Difference between broadsword, greatsword, longsword, etc.

[Flávio Alves]

Hello there.

I am totally new to the renaissance martial arts scene. Reading some of the material on the ARMA website I found out that I have a lot of misconceptions about european martial arts, most of them to blame on movies, videogames and role-playing games.

The first of these misconceptions I'd like to get straight is on the matter of sword morphology and terminology. Can you tell me (or point me to some online reading on the subject) the difference between the broadsoword, longsword, greatsword and bastard sword?

Also, is the wikipedia a reliable source for information on this subject? I've seen many articles there, but am not sure if they are historically accurate.

Thanks in advance.

[Greg Coffman]

Hello and welcome.

Spathology can indeed be challenging because at different time periods different terms were used. The Victorian era introduced much error into how we see and the names we use for different sword forms.

For example, the term broadsword was used in the Victorian era and still is commonly used today in the public sphere to describe regular medieval swords. However the proper use of the term is in reference to late renaissance or later basket hilt swords, usually Scottish.

Then there is overlap between the terms longsword, greatsword, and bastard sword. Longsword is the more general and inclusive term and may include swords that could also be called greatswords or bastard swords. Greatswords are at the large end of longswords and bridge the gap between longswords and true two-handers. Bastard swords area those longswords, usually of the 16th century, that fall between a longsword and a one-hander. They often feature tapered grips on the half of the grip where the second hand would go.

Here is the ARMA article on the subject for better clarity:
http://www.thearma.org/SwordForms.html[/url]

[Flávio Alves]

Thank you very much, that's exactly the kind of reading I was looking for!

Another question: was the sword (regardless of type) really the most used weapon during Middle-ages and Renaissance? I ask this because I recently saw a video of two men sparring, one with a spear and another one with a sword and buckler, and the guy with the spear had the upper hand during the entire fight. Could you point me to another ARMA article about that?

I know this is probably not the place to say this, but I feel that the ARMA website should really have a search engine. Things would be a lot easier to find.

[James Brazas]

Yes and no.

"Yes" in the sense that swords of various types were the weapons that the surviving manuals focus the most on and they were the weapons most commonly carried on a daily basis by the knights, nobles, etc.

"No" in the sense that swords were always the most expensive weapons available, so many people would be unable to afford a sword at all. This is especially true the earlier in history you go.

For those who could not afford swords, they often used the quarterstaff, the grosse messer (giant knife), the dagger, etc.

As far as the battlefield goes, it depends. Commoner infantrymen would usually be pikemen, archers, or gunners during the late middle ages and Renaissance. Any of those three might have a sword as a back-up weapon if they could afford one. The pikeman would use it as backup if the enemy got too close for his pike to be effective. The archer and gunner would likewise use their sword if the enemy got too close for their ranged weapons to be effective.

Knights, Men at Arms, other Cavalry, etc. would usually have a lance and sword for use on horseback and a pollaxe (or spear) and sword for use on foot.

Generally, you fight the enemy at whatever distance they are from you. So if they are far away, you start off with your longest reaching weapon (such as a spear). Spears have a minimum effective range, so when they get closer, you use your sword.

Different weapons have different advantages and disadvantages. Spears and other polearms have the advantage of reach. Swords have versatility (and arguably speed).

As far as that video of spear vs. sword-and-buckler, that is just an excellent example of a spearman using his reach advantage effectively. If the sword-and-bucklerman had been able to close the distance effectively, the sword-and-bucklerman would have easily won. It's all about distance. Spear has a huge advantage at a far distance, sword-and-buckler has a huge advantage at close distance. The issue is that for the shorter weapon to win, it must first fight past the longer weapon's point.