Sharpness of swords

[Mark Kennedy]

I've found a huge amount of excellent information from this site, but there's one thing that I still can't work out - how sharp were medieval swords?

I know, this is a very ambiguous question. I know that swords greatly differed in design. I'm not even specifying the sword type.

The main reason I ask, is that I've learnt from this site that European swords were not blunt clubs as some people believe - yet I frequently see historical images of fighters holding the blade of the sword. Initially I assumed that longswords (and other larger swords) simply were less sharp close to the cross, for the purpose of holding the blade.

However, in one of the articles I read on here (at least, I'm fairly sure, though I don't remember which one - I'll try to recall it later), the author mentioned that combat back then involved much less parrying and a lot more avoiding and deflecting. He said that an opponents blade might even be grabbed with the hand in order to control it.

I guess, the main question is - were typical combat swords relatively sharp? Some say they had edges as sharp as a tiny screw driver, others say almost razor sharp. Were longswords less sharp near the cross for the purpose of holding the blade and sharp everywhere else? Were arming swords sharp all over, not at all, or were they, too, less sharp near the cross? Would it generally be a viable defense to grab hold of your opponent's sword (assuming it isn't rapidly moving toward you)?

Thanks very much for any replies and for this amazing site and forum.

[Randall Pleasant]

Mark

The form rules require a full name. Please spell out your last name.

[Randall Pleasant]

I've found a huge amount of excellent information from this site, but there's one thing that I still can't work out - how sharp were medieval swords?

They are sharp, especially the last 3rd or 4th of the blade. However, rarely were blade edges razor sharp. If an edge is too sharp then it can easily be damaged.

...that combat back then involved much less parrying and a lot more avoiding and deflecting

There is not the parry-riposte that is seen in the later small sword and modern fencing. However, there is a lot of blade contact as a major focus is on binding against an adversary's blade.

[Mark Kennedy]

Mark

The form rules require a full name. Please spell out your last name.

Sorry about that - I should have read the rules!

Thanks for the information. Would you happen to know whether it was possible to hold a sword blade bare hand? I know, this is extremely ambiguous, but I'm just trying to get a rough idea of how sharp swords in general were. Surely they weren't purposely dulled in anticipation of a certain type of combat, then resharpened for another type?

Even if the blade was dulled close to the cross, surely it wouldn't be a great idea to hold that part of the blade while attacking (especially in a thrust, such as when half-swording), since the hand could slip along the blade to the sharper upper regions?

[Stacy Clifford]

Yes, you can grab a sharp blade bare handed. If you search around a bit on the internet, you can find videos of people doing exactly that. As long as your hands don't slide on the blade or death grip the edge, you're generally OK. You can also pinch the blade with your fingers so you're not touching the edge at all for some maneuvers. As Randall said, only the last 6-8 inches needed to be especially sharp, since that part was needed to thrust or slash at cloth armor. The rest of the blade (on average, but not in every case) could get by with being about as sharp as a good chisel. The edge would be sturdy enough to withstand blows to hard objects like armor and shields (strikes best made closer to the sword's center of mass), yet still thin enough to do plenty of damage to soft targets. As you can see in this old test cutting video, a sword so dull you can rub it on your skin can still make a devastating cut. I've seen that same sword cleave a small tree in two.

http://www.thearma.org/photos/Gathering ... ting_7.mp4
Caption: Full version - Raven blunt cutting --showing how easy straw mats can be cut by a well-honed but even completely unsharpened sword - 101mb

[Mark Kennedy]

Ah, that makes a lot of sense! I certainly wouldn't want to try to grab an opponent's blade, but it makes sense to be prepared to do it, if it's life and death, since it's possible to do it without losing your fingers. I think I now have a much better understanding of how typical European swords were sharpened.

Thanks very much to both of you for your answers.

[J. Scott Steflik]

If an edge is too sharp then it can easily be damaged.

I really wish people would stop confusing edge angle with the degree to which an edge has been honed.

A distinction also needs to be made between damaging an edge and dulling an edge.

The edge strength, or resistance to damage, is determined by the angle (everything else being equal).

If a blade has a very shallow angle (say 20 degrees total), it can be easily damaged. This is true whether it is relatively dull or finely honed (ie sharp).

A more robust angle, say the 40-50 degrees total found on many period swords and recommended by Peter Johnsson, won't be damaged as easily as a shallower angle, regardless of how finely it is honed. The finely honed edge will dull at about the same rate as a rougher edge, it'll just start off being sharper and stay 'cutting sharp' longer!

The rate at which an edge is dulled depends on the steel and the use you put it to. My skinning knife has a relatively shallow angle for it's secondary bevel. Finely honed it'll get me through a morning of skinning and dismembering animals. Skip the final honing and I'll need to touch up the edge to get through the morning. My small camp knife has a similar blade geometry and thickness, but the secondary bevel is at a higher angle. Finely honed, I can use it all morning just as easily as my skinning knife and it won't dull any quicker. I can also use it to pry apart joints (or split kindling) without damaging the edge. Try that with my skinning knife and the edge will be damaged (chipped, dented or deformed in some way).

OK, end of a bladesmith's rant

[Kevin Reicks]

If an edge is too sharp then it can easily be damaged.

I really wish people would stop confusing edge angle with the degree to which an edge has been honed.

A distinction also needs to be made between damaging an edge and dulling an edge.

The edge strength, or resistance to damage, is determined by the angle (everything else being equal).

If a blade has a very shallow angle (say 20 degrees total), it can be easily damaged. This is true whether it is relatively dull or finely honed (ie sharp).

A more robust angle, say the 40-50 degrees total found on many period swords and recommended by Peter Johnsson, won't be damaged as easily as a shallower angle, regardless of how finely it is honed. The finely honed edge will dull at about the same rate as a rougher edge, it'll just start off being sharper and stay 'cutting sharp' longer!

The rate at which an edge is dulled depends on the steel and the use you put it to. My skinning knife has a relatively shallow angle for it's secondary bevel. Finely honed it'll get me through a morning of skinning and dismembering animals. Skip the final honing and I'll need to touch up the edge to get through the morning. My small camp knife has a similar blade geometry and thickness, but the secondary bevel is at a higher angle. Finely honed, I can use it all morning just as easily as my skinning knife and it won't dull any quicker. I can also use it to pry apart joints (or split kindling) without damaging the edge. Try that with my skinning knife and the edge will be damaged (chipped, dented or deformed in some way).

OK, end of a bladesmith's rant

Ah, that all makes sense! I knew the angle/geometry mattered in the strength of the edge but I thought how finely honed mattered as well. I dabble in blacksmithing and I have read up on blade smithing. I should know better. But wow, 40-50 degree edges on swords? I thought they were more around 30 or so.

Does the final millimeter of the edge on a Oakeshott type XV come to a bit larger angle in flat or lenticular/convex edge? I know they are mostly hollow ground, but if it is that way all the way to the edge, I would imagine the edge being very fragile. I'm aware they switched to a similar but more robust grind in the XVIII swords, but the XV were popular from the late 13th to the beginning the the 15th century.

[Mark Kennedy]

Very good points, Mr Steflik. Every time I think I have a reasonably simple question about swords, the answer turns out to be significantly more complex than I had expected.

Would the angle of the edge differ greatly depending on the cross-sectional shape of the blade or would it be best to keep it roughly the same 30-40 degree angle? Also, for a hollow ground blade, would the angle be measured across the hollow (from edge to the top corner) or would it be the angle between the two tangent lines of the edge? I'm guessing the former might be how it is described by most people, while the latter angle might be the more useful one in determining how easily the edge can be damaged?