False information in a "documentary"

[Peter Goranov]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DY0eczetUTQ&NR=1

You can find the other parts easily enough. The moment the guy said "broadsword" and "300 pounds" I stopped the video...

[Sal Bertucci]

Well actually, the HORSE carrying 300# is probably pretty close to correct.

I'm not a bit guy, but I weigh 170#, add 60# for armor, all my crap (equipment), and barding I bet that you'll get up to 300# fairly easily.

[Jonathan Hill]

Actually for the obvious age of this ‘documentary’ many of the facts are correct.

First off they are using a crusader-esque armor set up which was more accurately around 11th Century. The Mongolian invasion was in the 13th-14th Century when Europe was moving to Plate armor, so there is a little bit off on the armor used and the effects of the arrows, which is the most common misconception.

Broadsword is merely an English term for a sword with a broad blade and the cruciform hilt sword Europe used on the battlefield would qualify as a broadsword. The only issue is the term was not in use during the 14th Century, but the term does describe the blade.

Now I am 6’1 200 lb. I am also not strong enough to be proficient in even chain armor; that kind of strength would add about another 20+ lb of muscle to me. Armor, weapons and saddle would easily add up to 300 lb on the horse. Now if a European wants to fight a Mongol he is best to armor the horse as well because the Mongol will just shoot the horse out from under him and then kill him after the horse is dead. That will add another large chunk of weight to the horse, so I’m backing Sal on this one, 300 lb isn’t that far off.

[terry brown]

Actually for the obvious age of this ‘documentary’ many of the facts are correct.

First off they are using a crusader-esque armor set up which was more accurately around 11th Century. The Mongolian invasion was in the 13th-14th Century when Europe was moving to Plate armor, so there is a little bit off on the armor used and the effects of the arrows, which is the most common misconception.

Broadsword is merely an English term for a sword with a broad blade and the cruciform hilt sword Europe used on the battlefield would qualify as a broadsword. The only issue is the term was not in use during the 14th Century, but the term does describe the blade.

Now I am 6’1 200 lb. I am also not strong enough to be proficient in even chain armor; that kind of strength would add about another 20+ lb of muscle to me. Armor, weapons and saddle would easily add up to 300 lb on the horse. Now if a European wants to fight a Mongol he is best to armor the horse as well because the Mongol will just shoot the horse out from under him and then kill him after the horse is dead. That will add another large chunk of weight to the horse, so I’m backing Sal on this one, 300 lb isn’t that far off.

Hello Jonathon,

As regards the dating of the use of the term broadsword (as opposed to broad sword) you might be interested to know that the term was in use before the 14th century. It is to be found in the Anglo-Saxon poem commonly called The Battle of Maldon (line 15). It is spelled as
bradswurd

Academic oppinion about the date of the poem itself vary from 'just after' the battle (fought in 991 AD), the 11th century or the 12th century. Any of these choices pushes the usage of the term 'broadsword' back by a considerable margin.

The spelling of brad (for broad) is still in use in England, for example with brad nails (broad nails) which are used on floorboards and suchlike.

I hope this helps

Best wishes,

Terry

[Peter Goranov]

Hmm... I always thought the broadsword term was used at the post Renaissance era to describe curved cutting blades used by sailors? Anyway composite or not, the Mongolian bows would not pierce mail, let alone better armour and of that I am very sure.

The poundage is right perhaps (since we use Metric around here, I got thrown off a bit by the large number), although the reloading times for the crossbows are still too long (a full minute between shots is too much unless it's something resembling a portable ballista)

[terry brown]

Hmm... I always thought the broadsword term was used at the post Renaissance era to describe curved cutting blades used by sailors?

Clearly not

[Corey Roberts]

Actually, as far as I am aware the term "Broadsword" refers to compound hilted blades of the 17th-18th century which have a broad cutting blade, as opposed to something like a rapier or smallsword. The term should not be applied to earlier weapons and is inaccurate. It was largely the rise of popular fiction such as D&D and other fantasy literature and video games which began to use the misnomer.

[Corey Roberts]

Interesting, though I did find "Bradswurd" in line 15 of the anglo-saxon poem Battle of Maldon. In the phrase "Bord and Bradswurd beot he gelaeste" However, the phrase was never used as far as I am aware in the period we study, and so far this appears to be one isolated use of the term in a far earlier source.



http://www8.georgetown.edu/departments/ ... ts/a9.html

[Jonathan Hill]

Terry, that was very interesting, I was unaware of such an early usage.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/broadsword.htm

Well I seems you read through the ARMA article on broadsword. While I can see the desire to differentiate the swords used in the 15th century from those used in the 18th century. Perhaps it would be better to phrase this as a question and challenge to the rest of the community rather than re-defining a type of sword you don’t study. It is granted that in today’s use of the term by the HEMA community the only real sword we mean when referring to a broadsword is a basket hilt but this comes more from us defining all the other blades more specifically rather than the historical use of the term. If you called a Sabre a broadsword around my class I will correct you by pulling out a basket hilt, and if you called the ‘Patton sword’ a sabre I will correct you that it is more correctly a broadsword but I am a sabre snob. Throwing out the early usages as just an adjective used to describe the blade is also short sighted as that basic concept it what drove the 17th Century usage of the term ‘broadsword.’

Broadsword is a term used loosely to describe a sword with a broad blade, and definitely as opposed to a ‘small sword’ or a sword with a small blade as when referring to blades some manuals distinguished between a broadsword and a small sword, while most military manuals use the term ‘sword.’ The term was used to describe earlier swords, and I’ll wager that if you took a cruciform blade and showed it to someone in the 17th century they would have called it a broadsword.

In fact many of the ‘broadsword’ manuals specifically show a sabre.
“Hungarian Broadsword” obviously being the Sabre - http://www.thearma.org/pdf/HungarianHig ... dsword.pdf
This one I cannot verify the authenticity of this source and who is calling this a broadsword system (web site or author,) but it matches Angelo’s very nicely - http://www.careyroots.com/broadsword.html
As you read though the manuals the term broadsword is used interchangeable when referring to a basket hilt, knuckle bow strait blade or a sabre.

I am one of those people ‘actually training in 18th & 19th century broadsword styles according to the military manuals of the period.’ Referring to the basket hilt as the only viable broadsword shows a distinct misunderstanding of the ‘system’ and how the term was actually used. In fact a basket hilt could refer to a broadsword or a backsword if we really want to get nitpicky about it.

[terry brown]

Interesting, though I did find "Bradswurd" in line 15 of the anglo-saxon poem Battle of Maldon. In the phrase "Bord and Bradswurd beot he gelaeste" However, the phrase was never used as far as I am aware in the period we study, and so far this appears to be one isolated use of the term in a far earlier source.

http://www8.georgetown.edu/departments/ ... ts/a9.html

The use of the prefix broad/brad/brade/braide was quite common and covered the whole of the period (in Britain at least) that you study. I include a few of the many period examples that exist.


utherwayis callit Braid Sword; 1498 AD
(Acta Conc. II 236.)

The master of Lindsay struck him on the head with a broad~sword. C1565 AD
(Lindesay Chron.)

Ane mounted braide sworde; 1616 AD
(Whitelaw Sc. Arms Makers 182).

steill capes and braid swordes and all wther furnitour necessar for trouperes; 1643
(Acts VI.)

Broad, or its variants (some given above) found common use when describing weapons other than swords as in the following examples:

for ane braide arowe at Mydsymyr; 1486 AD
(Stirlings of Keir)

Vphesit he hys braid ax rude and squair;
(Doug. xii. v. 214)

[terry brown]

Terry, that was very interesting, I was unaware of such an early usage.

Hi Jonathan,

Yes it is an early example and as you will see from my post to Corey there are lots of authentic period examples of the use of broadsword (or its spelling variants). This is why I have always used the term broadsword to describe a single hand cut and thrust weapon. If others want to define or re-define further or beyond that it will do me no harm and cause me no worry
Terry

[Stacy Clifford]

I'm kind of curious what purpose describing a sword as "broad" served in a period when pretty much all the swords could have been described that way. Once tucks and narrower thrusting blades came along then it begins to make more sense to distinguish between different types, unless "broad" carried a different or additional meaning in earlier times. Is "broad sword" really being used as a technical term for the tool, or is it more of a popular literary flourish to make it sound more impressive?

[Allen Johnson]

I agree that we may be looking past the point of where a description gets interpreted as a name or type. It seems pretty clear that our ancestors were not as obsessed with categorizing blade types as we are today. What may just be a description could easily be mis-interpreted as a type name.

[Corey Roberts]

Although the term Brádswurd seems evident in the text, I have done a little research on the nature of adjectives and the word Brád. in OE. Brád does in fact mean "broad" in a loose modern English sense. But it would appear that the word was frequently and often compounded with other words in OE far more than in Modern English. Therefore I do not believe that the word Brádswurd is referencing a distinctive typology of sword in the text, which can be confused with modern English Broadsword, which signifies the 17th century compound hilted weapon. For instance it would appear in OE, there is the word Hand which is "hand" in modern English, when the word Brád is compounded with Hand, you end up with the word Brádhand, which in OE appears to have been literally the palm of the hand. So although if you literally de-construct the word Brádswurd into component parts it does mean "broad-sword" But in later English the frequent adjective-noun compounds common in OE fell out of favour, and as far as I am aware the word "Broadsword" was never used in Modern English to denote anything other than the 17th century cup hilted weapon, up until people in the modern era began mis-applying the term. So if you want to call a 9th century weapon, a Brádswurd that's fine, but please don't call it a Broadsword.

[Mike Sega]

{ So if you want to call a 9th century weapon, a Brádswurd that's fine, but please don't call it a Broadsword.[/quote]

I believe this is the proper interpretation of the appearance of brād swurd, at least in Old English. Adjectives do fuse at times to form a compound word later in a language and the existence of the use of brād should not be cited as an example of the compound word.