Sword science/myths

[Stephen Hand]

Hi guys,

I'm wondering if the smart people here can assist me? I know that sword myths have been discussed before, but I've been through past threads and haven't found what I'm after.

I am looking for science and/or myths relating to swords or armour that I could use with high school students. I have a few ideas but I'm looking for any smart ideas that people here might have. Something with a bit of a mythbusters feel to it would be good, but equally, a straight forward, "what's the physics behind this?" phenomenon might be cool too.

Any help will be appreciated.

Cheers
Stephen

[Sean Hayes]

You know the chestnuts, of course, but for other interested parties:

Edward II had a sword so heavy it two men to lift it...

ALWAYS parry with your shield and NEVER parry with your sword - you will break it...

Okay, so when shields went out they ONLY PARRIED WITH THE FLAT, because an unnotched edge was apparently more valuable than your life...

Craig Johnson has done a survey of the research into the metalurgy of period weapons and come up with some interesting observations. He and I have had several conversations about it all, but for fear of my getting it wrong and creating new myths, I suggest you contact him directly. (I just use the things...)

Sean

[Bob Brooks]

Here's a few I've picked up over the years:

The channel down the middle of a sword was to let the blood drain away after you had impaled someone on it, which made it easier to remove from the body.

Medieval swords didn't have sharp edges, and were actually bludgeoning tools used to break armour.

Knights had to be winched onto their horses, because armour was so heavy they couldn't mount by themselves.

Medieval combat relied solely on strength, where the biggest warriors normally won.

Medieval swords didn't have points and were useless for thrusting.

Only the richest knights could afford swords.


Hope that helps for now - I'll probably think of more!

Cheers,

Bob

[Bob Brooks]

Oh, yes ....

"Two-handed swords were used in a style like swinging a baseball bat ..." - that actually came from an academic historian!

Bob

[Peregrine Dace]

Hmm, quenching in blood.
Unsophisticated metallurgy and smithing techniques (no "folding").
Movie (Flynn/Anderson) rapier vs actual rapier in terms of speed and suchlike.
Most of the others I can think of have been covered.

[George Hill]

Here's a few I've picked up over the years:

The channel down the middle of a sword was to let the blood drain away after you had impaled someone on it, which made it easier to remove from the body.

Or that it was designed to produce a vacume inside the body, and increase blood flow out of the wound when withdrawn.

Also, I have encountered a large number of people who confuse the smallsword simulation of sport fencing with the Rapier, because they are both thrusting swords.

Another myth seems to be the pure expence of swords. It has been shown to me many times by the good people on this forum that swords were not quite so hard to come by as many seem to beleive.

[Christopher Blakey]

Knights had to be winched onto their horses, because armour was so heavy they couldn't mount by themselves.

This os a good one. I think 'The Once and Future King' is more than a little to blame for this. Read that book and you'll find pretty much all the myths you could not wish for.

[Stefan Dieke]

On a forum I read about a 15 lbs french sabre
Applying geometry and the density of steel will result in a very interesting blade

And: of course you can't thrust with a sword or knife which doesn't have quillons or something simiilar which prevents you from slipping onto the blade and cutting your fingers if you hit something rigid (eg. bone).

Cheers

Stefan

[John Lethbridge]

Ooo good topic.
A few people have caught some that were familiar to me however another that would be good to address is the general dating of the cruciform sword - a large number of people seem to think that the 'classic' medieval sword with full cross just 'existed' - they have no idea how long it took to evolve into that form, nor what other forms were around.

Perhaps a bit of a wide topic, but if you can address it succinctly, I think it would be of tremendous value.

[Allen Reed]

Hi guys,

I'm wondering if the smart people here can assist me? I know that sword myths have been discussed before, but I've been through past threads and haven't found what I'm after.

I am looking for science and/or myths relating to swords or armour that I could use with high school students. I have a few ideas but I'm looking for any smart ideas that people here might have. Something with a bit of a mythbusters feel to it would be good, but equally, a straight forward, "what's the physics behind this?" phenomenon might be cool too.

Any help will be appreciated.

Cheers
Stephen

Only knights had swords.

Allen

[Will Adamson]

Ooo good topic.
A few people have caught some that were familiar to me however another that would be good to address is the general dating of the cruciform sword - a large number of people seem to think that the 'classic' medieval sword with full cross just 'existed' - they have no idea how long it took to evolve into that form, nor what other forms were around.

Perhaps a bit of a wide topic, but if you can address it succinctly, I think it would be of tremendous value.

I doubt most high school kids can even spell cruciform, much less know what it is and what other designs might be possible. I'd stick to the sort of stuff contained in movies like heaviness of longswords and the spinning, flipping, leaping about, and slashing with thrusting swords. Armor related stuff is always fun too.

I would open up a can of worms on the whole edge parrying/blocking thing, but like discussions on abortion, it would just be a useless shouting match from entrenched positions.

Oh, and the real size of shields would be another good topic. You can show how difficult fighting from behind an enormous shield one on one really is.

[Aron Montaini]

Going along with the knight having to be winched onto his horse, I have heard folks talk about armor weighing upward of two hundred or more pounds. Figure in a one hundred-eighty pound man coupled with two hundred pounds of armor, and don't leave out that twenty pound sword; that better be one strong horse! Better hope there wasn't any recent rain to soggy up the field.

[Will Adamson]

Oh, that reminds me. Even having heavier armor, since the weight is distributed over the body and fitting rather closely to it, the wearer can still move quite well and even get up from his back. Add to the fact that these guys trained diligently for just this sort of thing, and were thus very much used to it.

[Bob Brooks]

Sorry chaps, forgot to mention:

Medieval swords have quillions to stop your hand from being injured when you attack your opponent's shield

Also, that the langets/flukes below the ricasso on a zweihander were in fact 'blade breakers' - an all-time classic.

Of course, that katanas can cut through machine-gun barrels Just like Perseus's sword could cleave marble

That titanium would be a great metal for swords viz stainless steel.

And finally, in direct contradiction that medieval swords were not sharp, you would, of course, slice your hand if you actually did use half-sword techniques. (pointed out to me by a JSA practitioner at a recent event!)

Oh, the horror!

Bob

[T.L. Johnson]

Spinning around in a circle is a wonderful swordfighting tactic, since the momentum you build from the pirouette is enough for your blade to knock away the weapon in your enemy's hand.

Best of all, you opponent is always kind enough to refrain from sticking you in the back as you do the manuever.

[Steven H]

I have written a couple of essays on the subject, and would be happy to share them as long as credit is given.

Medieval Sword Myths

Samurai Myths

My focus in on showing the evidence used to disprove the myths.

-Steven Hirsch aka Mercutio Wilder

P.S. Please contact me if you do use the material. Thanks.

[Robert Koulakjian]

Surprisingly, I haven't seen the perpetuated myth from the movie Excaliber. Including that one, I've thrown in a few more.

- Armour is completely useless and swords can stab through them.

- Or if that one is too unbelievable, everyone knows that japanese swords could easily cleave a european knight in half through his 100+ pounds of useless "iron."

- Also, swords are the weapon of choice for a mounted knight and not lances.

- You can defeat every knight by cutting the straps on his armour. This is a popular SCA myth that I've seen and I even had a member claim it had happened in one of his "live steel" matches. If only they had read some Talhoffer...

[Duncan McEvoy]

Getting a bit dull you could use the example of the fullers to explain how curves or arch's are naturally strong. Then bring in the maths and physics to explain how this works with swords, and so how light swords can still be very strong but still flexible. Sorry if I'm stating the obvious.

[George Hill]

This os a good one. I think 'The Once and Future King' is more than a little to blame for this. Read that book and you'll find pretty much all the myths you could not wish for.

I'm pretty sure it was Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.

On the subject of the 20 pound sword, this fellow has done wonderful work debunking that.


http://www.truefork.org/DragonPreser...Swordheavy.php

[Oscar Erkenswick]

To build on what Duncan said, mention the "I-Beam principle". I beams used in contstruction are very strong, but take up much less material that a square beam of similar perimeter dimensions.

Also, the idea that japanese tsuba were purely ornamental was debunked for me a few months ago on the Armour Archive by pictures of some.

Likewise, the idea that one can only make stupid hard blocks (an elaboration of the "european fighting is unintelligent and based solely on strength" idea).

How about the idea that Medieval Europe was a samurai B movie where everyone carried a sword, and whipped it out for violence when someone blew their nose wrong..

[Felix Wang]

One JSA myth is that the swords were made of layers folded many, many times (i.e. "1000" or so), which resulted in near magical properties. This myth is amenable to simple physics analysis - given the size of an iron atom, the thickness of a sword, and the number of layers resulting from 1000 foldings, the metal would be entirely homogeneous. There would be no layers of differing metal.

[George Hill]

One JSA myth is that the swords were made of layers folded many, many times (i.e. "1000" or so), which resulted in near magical properties. This myth is amenable to simple physics analysis - given the size of an iron atom, the thickness of a sword,

This brings up a question that I've been meaning to ask. Does the hammering process compress the metal, thereby increasing the base density of the metal? If you force a certain amount of matter into a smaller volume, this will happen, but I am uncertain as to if this actually happens in swordmaking.

[Bob Brooks]

One JSA myth is that the swords were made of layers folded many, many times (i.e. "1000" or so), which resulted in near magical properties. This myth is amenable to simple physics analysis - given the size of an iron atom, the thickness of a sword, and the number of layers resulting from 1000 foldings, the metal would be entirely homogeneous. There would be no layers of differing metal.

It's a fascinating myth, and what follows may perhaps provide something scientific that my goodly pal Mr Hand can ply his students with.

While 'folding' of a blade is considered quite the artifice in Japanese sword making, a Dark Age specimen found on my doorstep last year puts this concept somewhat into context.

The 7th century Anglian specimen found at Bamburgh - Dark Age capital of Northumbria - is to date the only one known to be in existence.

Although Western pattern-welded swords have been found before, which have been made of up to four strands, none had ever been found with six.

One leading archaeologist involved said the importance of this find was "akin to the discovery of the weapons from Sutton Hoo."

Dr David Starley, science officer at the Royal Armouries in Leeds, confirmed that nothing like this has ever been seen before, commenting that it was "an exceptional sword blade which is obviously of very high status and of European significance."

So much for the superior sword-making of the East.

Honourably,

Bob

[Kent Enfield]

Samurai Myths

Um, a couple things.

First, it's "koryū," not "kyo-ru". I have no idea what the latter would mean.

Second, koryu aren't necessarily intended for battlefield use, or from times when fighting in a war was common. There's 250 years of the Edo period, where swordsmanship increasing becomes focused on unarmored duelling.

Third, related to the second point above, the similarity or lack there of between kendo and koryu kenjutsu depends on what koryu. There's a huge variety of koryu, and their character depend on time and place of origin, among other things. Sure, really old, battlefield oriented styles are pretty different from kendo, but something like Hokushin Itto Ryu, founded around 1830, focused on one-on-one unarmored duelling, and one of the direct technical antecedents of kendo, isn't that different.

It also depends what kendo you're looking at. Are you looking at high-schoolers or kodansha? Shiai or kata?

[Cor Kronenburg]

About the heavy armours and the use of some elevating device to get the knight on its horse…

In later times (say 1650-1700) when the joust became more and more a sport, the armours did get heavier, with the bigger helmets for better protection. (I always use the comparison between playing Rugby in the early Middle Ages and American Football in the later) As there was no longer the threat having to fight after one was un-horsed in the joust, the armours became heavier and more specialized for the soul-purpose of jousting (if you fell down, two squires came running in to pick you up again) I am talking about the joust as a single event, so no ground-fights afterwards!

With kind regards,

Cor Kronenburg