.
It's not just grinding out the nicks; you have to reshape
the steel to an edge in the damaged area which means having
a very abrupt edge bevel or making the sword thinner to
accommodate a more gradual entry into the edge. Just 2
nicks only 1/16" deep directly across from each other
means making the blade at least 1/8" narrower in
that area.
So much for the initial blade design after
a couple of repairs." (Personal correspondence with
the author, September, 2004).
Ewart Oakeshott believed there is in
fact credible evidence of many surviving Medieval blades
showing unmistakable signs (by virtue of the large number
of nicks and notches on their edges) of having made violent
contact with edges of other blades.
Of course, he quickly added there was no way of
knowing the circumstances under which they received such
trauma: did two weapons collide when striking simultaneously
or did one attempt to parry? Did someone in a later century
unknowingly abuse them? (Personal conversation with Mr.
Oakeshott, Ely, UK, July, 1999).
Rather than being farther down on the blade where
parrying would be expected, the distribution of edge trauma
on many surviving swords is very often located toward the point near the center of percussion—the very portion which
would in fact be expected to strike against armor and
metal rims of shields. Thus, Oakeshott held that while
blocking flat presents the ideal method of direct resistance
parrying (when such parries were necessary), the archaeological
evidence of some blades appears to show what often happened
in the “exigencies of combat.” As with the previous examples from historical
literature, modern hands-on study collaborates this.
David Edge, curator of arms at the famed
Wallace Collection has observed, this has been noted on
hundreds of surviving Medieval swords while heavy edge-gouging
is extremely rare, thereby possibly meaning that such
damaged blades were deemed no longer of use. (Personal
conversation with Mr. Edge, London, UK, July, 1999). If
Medieval and Renaissance cutting-swords did indeed commonly
employ edges for direct parrying (as is sometimes asserted)
we would expect to see heavily notched edges on surviving
sword blades—at least on the first quarter nearest their
hilts, where they defended, but also upon their last quarter
near their point, where they primarily would have impacted
targets. Yet, this is not the case.
Today,
uninformed aficionados will sometimes argue that flat
parrying will somehow damage the side of a blade and so
this is “reason” to use the even more fragile and easily
damaged edge. The fact is, the surface area of the flat
is wide enough that the angle of impact or deflection
scarcely scratches it and receiving blows there can hardly
damage it much at all. This can be seen in surviving antique
blades whose flats show little trauma and holds true in
modern experiments with accurate replicas. Again, it is
vital to realize that it is the resilience of the flat
of a sword that, upon impact with another weapon, permits
it to withstand blows by properly flexing side to side.
As noted sword researcher
Ada Bruhn Hoffmeyer wrote in her oft quoted 1966 research
paper, From Medieval Sword to Renaissance Rapier,
in the 15th century “a broad blade area” was
“required to receive
the adversary’s cut”. The
edge, in contrast, is rigid and hard for cutting into
things and its thin shape does not resist well the traumatic
impact of strong cuts from another hard edge.
Sword collector Hank Reinhardt, who in
the last three decades has handled and test cut with more
European swords than probably anyone, has pointed out
that if flat parries were not so, how then do we explain
the distinct lack of significant
edge damage on so many historical swords that have survived? That such weapons could last for many years
and even generations clearly says something about the
manner in which they were used to avoid intentional edge
damage. It is certainly
nonsensical to imagine that all the thousands of Medieval
and Renaissance swords in museums and private collections,
with very limited edge trauma, were “never used” or somehow
over the years all had their edges “polished smooth” for
appearance sake by busy curators worried about their edges.
Using a sword in combat does not automatically lead to
edge damage, although edge damage can be a sign of heavy
use. The thousands upon thousands of surviving swords
with little to no edge damage is testimony to the manner
in which they were used. Reinhardt adds, “If you still
can’t understand why a sword uses its flat to block, simply
go take two large, sharp hunting knives and bang them
together full-force on each other’s edge and you’ll quickly
see why.” (Personal conversation with Mr. Reinhardt, Conyers,
Georgia, September, 1998).
The
Physicality of the Issue
In the course of their useable lifespan, a cutting-sword’s
edge would typically become nicked from instances where
it impacted with a shield’s metal rim or cut against steel
armor or hit another weapon’s edge. The amount of damage
any sword edge would sustain in such situations would,
to one degree or another, be determined by the blade’s
hardness and geometry.
But historically, since the possibility for such
damage was fairly commonplace, there would be little sense
in intentionally encouraging it by hacking at
the edge of another sword. That would be the surest
way to ruin a fine blade and gain you nothing except likely
exposure to the adversary’s attacks. It is this which is supported by the evidence
and not the opposite—that warriors did not bother to preserve
their edges because they were inevitably going to be damaged
anyway.
Regardless
whether a cutting-sword has a keen and hard-tempered edge
or a somewhat duller, softer one, habitually parrying
edge-to-edge will quickly ruin it (a phenomenon that can
be witnessed by looking closely at the blades used in
many films, television programs, and live fight show performances
where blocking cuts with any portion of edge on any portion
of edge has been doctrinaire). In fact, taking a hard blow on the edge of a
fully-tempered blade can actually cause it to fracture
and break far sooner than not. Though, this is something
seldom witnessed today with the softer, case-hardened
kinds of blunt replica swords where their softer and thicker
edges can be repeatedly beaten on and filed over later.
It must be addressed that there is a difference between blocking
with the edge reflexively out of alarm and employing a
true counter-strike or flat parry as a deliberate technique. When really necessary, a fighter can of course
parry any way they must, but parrying haphazardly is the
very thing that is to be avoided by having a proper, skillful
grasp of the weapon’s nature and training in the art.
Another thing to consider is that when parries
are done correctly, they will be made with the strongest
portion of the blade permissible while keeping good range—this
is the first quarter closest to the guard. As expected
many surviving antique swords can actually be seen to
have discernible marks on those very areas of their flats
(while their edges remain fairly smooth and intact). If the edge were generally used for blocking
instead of the flat, this same portion of blade would
receive repeated damage thereby causing the sword to quickly
deteriorate.
This
is quite unlike what is seen in countless choreographed
sword fights and taught de rigueur in modern saber fencing (neither
of which use real swords for powerful full-arm cuts).
In these activities, parries of edge blows are typically
made with nearly any portion of the blade. The
“parry proper” made dui
tempo (“double time”)
in two actions was certainly not used in earlier Medieval
and Renaissance fencing, at least not in the same manner
and to the same degree that many modern sword enthusiasts
often do. It does not appear as an approved form of defense
in the source literature. The edge-blocking postures of
post-16th century fencing themselves do not
even exist within Medieval and Renaissance fighting manuals.
Most
tellingly however, is how the Fechtmeister
Joachim Meyer described in his fencing treatise of 1570
an inferior form of defense he called, Auffangen, or “Catching” (i.e., a direct
static edge- on-edge block).
According to Meyer, this was a simple block wherein the opponent’s attack—rather than ideally being deflected off or struck
down—was instead stopped by directly interposing your
weapon in its path. Essentially an edge parry of desperation,
Meyer acknowledged it was sometimes necessary, yet he
clearly recognized that it conferred no particular advantage
and even specifically
recommended against doing it. It is this very thing, which he says not to
do, that is so frequently employed by unenlightened students
of historical fencing today. It is coincidentally, the
basis of defensive actions in the post-Renaissance, smallsword-derived,
parry-riposte manner of dui-tempo
(“double-time”) swordplay found in the later cut-and-thrust
play of saber, broadsword, cutlass, spadroon, la
canne, and singlestick (the very foundations of modern
sport saber fencing). This change in the nature
of parries taught in later European fencing styles resulted
essentially from
the transition from military (cutting) to civilian (thrusting)
swordplay.
In contrast, earlier forms of cut-and-thrust fencing
defended by displacing the oncoming blow with a counter-cut
so as to simultaneously block and strike—by hitting edge
on flat or flat on edge. They also warded it off by receiving
the blow on the
flat of the strong portion of their sword (just above
the hilt), or closed-in against a cut by using the edge
above their cross guard against the same portion of the
attacker’s weapon where the blow has less momentum. Otherwise,
they avoided a strike altogether by dodging as they cut
back.
It is worth repeating once again that most all
systems of fencing from the 18th and 19th centuries relied
on double-time parrying actions that passively take cuts
on the edge of the blade closest to the hilt. Yet this
was not at all a significant part of Medieval and Renaissance
traditions of cut and thrust fencing. So why when it comes
to edge damage from parrying do we see such a discrepancy
between earlier Medieval and Renaissance fencing methods
and those of the 18th and 19th centuries? We can note
that the environment and circumstances under which later
methods existed did not reflect the degree of challenge
faced by Medieval and Renaissance methods. They certainly
faced little to no armor, shields, or pole-weapons, for
example, and no real hazards from either two-handed or
double combinations weapons. The later styles were also
clearly not influenced as much by Medieval and Renaissance
systems, as by the civilian smallsword, which many even
called the basis of their teachings. Hence, the later
styles relied for defense, not on displacing blows and
deflecting actions as did the earlier ones, but invariably
upon rigid guarding positions for receiving cuts on the
forte/ricasso. Further, once firearms became the dominant
military weapons, schools of fence focused not on battlefield
utility but almost exclusively upon defense in personal
duels of honor. As a result, swords were less prized and
military blade quality declined (especially for mass produced
regulation swords), and was often criticized at the time.
Thus, fewer kinds of swords being used by fewer swordsmen
under fewer situations against fewer types of threats,
naturally results in changes to the practice and performance
of any fighting art.
Concluding Comments
Minor
dings and dinks are part of the expected wear and tear
on a functional sword edge, but severe gouging is not
and the finer and harder an edge, the more easily it is
damaged by nicks and chipping. The softer an edge, the
more easily it is damaged by dings and dents. Minor dings
and dinks are part of the expected wear and tear on a
functional sword edge, but severe gouging is not and the
finer and harder an edge, the more easily it is damaged
by nicks and chipping. The softer an edge, the more easily
it is damaged by dings and dents.
The historical examples reflect undesirable damage
produced through either extremely heavy use or careless
untrained use. There are no historical examples of Medieval
and Renaissance swordsmen priding themselves on having
blocked cuts with the sharp edge of their weapon or caring
less they've damaged their blade in doing so.
Despite what is performed in countless choreographed
fight scenes and what every child playing at swords invents
by instinct, what Medieval and Renaissance warriors did
not do was statically wait to receive a blow by holding
out their edge in the path of the oncoming cut. All this did was damage their weapon and give
the opponent numerous chances to renew his attack with
any number of techniques. We might surmise the reason
the historical fencing masters did not go out of their
way to warn how a sword edge would be damaged, is that
it was so common sense a thing that it went without saying
in the same manner that today a new car salesman does
not warn the owner to avoid crashing into things or driving
over obstacles. Because fighting men
knew that there were ideal methods of fighting that avoided
the haphazard perils of edge on edge trauma, and because
they knew fine swords were indeed perishable, they did
not encourage it by intentionally abusing them.
Once
having spent considerable time test-cutting with all manner
of swords of varying degrees of sharpness and quality,
it can be assuredly understood that an edged blade needs
to be kept as keen as possible for it to remain effective
in chopping, slashing, or slicing. Probably the
most enlightening demonstration that can be done is to
test-cut with a sharp replica blade of good quality, then
go out and repeatedly parry with its edge until its noticeably
chewed up, and finally go back and try to test-cut with
it again on the same target materials. Its poor performance will easily reveal just
how bad an idea edge-parrying with real swords is.
Though even a blunt and dulled cutting edge can do serious harm under
the right conditions, swords were sharpened for an obvious
reason—they caused far greater injury that way. Given
that few modern students of historical fencing have had
the opportunity to strike repeatedly with a sharp quality
sword full force against the sharp edge of another quality
sword to then witness the results; it is understandable
that some misconceptions exist. Of course, if you are not
striking with realistic energy using a sharp and historically
accurate blade, then you are not going to experience the
same edge trauma when you take blows on the middle of
your blade right against its edge.
It
is also understandable that some modern enthusiasts due
to their past and present activities have an emotional
investment in edge-on-edge blocking. However, to be true
to the subject and our own potentials we owe it to our
martial heritage to consider the evidence honestly and
grow from the experience.
Unlike
the seemingly indestructible magic swords of cinema, where
pretend blows are struck by pretend sword fighters, real
blades are damaged by forcibly impacting edge against
sharp edge. As
the historical evidence confirms, when sword edges became
severely gouged, nicked, and notched they were less effective
weapons. Thus, bashing them edge upon edge by either rigid
blocks or direct edge on edge strikes was, at least in
Medieval and Renaissance fencing, an inferior technique
to be avoided.
See also:
The
Physical Reality of Impacts and Edges
The
Physical Reality of Impacts and Edges - Historical Examples
Some
Edge-on-Edge Cutting Experiments
SOURCES:
C. Roworth. The Art
of Defence on Foot with the Broad Sword and Sabre uniting
the Scotch and Austrian Methods into one regular system
to which is added Remarks on the Spadroon. London, 1798,
printed for T. Egerton at the Military Library near Whitehall.
Kristiansen,
Kristian. “The tale of the sword
– swords and swordfighters in Bronze Age Europe” in Oxford
Journal of Archaeology, November 2002, vol. 21, no.
4, pp. 319-332. Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Oxford.
De
Brack, F. Cavalry Outpost
Duties. Translated from the 3rd edition
of 1863 by Major Camillo C. C. Carr, U.S. Army 8th
Cavalry. NY, John Wiley & Sons, 1893.
Rules and Regulations for the
Sword Exercise of the Cavalry By His majesty’s Command,
Adjutant General’s office, 1st December 1796. London. Printed for the War office
and sold by T. Egerton, Military Library, Whitehall, MDCCXCVI.
Instruction pour la Cavalerie, sur le maniement le plus avantageux du sabre. publiée en 1796, par
Schmidt, Professeur d’escrime
du corps royal des cadets à
Berlin, Accompagnée de planches. Traduite de l’allemand par un officier général. Paris, Anselin, 1828.
Drawn and engraved by Ambrosie Tardieu. Documents complémentaires, Édition de textes et documents destinés spécialement au site Histoire et Figurines, tous droits réservés.