The maximum weight of the sword. How much did historical swords weigh? Knight XXI century

What did Historical Swords Weight?

Translation from English: Georgy Golovanov

"Never overload yourself with heavy weapons,
for the mobility of the body and the mobility of the weapon
the essence of the two main assistants in victory "

— Joseph Suitnam,
"School of the noble and worthy science of defense", 1617

How much did they weigh medieval and renaissance swords? This question (perhaps the most common on the subject) can be easily answered knowledgeable people. serious scientists and fencing practices value knowledge of the exact dimensions of the weapons of the past, while the general public and even specialists are often completely ignorant in this matter. Find reliable information about the weight of real historical swords Those who really passed the weighing are not easy, but to convince skeptics and ignoramuses is a task no less difficult.

A weighty problem.

False claims about the weight of Medieval and Renaissance swords are unfortunately quite common. This is one of the most typical misconceptions. And it's not surprising, considering how many errors about fencing the past is spread through the mass media. Everywhere from TV and movies to video games, historical European swords are portrayed as clumsy, and brandished in sweeping motions. Recently, on The History Channel, a respected academic and military technology expert confidently stated that swords XIV centuries sometimes weighed as much as "40 pounds" (18 kg)!

From simple life experience, we know perfectly well that swords could not be excessively heavy and did not weigh 5-7 kg or more. It can be endlessly repeated that this weapon was not bulky or clumsy at all. It is curious that although accurate information on the weight of swords would be very useful to weapons researchers and historians, a serious book with such information does not exist. Perhaps the vacuum of documents is part of this very problem. However, there are several reputable sources that provide some valuable statistics. For example, the catalog of swords from the famous Wallace Collection in London lists dozens of exhibits, among which it is difficult to find anything heavier than 1.8 kg. Most of the examples, from combat swords to rapiers, weighed much less than 1.5 kg.

Despite all assurances to the contrary, medieval swords were actually light, comfortable and weighed less than 1.8 kg on average. Leading Sword Expert Ewart Oakshot claimed:

“Medieval swords were neither unbearably heavy nor the same - the average weight of any sword of standard size ranged from 1.1 kg to 1.6 kg. Even large one and a half hand "military" swords rarely weighed more than 2 kg. Otherwise, they would certainly be too impractical even for people who learned to use weapons from the age of 7 (and who had to be strong in order to survive) ”(Oakeshot, Sword in Hand, p. 13).

Leading author and researcher of European swords of the 20th centuryEwart Oakshotknew what he was saying. He held thousands of swords in his hands and personally owned several dozen copies, from Bronze Age until the 19th century.

medieval swords, as a rule, were high-quality, light, maneuverable military weapons, equally capable of inflicting chopping blows and deep cuts. They didn't look like the clumsy, heavy things that are often portrayed in the media, more like a "club with a blade." According to another source:

“The sword turned out to be surprisingly light: the average weight of swords from the 10th to the 15th centuries was 1.3 kg, and in the 16th century it was 0.9 kg. Even the heavier bastard swords, which were used by only a small number of soldiers, did not exceed 1.6 kg, and the horsemen's swords, known as "one and a half", weighed 1.8 kg on average. It is logical that these surprisingly low numbers also apply to huge two-handed swords, which were traditionally wielded only by "real Hercules". And yet they rarely weighed more than 3 kg” (translated from: Funcken, Arms, Part 3, p. 26).

Since the 16th century, there were, of course, special ceremonial or ritual swords that weighed 4 kg or more, however, these monstrous samples were not military weapons, and there is no evidence that they were generally intended for use in battle. Indeed, it would be pointless to use them in the presence of more maneuverable combat specimens, which were much lighter. Dr. Hans-Peter Hills in a 1985 dissertation dedicated to the great master of the 14th century Johannes Liechtenauer writes that since the 19th century, many weapon museums have passed off large collections of ceremonial weapons as military weapons, ignoring the fact that their blade was blunt, and the size, weight and balance were impractical to use (Hils, pp. 269-286).

Expert opinion.

In the hands of a wonderful example of a military sword of the 14th century. Testing the sword for maneuverability and ease of handling.

The belief that medieval swords were unwieldy and clumsy to use has already acquired the status of urban folklore and still confuses those of us who begin swordsmanship. It is not easy to find an author of books on fencing of the 19th and even 20th centuries (even a historian) who would not categorically state that medieval swords were "heavy", "clumsy", "bulky", "uncomfortable" and (as a result of a complete misunderstanding of the possession technique, goals and objectives of such weapons) they were supposedly intended only for attack.

Despite the measurement data, many today are convinced that these great swords must be especially heavy. This opinion is not limited to our age. For example, a generally flawless booklet on army fencing 1746, "The Use of the Broad Sword" Thomas Page, spreads tales about early swords. After talking about how the state of affairs has changed from the early technique and knowledge in the field of combat fencing, Page declares:

“The form was crude, and the technique was devoid of Method. It was an Instrument of Power, not a Weapon or a Work of Art. The sword was enormously long and wide, heavy and heavy, forged only to be cut from top to bottom by the Power of a strong Hand” (Page, p. A3).

views Page shared by other fencers, who then used light small swords and sabers.

Testing a 15th century two-handed sword at the British Royal Armories.

In the early 1870s, Capt. M. J. O'Rourke, a little-known Irish-American, historian and swordsmanship teacher, spoke of early swords, characterizing them as "massive blades that required all the strength of both hands". We can also recall a pioneer in the field of historical swordsmanship research, Egerton Castle, and his notable comment about "rough antique swords" ( Castle,"Schools and masters of fencing").

Quite often, some scholars or archivists, connoisseurs of history, but not athletes, not swordsmen who have trained in swordsmanship since childhood, authoritatively assert that knight's sword was "heavy". The same sword in trained hands will seem light, balanced and maneuverable. For example, the famous English historian and curator of the museum Charles Fulkes in 1938 stated:

“The so-called crusader's sword is heavy, with a wide blade and a short handle. It has no balance, as the word is understood in fencing, and it is not intended for thrusts, its weight does not allow for quick parries ”(Ffoulkes, p. 29-30).

Fulkes's opinion, completely unfounded, but shared by his co-author Captain Hopkins, was a product of his experience in gentlemanly duels with sporting weapons. Fulkes, of course, bases his opinion on the light weapons of his day: rapiers, swords, and dueling sabers (just as a tennis racket may seem heavy to a table tennis player).

Unfortunately, Fulkes in 1945 he even says:

“All swords from the 9th to the 13th centuries are heavy, poorly balanced and equipped with a short and uncomfortable handle”(Ffoulkes, Arms, p.17).

Imagine, 500 years of professional warriors being wrong, and a museum curator in 1945, who has never been in a real sword fight or even trained with a real sword of any kind, informs us of the shortcomings of this magnificent weapon.

famous french medievalist later repeated Fulkes's opinion literally as a reliable judgment. Dear historian and specialist in medieval military affairs, Dr. Kelly de Vries, in a book on military technology Middle Ages, still writes in the 1990s about "thick, heavy, uncomfortable, but exquisitely forged medieval swords" (Devries, Medieval Military Technology, p. 25). It is no wonder that such "authoritative" opinions influence modern readers, and we have to put in so much effort.

Testing of a 16th century bastard sword at the Glenbow Museum, Calgary.

Such an opinion about the "bulky old swords", as one French swordsman once called them, could be ignored as a product of their era and lack of information. But now such views cannot be justified. It is especially sad when leading swordsmen (trained only in the weapons of modern fake dueling) proudly make judgments about the weight of early swords. As I wrote in the book "Medieval Fencing" 1998:

“It is a pity that the presenters masters of sports fencing(wielding only light rapiers, swords, and sabers) demonstrate their delusions of "10-pound medieval swords that can only be used for 'embarrassing cuts and cuts'."

For example, a respected swordsman of the 20th century Charles Selberg mentions "heavy and clumsy weapons of early times" (Selberg, p. 1). BUT modern swordsman de Beaumont declares:

"In the Middle Ages, armor required that weapons - battle axes or two-handed swords - be heavy and clumsy" (de Beaumont, p. 143).

Did the armor require weapons to be heavy and clumsy? In addition, the 1930 Fencing Book stated with great certainty:

“With a few exceptions, the swords of Europe in 1450 were heavy, clumsy weapons, and in balance and ease of use did not differ from axes” (Cass, p. 29-30).

Even today this idiocy continues. In a book with an apt title "The Complete Guide to crusades for Dummies" informs us that the knights fought in tournaments, "chopping each other with heavy, 20-30 pounds swords" (P. Williams, p. 20).

Such comments speak more about the inclinations and ignorance of the authors than about the nature of real swords and fencing. I myself have heard these statements countless times in personal conversations and online from fencing instructors and their students, so I do not doubt their prevalence. As one author wrote about medieval swords in 2003,

"they were so heavy that they could even split armor", and great swords weighed "up to 20 pounds and could easily crush heavy armor" (A. Baker, p. 39).

None of this is true.

Weighing a rare example of a 14th century combat sword from the collection of the Arsenal of Alexandria.

Perhaps the most deadly example that comes to mind is Olympic fencer Richard Cohen and his book on fencing and the history of the sword:

"swords that could weigh over three pounds were heavy and poorly balanced and required strength rather than skill" (Cohen, p. 14).

With all due respect, even when he accurately states the weight (simultaneously belittling the merits of those who wielded them), however, he is only able to perceive them in comparison with the fake swords of modern sports, even considers that the technique of using them was predominantly "impact-crushing". According to Cohen, does it mean that a real sword, designed for a real fight to the death, should be very heavy, poorly balanced and do not require real skills? And are modern toy swords for pretend fights the right ones?

In the hands of a sample of the Swiss combat sword of the 16th century. Sturdy, lightweight, functional.

For some reason, many classical swordsmen still fail to understand that the early swords, being real weapons, were not made to be held at arm's length and twisted with only fingers. It is now the beginning of the 21st century, there is a revival of the historical martial arts of Europe, and swordsmen still adhere to the delusions of the 19th century. If you do not understand how a given sword was used, it is impossible to appreciate its true capabilities or understand why it was made the way it was. And so you interpret it through the prism of what you already know yourself. Even wide swords with a cup were maneuverable piercing and slashing weapons.

Oakeshott was reporting on existing problem, a mixture of ignorance and prejudice, even more than 30 years ago, when he wrote his significant book "The sword in the era of chivalry":

“Add to this the fantasies of the romantic writers of the past, who, wishing to give their heroes the features of a superman, make them brandish huge and heavy weapons, thus demonstrating a power far beyond the capabilities of modern man. And the picture is completed by the evolution of attitudes towards this type of weapon, up to the contempt that lovers of sophistication and elegance who lived in the eighteenth century, romantics of the Elizabethan era and admirers of magnificent art had for swords. renaissance. It becomes clear why a weapon that is only available for viewing in its degraded state can be considered ill-conceived, crude, heavy and ineffective.

Of course, there will always be people for whom the strict asceticism of forms is indistinguishable from primitivism and incompleteness. Yes, and an iron object a little less than a meter long may well seem very heavy. In fact, the average weight of such swords varied between 1.0 and 1.5 kg, and they were balanced (according to their purpose) with the same care and skill as, for example, a tennis racket or fishing rod. The prevailing opinion that they cannot be held in hands is absurd and outdated, but it continues to live, as well as the myth that only a crane could lift knights dressed in armor on a horse ”( Oakeshott, "The Sword in the Age of Chivalry", p. 12).

Even a similar broadsword of the 16th century is quite convenient to control for striking and jabbing.

Longtime researcher of arms and fencing at the British Royal Armories Keith Ducklin claims:

“From my experience at the Royal Armories, where I studied real weapons from various periods, I can state that a European wide-bladed battle sword, whether slashing, thrusting-slashing or thrusting, usually weighed from 2 pounds for a one-handed model to 4, 5 pounds for two-handed. Swords made for other purposes, for example, for ceremonies or executions, could weigh more or less, but these were not combat specimens ”(from personal correspondence with the author, April 2000).

Mr. Ducklin, no doubt knowledgeable, because he held and studied literally hundreds of excellent swords from the famous collection and considered them from the point of view of a fighter.

Training with a fine example of a real 15th century estoc. Only in this way can one understand the true purpose similar weapons.

In a brief article about the types of swords of the XV-XVI centuries. from the collections of three museums, including exhibits from Museum Stibbert in Florence, Dr. Timothy Drawson noted that none of the one-handed swords weighed more than 3.5 pounds, and none of the two-handed swords weighed more than 6 pounds. His conclusion:

“On the basis of these specimens, it is clear that the idea that the swords of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance were heavy and clumsy is far from the truth” (Drawson, p. 34 & 35).

Subjectivity and objectivity.

Obviously, if you know how to handle a weapon, the technique of its use, and the dynamics of the blade, then any weapon of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance will seem to you flexible and convenient to use.

In 1863, a sword maker and major specialist John Latham from "Wilkinson Swords" erroneously claims that excellent example 14th century sword possessed "enormous weight" because "it was used in those days when warriors had to deal with opponents clad in iron." Latham adds:

"They took the heaviest weapons they could and applied as much force as they could" (Latham, Shape, p. 420-422).

However, commenting on the "excessive weight" of swords, Latham speaks of a 2.7 kg sword forged for a cavalry officer who thought it would strengthen his wrist, but as a result “not a single living person could chop with it ... The weight was so large that it was impossible to give it acceleration, so the cutting force was zero. A very simple test proves it” (Latham, Shape, p. 420-421).

Latham adds also: "Body type, however, greatly affects the result". He then concludes, repeating the common mistake that strong man will take more heavy sword to deal more damage to them.

“The weight a person can lift at the highest speed will have the best effect, but a lighter sword may not necessarily move faster. The sword can be so light that it feels like a "whip" in the hand. Such a sword is worse than too heavy” (Latham, p. 414-415).

I must have enough mass to hold the blade and point, parry blows and give strength, but at the same time it must not be too heavy, that is, slow and awkward, otherwise faster weapons will describe circles around it. This necessary weight depended on the purpose of the blade, whether it should stab, cut, both, and what kind of material it might encounter.

Most of the swords of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance are so balanced and balanced that they seem to literally cry out to you: "Possess me!"

Fantastic tales of knightly prowess often mention huge swords that only great heroes and villains could wield, and with which they cut horses and even trees. But all these are myths and legends, they cannot be taken literally. In Froissart's Chronicles, when the Scots defeat the English at Mulrose, we read of Sir Archibald Douglas, who "held before him a huge sword, the blade of which was two meters long, and hardly anyone could lift it, but Sir Archibald without labor owned it and inflicted such terrible blows that everyone it hit fell to the ground; and there was no one among the English who could resist his blows. Great swordsman of the 14th century Johannes Liechtenauer he himself said: "The sword is a measure, and it is large and heavy" and is balanced by a suitable pommel, which means that the weapon itself must be balanced and therefore suitable for combat, and not heavy. Italian master Filippo Wadi in the early 1480s he instructed:

"Take a light weapon, not a heavy one, so that you can easily control it so that its weight does not interfere with you."

So, the swordsman specifically mentions that there is a choice between "heavy" and "light" blades. But - again - the word "heavy" is not a synonym for the word "too heavy", or bulky and clumsy. You can just choose, like, for example, a tennis racket or a baseball bat lighter or heavier.

Having held in my hands more than 200 excellent European swords of the XII-XVI centuries, I can say that I have always paid special attention to their weight. I have always been struck by the liveliness and balance of almost all the specimens that I came across. Medieval and Renaissance swords, which I personally studied in six countries, and in some cases fenced with them and even chopped, were - I repeat - light and well balanced. Having considerable experience in the possession of weapons, I have very rarely seen historical swords that would not be easy to handle and maneuver. Units - if there were any - from short swords to bastards weighed over 1.8 kg, and even they were well balanced. When I came across examples that I found too heavy for me or not balanced for my taste, I realized that for people with a different physique or fighting style, they might fit well.

In the hands of weapons from the collection of the Swedish Royal Arsenal, Stockholm.

When I worked with two fighting swords of the 16th century, each 1.3 kg, they showed themselves perfectly. Dexterous blows, thrusts, defenses, transfers and quick counterattacks, furious slashing blows - as if the swords were almost weightless. There was nothing "heavy" in these frightening and elegant instruments. When I practiced with a real two-handed sword of the 16th century, I was amazed at how light the 2.7 kg weapon seemed, as if it weighed half as much. Even though it was not intended for a person of my size, I could see its obvious effectiveness and efficiency because I understood the technique and method of wielding this weapon. The reader can decide for himself whether to believe these stories. But those countless times when I held excellent examples of weaponry of the 14th, 15th or 16th centuries in my hands, stood up, made movements under the attentive glances of benevolent guardians, firmly convinced me of how much real swords weighed (and how to wield them).

One day, while examining several swords of the 14th and 16th centuries from the collection Ewart Oakeshott, we were even able to weigh a few pieces on a digital scale, just to make sure they weighed correctly. Our colleagues did the same, and their results matched ours. This experience of learning about real weapons is critical Association ARMA in relation to many modern swords. I'm becoming increasingly frustrated with the accuracy of many contemporary replicas. Obviously, the more a modern sword is similar to a historical one, the more accurate the reconstruction of the technique of using this sword will be.

In fact,
correct understanding of the weight of historical swords
necessary to understand their correct application.

Measuring and weighing samples of weapons from a private collection.

Having studied in practice many medieval and renaissance swords, having collected impressions and measurement results, dear fencer Peter Johnson He said that “I felt their amazing mobility. In general, they are fast, accurate and expertly balanced for their tasks. Often the sword seems much lighter than it actually is. This is the result of a careful distribution of mass, not just a point of balance. Measuring the sword's weight and its point of balance is only the beginning of understanding its "dynamic balance" (i.e., how the sword behaves in motion)." He adds:

“In general, modern replicas are very far from the original swords in this regard. Distorted ideas about what a real sharp military weapon is, is the result of training only on modern weapons.

So, Johnson also claims that real swords are lighter than many think. Even then, weight is not the only indicator, because the main characteristics are the distribution of mass on the blade, which in turn affects the balance.

We carefully measure and weigh samples of weapons of the 14th and 16th centuries.

Need to understand
that modern copies of historical weapons,
even being approximately equal in weight,
do not guarantee the same feeling of owning them,
like their old originals.

If the blade geometry does not match the original (including along the entire length of the blade, shape and crosshairs), the balance will not match.

Modern copy often feels heavier and less comfortable than the original.

Accurate reproduction of the balance of modern swords is an important aspect of their creation.

Today, many cheap and low-grade swords - historical replicas, theatrical props, fantasy weapons or souvenirs - are made heavy due to poor balance. Part of this problem arises from the sad ignorance of the geometry of the blade on the part of the manufacturer. On the other hand, the reason is a deliberate reduction in the price of manufacturing. In any case, sellers and manufacturers can hardly be expected to admit that their swords are too heavy or poorly balanced. It's much easier to say that real swords should be like that.

Testing of an original infantryman's two-handed sword, 16th century.

There is another factor why modern swords usually made heavier than the originals.

Due to ignorance, smiths and their clients expect the sword to feel heavy.

These sensations arose after numerous images of lumberjack warriors with their slow swings, demonstrating the heaviness "barbarian swords", because only massive swords can deal a heavy blow. (In contrast to the lightning-fast aluminum swords of the Oriental martial arts demonstrations, it's hard to blame anyone for this misunderstanding.) While the difference between a 1.7 kg sword and a 2.4 kg sword doesn't seem like much, when attempting to reconstruct the technique, the difference becomes quite tangible. Also, when it comes to rapiers, which typically weighed between 900 and 1100 grams, their weight could be misleading. All the weight of such a thin thrusting weapon was concentrated in the handle, which gave the point greater mobility despite the weight compared to wider slashing blades.

After we have discussed, let's find out something closer to reality.

Around two-handed swords of the Middle Ages, thanks to the efforts of mass culture, the most incredible rumors always wind. Look at any art picture of a knight or a Hollywood movie about those times. All the main characters have a huge sword, reaching them almost to the chest. Some give weapons a pood weight, others with incredible dimensions and the ability to cut a knight in half, and still others claim that swords of this size could not exist as military weapons.

Claymore

Claymore (claymore, claymore, claymore, from the Gallic claidheamh-mòr - “big sword”) is a two-handed sword that has become widespread among the Scottish highlanders since the end of the 14th century. Being the main weapon of the foot soldiers, the claymore was actively used in skirmishes between tribes or border battles with the British.

Claymore is the smallest among all its brethren. This, however, does not mean that the weapon is small: the average length of the blade is 105-110 cm, and together with the handle the sword reached 150 cm. This design made it possible to effectively capture and literally pull out of the hands of the enemy any long weapon. In addition, the decoration of the horns of the bow - breaking through in the form of a stylized four-leaf clover - became a distinctive sign by which everyone easily recognized the weapon.

In terms of size and effectiveness, the claymore was perhaps the most the best option among all two-handed swords. It was not specialized, and therefore it was used quite effectively in any combat situation.

Zweihander

Zweihänder (German Zweihänder or Bidenhänder / Bihänder, “two-handed sword”) is a weapon of a special division of landsknechts, consisting of a double salary (doppelsoldners). If the claymore is the most modest sword, then the zweihander was indeed impressive in size and in rare cases reached two meters in length, including the hilt. In addition, he was notable for the double guard, where special " boar fangs» separated the unsharpened part of the blade (ricasso) from the sharpened one.

Such a sword was a weapon of very limited use. The fighting technique was quite dangerous: the owner of the zweihander acted in the forefront, pushing away (or even completely chopping) the shaft of enemy lances and spears. Owning this monster required not only remarkable strength and courage, but also considerable skill as a swordsman, so that mercenaries received double salaries not for beautiful eyes. The technique of fighting with two-handed swords bears little resemblance to the usual blade fencing: such a sword is much easier to compare with a reed. Of course, the zweihander did not have a scabbard - he was worn on the shoulder like an oar or a spear.

Flamberg

Flamberg ("flaming sword") is a natural evolution of a regular straight sword. The curvature of the blade made it possible to increase the striking ability of the weapon, however, in the case of large swords, the blade turned out to be too massive, fragile and still could not penetrate high-quality armor. In addition, the Western European fencing school suggests using the sword mainly as a piercing weapon, and therefore, curved blades were not suitable for it.

By the 14th-16th centuries, the achievements of metallurgy led to the fact that the chopping sword became practically useless on the battlefield - it simply could not pierce armor made of hardened steel with one or two blows, which played a critical role in mass battles. Gunsmiths began to actively look for a way out of this situation, until they finally came up with the concept of a wave blade that has a series of successive anti-phase bends. Such swords were difficult to manufacture and were expensive, but the effectiveness of the sword was undeniable. Due to a significant reduction in the area of ​​the striking surface, upon contact with the target, the destructive effect was greatly enhanced. In addition, the blade acted like a saw, cutting through the affected surface.

The wounds inflicted by the flamberg did not heal for a very long time. Some commanders sentenced captured swordsmen to death solely for carrying such weapons. The Catholic Church also cursed such swords and branded them as inhumane weapons.

Espadon

Espadon (French espadon from Spanish espada - sword) is a classic type of two-handed sword with a four-sided cross-section of the blade. Its length reached 1.8 meters, and the guard consisted of two massive arches. The center of gravity of the weapon often shifted to the tip - this increased the penetrating power of the sword.

In battle, such weapons were used by unique warriors, who usually had no other specialization. Their task was to break up the enemy's battle formation, swinging huge blades, overturning the first ranks of the enemy and pave the way for the rest of the army. Sometimes these swords were used in the battle with the cavalry - due to the size and mass of the blade, the weapon made it possible to very effectively cut the legs of horses and cut through the armor of heavy infantry.

Most often, the weight of military weapons ranged from 3 to 5 kg, and heavier specimens were award or ceremonial. Sometimes weighted replica warblades were used for training purposes.

estok

Estoc (fr. estoc) is a two-handed stabbing weapon designed to pierce knightly armor. A long (up to 1.3 meters) tetrahedral blade usually had a stiffener. If the previous swords were used as a means of countermeasures against the cavalry, then the estoc, on the contrary, was the rider's weapon. Riders wore it on the right side of the saddle, so that in case of loss of a peak, they had an additional means of self-defense. In equestrian combat, the sword was held with one hand, and the blow was delivered due to the speed and mass of the horse. In a skirmish on foot, the warrior took it in two hands, compensating for the lack of mass with his own strength. Some examples of the 16th century have a complex guard, like a sword, but most often there was no need for it.

And now let's look at the largest combat two-handed sword.

Supposedly this sword belonged to the rebel and pirate Pierre Gerlofs Donia known as "Big Pierre", who, according to legend, could cut off several heads of them at once, he also bends coins using his thumb, forefinger and middle finger.

According to the legend, this sword was brought to Friesland by the German Landsknechts, it was used as a banner (it was not a combat one), this sword captured by Pierre began to be used as a combat one.

Pierre Gerlofs Donia (Pier Gerlofs Donia, West Frisian Grutte Pier, circa 1480, Kimswerd - October 18, 1520, Sneek) was a Frisian pirate and independence fighter. Descendant of the famous Frisian leader Haring Harinxma (1323-1404).
Son of Pier Gerlofs Donia and Frisian noblewoman Fokel Sybrants Bonya. He was married to Rintze Sirtsema (Rintsje or Rintze Syrtsema), had from her a son, Gerlof, and a daughter, Wobbel (Wobbel, born in 1510).

On January 29, 1515, his court was destroyed and burned by soldiers from the Black Gang, landsknechts of the Saxon duke Georg the Bearded, and Rintze was raped and killed. Hatred for the murderers of his wife prompted Pierre to take part in the Geldern War against the powerful Habsburgs, on the side of the Duke of Geldern, Charles II (1492-1538) from the Egmont dynasty. He made a treaty with the Duchy of Guelders and became a pirate.

The ships of his flotilla "Arumer Zwarte Hoop" dominated the Zuiderzee, causing great damage to the Dutch and Burgundian shipping. After capturing 28 Dutch ships, Pierre Gerlofs Donia (Grutte Pier) solemnly declared himself the "King of Frisia" and headed for the liberation and unification of his native country. However, after he noticed that the Duke of Guelders did not intend to support him in the war of independence, Pierre terminated the union treaty and resigned in 1519. On October 18, 1520, he died in Grootzand, a suburb of the Frisian town of Sneek. Buried on the north side of Sneek's Great Church (built in the 15th century)

Here it is necessary to make a remark that the weight of 6.6 is abnormal for a combat two-handed sword. A significant number of their weight varies in the region of 3-4 kg.

sources

“Oh, knights, get up, the hour of deeds has come!
You have shields, steel helmets and armor.
Your dedicated sword is ready to fight for faith.
Give me strength, oh God, for new glorious battles.
I, a beggar, will take rich booty there.
I don't need gold and I don't need land,
But maybe I will, singer, mentor, warrior,
Heavenly bliss forever awarded "
(Walter von der Vogelweide. Translation by V. Levik)

A sufficient number of articles have already been published on the VO website on the topic of knightly weapons and, in particular, knightly armor. However, this topic is so interesting that you can delve into it for a very long time. The reason for the next appeal to her is a banal ... weight. Weight of armor and weapons. Alas, recently I again asked students about how much a knight's sword weighs, and received the following set of numbers: 5, 10 and 15 kilograms. They considered the chain mail of 16 kg to be very light, although not all of them, and the weight of the plate armor of 20 and a few kilos is simply ridiculous.

Figures of a knight and a horse in full protective gear. Traditionally, knights were imagined just like that - “chained in armor”. (Cleveland Museum of Art)

At VO, of course, “things with weight” are much better due to regular publications on this topic. However, the opinion about the exorbitant heaviness of the "knight's suit" of the classical type has not been outlived so far here. Therefore, it makes sense to return to this topic and consider it with specific examples.

Let's start with the fact that British armament historians created a very reasonable and clear classification of armor according to their specific characteristics and eventually divided the entire Middle Ages, focusing, of course, on available sources, into three eras: the “epoch of chain mail”, “the era of mixed chain mail and plate protective weapons" and "the era of one-piece forged armor". All three eras together make up the period from 1066 to 1700. Accordingly, the first era has a framework of 1066 - 1250, the second - the era of chain mail and plate armor - 1250 - 1330. But then this: an early stage in the development of knightly plate armor (1330 - 1410) stands out, “ great period"in the history of the knights in" white armor "(1410 - 1500) and the era of the decline of knightly armor (1500 - 1700).

During the years of the “wonderful Soviet education”, we never heard of such a periodization. But in the school textbook "History of the Middle Ages" for the VΙ class for many years, with some rehashings, one could read the following:
“It was not easy for the peasants to defeat even one feudal lord. The equestrian warrior - a knight - was armed with a heavy sword and a long spear. With a large shield, he could cover himself from head to toe. The body of the knight was protected by chain mail - a shirt woven from iron rings. Later, chain mail was replaced by armor - armor made of iron plates.

The knights fought on strong, hardy horses, which were also protected by armor. The armament of the knight was very heavy: it weighed up to 50 kilograms. Therefore, the warrior was clumsy and clumsy. If the rider was thrown off his horse, he could not get up without outside help and was usually captured. To fight on a horse in heavy armor, a long training was needed, the feudal lords were preparing for military service since childhood. They constantly practiced fencing, horseback riding, wrestling, swimming, and javelin throwing.

A war horse and knightly weapons were very expensive: for all this it was necessary to give a whole herd - 45 cows! The landowner, for whom the peasants worked, could carry out knightly service. Therefore, military affairs became almost exclusively the occupation of the feudal lords ”(Agibalova, E.V. History of the Middle Ages: Textbook for the 6th grade / E.V. Agibalova, G.M. Donskoy, M .: Enlightenment, 1969. P. 33; Golin, E.M. History of the Middle Ages: Textbook for the 6th grade of the evening (shift) school / E.M. Golin, V.L. Kuzmenko, M.Ya. Loyberg. M .: Education, 1965. P. 31- 32.)

Only in the 3rd edition of the textbook "History of the Middle Ages" for the 5th grade of secondary school V.A. Vedyushkin, published in 2002, the description of knightly weapons became somewhat truly thought out and corresponded to the above-mentioned periodization used today by historians around the world: “At first, the knight was protected by a shield, helmet and chain mail. Then the most vulnerable parts of the body began to hide behind metal plates, and from the 15th century chain mail was finally replaced by solid armor. The combat armor weighed up to 30 kg, so for the battle the knights chose hardy horses, also protected by armor.

That is, in the first case, intentionally or out of ignorance, the armor was divided by era in a simplified way, while the weight of 50 kg was attributed to both the armor of the “epoch of chain mail” and the “era of all-metal armor” without dividing into the actual armor of the knight and the armor of his horse. That is, judging by the text, our children were offered information that "the warrior was clumsy and clumsy." In fact, the first articles about the fact that this is actually not the case were the publications of V.P. Gorelik in the magazines "Around the World" in 1975, however, this information did not get into the textbooks for the Soviet school at that time. The reason is clear. On anything, on any examples, to show the superiority of the military art of Russian soldiers over the “dog-knights”! Unfortunately, the inertia of thinking and the not too great significance of this information make it difficult to disseminate information that corresponds to the data of science.

Nevertheless, the provisions of the school textbook V.A. Vedyushkin completely correspond to reality. Moreover, information about the weight of the armor, well, let's say, from the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York (as well as from other museums, including our Hermitage in St. for some reason, it didn't get there at the time. However, why is understandable. After all, we had the best education in the world. However, this special case, although quite revealing. It turned out that there were chain mail, then - r-r-time and now armor. Meanwhile, the process of their appearance was more than lengthy. For example, only around 1350 was the appearance of the so-called “metal chest” with chains (from one to four) that went to the dagger, sword and shield, and sometimes a helmet was attached to the chain. Helmets at that time were not yet connected to the protective plates on the chest, but under them they wore chain mail hoods that had a wide shoulder. Around 1360, clasps appeared on armor; in 1370, the knights were already almost completely dressed in iron armor, and chain mail was used as a base. The first brigandines also appeared - caftans, and lined with metal plates. They were used both as an independent type of protective clothing, and were worn along with chain mail, both in the West and in the East.

Since 1385, the hips began to be covered with armor from articulated metal strips. In 1410 armor with a full cover of plates for all parts of the body spread throughout Europe, but the throat covering of mail was still used; in 1430, the first notches-grooves appeared on the elbow and knee pads, and by 1450, armor made of forged steel sheets had reached its perfection. Since 1475, the grooves on them have become increasingly popular, until fully corrugated or so-called "Maximilian armor", the authorship of which is attributed to the Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I, becomes a measure of the skill of their manufacturer and the wealth of their owners. In the future, knightly armor again became smooth - fashion influenced their shape, but the skills achieved in the craftsmanship of their decoration continued to develop. Now not only people fought in armor. The horses also received it, as a result, the knight with the horse turned into something like a real statue of metal polished and sparkling in the sun!

Although ... although there have always been fashionistas and innovators “running ahead of the locomotive”. For example, it is known that in 1410 a certain English knight named John de Fearles paid 1,727 pounds sterling to Burgundian gunsmiths for armor, a sword and a dagger made for him, which he ordered to be decorated with pearls and ... diamonds (!) - a luxury, not only unheard of by that time, but even for him it is not at all characteristic.

Each piece of plate armor has its own name. For example, plates for the thighs were called cuisses, knee pads - logs (poleyns), jambers (jambers) - for the shins and sabatons (sabatons) for the feet. Gorget or bevor (gorgets, or bevors), protected the throat and neck, cutters (couters) - elbows, e (s) paulers, or half-drons (espaudlers, or pauldrons), - shoulders, rep (e) braces (rerebraces) - forearm , vambraces - part of the arm down from the elbow, and gant (e) years (gantelets) - these are “plate gloves” - they protected the hands. The full set of armor also included a helmet and, at least at first, a shield, which later ceased to be used on the battlefield around the middle of the 15th century.

As for the number of parts in the "white armor", in the armor of the middle of the 15th century, their total number could reach 200 units, and taking into account all the buckles and nails, along with hooks and various screws, even up to 1000. The weight of the armor was 20 - 24 kg, and it was evenly distributed over the body of the knight, unlike chain mail, which pressed the man on the shoulders. So “no crane was needed at all to put such a rider in his saddle. And knocked down from his horse to the ground, he did not at all look like a helpless beetle. But the knight of those years is not a mountain of meat and muscles, and he by no means relied only on brute strength and bestial ferocity. And if we pay attention to how knights are described in medieval works, we will see that very often they had a fragile (!) And graceful physique, and at the same time they had flexibility, developed muscles, and were strong and very agile, even when dressed in armor, with a well-developed muscular reaction.

AT last years In the 15th century, knightly armaments became the subject of special concern for European sovereigns, and, in particular, Emperor Maximilian I (1493 - 1519), who is credited with creating knightly armor with grooves over their entire surface, eventually called "Maximilian". It was used without any changes in the 16th century, when new improvements were required due to the ongoing development of small arms.

Now quite a bit about swords, because if you write about them in detail, then they deserve a separate topic. J. Clements, a well-known British expert on edged weapons of the Middle Ages, believes that it was the appearance of multi-layered combined armor (for example, on the effect of John de Kreke we see as many as four layers of protective clothing) that led to the appearance of a "sword in one and a half hands." Well, the blades of such swords ranged from 101 to 121 cm, and the weight was from 1.2 to 1.5 kg. Moreover, blades for chopping and stabbing are known, and already purely for stabbing. He notes that riders used such swords until 1500, and they were especially popular in Italy and Germany, where they received the names Reitschwert (horseman's) or knight's sword. In the 16th century, swords appeared that had wavy and even serrated sawtooth blades. At the same time, their length itself could reach human height with a weight of 1.4 to 2 kg. Moreover, in England, such swords appeared only around 1480. The average weight of the sword in the X and XV centuries. was 1.3 kg; and in the sixteenth century - 900 g. Bastard swords "one and a half hands" had a weight of about 1.5 - 1.8 kg, and the weight of two-handed swords was rarely more than 3 kg. The latter reached their heyday between 1500 and 1600, but have always been infantry weapons.

But shortened three-quarter armor for cuirassiers and pistols, even in their shortened form, often weighed more than those that assumed protection only from cold weapons and they were very heavy to wear. Cuirassier armor has been preserved, the weight of which was about 42 kg, i.e. even more than classic knightly armor, although they covered a much smaller surface of the body of the one to whom they were intended! But this, it should be emphasized, is not knightly armor, that's the point!

Around the weapons of the Middle Ages, many stories, epics, legends and inventions of people have been created. So the two-handed sword is shrouded in secrets and allegories. People have always doubted the huge size of the sword. Indeed, for combat, it is not the size that is important in the first place, but the effectiveness and combat power of the weapon. Despite the size, the sword was a success and was very popular among the warriors. But using such a sword was within the power of exceptionally strong, powerful warriors. The total weight of this instance of the sword is about two kilograms five hundred grams, the length is about a meter, and the handle is a quarter of a meter.

Historical facts

A two-handed sword of this type in the battles of the Middle Ages became widespread in rather late times. All the equipment of a warrior consisted of metal armor and a shield to protect against enemy blows, a sword and a spear. Gradually, the masters learned to cast weapons from metal with better quality, new types of swords appeared, compact in size and much more effective.

Such weapons were expensive, not every soldier could afford to buy a sword. The sword was wielded by the most dexterous, courageous, brave and fairly wealthy warriors and guards. The experience of owning a sword was passed from father to son, constantly improving skills. The warrior had to have heroic strength, excellent reaction, masterfully wield a sword.

The purpose of the two-handed sword

Due to the huge dimensions and heavy weight, only soldiers of a heroic physique owned a two-handed sword. In close combat, they were very often used in the front ranks to break through the first ranks of the enemy. To deprive the shooters and soldiers with halberds following them of the opportunity to strike. Since the dimensions of the sword required a certain free perimeter so that the warrior could swing, close combat tactics had to be changed periodically. The soldiers were forced to constantly change their place of deployment; in the center of the battle, due to the large concentration of soldiers, it was very difficult for them to fight.

In close combat, swords were used mainly to deal a crushing blow and break through the enemy's defenses. In battles in open areas, soldiers used the sword to strike from above and below the opponent in battle. The hilt of the sword could be struck in the face of the enemy as close as possible to each other.

Design features

There were several types of two-handed swords:

1. At military ceremonies, for various rituals, as a gift for rich, noble people, large two-handed swords were most often used, the weight of each such instance reached five kilograms. Some individual specimens were very often used as a special simulator for improving combat skills and hand training.
2. A two-handed sword for combat battles weighing about three and a half kilograms and had a length of about one meter seventy centimeters. The length of the handle of such specimens was about half a meter and served as a sword balancer. A soldier who is fluent in combat tactics, has excellent dexterity and dexterity, practically did not notice the dimensions of the sword. For comparison, it is worth noting that the total weight of a one-handed sword was about one and a half kilograms.
3. A classic two-handed sword from the floor to the shoulder of a soldier, and a hilt from the wrist to the elbow.

Positive and negative qualities of the sword

If we consider the advantages of two-handed swords, we can distinguish the most basic:

• The warrior using this sword was protected around a fairly large perimeter;
• Crushing slashing blows inflicted by a two-handed sword are very difficult to repulse;
• The sword is universal in use.

It is worth paying attention to the negative qualities:

1. The sword had to be held with two hands, therefore, the possibility of additional protection in the form of a shield was excluded.
2. The dimensions of the sword did not allow to move quickly, and the large weight led to the warrior's rapid fatigue and, as a result, to low efficiency in battle.

Types of two-handed swords

1. . The compact Scottish weapon, among the various specimens of two-handed swords, is distinguished by its relatively small dimensions. The length of the blade was about one hundred and ten centimeters. Another important distinguishing feature of this sample is a special design, thanks to which the warrior could pull any weapon out of the hands of the enemy. The small size of the sword makes it possible to use it as efficiently as possible in combat battles, it is rightfully considered the best specimen among two-handed swords.
2. Zweihander. This sample is characterized by huge dimensions, the length of the sword reaches two meters. The design of the sword is very specific, the paired cross (guard) serves as the boundary between the double-edged blade, the hilt and the unsharpened part of the sword. Such an instance was used in battle to crush the enemy, armed with spears and halberds.
3. Flamberg. A type of two-handed sword with a special wave-shaped blade. Thanks to such an unusual design, the effectiveness of a soldier armed with such a sword in combat battles has increased many times over. A warrior wounded by such a blade recovered for a long time, the wounds healed very poorly. Many military leaders executed captured soldiers for carrying such a sword.

A little about other varieties of swords.

1. Cavalrymen very often used the Estoc sword to pierce through the armor of the enemy. The length of this specimen is one meter thirty centimeters.
2. The next classic variety of a two-handed sword. "Espadon" its length is one hundred and eighty centimeters. It has a cross (guard) of two arches. The center of gravity of such a blade is shifted to the tip of the sword blade.
3. Sword "Katana". Japanese copy of the sword, with a curved blade. It was used by soldiers mainly in close combat, the length of the blade is about ninety centimeters, the handle is about thirty centimeters. Among the swords of this variety, there is a sample with a length of two hundred and twenty-five centimeters. The power of this sword allows you to cut a person into two parts with one blow.
4. Chinese two-handed sword "Dadao". A distinctive feature is a wide blade, curved, sharpened on one side. Such a sword found its use even during the war with Germany in the forties of the twentieth century. The soldiers used the sword in hand-to-hand combat with the enemy.

In one of historical museums A two-handed sword is exhibited in Holland, which has been preserved in excellent condition to our times. This is a huge specimen two meters and fifteen centimeters long and weighing six kilograms six hundred grams. Historians suggest that the sword was made in the fifteenth century in Germany. In combat battles, the sword was not used, it served as a festive attribute for various military holidays and ceremonies. In the manufacture of the sword handle, oak was used as a material and decorated with a piece of goat skin.

In conclusion about the two-handed sword

Only real, mighty heroes, for whom the Russian land has been famous since ancient times, could manage such a powerful, impressive, frightening-looking weapon. But not only our land can boast of effective weapons and brave warriors, in many foreign countries similar weapons were made, with various distinctive features. In the combat battles of the Middle Ages, this weapon witnessed numerous victories and defeats, brought a lot of joy and grief.

Mastery of the sword is implied not only in the ability to deal crushing blows, but also in the dexterity, mobility and resourcefulness of a warrior.

Despite the size, weight and sluggishness, the two-handed sword was widely used in battles in the Middle Ages. The blade usually had a length of more than 1 m. Such weapons are characterized by a handle over 25 cm with a pommel and a massive elongated crosshair. The total weight with the handle averaged from 2.5 kg. Only strong warriors could cut with such weapons.

Two-handed swords in history

Oversized blades appeared relatively late in the history of medieval warfare. In the practice of battles, an indispensable attribute of a warrior in one hand was a shield for protection, the second he could cut with a sword. With the advent of armor and the beginning of progress in metallurgical casting, long blades with a two-handed grip began to gain popularity.

Such a weapon was expensive pleasure. Well-paid mercenaries or bodyguards of the nobility could afford it. The owner of a two-handed sword had to not only have strength in his hands, but also be able to handle it. The pinnacle of the skill of a knight or warrior in the security service was the thorough possession of such weapons. Fencing masters honed the technique of using two-handed swords constantly and passed on the experience to the elite class.

Purpose

A two-handed sword, the weight of which is over 3-4 kg, could only be used in battle by strong and tall warriors. They were put on the cutting edge at a certain point. They could not constantly be in the rearguard, because with the rapid convergence of the sides and the compaction of the human mass in hand-to-hand combat, there was not enough free space for maneuver and swings.

To deliver slashing blows, such weapons must be perfectly balanced. Two-handed swords could be used in close combat to punch holes in the dense defense of the enemy, or to repel the offensive of tightly closed ranks of dive bombers and halberdiers. Long blades were used to cut their shafts and thus enable lightly armed infantry to get close to the ranks of the enemy.

In combat in open areas, a two-handed sword was used for chopping blows and for piercing armor with a thrust using a long lunge. The crosshair often served as an additional side point and was used in close combat for short blows to the face and unprotected neck of the enemy.

Design features

The sword is a melee weapon with a mutually sharpened blade and a sharp end. The classic blade with a grip for two hands - the espadon ("big sword") - is distinguished by the presence of an unsharpened section of the blade (ricasso) at the crosshair. This was done in order to be able to intercept the sword with the other hand to facilitate the swing. Often this section (up to a third of the length of the blade) was additionally covered with leather for convenience and had an additional crosshair to protect the hand from blows. Two-handed swords were not equipped with scabbards. They were not needed, since the blade was worn on the shoulder, it was impossible to fasten it to the belt due to its weight and dimensions.

Another equally popular two-handed sword - the claymore, whose homeland is Scotland, did not have a pronounced ricasso. Warriors wielded such weapons with a grip with both hands on the handle. The crosshair (guard) was forged by craftsmen not straight, but at an angle to the blade.

The occasionally encountered sword with a wavy blade - flamberg - did not differ significantly in characteristics. He cut no better than ordinary straight blades, although the appearance was bright and memorable.

Sword record holder

The largest combat two-handed sword that has survived to our time and is available for viewing is in the Netherlands Museum. It was made presumably in the 15th century by German craftsmen. With a total length of 215 cm, the giant weighs 6.6 kg. Its oak handle is covered with a single piece of goat skin. This two-handed sword (see photo below), according to legend, was captured from the German landsknechts. They used it as a relic for ceremonies and did not use it in battles. The blade of the sword is marked with Inri.

According to the same legend, the rebels later captured it, and it went to a pirate nicknamed Big Pierre. Due to his physique and strength, he used the sword for its intended purpose and was allegedly able to cut several heads with it at once with one blow.

Combat and ceremonial blades

The weight of the sword, 5-6 kg or more, testifies rather to its ritual purpose than to its use for combat battles. Such weapons were used at parades, at initiations, and were presented as a gift to decorate walls in the chambers of nobles. Simple-made swords could also be used by fencer instructors to develop hand strength and blade technique in training warriors.

A real combat two-handed sword rarely weighed 3.5 kg with a total length of up to 1.8 m. The handle had up to 50 cm. It was supposed to serve as a balancer in order to balance the overall design as much as possible.

Ideal blades, even with a solid weight in the hands, were not just a metal blank. With such weapons, with sufficient skills and constant practice, it was easy to cut heads at a decent distance. At the same time, the weight of the blade in its various positions was felt and felt by the hand in almost the same way.

The real combat samples of two-handed swords stored in collections and museums with a blade length of 1.2 m and a width of 50 mm have a weight of 2.5-3 kg. For comparison: one-handed samples reached up to 1.5 kg. Transitional blades with a handle of one and a half grips could weigh 1.7-2 kg.

National two-handed swords

Among the peoples Slavic origin A sword is a double-edged blade. In Japanese culture, a sword is a cutting blade with a curved profile and one-sided sharpening, held by a hilt with protection against oncoming blow.

The most famous sword in Japan is the katana. This weapon is intended for close combat, has a handle (30 cm) for gripping with both hands and a blade up to 90 cm. One of the temples stores a large two-handed no-tachi sword 2.25 m long with a 50 cm handle. Such a blade can cut a person in half with one hit or stop a galloping horse.

The Chinese dadao sword was distinguished by a larger blade width. It, like the Japanese blades, had a curved profile and one-sided sharpening. They carried weapons in a sheath behind their backs on a garter. A massive Chinese sword, two-handed or one-handed, was widely used by soldiers in World War II. When there was not enough ammunition, with this weapon, the red units went into hand-to-hand attack and often achieved success in close combat.

Two-handed sword: advantages and disadvantages

The disadvantages of using long and heavy swords are low maneuverability and the inability to fight with constant dynamics, since the weight of the weapon significantly affects endurance. The grip with two hands eliminates the possibility of using a shield to protect against oncoming blows.

A two-handed sword is good in defense because it can block more sectors with great efficiency. In an attack, you can inflict damage on the enemy from the maximum possible distance. The weight of the blade allows for a powerful slashing blow that is often impossible to parry.

The reason why the two-handed sword was not widely used is irrationality. Despite a clear increase in the power of the chopping blow (twice), the significant mass of the blade and its dimensions led to an increase in energy costs (four times) during the duel.