--------------------

There is every indication they were very sharp - certainly the few I personaly have handled were. You can grab a sharp blade with your bare hand so long as you hold it firmly - if your hand slides, then you will be cut. If you are wearing a gauntlet, you will be much less likely to be cut.

Halfswording technique (where the person grips his own blade to steady a thrust) is usually an armoured combat technique, and so gauntlets would be involved. There is no indication of a ricasso proper on swordblades until the Renaissance.

--------------------

Mark Hollingshead and Randy (I apologize for forgetting his last name) have done this experiment with sharp blades and without injury.

In the Gladiatoria treatise (a judicial duel in full harness but without gauntlets in all but a couple of plates) shows this technique done with bare hands.

This technique basically turns your sword into a pollaxe.

As Bob says, don't let your hand slide and you'll be fine.

--------------------

With respect, while sharpening only the last few inches of a sword was certainly a common napoleonic and later practice, I'm not sure we can read this back to our period.

I'm not aware of any evidence for it, and there is clear evidence against it. Consider, for example, some of the drawing cuts illustrated in the fechtbooks, which would be completely ineffective unless the blade was sharpened along at least the greater part of its length.

Any thoughts?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan F:
I can answer this - a lot of swords were only sharpened from the last five - seven inches of the blade. A sword is, basically, a steel bar, and the majority of injuries inflicted by them would be broken bones.
The reason is simple: A man with a broken arm is just as unlikely to continue fighting as one who's had his arm lopped off!
One of the most common injuries that arose from this was the broken collar bone, which would have effectively ended the working lives of most of those engaged in agricultural work.

---

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan F:
It's actually something we cover a lot of in my group - as you'll be aware, there's this whole myth thing centred around swords, and we show how, in effect, they were ineffectual against weapons such as spear, pike or halberd. The most common injury inflicted on someone with a sword is that of a broken collarbone. The cuts were never very clean - to modern eyes it looks like a crowbar of baseball bat has done the job! There is a lot of archaeological evidence of this from both the Scottish Wars of Independence and the Wars of the Roses.
That said, there were probably those who had the full lentgh of the sword sharpened. However, a lot of the time, it was only the last few inches that were sharpened, thus making it easier to use the point, and bringing in the point vs the edge idea, that the point always beats the edge.

---

Hi Alan,

There are references from the Crusades which back up what you are saying (also the story of the sword and the cushion)

If I understand it right, the whole blade had an edge, with just the last third (for sake of argument) being sharpened.

Does that sound right???

Also, and from a modern perspective, most decapitations in accidents of varying nature are caused by very blunt objects

Andy

--------------------

Here is an excerpt:
Quoting Peter Johnsson without permission:

It is true that crushing and impaling weapons might be more efficient against armour, but there were never any battlefield through history where every combatant wore full armour. Nor will any armour afford complete protection. The sword will rarely be used to defeat the armour itself, but rather the opponent inside it. A sword is a precision weapon used to exploit gaps in defence and armour. It also needs to be sharp to be used to full effect. Just how sharp from what kind of grind will vary depending of type of sword and historical period.
And sure, an edge will chip when misused or strained. That can be taken care of by resharpening. No woodworker expects his tools to go unmarked through use. Sharpening tools is part of the trade.
...
A blunt edge would certainly hurt and might well kill, but swords intended for cutting did not have rebated edges. Ever. Trust me on that one.
--------
End Quote.
Hope this helps.

One c 1100, was sharp. One, c. 1400, had been razor sharp when deposited in a river, and was still sharp when found.

--------------------