Ambiguous use of the term "longsword" in WMA?

[Andrew Kesterson]

My first post, and I hope I don't sound too gripey about something that's probably been gone over before. I searched the forums with "longsword" "long sword" and "sword length", but couldn't find anything relevant to my question. Before I say anything, fantastic site and resources, I'm happy to have sent my dues in and start training. Glad to know I'm not the only one that gets a kick out of swinging big pieces of european steel.

From my limited exposure to true WMA treatises, I have come to think that the term "longsword" is used quite ambiguously, where they are actually using a different weapon.

Take the Solothurner Fechtbuch, for example. A look at plate ten will show a standard blade sword with a long, double-handed grip, at least 10" of handle; this must clearly be a bastard sword. Take a look at plate 11; in showing some (apparently) binding and trapping exercises, the knights are using weapons with blades no less than 50", and easily 10" of grip. These are obviously greatswords! Continuing on to plate 12, my suspicion is confirmed - the swords have cord wrapped around the lower 1/3 of the blade, a characteristic (almost) exclusive to greatswords (wrapped for leverage in close, as we all know).

Let's use Flos Duellatorum (Liberi); throughout the text, advertised as spada longa (longsword), I see what (I believe) are actually bastard swords - if not greatswords.

So my confusion is this... Is the term "longsword" bandied about to actually encompass any midevil double-edged sword with a blade longer than 30", regardless of grip, blade length, or weight? Because I was under the impression (perhaps false) that a longsword was a one-handed weapon, commonly used in conjunction with a shield. Or, perhaps, the illustrations are misleading - maybe in Duellatorum, the master is not actually using a long grip, but putting his second hand on the pommel of a regular longsword. This, however, does not explain the extreme blade length in most treatises, though. This also does not explain the obviously huge handgrip in Solothurner. It also would not explain the fact that, in the article "A Brief Look at Stances & Guards in Midevil Longswords", Sr Provost Clements is seen to be holding what is (again) obviously a bastard if not a greatsword.

So help me out here! I have a couple of (what I think to be) traditional length long sword wasters, and yet all the treatises/translations I have (printed out and purchased) seem to be telling me to use a bastard or greatsword. I'm confused!

Thanks guys.

[Mike Chidester]

Actually, a longsword is a two-handed weapon with a straight, two-edged blade and a hilt of about 10" (such as the ones you saw).

A one-handed sword is just a "sword" or an "arming sword" or "single sword."

The difference between the longsword anda greatsword is that a greatsword has a "three-handed hilt," or a hilt in excess of (I think) 14." It's often longer in the blade as well, though this varies.

A bastard sword is essentially a longsword with a more tapered blade, designed for better thrusting than a stardard longsword.

[Andrew Kesterson]

Ah. Thanks for clearing that up Provost Chidester! I can see that a book on the history of the sword - and its various types - is in my future.

Thankfully my library actually has a decent selection on that topic. To the book suppository! *scuttles off*

[Jeffrey Hull]

AK:

I think of *longsword* (Langenshwert, war-sword, spadone, etc) as having 34-42 inch long blade, 1.67 to 2.5 inch wide at shoulder, 6 to 10 inch grip, and weighing 2.5 to 4 pounds, thus allowing both single & double handed wielding.

Anything smaller or larger in any of those dimensions, especially with a shorter grip, then you are talking about a differently named weapon.

Try to check out *Records of the Medieval Sword* by Ewart Oakeshott at your library (probably by interlibrary loan), or buy it if you can. I promise you that this book is worth the wait and/or money you would spend obtaining it. Within this catalog of info & images are many fine and clearly compared examples of the true range of what one can consider a longsword.

Good luck,

JH

[Devin Wilson]

Part of your concern has a root in the accuracy of medieval art. I'm not familiar with the first book you mentioned but in many others (including Flos Duellatorum) the artwork is often imperfect. In one manual (by Hans Talhoffer) the swords seem to be about six feet in length, and yet the techniques could only be preformed on smaller swords. Just don't necessarily take every detail from the artwork to be 100% literal until the renaissance (at least).

[John_Clements]

Hi,

That's a good question. But it starts from a false premise, I think. We have no clear definitions for any form of sword from the period ---whether long, great, short, or bastard, let alone rapier. So, defining something as "clearly" a bastard or a greatsword assumes these forms are identifiable on their own. They are not. The term longsword does indeed cover the whole range of long bladed double-hand swords. Historically, they did not classify sword types with great precision nor can they be categorize them definitively today. Even the terms "two-handed sword" “hand-and-a-half,” and "bastard sword" have different meanings depending on what historical source you follow from which era. Spathology must unfortunately always assume some generalizations of convenience. Make sense?

JC

p.s.
I don’t really use any teaching title other than senior instructor, and the “Provo” your seeing refers to the Provo, Utah, Study Group

[Andrew Kesterson]

Thanks John, that makes sense. I didn't mean to say I was the authority, and was telling you what you were holding - I should've qualified my statements. I meant that by what I (thought) I knew, that's what they were "clearly" to me. However I will admit that, like most of modern Westerners, my knowledge (of sword varieties) comes largely from hollywood, fantasy RPGs, and what little I've seen on the history/discovery channel. But that's why I'm here, to change all that. <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

And I'm just so used to prepending someone's rank before their name when someone has one, I just do it automatically. I'll try to refrain, I know ARMA doesn't make a really big deal out of rank.

[robrobertson]

Andrew,

Another qualifier to help muddy the waters for you is the size of the warrior. The average Scottish Highlander was about 5'4". His sword would look considerably smaller when it's wielded by a guy about 6'2".

Keep studying! Welcome aboard!

Rob

[JeanryChandler]

As others have stated, modern spathology is really in it's infancy. Thanks to Ewart Oakeshott we at least do make some systematic attempt to evaluate swords by their function instead of which one had the prettier pommel, but we are far from a complete typology.

The idea that a 'longsword' is a single handed sword comes predominantly from role playing games, in fact directly from Gary Gygax and the first incarnation of Dungeons and Draongst, since Gygax seems to have been one of the last people do any real research on hoplology in the RPG community (except for wierd Asian kung-fu weapons) and all the others just copied from him.

In the pre-medieval era there is some validity however for calling some single handed swords 'longswords' as this is the term archeologists and spathologists use for celtic and German migration era swords of the "Spatha" type, which ranged from around 34" - 40" in overall length. These are called 'longswords' to distginguish them from the shorter swords of the Romans and those Bronze Age inspired weapons of the earlier Iron Age.

In the literature of the Medieval period, as John pointed out, all swords were generaly called simply 'sword', (mec, svard, espadon, epee, espada etc. etc.) This could sometimes mean anything from a cinqueda to a katzbalger to a rapier or a hand and a half sword.

Modern historians and spathologists of this period require some greater specificity, and have developed with terminology which along with Oakshottes typology, has become universal in WMA. The term Longsword is now used to mean basically the whole family of two handed (or hand and a half) swords, basically any double edged sword with a grip of roughly 8" or more and a total length of roughly 42" to 52".

The bastard sword and great sword have been defined as specialised subvariants of the longsword. The bastard sword is generally described as the more tapered, stiffer (diamond or hexagonal) cross-sectioned thrusting subvariant specialised for use against heavier armor (though another version exists), while the term 'greatsword' is usually used to describe the more parallel bladed, flat cross section cutting swords intended for cutting unarmored targets (or unarmored parts of targets)

The Greatsword was the first variant of any kind of two handed sword, appearing in the 13th century or possibly earlier. Oakeshott type XIIa is the classic early example. The Bastard sword appeared later, types XVa, XVII and XVIIIc being representative IIRC. The Longsword is more general, a cutter which is also stiffened for thrusting, with complex blades often featuring both fullers or ridges (flatened and diamod or hex shaped cross sections) with types XIIIa, XVia, XVIIIc being classic examples. Finally, as armor use declined, and more people on the battlefield wore less of it, the old greatsword types returned, in some what more sophisticated form, XX and XXa being good type examples.

My question with Arma is that, based on these new articles by John Clements, you seem to be equating the term "Greatsword" with the so called 'true' two handed swords, (also sometimes called zweihander, dopplehander, doppelsword, flammard, and etc.) which fall outside the Oakeshott typology, these being the weapons five to six feet in total length usually featuring lugs above the long (12" or more) ricasso and extremely long guards..

Is this a newer interpretation of the term greatsword? Or am I completely jacked up?

Jeanry

[Mike Cartier]

The way i understood it the word longsword is a rather geralized term that covers many sword forms from the hand and half, war sword and some forms of bastard sword.

As i understood the difference the longsword was slightly shorter and had a wee bit less heft than the war sword which was more battfield oriented than the longsword or hand and a half although they too were used in battle.

I think Its a very generalized term as are most of these terms we are applying as John said.

[Andrew Kesterson]

Well, I haven't read Oakeshott, so I'm not going by the same definitions as all the rest of you seem to be. All this "Oakeshott type XXXXXX" madness is a little less than meaningless to someone who doesn't know about it.

I'll pick up one of his books as soon as I get the chance, though.

[M Wallgren]

Check out the nextgeneration line on www.albion-swords.com it´s educational... A warning though, it can ruin your economy;)...

[Andrew Kesterson]

Yeah, I've already got my sights set on one of their Squire line of swords. I figure I'll have enough to buy it sometime around christmas or thanksgiving, depending on how fervently I save for it. That'll give me time to either get A) far enough towards free scholler to justify it, or B) get tired of it and lose interest.

Very nice looking blades though. Do you think I should get a sharp one or unsharp? I don't think I'll have much occasion to do any test cutting, so I suppose unsharpened is the way to go. And it's not like an unsharpened sword can't bash the living hell out of an intruder.

[JeffGentry]

Hey Andrew

If nothing else do a search Ewart Oakshot, his work probably did more to give a senseible meaning to classifying sword's as to there time period and use if you stay in this you will be lost without knowing how his classifacation work's.

Jeff

[Justin Toliver]

this may help with Oakeshott's Typology its ben a handy site for me