History UsefulNotes / Swords

* Finally, there are swords that specialize in stabbing. These tend to have narrow blades with a geometric cross-section—sometimes triangular, sometimes square, sometimes hexagonal—and seem to resemble very large needles. Sometimes they have cutting edges so that you can slash with them if necessary, but sometimes they don't; their point of balance is way back in the hilt, which makes for faster thrusting but drastically lowers the power of a slashing attack. (The real point of keeping an edge on the blade was so your opponent couldn't grab it.) The sport of fencing descends from these weapons.

* [[http://www.vikingsword.com/ethsword/kaskara/index.html Kaskara]] and [[http://www.vikingsword.com/ethsword/takouba/ takouba]] are swords used by, respectively, people from Sudan and Chad, and the Tuaregs (well, we're stretching the definition of sub-Saharan a bit, but let's not get into digressions). The curious thing about them, and the reason why they're listed in the same paragraph, is that both are surprisingly similar to the Western arming sword, what back in the good old days[[hottip:*:I'm being sarcastic]] of {{Mighty Whitey}}s and [[WhiteManBurden White Man's burden]] led to the conclusions, like, that there once was a Lost Tribe of Whites around these parts. Or descendants of the Crusaders. Or King Solomon's mines, or whatever. It is nowadays generally thought that the designs are local with possible influences from traded European blades, or descend from the swords the Arabs used before the scimitars got fashionable.

* Middle-eastern swords have influenced the development of the last swords to see common military use in Europe, the relatively heavy, curved, single-edged 'saber' and 'cutlass,' which appeared in the 17th Century as successors to the rapier. The Talwar directly inspired the creation of the 1796 British Light Cavalry Sabre (especially the way the blade grew wider at the point), which in turn influenced an American version.

European swordmakers had access to a great amount of high-quality iron, allowing them to create the material-intensive sword in abundance. Coontrary to popular belief, however, European swords weren't 30 lb. hunks of steel. A two-handed sword actually weighs around 5-6 lbs. Some western swords feel heavier than others because their center of balance is located closer to the tip, to give them a more powerful swing.

* The Japanese short sword, single-edged and normally curved like the katana, usually with a blade 40 to 50cm long. For a time late in the feudal era it was fashionable for samurai to wear a pair of swords, one long and one short, and some martial arts schools taught use of two swords simultaneously, one in each hand (though many influential members of the samurai class, like Miyamoto Musashi, disdained this practice as needlessly showy).

* A sword that's designed primarily for cutting, with little or no thrusting utility, is more likely to be curved; sabers, "scimitars" (a label invented and misapplied by historians, like "broadsword") and katanas fall into this category. As with the "basic" cruciform sword, the balance will be further up the blade so that there's more force in the cut. If you're planning to fight from horseback, these are your best bet: a straight-bladed sword is too likely to be yanked out of your grasp as you thunder by at 40 miles per hour.

* The first and most obvious design, at least to us Westerners, is the so-called "broadsword"[[hottip:* :This is wrong, but see below for why we're using it anyway]], the basic straight-bladed cruciform sword which has been in existence since well before the time of Christ. The most prominent scholar of these weapons was the late, great [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewart_Oakeshott Ewart Oakeshott]], whose [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakeshott_typology Oakeshott typology]] summarizes the evolution of the European sword from the 8th century to the 18th. A sword from Oakeshott's catalogue has both a point and an edge, and can both cut and thrust, though it often features limited utility in one attack or the other. Its point of balance is up in the blade, making it feel like a hammer when you swing it.

Because pure iron was difficult to come by in ancient Japan, Japanese master swordsmiths had to remove impurities from the iron by "folding of the blade". Folding iron is a common forging technique not unique to Japan, but Japanese blades were folded many more times than many European blades to compensate for the inherent lack of quality in material. Quality steel was so rare that even samurai and noblemen normally wore armor made mostly of lacquered wood, perhaps with a brass or iron helmet.

* A truly unique weapon, hook swords have a, well, hook at the tip of the blade, along with a substantial hand-guard and a big ol' sharp spike for a pommel. Heaven only knows where the cutting edge is on this thing, but presumably the edges are sharpened somewhere. These swords are almost ''always'' [[DualWielding Dual Wielded]], not just for the practicality of trapping the enemy's weapon with one hook and hitting him with the other, but because if you hook the two swords ''together'' you suddenly have this insane lasso monkey-chain-of-death thing. This sword is often described as something that was used on ancient battlefields, but most of the ''actual'' historical artifacts we have are at most 400 years old, and maybe even only 100 (TheOtherWiki is unspecific). They're also, as you can imagine, AwesomeButImpractical. Long story short, it's entirely possible that these weapons have never been employed in actual combat (Hollywood and Hong Kong cinema notwithstanding).

* The infamous "horse cutting saber," this weapon dates back to the Song Dynasty and was used by infantry against cavalry. It consisted of a long single-edged blade and a long handle suitable for two-handed use. This may be where the Japanese got the idea for the ''zanbato'', considering both names use the same characters in Kanji or Pinyin. Other Japanese-looking Chinese swords exist, such as the Chang Dao and Wo Dao from the Ming era, and the Miao Dao from the Republican era.

Note that many sources miscategorize most European swords under the name "broadswords." The term "broadsword" is actually a given name, referring to a specific ''type'' of basket-hilted straight-bladed sword popular amongst Britons in the 16th Century. The [[http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0012TVLQK foam swords you've seen in stores]] are along similar lines. The term was appropriated by historians who needed to differentiate between medieval cutting swords and the slimmer, stabbing weapons of the fencing era. Because knightly swords had no previous catch-all term, historians simply slapped "broadsword" onto category, and it's in that spirit that we (mis)used the name earlier in the article.

* These came in different variations, like the Scots claymore (claidheamh mór, "great sword") or the German Bidenhänder/Zweihänder ("two-hander"), and were very rare indeed. Their length and weight varried (from 145cm to 2m in length, and from 1.5kg to 5kg), but the average zweihander was roughly 170cm in length and weighed around 3kg. Their primary purpose, aside from ceremonial designs, was for use by shock infantry to disrupt and break apart tightly-packed pike formations. Due to their effectiveness they were often used by banner guards and personal guards. They were an expensive and difficult to master, and soldiers that mastered their use were counted among the elite, and given double pay. Originals that survive tend to have been ceremonial or judicial weapons. However, while they sound very heavy and unwieldy they are surprisingly agile weapons due to the length of the hilt. Surviving Scots claymore have hilts typically about 50-60 cm long. This gives the user significant leverage to swing the heavy blade (one hand puts in pressure, the other acts as fulcrum). Most European two-handed swords were straight-bladed, double-edged weapons, possibly with or without a stabbing point, but there was also a curved, single-edged European two-handed sword briefly popular in the XIV Century, a heavy slashing and chopping weapon of French origin called a "falchion."

* These light, slender weapons, the first to break out of the "broadsword" family and the first to be outside Oakeshott's typology, appeared in the XV and XVI Centuries, and a [[ImplausibleFencingPowers number of very flashy swordsmanship schools appeared]] teaching their use, emphasizing speed and agility over brute force. The older, heavier cutting swords had begun falling from favor as armor increased in durability. Polearms and blunt weapons were much better at hacking through plate, especially as the Rise of Dakka speedened up the end of knights' age. Meanwhile among the civilians, carefully-aimed stabs became the order of the day. Hence, the rapier: a slender, maneuverable weapon which gave rise to the entire family of "fencing" weapons. Many rapiers had very ornate handguards in which the crossguards curved around to protect the hand and fingers. These later evolved into bell-shaped or D-shaped guards that protected the hand and knuckles, on later forms of the sword.

* The curved blades that have been used in the middle eastern region, from Turkey to India, are usually categorized as "scimitars"[[hottip:* :The name is fake, incidentally, see below]]. As many different cultures used them, they came in a variety of forms. The blade can be single or double-edged, narrow and wide, even the shape of the curve varies. They usually have a short hilt and two short guards and a buckled pommel. Varieties include the Indian Talwar, the Arabian saif, the Persian shamshir, the Turkish kilij, the Moroccan nimcha, and the Afghan pulwar among more.

* Before the Western Europe adopted the sabres and cutlasses, the East have been happily using them for a long time to hack at each other. Around XVI-XVII Century, the constant fighting with the Turks and various steppe peoples led to the straight swords being replaced by local incarnations of the "scimitar" of the Middle-Eastern designs (though in an interesting twist, the Hungarians, being originally a nomadic steppe people, arrived in Europe wielding sabres to adopt the Western sword around the X-XI Century). Since then, the szabla/sablya/szablya was a standard side weapon in these parts of the world, even achieving the status of a national symbol in some places.

* Somewhere around late XII or XIII Century, improvements in forging allowed lengthened blades, allowing the arming sword to evolve into the classic 'longsword' - with a blade between 100-120cm, and an extended hilt allowing it to be used in either one or both hands. The English longsword was described as having the same blade length as the short sword (with the only difference in the length of the hilt), while the Germans thought that a longsword's pommel should reach the armpit of the person with the tip down to the ground. As advances in armoursmithing blessed [[KnightInShiningArmor Shining Armor]] with enough endurance so that the shield was unnecessary for survival, this type of sword became commonplace. Notably, most of medieval and renaissance swordsmanship manuals - and by extrapolation, historical European martial arts - are centred upon this type of sword. The term "bastard sword" used to be used for these types of weapons, as was "hand-and-a-half"er, but nowadays "longsword" is being asserted as the proper term for them.

* The second type, the 'xiphos', was a double-edged weapon with a leaf-shaped blade. Longer than makhaira, it was some 50-60 centimeters long. The xiphos tends to be more commonly depicted in Greek art.

* A truly unique weapon, hook swords have a, well, hook at the tip of the blade, along with a substantial hand-guard and a big ol' sharp spike for a pommel. Heaven only knows where the cutting edge is on this thing, but presumably the edges are sharpened somewhere. These swords are almost ''always'' [[DualWielding Dual Wielded]], not just for the practicality of trapping the enemy's weapon with one hook and hitting him with the other, but because if you hook the two swords ''together'' you suddenly have this insane lasso monkey-chain-of-death thing. This sword is often described as something that was used on ancient battlefields, but most of the ''actual'' historical artifacts we have are at most 400 years old, and maybe even only 100 (TheOtherWiki is unspecific). They're also, as you can imagine, AwesomeButImpractical. Long story short, it's entirely possible that these weapons have never been employed in actual combat (Hollywood notwithstanding).

* The jian is a classic "broadsword", a double-edged straight sword used during the last 2,500 years in China. Before steel was available, jian were originally made from bronze; there are some (probably ceremonial) specimens which are carved from a single solid piece of jade. The construction of the sword is done by sandwiching plates of steel that leaves the sword with remarkable flexibility. The Jian is considered a "Gentleman's weapon" and is featured in pretty much any Chinese movie that contains a sword; the "[[CrouchingTigerHiddenDragon Green Destiny]]" is the specimen non-swordgeek tropers are most likely to be familar with (it's being held by the girl at the top). In popularity, it is comparable to the katana, especially in mainland China, and many households buy a replica to display like one would a painting.

* Dao is a common term for "knife," but here it means a single-edge blade designed for cutting and slashing. It's sometimes called a "Chinese broadsword" because [[ExactlyWhatItSaysOnThetin the blade happens to be broad]], but it's a curved cutting weapon and so has nothing to do with cruciform swords. Zuko dual-wields these in ''AvatarTheLastAirbender'', and Michelle Yeoh is holding one on the ''CrouchingTigerHiddenDragon'' film poster.

As you can see, the shape and design of a sword has a lot to do with how you use it, something Hollywood doesn't always observe. There are also a number of now-overlooked sub-techniques to go with swordsmanship: do you have a two-hand sword or would you like something in your off-hand? What would you like? A dagger, for counter-attacks? A buckler, for parrying? A large wooden shield, which might trap your opponent's blade? How about half-swording?—which is when you ''deliberately'' grab your own sword halfway down the blade for use in close quarters. Traditional DualWielding, with two swords of similar make, while mentioned by various mediveal master, was an extremely unorthodox technique, and today is mostly excused by RuleOfCool. And there were always a vast majority of other weapons you could lay your hands on, like polearms (increased reach) or maces, hammers and morningstars (more crushing power). It's entirely possible that wars were fought more frequently with those weapons than with swords... but this article is about swords and ''not'' about those other weapons, so we're going to ignore that.

* Among the most common Viking swords was the seax, less commonly called a scramasax or hardsax, a straight-bladed, slightly tapering implement falling somewhere in between large knife and short sword, with a blade anywhere from 12" to 20" (30 to 50 centimeters) long, sometimes single-edged, often with a tiny, almost vestigial guard and broad flared pommel of cast brass. The seax was used as a tool as often as a weapon. Beowulf favored a seax and killed Grendel's mother with one.

* These came in different variations, like the Scots claymore (claidheamh mór, "great sword") or the German Bidenhänder/Zweihänder ("two-hander"), and were very rare indeed. Their length and weight varried (from 145cm to 2m in length, and from 1.5kg to 5kg), but the average zweihander was roughly 170cm in length and weighed around 3kg. Their primary purpose, aside from ceremonial designs, was for use by shock infantry to disrupt and break apart tightly-packed pike formations. Due to their effectiveness they were often used by banner guards and personal guards. They were an expensive and difficult to master, and soldiers that mastered their use were counted among the elite, and given double pay. Originals that survive tend to have been ceremonial or judicial weapons. However, while they sound very heavy and unwieldy they are surprisingly agile weapons due to the length of the hilt. Surviving Scots claymore have hilts typically about 50-60 cm long. This gives the user significant leverage to swing the heavy blade (one hand puts in pressure, the other acts as fulcrum).

* Despite spears having been the standard infantry weapon in Japan, the most famous Japanese weapon is by far [[KatanasAreJustBetter the katana]]. While katana in Japanese is used to mean any single edged sword with blade curvature (or "sori"), many sword lovers use the term to define the moderately curved, single edged sword of length no less than 60cm. The katana is largely associated with samurai. And now you know not {{every Japanese sword is a katana}}.

European swordmakers had access to considerably better iron than their Japanese equivalents. However, they also had far more of it, meaning that the relatively materials-intensive sword was much more common in Europe.

Many sources call these European weapons "broadswords", a term that will get you GannonBanned if you use it in the presence of true enthusiasts. Like "kukri" or "makhaira", the term "broadsword" is a given name, referring a particular ''type'' of basket-hilted straight-bladed sword popular amongst Britons in the 16th Century (the [[http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0012TVLQK foam swords you've seen in stores]] are along similar lines). Later, the term appears to have been appropriated by historians who needed to differentiate between medieval cutting swords and the slimmer stabbing weapons of the fencing era. So if "fencing swords" have a categorical name, why didn't historians just use the one associated with knightly swords? Because there ''isn't'' one; Cruciform Cutting Swords are just "_____swords". So historians slapped "broadsword" onto the category for lack of a better word, and it's in that spirit that we (mis)used the name earlier in the article.

* The arming sword is a much more versatile weapon, able to cut and thrust, and the cruciform hilt construction is a lot better for parrying off blows than shorter blades or curved blades. The second edge allows the weapon to cut in either direction; blows with the "short edge" (the edge which faces the wielder) are a major component of many Western martial arts. Contrary to popular belief, many of these swords of equivalent size were just about the same weight. This is the blade design most commonly seen in use by feudal and medieval knights, and was designed for use either on horseback, or on foot. It was generally a one-handed weapon, often used together with a shield or a buckler. The short sword as described by George Silver in his treatise "Paradox of Defence" in 1599 is similar, but with an early form of basket hilt (Contrary to RPGs, a short sword isn't exactly small: according to George Silver the short sword should have the blade length short enough so that when the sword is held with the hilt at the hip and the tip point forwards, the other hand should be able to pass the dagger around the tip by straightening the arm).

* These came in different variations, like the Scots claymore (claidheamh mór, "great sword") or the German Bidenhänder/Zweihänder ("two-hander"), and were very rare indeed. Their length and weight varried (from 145cm to 2m in length, and from 1.5kg to 5kg), but the average zweihander was roughly 170cm in length and weighed around 3kg. Their primary purpose, aside from ceremonial designs, was for use by shock infantry to disrupt and break apart tightly-packed pike formations. Due to their effectiveness they were often used by banner guards and personal guards. They were an expensive and difficult to master, and soldiers that mastered their use were counted among the elite, and given double pay. Originals that survive tend to have been ceremonial or judicial weapons. However, while they sound very heavy and unwieldy they are surprisingly agile weapons due to the length of the hilt. Surviving Scots claymore have hilts typically about 50-60 cm long. This gives the user significant leverage to swing the heavy blade (one hand puts in pressure, the other acts as fulcrum).
** You have undoubtedly read or heard from various sources that the average medieval sword weighed as much as thirty pounds. Whoever told you that DidNotDoTheResearch—which is understandable, considering that the average medieval sword currently resides in a museum in Europe somewhere, and those curators are not going to let just anyone walk up and handle their priceless historical artifacts. But the point is that the vast majority of those who write about swords has never held one, never trained in swordfighting, and never been in a duel in his life. The few people who ''have'' been able to do the research tell us that a well-balanced arming sword weighs less than three pounds, and a two-hander should weigh no more than five or six. It will ''feel'' heavier, just as anything does when you hold it from one end instead of the middle. But that doesn't mean it ''is'' thirty pounds.
*** The center of balance is just as important as the weight of the sword in terms of their "wieldiness". For example, a Polish sabre will feel as a lot heavier than, say, a Scottish baskethilt, even when both are of the same weight. This is because the center of balance in a Scottish baskethilt is a lot closer to the hilt (usually one or two inches on the blade above the hilt) than the Polish sabre (fencers call it "tip heavy"). Also, hilt length also take into account. For example, a 4-pound Scottish two-handed claymore feels nothing like a 4-pound bar of steel due to its extremely long hilt (which take up almost half the length of the whole sword), which allows good leverage when you use it with two hands.

* During the Middle Ages, the swords of Arabia and India were made with very high quality crucible steels, today called "Damascus steel". (Note: Damascus Steel is not the same as wootz steel, although it's a common mistake which happens to those who DidNotDoTheResearch.) While appearing much like pattern-welded (i.e. folded) steel due to the layered carbide bands formed during its production, wootz is in fact something completely different; the process of its production was lost sometime after 1000 AD. Many believe that it may have been abandoned because it was dependent on certain trace materials(the metal Vanadium) in the ore being used, bringing down the considerably superior strength of the original swords.

* Finally, there are swords that specialize in stabbing. These tend to have narrow blades with a geometric cross-section—sometimes triangular, sometimes square, sometimes hexagonal—and seem to resemble very large needles. Sometimes they have cutting edges so that you can slash with them if necessary, but sometimes they don't; their point of balance is way back in the hilt, which makes for faster thrusting but drastically lowers the power of a slashing attack. (The real point of keeping an edge on the blade was so your opponent couldn't grab it.)
** All sport-fencing weapons (foil, epee and sabre), and indeed the sport of fencing itself, descends from these weapons. What ''that'' means is that a fencing master can't teach you to fight like a knight or a samurai; his weapon is totally different. It'd be like asking a [[BladeOnAStick spear-user]] to teach you to [[AnAxeToGrind the axe]].

* Finally, there are swords that specialize in stabbing. These tend to have narrow blades with a geometric cross-section—sometimes triangular, sometimes square, sometimes hexagonal—and seem to resemble very large needles. Sometimes they have cutting edges so that you can slash with them if necessary, but sometimes they don't; their point of balance is way back in the hilt, which makes for faster thrusting but drastically lowers the power of a slashing attack. (The real point of keeping an edge on the blade was so your opponent couldn't grab it.)

As you can see, the shape and design of a sword has a lot to do with how you use it, something Hollywood doesn't always observe. There are also a number of now-overlooked sub-techniques to go with swordsmanship: do you have a two-hand sword or would you like something in your off-hand? What would you like? A dagger, for counter-attacks? A buckler, for parrying? A large wooden shield, which might trap your opponent's blade? How about half-swording?—which is when you ''deliberately'' grab your own sword halfway down the blade for use in close quarters. Traditional DualWielding, with two swords of similar make, while mentioned by various mediveal master, was an extremely unorthodox technique, and today is mostly excused by RuleOfCool. And there were always a vast majority of other weapons you could lay your hands on, like polearms (increased reach) or maces, hammers and morningstars (more crushing power). It's entirely possible that wars were fought more frequently with those weapons than with swords... but this article is about swords and ''not'' about those other weapons, so we're going to ignore that.

One issue that Hollywood has perpetrated is the idea of parrying with the edge of a blade, instead of the flat. Amongst those uber-nerds who are trying to recreate the art of medieval European swordsmanship, such as [[http://www.thearma.org/ the Association for Renaissance Martial Arts]], arguments still flare up as to which the European people actually ''did'' back in the medieval times. The argument in favor of blocking with the edge is various medieval paintings and ''fechtbucher'' (instruction manuals, "Swordfighting For Dummies") that illustrate the technique, as well as the fact that the sword actually collapses onto you if you try to stop a blow with your flat (it is far more easier for a blade to flex on its flat than on its edge), and may well fold and be completely useless (as shown on {{Mythbusters}}) if you block with the flat compared to a minor chip and a still-usable sword if one blocks with the edge. The argument in favor of ''not'' doing this is, "The edge of a sword is its most delicate part (not to mention its most important part), and the last thing you'd want to do is bash it against anything that could damage it." Plus, there are surviving artifacts (IE real swords that were actually used once) with scars, nicks and other damage on the flat to suggest that this was done. Having said that, there are also surviving artifacts with scars, nicks and other damage on the ''edge'' of the blade—which is seized upon both by flat-users as proof that you had better not do it, and by the edge-users as proof that it must have been the standard practice.

In the end, the debate was more-or-less resolved by actually ''reading'' the fechtbucher and noticing that "parrying" — the act of stopping an opponent's attack with your ''sword'', instead of ''trying to hit your opponent'' or forcing your opponent to ''defend'' himself instead of attacking you — was not even considered to be the best defence at all by the medieval masters. Rather, the German masters considers the three most perfect techniques (in the order of decreasingly "perfection") to be: "attack before your opponent", "void the attack and strike simultaneously", and "deflect the attack, either flat-to-edge, edge-to-flat, or by 'attacking' the opponent's weapon, and immediately attack", otherwise known in English manuals as "the beat". This idea basically makes the flat-vs-edge debate entirely obsolete, since both sides are wrong in assuming that a fighter must do either one of those things in the first place. (Complicating things further are the questions of how [[LuckilyMyShieldWillProtectMe shields]] and [[KnightInShiningArmor armor]] would figure into the equation, as neither of them are ''addressed'' by the fechtbucher; they cover urban duels where you'd be unlikely to have more than your sword and the clothes on your back.) While the topic still flares up every now and then, most people have agreed to let it lie until time machines can be used to provide a definitive answer.

* These came in different variations, like the Scots claymore (claidheamh mór, "great sword") or the German Beidenhander/Zweihander ("two-hander"), and were very rare indeed. Their length and weight varried (from 145cm to 2m in length, and from 1.5kg to 5kg), but the average zweihander was roughly 170cm in length and weighed around 3kg. Their primary purpose, aside from ceremonial designs, was for use by shock infantry to disrupt and break apart tightly-packed pike formations. Due to their effectiveness they were often used by banner guards and personal guards. They were an expensive and difficult to master, and soldiers that mastered their use were counted among the elite, and given double pay. Originals that survive tend to have been ceremonial or judicial weapons. However, while they sound very heavy and unwieldy they are surprisingly agile weapons due to the length of the hilt. Surviving Scots claymore have hilts typically about 50-60 cm long. This gives the user significant leverage to swing the heavy blade (one hand puts in pressure, the other acts as fulcrum).
** You have undoubtedly read or heard from various sources that the average medieval sword weighed as much as thirty pounds. Whoever told you that DidNotDoTheResearch—which is understandable, considering that the average medieval sword currently resides in a museum in Europe somewhere, and those curators are not going to let just anyone walk up and handle their priceless historical artifacts. But the point is that the vast majority of those who write about swords has never held one, never trained in swordfighting, and never been in a duel in his life. The few people who ''have'' been able to do the research tell us that a well-balanced arming sword weighs less than three pounds, and a two-hander should weigh no more than five or six. It will ''feel'' heavier, just as anything does when you hold it from one end instead of the middle. But that doesn't mean it ''is'' thirty pounds.

* Finally, there are swords that specialize in stabbing. These tend to have narrow blades with a geometric cross-section—sometimes triangular, sometimes square, sometimes hexagonal—and seem to resemble very large needles. Sometimes they have cutting edges so that you can slash with them if necessary, but sometimes they don't; their point of balance is way back in the hilt, which makes for faster thrusting but drastically lowers the power of a slashing attack. (The real point of keeping an edge on the blade was so your opponent couldn't grab it.)

As you can see, the shape and design of a sword has a lot to do with how you use it, something Hollywood doesn't always observe. There are also a number of now-overlooked sub-techniques to go with swordsmanship: do you have a two-hand sword or would you like something in your off-hand? What would you like? A dagger, for counter-attacks? A buckler, for parrying? A large wooden shield, which might trap your opponent's blade? How about half-swording?—which is when you ''deliberately'' grab your own sword halfway down the blade for use in close quarters. Traditional DualWielding, with two swords of similar make, while mentioned by various mediveal master, was an extremely unorthodox technique, and today is mostly excused by RuleOfCool. And there were always a vast majority of other weapons you could lay your hands on, like polearms (increased reach) or maces, hammers and morningstars (more crushing power). It's entirely possible that wars were fought more frequently with those weapons than with swords... but this article is about swords and ''not'' about those other weapons, so we're going to ignore that.

One issue that Hollywood has perpetrated is the idea of parrying with the edge of a blade, instead of the flat. Amongst those uber-nerds who are trying to recreate the art of medieval European swordsmanship, such as [[http://www.thearma.org/ the Association for Renaissance Martial Arts]], arguments still flare up as to which the European people actually ''did'' back in the medieval times. The argument in favor of blocking with the edge is various medieval paintings and ''fechtbucher'' (instruction manuals, "Swordfighting For Dummies") that illustrate the technique, as well as the fact that the sword actually collapses onto you if you try to stop a blow with your flat (it is far more easier for a blade to flex on its flat than on its edge), and may well fold and be completely useless (as shown on {{Mythbusters}}) if you block with the flat compared to a minor chip and a still-usable sword if one blocks with the edge. The argument in favor of ''not'' doing this is, "The edge of a sword is its most delicate part (not to mention its most important part), and the last thing you'd want to do is bash it against anything that could damage it." Plus, there are surviving artifacts (IE real swords that were actually used once) with scars, nicks and other damage on the flat to suggest that this was done. Having said that, there are also surviving artifacts with scars, nicks and other damage on the ''edge'' of the blade—which is seized upon both by flat-users as proof that you had better not do it, and by the edge-users as proof that it must have been the standard practice.

In the end, the debate was more-or-less resolved by actually ''reading'' the fechtbucher and noticing that "parrying" — the act of stopping an opponent's attack with your ''sword'', instead of ''trying to hit your opponent'' or forcing your opponent to ''defend'' himself instead of attacking you — was not even considered to be the best defence at all by the medieval masters. Rather, the German masters considers the three most perfect techniques (in the order of decreasingly "perfection") to be: "attack before your opponent", "void the attack and strike simultaneously", and "deflect the attack, either flat-to-edge, edge-to-flat, or by 'attacking' the opponent's weapon, and immediately attack", otherwise known in English manuals as "the beat". This idea basically makes the flat-vs-edge debate entirely obsolete, since both sides are wrong in assuming that a fighter must do either one of those things in the first place. (Complicating things further are the questions of how [[LuckilyMyShieldWillProtectMe shields]] and [[KnightInShiningArmor armor]] would figure into the equation, as neither of them are ''addressed'' by the fechtbucher; they cover urban duels where you'd be unlikely to have more than your sword and the clothes on your back.) While the topic still flares up every now and then, most people have agreed to let it lie until time machines can be used to provide a definitive answer.

** You have undoubtedly read or heard from various sources that the average medieval sword weighed as much as thirty pounds. Whoever told you that DidNotDoTheResearch—which is understandable, considering that the average medieval sword currently resides in a museum in Europe somewhere, and those curators are not going to let just anyone walk up and handle their priceless historical artifacts. But the point is that the vast majority of those who write about swords has never held one, never trained in swordfighting, and never been in a duel in his life. The few people who ''have'' been able to do the research tell us that a well-balanced arming sword weighs less than three pounds, and a two-hander should weigh no more than five or six. It will ''feel'' heavier, just as anything does when you hold it from one end instead of the middle. But that doesn't mean it ''is'' thirty pounds.

* These light, slender weapons, the first to break out of the "broadsword" family and the first to be outside Oakeshott's typology, appeared in the XV and XVI Centuries, and a [[ImplausibleFencingPowers number of very flashy swordsmanship schools appeared]] teaching their use, emphasizing speed and agility over brute force. The older, heavier cutting swords had begun falling from favor as armor increased in durability; hacking through plate was no longer feasible, and carefully-aimed stabs became the order of the day. Hence, the rapier: a slender, maneuverable weapon which gave rise to the entire family of "fencing" weapons. (In the meanwhile, The Rise Of Dakka rendered plate armor entirely obsolete.) Many rapiers had very ornate handguards in which the crossguards curved around to protect the hand and fingers. These later evolved into bell-shaped or D-shaped guards that protected the hand and knuckles, on later forms of the sword.

** Wait, the saif was a curve-bladed sword? My own reading is that the Arabs used straight-edged swords for most of their history, and didn't turn to scimitars until after the Turks became popular as ghulams and brought their own weapons from Central Asia.

** You have undoubtedly read or heard from various sources that the average medieval sword weighed as much as thirty pounds. Whoever told you that DidNotDoTheResearch—which is understandable, considering that the average medieval sword currently resides in a museum in Europe somewhere, and those curators are not going to let just anyone walk up and handle their priceless historical artifacts. But the point is that the vast majority of those who write about swords has never held one, never trained in swordfighting, and never been in a duel in his life. The few people who ''have'' been able to do the research tell us that a well-balanced arming sword weighs less than three pounds, and a two-hander should weigh no more than five or six. It will ''feel'' heavier, just as anything does when you hold it from one end instead of the middle. But that doesn't mean it ''is'' thirty pounds.

Because pure iron was difficult to come by in ancient Japan, Japanese master swordsmiths had to remove impurities from the iron by "folding of the blade". Folding iron is a common forging technique not unique to Japan, but Japanese blades were folded many more times than many European blades to compensate for the inherent lack of quality in material. Iron and steel were so rare that even samurai and noblemen normally wore armor made mostly of lacquered wood, perhaps with a brass or iron helmet.

** The Talwar also had varying designs which could be changed as per one's fighting style; a common favourite among elite warriors was to broaden the blade towards the end, which would exert a tremendous amount of concentrated force into cutting attacks, much like a lighter version of a Falchion. A skilled enough warrior could easily cleave a person in two with such a Talwar. There is even a story of Maharana Prathap Singh cutting a man's head vertically from the top, completely down to the neck. Right '''''through the helmet'''''. SoYeah.

One issue that Hollywood has perpetrated is the idea of parrying with the edge of a blade, instead of the flat. Amongst those uber-nerds who are trying to recreate the art of medieval European swordsmanship, such as [[http://www.thearma.org/ the Association for Renaissance Martial Arts]], arguments still flare up as to which the European people actually ''did'' back in the medieval times. The argument in favor of blocking with the edge is various medieval paintings and ''fechtbucher'' (instruction manuals, "Swordfighting For Dummies") that illustrate the technique, as well as the fact that the sword actually collapses onto you if you try to stop a blow with your flat (it is far more easier for a blade to flex on its flat than on its edge). The argument in favor of ''not'' doing this is, "The edge of a sword is its most delicate part (not to mention its most important part), and the last thing you'd want to do is bash it against anything that could damage it." Plus, there are surviving artifacts (IE real swords that were actually used once) with scars, nicks and other damage on the flat to suggest that this was done. Having said that, there are also surviving artifacts with scars, nicks and other damage on the ''edge'' of the blade—which is seized upon both by flat-users as proof that you had better not do it, and by the edge-users as proof that it must have been the standard practice.

Both European and Japanese weapons have been developed through centuries of martial tradition and along with them various techniques to use them effectively, responding to changes in the combat environment as they occur.