When I discuss about blade profiles, I stick with 4 terms that describe how the sword was designed to be used; Thrust centric (e.g. smallswords, estoc), thrust and cut (e.g. rapiers, side swords), cut and thrust(e.g. broadswords, infantry sabers), and cut centric (e.g. falchions, or deep curved sabers). There's obviously a lot of play with this sort of terminology, and exceptions, but it helps give some rough estimate as an intro. For example, some tulwars can thrust moderately, but their main emphasis is cutting. It's describing rapiers that I mainly use the term, thrust and cut. People I talk with mostly think of rapiers as only being used in the thrust, like a giant smallsword. When I refer to them as a cut and thrust, they take that to mean like a broadsword and end up more confused. So when I describe them as a thrust and cut, the use being more emphasized on the thrust but also capable of a decent cut is when it starts making sense.
Thanks Nick, really enjoyed the vid. One question, if the back edge isn't used in the fight, why is it there? It seems like it would be unnecessary work for a smith.
I'd say the biggest reason is tradition. Back when sword hilts were symetrical and with straight blades they typically were double edged, it makes sense as you can draw the sword either way. Once sword hilts were designed in such a way as to have a fixed back and front, like by having a complex hilt or curved blade, the full second edge becomes redundant. At this stage I feel tradition and fashion are the reasons for them remaining. Never underestimate the importance of fashion on sword design.
Thank you! Now, with all this historical context it finally has a sence. When you have only smallswords and broadswords, leaving behind all others, it's pretty logical. I will be glad to hear your thoughts about hilt development. Cause, well, adding at least knuckle bow looks pretty obvious from here.
It's by Armourclass in Scotland. They are very nice though these blades are too floppy and soft edged. They have a few other blade options now which are interesting. I have another model of theirs which I have just fitted a Kvetun blade to, that is a nice setup.
I remember a few years ago when a friend of mine was adamantly arguing with me that an Arming Sword is called a Broadsword. He still genuinely thinks his lifetime of DnD, fantasy books and LARP means that he knows more than me about swords... Despite the fact I've been into Medieval History and HEMA for several years.
Thank you for making this one , Nick. I had never seen a slot hilt dragoon sword before. Found it fascinating and would love a closer look. Curious about the longer blade it had. Weren't dragoon troops supposed to dismount when they fought? Or did they dismount fight with the musket and used the sword while mounted? Thanks again for taking the time to put this presentation together! Cheers
No problem, glad you enjoyed it. I will show that more. In fact I am prepping a video all about slot hilt swords and it will feature there too. Traditionally a dragoon meant a mounted infantryman yes. So use the horse to deploy and then fight on foot. However as time went on the dragoons increasingly became cavalrymen, to the degree that by the late 18th century what were being called dragoons were just cavalrymen, though they did often still carry carbines also.
Schiavona is a specific style of basket hilt and they have a lot in common with typical British broadswords beside their aesthetics. The Dussack in English would be called a cutlass or hanger, and in some times a falchion. In recent times both these terms of crept into English because we now look back on such a broad period of history and so its useful to draw on more specific terms.
PLEASE do one about what defines a "Bastard Sword". That's the one I want to see the most, because that is my personal favorite Cruciform Sword variant, and I'm still trying to completely figure out what characteristics make up a "true" Bastard Sword. I've heard other sword experts talk about what defines a Bastard Sword (they mostly say it's a really modern term), and one thing that sticks with me that continues to kinda confuse me is "All Bastard Swords are Longswords, but not all Longswords are Bastard Swords." REALLY hope you'll explain that concept when/if you do an episode on Bastard Swords.
Just the 2 cents of certainly no expert here, but as I understand it that would be a sword with a blade that's just about the maximum length for someone to wield one-handed, but has a grip of a length where you can wield it two-handed. If you use two hands it is functionally a longsword since you would use longsword techniques. So I think the reason it's hard to nail down the specifics of a bastard sword is because the maximum one-hander length is very different from person to person, so they have to be "fitted" to be dual-functional. Addendum: Although it doesn't have to be so precise. If you take an arming sword blade and stick a longsword hilt on it I'd call that a bastard sword as well, though it may not provide much or any benefit over a sword that isn't a compromise.
I'll talk about this in the longsword video. But in short, no bastard sword is not a modern term, it goes back at least as far as the 17th century, and is well described in one 1664 dictionary as a small two handed sword. Which is exactly what it is. The term longsword for smaller two handed swords was not in the English language until very recently, and is a result of the modern practice from German sources and the direct translation of langschwert to longsword. Whereas a longsword in English meant a long bladed one handed sword. The bastard sword term is used to define a category of swords which fall in between the one handed sword and the true two hander, called zweihander, montante etc in other languages. The bastard sword can potentially be used in one or two hands because it is a small two handed sword.
It is a Hanwei/Tinker Early Medieval Arming Sword. Overall no I would not. It handles great, just like many originals, but the edges are thin and soft and so they take a lot of edge damage, and they need to have an additional safety tip added as they are very narrow at the tip. That said, I have had it for at least 13 years and so clearly not a bad sword, but the durability is an issue, and we also had a lot of tang breaks with other Hanwei/Tinker models, and so no longer buy them.
It's not used in English generally speaking. But it's generally use for large and broad cut and thrust swords, such as the 1796 heavy cavalry sword, which was based on an Austrian model, they called it a Pallasch, whereas in English we'd simply call it a broadsword. Pallasch are typically single edged and so again many could be called backsword.
Short answer a sword that is double edged and is broad usually at least three finger widths, and is either a predominantly cut centric or compromise cut and thrust blade. Term of broadsword could viably be used to describe several different types of sword ranging from migration era type X (10) (viking sword) to the Scottish basket hilted claymore ( broadsword ) basically a double edged backsword. And several variations that came to prominence between the 10th and 18th centuries. At least within European History.
In this series we are looking at the terms when they were used as clearly defined ones to distinquish different weapons in the 17th-19th century. as previously it was less frequently used and not at all clearly defined. The term was also frwquenrly applied to single edged swords (like backswords and pallasch), especially from the mid 18th century onwards.
Terminology is such a funny thing. If it changes throughout history and even on who is talking, the only way of knowing what they mean is background and context. In my opinion, it would be far easier to stick to the contemporary convention and give these swords the name most people will associate with what is commonly meant (I hope this makes sense). For me, it would be backsword for a single edged one and broadsword for the double edged sword. It is not because someone in 18C called a sword laundry that I would question how it would be called today. No offence, but I'm not really in agreement with your conclusion.
But what is the name "most people associate with what is commonly meant? And who decides it? Backsword is a very rare term to hear today in most countries. And in many cases the people using the term would only apply it to a basket hilted sword with a single edge. What about the 1796 heavy cavalry sword? What about the 1796 infantry spadroon? Both of these swords are very much of the backsword variety but aren't called as such. I'd never say people can't use the term backsword, only that broadsword is equally applicable when used as an umbrella term, as was not just in the 18thc, but it has been for hundreds of years. Lastly, it is not just down to what was done historically. I never say we should automatically use the in period terms. A good example of this would be longsword, a term commonly used today to refer to the sword used in two hands. But that was never the case throughout the history of the English language, not until people started recently using German sources and translated langschwert to longsword. Therefore as a community we have the ability to mould and change language over time. The huge problem with the term backsword is it assumes a light and agile blade in comparison to the broadsword, yet when there is such variety found in both it becomes rather unhelpful. So let it apply to specific swords, thats fine, the broadsword term doesn't have to supplant it. Broadsword is by definition a broad category of weapons, it is a functional term, and backsword is fine for referring to specifically British basket hiled single edged swords if one wishes.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing Well, in the sword community certain names are most commonly applied to certain swords, so it's the collective that decides the terminology. In case of the backsword, it is indeed the basket hilted highland sword that comes to my mind first but without excluding other straight bladed single edged swords primarily intended to cut. So, the 1796 pattern heavy cavalry blade would fit perfectly in that picture. The 1796 pattern light cavalry sabre would not (for me). Now, what I bring forward here is the impression I get after following the subject for only a couple years, I'm by no means a specialist. Anyway, important is that when a name is used for a sword, the audience get the same picture in mind as the speaker. If that's the case, the name used is the right one (if maybe not the correct one ;-) ).
Nick that is a Biltmore basket guard. A Claymore is use for capping horses knees as they were ridden by. A knight face plant then he loses his head as the claymore is use above the shoulders.
In fact the sword I showed is what was called the Claymore. The Victorians are the ones who began incorrectly calling the two handed Scottish sword the Claymore.
For some reason I intuitively associate this term with a two-edged sword with minimal profile tapering, i.e. the cutting edges are parallel. I realize that has no historical validity though (and there may not even have been any such objects).
Depends if you consider a back strap to still be a pommel (or part of it). Back strap cavalry swords of around 1kg do indeed almost always feel heavy, though how the mass is distributed can vary a lot. But indeed a cavalry sword with a more traditional pommel at 1kg can often feel light and nimble, like a Walloon, basket hilt or Schiavona at 1kg is really quite nimble, but a three bar, dish of stirrup sabre feels quite hefty.
