Early European Longswords

Early European Longswords : Evidence of Form and Function

1

Early European Longswords Evidence of Form and Function

Jeffrey Hull

Axiom When a new kind of sword originates and becomes prevalent, then it logically follows that both the sword and its new kind of fencing evolve and become perfected. That is what must have started happening in Chivalric Europe circa 1100, when a new kind of sword—called variously longsword, langschwert, war sword, espée de guerre, great sword, grans espée, two-hand-sword, etcetera—came into being. Its history is well-epitomised by the Liechtenauer Lineage of the German Tradition of the Art of Fencing, its Kunst des Fechtens. The longsword probably first arose somewhere in Germany (i.e. Holy Roman Empire) and eventually spread via migratory innovation and/or native industry to England, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, France, Switzerland, Italy, Benelux, Iberia, Poland, Bohemia, Prussia and Baltica. The longsword may be generally defined as a straight two-edged sword for both one-handed and two-handed wielding; accordingly having a longer blade and longer tang & grip; most suitable


2

for combat afoot, somewhat suitable for combat ahorse; suitable whether bare or armoured; having blade-length (BL) of about 32 to 40 inches (81 to 101 cm) and tang/grip-length of about 6 to 10 inches (15 to 25.5 cm) and weight/mass of about 3 to 4 pounds (1.36 to 1.82 kg). Such design was the longsword’s form. Accordingly that led to its own kind of fencing, which developed along with the weapon itself—until it became the prestige weapon of war and the preferred weapon of dueling amongst the warrior nobility of European Chivalry. Such destruction was the longsword’s function.

Literary Evidence The so-called Döbringer Hausbuch (1389) is generally regarded as containing the earliest known longsword Fechtbuch (fencing/fight-book) of the Liechtenauer Lineage of the German Tradition of Ritterlich Kunst (Chivalric Arts). Therein the Priest Döbringer (or whoever) related much regarding the art of the “sword” (i.e. contextually “longsword”) of Master Johann Liechtenauer. The fight-book of “the Priest” is so densely and intensely rich in fencing lore, some of it truly nonesuch, that it deserves our special attention here. Although pundits may dismiss it as pell-mell, repetitive & propagandistic, it presents lore for bare/unarmoured fencing (bloszfechten) with the longsword which must not be ignored by serious scholars of Chivalric Arts. In his stream-of-consciousness remarks (13v-17v) introducing its Common Lore (gemeyne lere), the Priest outlines and/or explains the following items for proper understanding and wielding of the longsword: Liechtenauer’s mastership; antiquity & internationality of the weapon; simplicity & rapidity of striking; scholastic versus earnest fencing; efficient kinetics & targeting; frivolous masters & their gimmicks; seizing the initiative; importance of both hew & thrust; conservation of energy; lesson meditation & experiential training; handling & driving the weapon; stepping, balance, motion; courage & justification; adaptation & deceptive action; sportive fencing supportive of earnest fencing; mass & reach; preference for high targets & flank attacks; first strike & counter strike; and tactical timings. All that and more follows, to wit: Hie hebt sich an meister lichtenawers kunst deß fechtenß mit deme swerte czu fusse und czu rosse bloß und yn harnüsche Und vor allen dingen und sachen saltu merken und wissen daß nür eyne kunst ist deß swerteß und dÿ mag vor manchen hundert Jaren seyn funden und irdocht Und dÿ ist eÿn grunt und kern aller künsten deß fechtenß Und dÿ hat meister lichtnawer gancz vertik und gerecht gehabt und gekunst Nicht daß her sy selber habe funden und irdocht alß vor ist geschreben Sonder her hat manche lant durchfaren und gesucht durch der selben rechtvertigen und warhaftigen künst wille daß her dÿ jo irvaren und wissen wolde Und dÿ selbe kunst ist ernst gancz und rechtvertik Und get of das aller neheste und körczste slecht und gerade czu Recht zam wen eÿner eÿnen hawen ader stechen wolde Und das man im denne eynen vadenn ader snure an

Here starts Master Liechtenauer’s Art of Fencing with the (Long)Sword—both afoot and ahorse, bare and in harness. And above all things and tactics, you shall mark and wit that there is only one art of the (long)sword; and it may have been founded and devised many hundreds of years before; and it is one ground and core for all fencing arts; and that Master Liechtenauer has wholly finished it, and has corrected, possessed and artified it. Not that he himself has founded and devised it, as aforesaid. Rather, he has traveled and searched many lands because he wants that same vindicated and verified art; so that yes, he would experience and wit (that art). And that same art is earnest, whole and vindicated. And it goes for all nearest and shortest, simply and straightly, correctly together when one would hew or thrust another; and as if then he bound


3

seinen ort ader sneÿde des swertes bünde Und leÿtet aber czöge den selben ort ader sneide off jenes blössen den her hawen ader stechen selde noch dem aller nehesten korczsten und endlichsten (!) als man das nür dar brengen mochte Wen das selbe rechtfertige vechten Wil nicht hobisch und weidlich parÿren1 haben Und weiterumefechten mit deme sich lewte mochten lassen und vorzümen Als man noch manche leÿchmeistere2 vindet dÿ do sprechen das sÿ selber newe kunst vinden und irdenken und meynen das sich dÿ kunst des fechtens von tage zu tage besser und mere <> Aber ich wölde gerne eynen sehn der do möchte nür eyn gefechte ader eynen haw irdenken und tuen der do nicht aus lichtnawers kunst gynge Nür das sy ofte eyn gefechte vorwandeln und vorkeren wällen mit deme das sÿ im newe namen geben itzlicher noch seyme hawpte und das sÿ weiterumefechten und parÿrn irdenken und oft vör eynen haw czwene ader dreye tuen nür durchwolstehens wille do von sÿ von den unvorstendigen gelobt wollen werden mit dem höbschen parÿrn und weiterumefechten als sÿ sich veÿntlich stellen und weite und lange hewe dar brengen lanksam und trege mit deme sÿ sich gar sere vorhawen und zeümen und sich auch do mite vaste blos geben Wen sÿ keÿne mosse ÿn iren fechten nicht haben Und das gehört doch nicht zu ernstem fechten zonder czu schulfechten durch ubunge und gebrawchunge wille mochte is wol etzwas gut seyn Aber ernste vechten wil risch slecht und gar gerade dar gehen an alles lassen und zümenüss zam noch eyner snuren ader zam itzlichs besunder gemessen und gewegen were <> Wen sal eyner eynen slaen ader stechen Der do vor im stet Zo hilft in jo keyn slag ader stich hindersich ader neben sich noch keÿnerleÿ weitfechten Ader vil hewe das mit eyme möchte enden mit deme her sich zümet und last Das her dÿ schantcze vorslest Sonder her mus jo slecht und gleich czuhawen czum manne czu

a wire or cord to point or edge of his sword and led or tugged the same point or edge to those targets which he should hew or thrust; toward all those nearest, shortest and deadliest, just as (foe) might evince. Then that same vindicated fencing will have neither pretty and wide parrying nor roundabout fencing, whereby people might lose and hinder themselves. Like what one finds with many lyric-masters, who speak as if they themselves find and devise and imagine new art, such that the Art of Fencing (becomes) better and more from day to day. <> Yet I would like to see but one of them who may devise and do just one move or one hew which comes not from Liechtenauer’s Art. Yet often they will transform or twist a move, to which they give it new names, each from his own head; such that they devise roundabout fencing and parrying; and often for one hew (they) do two or three, (when) only straightforward thrusting is wanted there; for which they would be praised by the unknowing. While they fiendishly display with pretty parrying and roundabout fencing, they evince wide & long hewing, slowly & lazily. Thereby they very much thrash and hinder themselves, and also thereby lay themselves quite bare, since they have not any mass in their fencing. And such indeed belongs not to earnest fencing, rather to scholastic fencing. Through training and usage will it might well be something good. Indeed earnest fencing will advance rapidly, simply and really straight; without any loss and hindrance; as if along a cord or as if everything were specially measured and weighed. <> When someone shall strike or thrust another who stands before him, then yes neither strike nor thrust helps him such that (he) might end (it), when (done) behind or beside him or by any wide fencing or by multiple hews, (for) therewith he hinders and loses himself, so that he blocks his chances. Instead yes he must


4

kop ader czu leibe noch dem aller nehesten und schiresten als her in nür gehaben mag und irreichen risch und snelle Und liber mit eyme slage wen mit viern ader sechen mit deme her sich möchte lassen Und das jener leichte e queme denne her Wen der vorslag eÿn gros vorteil ist of deme vechten als du es als hernoch wirst horen yn dem texte Do nennet lichtnawer nür fünff hewe3 mit andern stöcken dy do nütcze seyn czu erstem vechten und leret dy noch rechter kunst slecht und gerade dar blegen noch dem aller nehesten und schiresten als is nür dar komen mag <> Und lest alles trummel werk und new funden hewe underwegen von den leychmeistere Dÿ doch gruntlich aus sÿner kunst dar komen Auch merke das und wisse das man nicht gar eygentlich und bedewtlich von dem fechten mag sagen und schreiben ader aus legen als man is wol mag czeigen und weisen mit der hant Dorumbe tu of dÿne synnen und betrachte is deste vas Und ube dich dorynne deste mer ÿn schimpfe Zo gedenkstu ir deste vas in ernste wen ubunge ist besser wenne kunst denne übunge tawg wol ane kunst aber kunst tawg nicht wol ane übunge <> Auch wisse das eÿn guter fechter sal vör allen sachen sÿn swert gewisse und sicher füren und fassen4 mit beiden henden czwischen gehilcze und klos Wen alzo helt her das swert vil sicher den das hers beÿ dem klosse vasset mit eyner hant Und slet auch vil harter und sürer alzo wen der klos öber wirft sich und swenkt sich noch dem slage das der slag vil harter dar kumpt den das her das swert mit dem klosse vasset Wen alzo czöge her den slag mit dem klosse weder das her nicht zo völkömlich und zo stark möchte dar komen Wen das swert ist recht zam eÿn woge den ist eyn swert gros und swer zo mus der klos auch dornoch swer syn recht zam noch eÿner wogen <>

strike and instantly hew forth to the man, to head or to body, toward all nearest and merest, since he may only have and reach (foe) rapidly & quickly & favourably with one strike; whereas with four or six therewith he might lose himself, such that any easily gains ere he. (Thus) the first strike is of great vantage to fencing, as you get to hear it hereafter in the text. There Liechtenauer names only Five Hews, with other actions, which be needful to earnest fencing, and teach to the correct art, simply and straightly billowing forth, toward all nearest and merest, as it may only progress. <> And so forsake all drum-work and newly founded hews contrived by the lyric-masters who (have) yet to progress groundedly from (L’s) art. Also mark this and wit that indeed one may not actually and meaningfully tell and write or lay out fencing so well as one may show or witness it with the hands. Therefor, open your senses and meditate it all the better, and train yourself therein. All the more in sport (that) you recall (art), then all the better in earnest. When training is better, then (also) art. Your training achieves well without art, yet art achieves not well without training. <> Also wit that a good fencer shall, above all tactics, know his (long)sword; and surely wield and grasp (it) with both hands, betwixt cross and pommel. When thusly held, he (wields) the (long)sword more surely than when he grasps it with one hand at the pommel; and also (he) strikes much harder and keener. Thus when the pommel overthrows itself and swings itself after the strike; then the strike arrives much harder than when he grasps the (long)sword via the pommel. Thus when he tugs the strike via the pommel, (then) because of that, he might arrive not so completely and so strongly. When the sword is correctly together, then (it) is a scale. A sword (is) great and heavy; so accordingly the pommel must be heavy. Correctly together, like a scale. <>


5

Auch wisse wen eÿner mit eyme ficht Zo sal her syner schrete wol war nemen und sicher in den seÿn Wen her recht zam of eÿner wogen stehen sol hindersich ader vorsich czu treten noch deme als sichs gepürt gefüge und gerinklich risch und snelle Und gar mit gutem mute und guter gewissen ader vornunft sal deÿn fechten dar gehen Und an alle vorchte als man das hernoch wirt hören <> Auch saltu mosse haben ÿn deÿme gefechte dornoch als sichs gepürt und salt nicht czu weit schreiten das du dich desto vas eyns-andern schretes irholen magest hinderdich ader vordich czutuen noch deme als sich wörde gepuren Auch gepuren sich oft czwene korcze schrete vor eynem langen Und oft gepürt sich das eyner eyn lewftcheyn mus tuen mit korczen schreten Und oft das eyner eynen guten schret ader sprunk mus tuen. <> Und was eyner redlichs wil treiben czu schimpfe ader czu ernste Das sal her eÿme vor den ogen fremde und vorworren machen Das jener nicht merkt was deser keyn im meynt czutreiben. <> Und als bald wen her denne czu im kumpt und dy moße also czu im hat das in dünkt her welle in im wol haben und irreichen Zo sal her kunlich czu im hurten und varen snelle und risch czu koppe ader czu leibe her treffe ader vele Und sal jo den vorslag gewynnen und ienen mit nichte lassen czum dingen komen als du vas hernoch wirst hören ÿn der gemeynen lere etc. <> Auch sal eyner allemal liber den obern blößen remen denne den undern Unde eyme ober deme gehilcze yn varen mit hewen ader mit stichen künlich und risch Wen eÿner irreicht eynen vil bas und verrer öber dem gehilcze den dorunder Und eyner ist auch alzo vil sicher alles fechtens Und der obern rure5 eÿne ist vil besser denne der under eyne Is wen denne Das ist alzo queme das eyner neher hette czu der

And wit when one fences with another, then shall he be well-aware of his steps and be sure of those. When he correctly stands in balance, (he) shall tread back or forth, according to what happens, methodically and lightly, rapidly and quickly, and verily with good courage and good conscience or reason. Thusly shall your fencing advance, and without any fear, as one gets to hear that hereafter. <> Also you shall have mass in your fencing, according to what happens. And you shall not step too widely, so that you may the better regain one step (then) another step, behind you or before you, availing (yourself) according to what happens. Also often twain short steps happen before one long step. And often it happens that a (fencer) must do a sprint with short steps; and often that he must do one good step or spring. <> And what someone will drive properly for sport or for earnest, that shall he make strange and confusing before (foe’s) eyes; such that those mark not any of what he means to drive (against) him. <> And then as soon as (the fencer) goes to (his foe), and has the mass thusly toward foe, such that he thinks he will have him and reach him well—so shall he bravely charge to foe and move quickly and rapidly (with his sword) to head or to body. (Whether) hit or miss, he shall yes win the first strike, and let (foe) get to nothing; as indeed you get to hear better in the common lore hereafter etc. <> Also one shall prefer always to aim for the high targets than for the low; and bravely & rapidly to impact those over (foe’s) hilting with hewing or with thrusting. Thus one reaches the other much better and further, over the hilting than thereunder; and thus one is also very sure in all fencing. And any high beat is much better than any low. (Yet) it is such that when one thusly gains a low target that is nearer,


6

undern das her der remen müste Als das ofte kumpt <> Auch wisse das eÿner sal jo eÿme of dy rechte seiten komen ÿn seyme gefechte Wen her eÿnen do ÿn allen sachen des fechtens ader ringens Vas gehaben mag Denne gleich vorne czu Und wer dis stöcke wol weis Und wol dar brengt der ist nicht eyn bözer fechter etc <> Auch wisse wen eÿner ernstlich wil fechten der vasse im eyn vertik stöcke vör6 wels her wil das do gancz und gerecht seÿ Und neme im das ernstlich und stete in seÿnem sÿn und gemüte Wen her of eynem wil Recht zam her sölde sprechen das meyne ich jo czutreiben Und das sal und mus vorgank haben in der hölfe gotes Zo mag is im mit nichte velen her tut was her sal Wen her kunlich dar hort und rawscht mit dem vorslage als man das hernach oft wirt horen <> O zu allem fechten gehört dy hölfe gotes von rechte Gerader leip und gesunder eÿn gancz vertik swert pesunder Vor noch schwach sterke yndes das wort mete czu merken Hewe stiche snete drücken leger schütczen stöße fülen czücken Winden und hengen rücken striche sprönge greiffen rangen Vissheit und kunheit Vorsichtikeit list und klugheit Masse Vorborgenheit vornunft vorbetrachtunge fetikeit Ubunge und guter mut motus gelenkheit schrete gut Jn den seben (!) versen da sint dir fundament principia Und pertinencia benumet und dÿ gancze materia Aller kunst des fechten das saltu betrachten rechte Als du auch eigentlich hernocher und sönderlich Wirst heren ader lisen itzlichs noch seÿnem wezen Fechter des nÿm war zo wirt dir bekant dÿ kunst gar Of dem ganczen swerte und manch gut weidelich geverte <> MOtus das worte schone ist des fechtens eÿn

then he had must aim there, as that often happens. <> Also wit that in fencing, yes, one shall go upon the right side to the other. Then he may have him better there, in all tactics of fencing or wrestling, than centrally. And whoever well-wits and well-evinces these actions, he is not a bad fencer, etc. <> Also wit when someone will fence/fight earnestly, he composes himself & flows into a final action proactively; so that he will be whole and right, and take to that earnestly and steadily in his mind and mood. When he will, he should, speak to another correctly—I mean that yes—to drive (against) him. And (he) shall and must have operated by the help of God—thus may it not fail him. One does what one shall when he bravely charges and rushes with the first strike, as a man often get to hear that hereafter. <> Unto all Fencing belongs: The help of the God of Justice; a straight & sound Body; and especially one fully finished Sword. (Plus): Before, After, Weak, Strong; Inthereof—that word deserves marking; Hews, Thrusts, Slashes, Pressing; Stances, Protecting, Shoves/Punches, Feeling, Tugging; Winding and Hanging; Yanking, Strikes, Springs, Grips, Wrestling; Wisdom and Bravery; Foresight, Cunning and Cleverness; Mass, Secrecy; Reason, Premeditation, Tenacity; Training and good Courage; Motion, Dexterity, good Steps. In the same verses for you there are declared Fundaments, Principles and Pertinence, and the entire Matter of all the Art of Fencing. That shall you meditate correctly, as you also actually get to hear or to read, hereafter and especially, each by its nature. Fencer, sense that so the Art of the whole Sword and its many good vigorous ventures become well-known unto you. <> Motion—that gorgeous word—is one heart and


7

hort und krone Der gancze matiraz des fechtens mit aller pertinencian Und der artikeln gar des fundamentes dÿ var Mit namen sint genant und werden dir hernoch bas bekant7 Wy denne eyner nur ficht zo sey her mit den wol bericht8 Und sey stetz in motu und nicht veyer wen her nit An hebt czu fechten zo treibe her mit rechte Ummer in und endlich eyns noch dem andern künlich Jn eyme rawsche stete an underlos imediate Das jener nicht kome czu slage des nympt deser fromen Und jener schaden Wen her nicht ungeslagen Von desem komen mag tut nur deser noch dem rat Und noch der leren dy itczunt ist geschreben So sag ich vorwar sich schützt jener nicht ane var Hastu vornomen czu slage mag her mit nichte komen <> Hie merke das frequens motus beslewst in im begynnes mittel und ende alles fechtens noch deser kunst und lere alzo das eyner ÿn eÿme rawsche anhebunge mittel unde endunge an underlos und an hindernis synes wedervechters9 volbrenge10 Und jenen mit nichte lasse zu slage komen Wen of das geet dy czwey wörter vor noch das ist vorslag und nochslag11 in mete r in una hon qnsi um pq inliqm sine anqo meo (?)

crown of Fencing. The whole matter of fencing, with all pertinence and the articles of the entire fundaments, they are colourfully named with names and become better-known unto you hereafter. When someone simply fences/fights, then he be well-arranged with those and be steady in motion, and not furious, when he arises to fencing, thus he drives with justice around himself, and eventually (he) rushes bravely into every (foe), one after the other steadily, without delay immediately, such that none of them gets to any strikes, and which denies them profit and punishes them. When he may not get from these (foes) unstricken, (he) merely goes by (L’s) advice and by (L’s) lore which is written just now: So I say further, not any protects himself without fear. Have you executed striking? Then foe may get to nothing. <> Mark here that Frequent Motion resolves it in the beginning, middle and end of all Fencing, according to this Art and Lore; such that (fencer) rushes into foe—start, midway, finish—without delay and without hindrance, executes his challenger, and lets him get to nothing with striking. When the two words Before and After go via that, such that it is First Strike and Counter Strike, (etcetera).

Confirming the prevalence of that long-existent art & lore of longsword fencing throughout Europe, indeed its transnational nature, was the following pedagogical declaration by Mertin Siber in the Von Speyer Fechtbuch (1491) (1r): Wer ere will erwerbenn vor furstenn und vor herenn Im vechtenn mit dem Swertt dz ist gutt und gerecht der volge mÿner lere der gesiget ymermere dy sechß genng halt in huott die sintt gar prißlich gutt in den woll begriffen ist vil mangeß gutte meinsterß list auß Ungern Behem ÿtalia auß Franckrich Engellant und almania auß rewßen prewßen Gretia Hollant Profant Und swevia

Whosoever will earn honour before princes and before lords by fencing with the (long)sword, he is good and righteous who follows my lore, he vanquishes evermore. These six actions contain guards that are quite preciously good; wherein is wealful comprehension of the cunning of quite many goodly masters: from Hungary, Bohemia, Italy; from France, England and Alemania; from Russia, Prussia, Greece, Holland, Provence and Swabia.


8

So far modern scholarship has discovered longsword fencing books produced by four national12 fencing traditions of Medieval Europe—those of Germany, England, Italy, Portugal. The techniques and tactics of said traditions evince both similarity and individuality. It is possible that fencing traditions and/or books, however now lost or forgotten, existed in all European nations where longswords were favoured by fighting nobility. There was of course a venerable sword & buckler/shield art (schirmen) which must have provided some framework for eventual longsword art (fechten). Relevant is the early German literary reference to a martial arts master (meister), specifically a shieldmaster (schirmmeister), found amid the metaphoric quatrains of the MHD epic Kudrun (1230) (§359-§361): Dô sprach der künic zem gaste • Den besten meister mîn Wil ich dich lêren heizen • durch die liebe dîn Daz du doch drî swanke • künnest swâ man strîte In herten veltstürmen • ez vrumet dir ze etelîcher zîte Dô kom ein schirmmeister • lêren er began Waten den vil küenen • dâ von er gewan Des sînes lîbes sorge • Wate stuont in huote Sam er ein kemphe wære • des erlachte dô von Tenen Fruote Daz half den schermmeister • daz er wîte spranc Alsam ein lêbart wilde • an Waten hende erklanc Vil dicke daz schœne wâfen • daz die viurvanken Drâten ûz den schilden • des mohte er sînem schermknaben gedanken

There spoke King (Hagen of Ireland) to the guest: My best Master, Will I call to teach you, for your favour; That indeed you can do three strikes when foe battles In hard field-storms; which may avail you oftentimes. There came a Shieldmaster, and teaching he began: So Ford the Very-Brave, he then overcame Any worry for his being. Ford stood on guard, Like he were a champion; at which there laughed Frodo the Dane. That helped the Shieldmaster: Thus widely he sprang, Just like a wild leopard. At Ford’s hands clanged Very densely the pretty weaponry, such that fire-sparks Fled from the shields; thus might (master) appraise his shieldknave.

That passage indicates teachers and students were involved in a tradition of Medieval European martial arts; which had discernable techniques & tactics; and which started some time well-before Liechtenauer existed (1389), and even before Walpurgis (1280-1320). Accordingly, it is reasonable to speculate that Germanic cultures had masters of basic martial arts (e.g. wrestling, sword & shield, riding, staff/spear, knife/dagger etc.) as early as the start of the Holy Roman Empire (circa 800); since they doubtlessly had a tradition of kempfen (dueling) which must have predated that by centuries further, probably back to time of Christ. It is logical to maintain that the art of schirmen (shielding) for sword & shield/buckler and its requisite schirmmeister (shieldmasters) eventually led to the evolution of the art of fechten (fencing) for longsword and its requisite fechtmeister (fencing masters), perhaps as early as circa 1200.


9

However when Priest Döbringer (or whoever) provided specific instruction for wielding (füren) the longsword, it could be unclear or even contradictory. Yet by careful contextual reading and athletic training, we may gain valuable interpretation. For example, he eventually instructed the proper way to position oneself for the ward of vom tage (from the roof) (32r): Dÿ vierde hute vom tage ist der lange ort Wer den wol furet mit gestragten armen Den mag man nicht mit hewen noch mit stichen wol treffen Is mag auch wol heissen das hengen ober dem hawpte

The fourth ward, From the Roof, is the Long Point: Whoever well-wields that with stretched arms, that may foe well-meet neither with hews nor with thrusts. It may well also be called “the-hanging-over-the-head”.

This seemingly unhelpful equation of two unlike wards—i.e. vom tage ist der lange ort (from-the-roof is the long point)—is reasonably explained if we realise that the Priest meant they are one and the same because the fencer may quickly wield (furet) his longsword from one to the other according to the aforesaid principle of motion (motus) (17v). This definitely and especially happens when the fencer strikes down upon his foe from that first ward into that second ward via the unstated yet likely schaedelhau (skull-hew), since his weapon must encompass both those wards in its arc, when and where swung with stretched arms (gestragten armen). So if we appreciate the time-space continuum that the Priest laconically indicated, then his clever definition really was not in contradiction of later works of the Liechtenauer Lineage which tended to differentiate the two wards. Indeed, he confirmed those wards correctly by equation of their kinetic unity. Because of motion, the one ward is/becomes the other ward. Proceeding from there is yet another example of initially confusing advice, having to do with the crucial moves of winding (winden) (39v-40r): VOn beiden seiten ler acht winden mit schreiten Und jo ir eyne der winden mit drey stöcken meyne So sÿnt ir czwenczik und vier czele sÿ enczik Fechter das achte und dÿ winden rechte betrachte Und lere sÿ wol furen zo magst du dÿ vier blössen rüren Wen itzliche blösse hat sechs ruren gewisse. Glossa : Hie merke das dÿ winden sint dÿ rechte kunst und gruntfeste alles fechtery des swertes Aus den alle ander gefechte und stöcke komen Und is mag mülich eÿn guter fechter sÿn ane dy winden Wÿ wol etzliche leyÿchmeistere dÿ vornichten Und sprechen is sÿ gar swach was aus den winden kumpt Und nennen is aus dem korczen swerte dorumbe das sÿ slecht und eynveldik dar gen Und meÿnen das sÿ aus dem langen swerte gefochten Was dar get mit gestracken armen und mit gestraktem swerte Und was gar veÿntlich und

13

From both sides learn Eight Windings, with stepping. And yes, that means any winding with three actions. So are there twenty & four, count those singly. Fencer, regard that, and the windings correctly meditate. And learn to well-wield those, so may you beat (foe’s) Four Targets. Thus every target has six beats indeed. Glossa: Mark here that the Windings are the Correct Art, and the grounding for all swordfighting. Therefrom all other fencing and actions come; and (one) may hardly be a good fencer without the Windings. As well, every lyric-master negates those and states whatever comes out the windings be very weak; and names such “from-the-shortened-sword”, because those advance simply and plainly; and meaning that they (instead) fence “from-the-lengthened-sword”; and what advances with stretched arms and with


10

starck von allen kreften13 des leybes dar get nur durch wol stehens wille und das is grawsam an czu sehen ist Wen sich eyner alzo strekt recht zam her eynen hazen wolle irlawfen Und daz ist alles nicht weder dÿ winden und weder lichtnawers kunst Wen do ist keÿne sterke weder denne worumbe wer anders kunst solde allemal dy sterke vörczihen

stretched (long)sword and what advances very fiendishly and strongly from all bodily forces will only well-survive; and such that it is gruesome to behold when someone thusly stretches himself “correctly”, (like) he will pierce a bunny. And that is all neither the Windings nor Liechtenauer’s Art—for when there is not any strength, then neither because of other (wrong) art should whosoever always prefer the strength.

Again, what seems self-contradictory and later-countermanded is actually sensible and consistent. Reminded to do so with stepping (schreiten), the Eight Windings (acht winden) multiply into twenty-four moves by virtue of each having three unnamed striking actions (drey stöcken) at their disposal, which means the Three Wonders/Wounders (dreÿ wunder) of schnitt, hauw, stich (slash, hew, thrust). The terms korczen swerte and langen swerte seemed to relate confusingly to the basic method of armoured fencing and redundantly to the weapon itself. Yet in this context those terms meant the contemporary and faulty naysaying of the lyric-masters (leyÿchmeistere) who mocked the superior winding-art of fencing because it so simply and plainly advanced (slecht und eynveldik dar gen) to attack i.e. to beat the Four Targets (dÿ vier blössen rüren). The lyric-masters and their frivolity defined fencing only by strength (sterke) while Master Liechtenauer and his college defined fencing mainly by art (kunst). So while the Priest previously & correctly recommended reaching out with stretched arms (gestragten armen) (32r) while wielding the longsword, only seemingly to discommend such later (gestracken armen und mit gestraktem swerte) (40r); he was really recommending the correct exertion of ones bodily forces (kreften des leybes) rather than their overexertion or overreliance; and thus he was remarking ironically that overextended actions sans footwork were “correct” (recht zam) when actually such were incorrect; thus admonishing the fencer that by doing so he advanced quite fiendishly (gar veÿntlich..dar get) as if to pierce a bunny (eynen hazen…irlawfen)14. Thus he was saying that skill trumps force; and thus Liechtenauer’s Art is Correct Art (rechte kunst). So just how long did this kind of advice last for wielding the longsword? Comparable moves are found in the basic longsword15 rules (regel) for young fencing scholars by Andre Paurenfeindt in his Ergrundung Ritterlicher Kunst der Fechterey (1516). Although he designed those for audience and goals that differed from those of the Priest—i.e. burghal youth & sportive fencing versus noble youth or adults & earnest fencing—similar kinetics were indicated amongst his simple and succinct instructions (A2r): Czwelff regel las dich nit verdriessen Aus den mag dir gros kunst endspriessen. Die erst Welcher fusz foren stet sei pogen Der hinder gstrakt czirt den leib oben Die Ander Hoch gfochten mit gstracktem leib Gwaltig possen ausz der leng treib

Twelve Rules: Let (these) not dismay you; Thereby may you display great (Fencing) Art. The First: Whichever (leg) set forth be bowed/bent, (Other) stretched back, (longsword) adorns body above. The Second: Fencing high with body stretched, Drive grand tricks across (your) range.


11

Die Drit Straich und trit mit einander Und secz dein fusz widerainander Die Virt Wer trit nach hewen Der darff sich kunst nit frewen Die Funft Merck was die flech ist Ficht nit linck so du recht pist Die Sechst Such schwech und sterk Indesz das wort eben merk Die Sibendt Prieff waich oder herdt Nach raysen sey dein gfert Die Acht Streich for und nach Eynlauffen sey dir nit gach Die Neundt Ficht nahendt beym leyb Die czeckrur nit vermeidt Die X Trit nahendt in pundt Anderst du wirst verwundt Die XI Vor der handt haist die lang schneidt Selten ein versaczung auf der kurczen leid Die XII Erschrickstu geren Kain fechten leren

The Third: Strike and tread unitedly And set your feet opposingly The Fourth: Whoever treads after hewing, He durst not enjoy (Fencing) Art. The Fifth: Mark what the (blade’s) flat is, Fence not left, so are you right. The Sixth: Seek weak and strong; Inthereof—well-mark that word. The Seventh: Sense soft or hard; Pursuing be your peer. The Eighth: Strike before and after (foe); Interloping be not hasty to you. The Ninth: Fence nearing to (foe’s) body; Tugging avoids not. The Tenth: Tread nearing when bound/crossed; Otherwise you become wounded. The Eleventh: In front of the hand is called the long edge; Seldomly suffer interception upon the short. The Twelfth: If you tend to frightening, Then learn not fencing.

Although neither all fencing books nor all fencing actions (stücke) were covered, I hope some good picture of the correct historical wielding—i.e. the manipulation, footwork, corporeal empowerment—of early European longswords was provided you.

Artifactal Evidence There are a number of early European longswords dating circa 1100-1290. That is well-before the circa 1389 estimated date of the so-called Döbringer Hausbuch. Thus such artifacts were preexistent thereto by 100 years to 200 years, if not almost 300 years, congruent more or less with DH’s assertion of vor manchen hundert Jaren (many hundreds of years before).


12

The late Ewart Oakeshott, in his fine scholarly work Records of the Medieval Sword (2002), presented the following early artifactal longswords, circa 1100-1275. Although there must be others, either known or unknown and often misdated in whatever public museums and private collections, most all the following 18 examples find their verification and illustration via the expertly EO in his aforesaid readily-available reference-book. Indeed, that book is almost required reading for understanding the evolution of Medieval European swords (and this essay). However, to help those who may find it impossible to gain copy thereof, the following illustration by EO from Records, courtesy the Oakeshott Institute in Minneapolis Minnesota, does provide a very basic idea of the morphology of those weapons:

Oakeshott Typology for Medieval European Swords

That said, please fathom the following array of artifactal longswords; arranged (more or less) in EO’s typological order with information paraphrased from his text in Records; and mixed with my added commentary. Please realise that although my essay may sometimes question or disagree with EO’s ideas, I gratefully & unreservedly acknowledge that over the years I have learned a lot from EO’s groundbreaking & unifying work. Hopefully my essay honours his legacy and helps evolve it via new research & findings that prove of value to readers like you:


13

XII(a).8 ~ circa 1150-1250 ~ England ~ BL 36 in / 91.4 cm

Found in the Great Ouse River, it features the combination of an almost Type Xa blade, a rather long grip, and an unusual diamond pommel—all contributory to its broad dating. This handsome weapon is practically a longsword, it is so close to being such, what with its long blade and long grip, that it seems odd EO did not instead classify it as a XIIa longsword. I think it qualifies as such, if only as a rare transitional form.

XIIa.4 ~ circa 1250-1350 ~ Germany (speculatively) ~ BL 43.25 in / 110 cm Features nicely inlaid blade and unusually decorated octagonal pommel. There are five (5) total blade-marks just below cross: (one side) little heart, encircled S, encircled cross-patée; (other side) encircled cross-patée, encircled S. Its pommel-marks are rosettes circling encircled cross-patée on same side as blade-mark of little heart. EO focused upon all those markings without comment on the more martially-relevant feature of this weapon—its recorded blade-length of 43.25 inches (110 cm). That likely made this specific longsword an infantry weapon, not a cavalry weapon—thus a dedicated “two-hander”. That said, my estimate of this weapon’s provenance of Germany is based not only on its magnitude of mass, but also upon its marks of little hearts and crosses-patée. Those may indicate a war sword of the Teutonic Order: the heart symbolic of the order’s virtual war goddess, Mary Queen of Heaven; and the crosses-patée typically symbolic of the order itself. That is speculative; but since marks on swords always mean something; then in turn I dare say what those may mean; which in turn indicates provenance. Cf. XIIa.5 (just below).

XIIa.5 (arguably a XVIa) ~ before 1240 ~ Germany ~ BL 37 in / 94 cm Featuring highly decorated octagonal pommel and simple cross, it likely belonged to Konrad II, Landgrave of Thuringia & Hessen, Grandmaster of the German Order (d.1240). Yes, the weapon of a real crusading grandmaster of the Teutonic Knights. According to the custodial Deutsches Historisches Museum Berlin, this much-studied weapon was found in River Pregel at Königsberg during the 19th Century, whereto it might have been brought and offered sometime after his death by illness whilst in Rome on mission of mediation betwixt Pope and Emperor. Here is a full-view photograph of that very longsword as displayed at the DHM, courtesy of historical fencer & scholar Dierk Hagedorn of Hammaborg:

This Konradschwert is an historically important weapon as well as a thematically important one. It serves as the gateway for elaboration on a variety of subjects relevant to longswords and to Medieval arms and armour generally, as extensively explored hereafter.


14

The central heraldic marks of the bronze pommel are lion rampant (one side) and eagle displayed (other side), surrounded by florals withal. Strangely, EO mentioned neither the (Marian) heart nor the (Passau) wolf marks16 inset down the blade-strong which he nonetheless well-illustrated via his drawing in Records. However, those marks of hilting and blade were shown and explored in the book Die Passauer Wolfsklingen (2007) by scholar Heinz Huther, as per this cover-photograph courtesy of Dietmar Klingen Verlag:

(Notice how both heart and wolf are aligned pointing/heading toward sword’s point; which provides correct view of heart while praying with hilting superior like Holy Cross.)

Of interest is the modern exacting replication of that weapon in Germany in 2003 by swordsmith Arno Eckhardt for medievalist Jochen Grasser, as per this full-view photograph courtesy of JG:


15

Of further interest is how the combined recorded comparative measures indicate that the replica turned out quite similar to the original (Grasser, 2010 & Eckhardt, 2012):

Measure Original Replica Total Length 116.5 cm 117.6 cm Blade Length 94.7 cm 95.0 cm Blade Width 5.3 cm 5.3 cm

Crossguard Length 22.2 cm 22.2 cm Weight / Mass 1350 g 1390 g17

Point of Balance unrecorded 8.0 cm18 Also still existent is Konrad’s own coeval triangle-shield (before 1240). Said shield is adorned with his mix of personal and ordinal heraldry, its rampant lion & colours similar to the modern state-arms of Thüringen & Hesse, and now resides separately at Marburger Universitätsmuseum. It is shown and surveyed in the book Mittelalterliche Reiterschild (2002) by military scholar Jan Kohlmorgen. Here is a full-view photograph (by Svenia Kohlmorgen) thereof:


16

This shield is relevant because of its plausible pairing with the longsword. Plausible, because those were Konrad’s known armaments; and because there were coeval depictions of armoured knights afoot wielding longswords two-handed while bedecked with guige-held triangle-shields. Indeed, a mere generation later is one such English depiction from the Tenison Psalter (c.1280) (Add. MS 24686; British Library London) (17r). (Its knightly figure was reproduced on page 95 of Records—which quite serendipitously faces page 94 featuring Konrad’s longsword.) Here in that full scene from said manuscript is a knight slaying a literally disarmed giant with a good Ledallian downryght stroke:


17

Going back further, there is an even earlier German depiction of “Virtues versus Vices” from Speculum Virginum (1140) (Hs. 3984; Kestner-Museum Hanover) showing a triangle-shield-covered knight (far-left) wielding a standard single-handed sword two-handedly by its short grip, apparently forsaking any further thought of shielding and instead striking zornhau (wrath hew) upon his wounded & dying foe who strikes him. Indeed, such evidence portrayed the urge and the need to evolve weaponry like longswords. Here is that very scene, edifying in many ways:

Then going forward again, there is the anachronistic depiction of Aeneas two-handedly wielding a longsword in duel to slay Lausus by an indeterminate oberhau (high hew), with triangle-shield slung aback, from the MHD romance by Heinrich von Veldeke called Eneide (c.1215) (Pr. Kb. Ms. Germ. Fol. 282; Staatsbibliothek Berlin) (54r:lower half). That sword definitely differs from other Type XII swords in the scene; for although it is of equal blade-length, it definitely has a longer grip for both hands, thus it is actually a Type XIIa longsword. Indeed, dating to circa 1215, it may be the earliest graphic portrayal of a true European longsword:


18

Such two-handed longsword wielding with triangle-shield slung around & held behind was possible because the coeval harness & decoration of the knight covering the arc of his head, arms, shoulders & back were relatively smooth, being steel topf/great helm, maille hauberk & linen/silken surcoat; which along with the mutable & customisable suspension of guige & enarme strapping; allowed the shield to travel over & across the body as needed, variously gripped or hung at numerous areas & angles, any given strap perhaps held fast at an ailette. All that contributed to the triangle-shield’s likely method of shielding: Although designed especially for cavalry defence against lancing, it also adequately served for infantry defence against various hewing & thrusting. Hence why the “triangle-shield” may be classified alternately & accurately as a kind of “cavalry-shield” i.e. reiterschild. Functioning like a big mobile part of the knight’s armour, thus rather than put forth it instead was kept near.


19

That method of defending with the triangle-shield contradicts modern notions that it functioned primarily like a small pavise behind which to cover, and secondarily like a large katar with which to attack—the result of inauthentic recreation, both mechanically & materially. Kudos go to medievalist & martialist Donald Lepping for his brilliant insights that helped me realise the dynamic nature of such chivalric shielding. The reason he could provide such insights is because he owns, wears and trains in an authentic kit of a circa 1250-1300 Teutonic knight. Besides the typical Type XI or XII arming/riding sword plus triangle-shield, his kit also includes custom-made great helm; riveted flat-link maille hauberk, round-link mitts & coif; wool surcoat, linen tunic & trewes, linen & flax arming hood; leather persian boots, etc. He offers some practical insights regarding the armouring system of harness & shield (Lepping, 2012): The shield works well in the harness. By itself in street clothes the guige and enarmes seem a bit big, but in the harness it works out just right…The shield is nice whilst enarmoured as the corners do not threaten my face or body…being quite physical with it strapped to my arm or slung across me freely, as I am immune to its hardness and pain while in harness…Having the shield just hanging on my neck does not hinder me too much when fully armoured. Here is a photograph of DL (by Rebecca Chambers), at home armoured in his great helm, maille harness and triangle-shield, showing typical arrangement of such an array as similarly seen in chivalric illuminations:


20

Lastly, we should consider the distinct possibility that early wielding of the longsword was informed or influenced by wielding of the “longaxe”—i.e. any of various two-handed axes, e.g. Danish/Huscarl, battle, sparth et.al. This was something that I happened to fathom almost two decades ago when first beginning my own wielding of the longsword. I had both kinds of weaponry and soon realised that two-handed hewing with the longaxe, which required projection of force and control of trajectory, brought about a better muscle-memory of extended arms and thus correct arcing for consequent wielding of the longsword. Simply put, swinging the one helped swinging the other. In any event, it is doubtless that there were considerable technical similarities later shared by langschwert and mortaxt (pollaxe), e.g. Talhoffer (1467-Gothaer). (Refer to My Personal Kinetic Evidence below for more about longsword wielding.)

XIII.1 ~ circa 1200-1300 ~ Unknown provenance ~ BL 31 in / 78.7 cm This is a de facto longsword, for despite its rather short blade its grip is relatively long. Its blade has unique (for its type) triple fullering. (EO noted some kind of mark on the blade; yet he lost said note by publication-time.) EO stated it weighed just over 3 pounds and that it handles well. EO would probably have characterised it as “hand-and-half sword” i.e. de facto bastard-sword. XIIIa.9 ~ circa 1200-1250 ~ Danubian Europe ~ BL 36 in / 91.5 cm ~ Weight 3.75 lb / 1.7 kg

Featuring octagonal pommel, it probably was found in the Danube River (as per Mann). As if weight and wielding were mutually exclusive, EO described it as: a heavy sword (about 3.75 lbs) but, if handled correctly, handles well. I must very respectfully point out that EO’s remarks were that of neither a past fight-master (e.g. Hans Talhoffer, Paulus Kal, Peter Falkner), nor a past warrior (e.g. William the Marshal, Jacques de Lalaing, Jörg von Ehingen), nor even that of a modern athletic martialist. Thus I would say: Wieldy is in the arms of the holder.

XIIIa.10 ~ circa 1270-1330 ~ Unknown provenance ~ BL 36.5 in / 92.1 cm River-found and in excellent condition. Admittedly a very late possibility for example of an early longsword, if indeed it dates as early as 1270. All I may add is that this weapon has some design & dimension similarity to another later (c.1300-1350) longsword in Records: XIIa.1.

XIIIa.11 ~ circa 1100-1150 or circa 1200-1250 ~

Unknown provenance ~ BL 35 in / 88.9cm This is the earliest known European longsword. Excavated in rather ragged condition, it has an almost Type XI blade, and its hilting exhibits late-Viking Age characteristics (as per Leppaaho), i.e. spikey cross & (yet again) octagonal pommel. EO posited two possible time-frames, yet he was decidedly in favour of the earlier one (i.e. circa 1100-1150). The very existence of this earliest of the early longswords bears witness to the protean genius of European weaponry. Longswords like this with definitive two-handed tangs/grips plus either octagonal or wheel/disc pommels evince an ergonomic advance compared to coeval swords with one-handed grips plus crown, boat, crescent or oval pommels. Moreover, this weapon is the single most convincing item of artifactal evidence that the martial evolution of the longsword and its fencing was an invention and innovation of the 12th Century. Indeed, this artifactal evidence utterly supports the literary evidence of the previous statement by


21

Priest Döbringer (or whomever), that longsword fencing was created long before it was corrected and finished by Master Liechtenauer during the late 14th Century. Furthermore, it actually makes morphological sense that this XIIIa.11 has a blade like Type XI, since those were the longest of the single-handed sword-types both preeval and coeval to the early longswords. Thus I think that XIIIa.11 was a transitional weapon, its form based upon the Type XI. Indeed, consider these extra lengthy Type XI swords from Records which all date within 900 to 1150, with one example dating quite early, circa 900-950. They all have blade-lengths within the previously defined range for longswords, most being 36 in / 91 cm or greater. These one-handed swords were one step away from being longswords, lacking only the extra hand-width of tang-length needed to actually make them wieldy by both hands. It is as if Type XI were the transitional type betwixt sword and longsword: XI.1 ~ circa 1050-1125 ~ Unknown provenance ~ BL 34 in / 86.4 cm XI.3 ~ circa 1075-1150 ~ Denmark ~ BL 37 in / 94 cm XI.4 ~ circa 1050-1120 ~ Probably Austria ~ BL 37.5 in / 95.3 cm XI.8 ~ circa 900-950 ~ Probably England ~ BL 36.5 in / 92.7 cm XI.9 ~ circa 1100 ~ England ~ BL 36 in / 91.4 cm And what is more, there are also a couple lengthy Type Xa swords in Records which push the limits of one-handed wieldiness; which with the XIs above (noting that the second one below is almost a Type XI, as per EO), plausibly heralded the forthcoming longswords: Xa.10 ~ circa 1100-1150 ~ Germany or Austria or Romania ~ BL 37 in / 94 cm Xa.13 ~ circa 1100 ~ France or Flanders ~ BL 37.75 in / 96 cm Here is a photograph of the only authentic modern replica of the aforesaid XIIIa.11, as made by Arms & Armor, courtesy of swordmaker Craig Johnson:

Is it really surprising then, that somebody somewhere in Europe circa 1100, if not earlier, must have taken the entirely logical step of producing a sword with a longer tang/grip, and thus made the first longsword?


22

XIIIa.12 ~ circa 1250-1300 ~ Unknown provenance ~ BL 34 in / 86.4 cm Features an uncommon double-fullered blade, and some deep nicks in its edges, which were made in use, according to EO. Just how EO determined those nicks were made in use is unexplained in Records, although his respectable expertise makes that a probable insight. Indeed, both he and the late Hank Reinhardt liked to advocate that interception (i.e. versetzen) with any sword was self-evidently-preferably via flat-to-edge or edge-to-flat or flat-to-flat; thus in any event, edge-to-edge was dispreferred in practice. Hence this artifactal weapon illustrates exactly why such damage to the edge is obviously bad. Need anyone say more?

XIIIa.13 ~ circa 1120-1150 ~ Sweden (?) ~ BL 33.5 in / 85.4 cm In very good condition indeed, it features a complex silver-inlaid Latin inscription, the nature of which dates it early & precisely. Museum curator Sven Lüken helpfully confirmed this weapon resides in Deutsches Historisches Museum (W897). It has an arguable inscription, of either ownership or gifting (Wagner, Worley, Holst-Blennow, Beckholmen, 2009). According to EO, its lettering reads: ENRICS DX NERICS. That Latin phrase may equal Henricus Dux Nericus which in turn may arguably translate into English as Henry/Eric Duke of Närke (Ibid, 2009). The blade also features fanciful designs of crosses, flowers and dragon-heads, as detailed in the gloriously confusing mess of Appendix B of EO’s Records. This artifact is close in early date to XIIIa.11 and is close in short blade-length to that of XIIIa.12 (cf. both above).

XIIIa.14 ~ circa 1250-1300 ~ Austria ~ BL 38 in / 96.5 cm Found in an Austrian church, this whole weapon has a unique appearance, and used to be owned by EO himself, apparently his first Medieval sword, which he got as a gift from his dear uncle. EO stated that being young, he thoroughly cleaned and polished this weapon, which he regretted. Personally, I think EO should not have regretted doing that at all. I would do exactly the same, had I ownership of an original historical longsword which was in rusty yet recoverable condition. Some call that artifactal blasphemy. I call it restoring the weapon to its former glory.

XIIIa.15 ~ circa 1210-1320 ~ Unknown provenance (?) ~ BL 33 in / 84 cm In excellent condition, it features an unusual faceted-cube pommel. Its hilting is similar to known examples in England and Sweden. (Thus suggesting provenance?) The interesting pommel looks like a big six-sided dice. If it were threaded instead of peened, then one could remove it and roll it for a game—hah! That is all irrelevant, of course…Or is it? Consider how that odd pommel constitutes a transitional form, meant to allow it to seat and/or even “roll” within the back-hand of a two-handed gripping method, and thus allowed ergonomic handling with greater leverage of striking via hauen (hewing) and schneiden (slashing); better agility at binden & winden (binding & winding); and especially more accuracy & comfort for stichen (thrusting). All such moves eventually became illustrated in Liechtenauer Lineage fight-books with Type XVa, XVIa & XVIIIa longswords. Such weaponry had ergonomic faceted, bulb & globe pommels, plus laterally tapering blades. Those later longswords are arguably more wieldy for both bloszfechten (bare/unarmoured fencing) and harnischfechten (harness/armoured fencing) than the earlier Type XIIa & XIIIa longswords featuring bulkier less/non-tapering blades and sometimes ungainly wheel pommels.


23

It is at this juncture that we should compare & contrast the “betwixting” (zwischenfassen) of Döbringer Hausbuch (both hands on grip) and the unnamed yet quite apparent “pommeling” of Talhoffer, etc. (one hand on grip and other on pommel). Indeed, the following materials, some of it revisited, show there was not always total agreement amongst masters, even within the same lineage, on even a basic subject like the proper gripping of the sword-hilt:

Betwixting

of Döbringer Hausbuch (1389) (15r) Auch wisse das eÿn guter fechter sal vör allen sachen sÿn swert gewisse und sicher füren und fassen mit beiden henden czwischen gehilcze und klos Wen alzo helt her das swert vil sicher den das hers beÿ dem klosse vasset mit eyner hant Und slet auch vil harter und sürer alzo wen der klos öber wirft sich und swenkt sich noch dem slage das der slag vil harter dar kumpt den das her das swert mit dem klosse vasset Wen alzo czöge her den slag mit dem klosse weder das her nicht zo völkömlich und zo stark möchte dar komen Wen das swert (15v) ist recht zam eÿn woge den ist eyn swert gros und swer zo mus der klos auch dornoch swer syn recht zam noch eÿner wogen

Also wit that a good fencer shall, above all tactics, know his (long)sword; and surely wield and grasp (it) with both hands, betwixt cross and pommel. When thusly held, he (wields) the (long)sword more surely than when he grasps it with one hand at the pommel; and also (he) strikes much harder and keener. Thus when the pommel overthrows itself and swings itself after the strike; then the strike arrives much harder than when he grasps the (long)sword via the pommel. Thus when he tugs the strike via the pommel, (then) because of that, he might arrive not so completely and so strongly. When the sword is correctly together, then (it) is a scale. A sword (is) great and heavy; so accordingly the pommel must be heavy. Correctly together, like a scale.

Evidently that sage advice for betwixting did not deter the evolution to pommeling as often clearly seen in fechtbücher of the German Tradition. The following prime example is an illustrated confrontation19 from Talhoffer (1467-Gothaer) (f.14r/pl.25), where “Both stand on (his) guard” (Stand beid In der Hůt) while pommeling during bloszfechten. Notice left-man’s XVIa held in nebenhut versus right-man’s XVa held in kronhut; and that the longswords likely have bulb pommels as per other pictured examples in the same manuscript:


24

Pommeling Whether primary or not in bloszfechten of major fechtbücher (1389-1570)

YEA NAY X Döbringer (1389) X Talhoffer (1443-Gothaer)

Codex Wallerstein (Part-A:1450s) X X Von Danzig (1452)

Talhoffer (1467-Gothaer) X Kal (Cgm 1507) (1470) X

Falkner (1490) X X Fecht und Ringerbuch (1508)

Dürer (1512) X Goliath (1510-20) X

X Hutter (Codex I.6.2°.2) (1523) Altenn Fechter (1531) X

Meyer (1570) X Maybe all that proves nothing, but it is interesting esoterica of longsword fencing ergonomics.

XIIIb.5 (!) ~ between 1253 and 1278 ~ Bohemia ~ BL 38.5 in / 98 cm This weapon, unmounted/never mounted, and in pristine condition, is a long blade with an extremely long tang. The blade’s engraved letters and designs give positive attribution to


25

Ottokar II King of Bohemia & Archduke of Austria. Strangely, EO just did not simply designate this weapon as of Type XIIIa, although its design and dimensions make it such by definition. In any event, EO was insightful to present this unusual bare example amongst the others. If I were so fortunate to own that weapon, I would hire a good craftsman-cutler to make hilting to finish this longsword for my own wielding, thus adding to my artifactal blasphemy.

XVIa.4 ~ 1290-1320 ~ Denmark ~ BL 31 in / 78.8 cm Like the aforesaid XIII.1, this sword is a de facto longsword, for it has a rather short blade but a really long grip. Other than stating it is in very good condition, EO told us nothing more really, at least of any martial worth. Admittedly a very late possibility for example of an early longsword. All the artifactal Type XVIa longswords that EO shows in Records are circa 1290-1350 and are furnished with wheel pommels (types J & K). It is interesting that such weaponry appear a full century-plus later in illustrations circa 1450-1500, with similar crosses (styles 1,6,7,11) yet (re)furnished20 with bulb pommels (type T.5 et.al.); speculatively to allow the pommeling of the evolved fencing. Examples are the previous image from Talhoffer (1467-Gothaer) and the Schongauer image (circa 1485) at the start of this very essay (its details provided at end). From the middle of that period is a battle scene which features a Type XVIa longsword (plus a lost cavalry-shield) from the Netherlandic mirror-of-history Spiegel Historiael by Jacob van Maerlant (c.1325) (KA XX; Koninklijke Bibliotheek Den Haag) (214r detail):

That scene portrays the Frankish hero Roland slaying a Moor. Its action-style is similar to the sword & buckler fencers of Walpurgis (1280-1320) (MS I.33; Royal Armouries) and its armatura is similar to the knights of Codex Manesse (1304) (Cod. Pal. germ. 848; Universitätsbibliothek


26

Heidelberg). Yet what is really interesting is how it compares to the later dueling scene below from the Swabian fight-book Künste zu Ritterlicher Were by Peter Falkner (1490) (72v), which portrays two German noblemen in trial by combat with later Type XVIIIa longswords:

Ist er ab getrungen oder geffallen so fall aüch ab von dem pfertt vnd arbeit schnel in dem ringen als du wol weist felt er uff den rück so beschlüs in mit einen bein mit dem andern uff einen arm und arbeit mit dem swert oder degen so ergypt er sich ~

If foe is forced off or dismounts (his horse), then you also dismount from your horse and work quickly with wrestling, as you well-wit. If he falls upon his back, then lock him with one leg while your other (steps) upon one of his arms, and work with your sword or dagger, thus he gives himself up.

Both scenes feature longswords as a wieldy infantry weapon for the noble cavalryman (i.e. knight, ritter, chevalier). Each shows or refers to dismounted horses. Both evince wrestling (ringen) eventually ended by pinning (unterhalten). Each portrays longswords wielded like giant daggers for harnischfechten, whether Type XVIa for full-maille or Type XVIIIa for full-plate. Thus their combined lesson is that longsword forms evolved yet functioned similarly over time.


27

XX.1 ~ circa 1320-1340—or possibly circa 1275-1325 ~

Unknown provenance (?) ~ BL 50 in / 127cm EO told us lots of useful information about this weapon with massive blade & massive pommel: Its condition is very good…obviously well-cared for. It has very enigmatic marks which give a very positive date to early 14th Century. Regarding said marks, EO then stated (with some sly self-contradiction) that the style of the heraldic achievements, the letters, and other doodles on both sides of the blade, are typical of the period c.1275-1325. (Cf. the aforesaid gloriously confusing mess of Appendix B in Records for more about such inscriptions.) Thus EO, perhaps wittingly, left the door open to possibly dating this weapon as a rather late early longsword, if it does actually date as early as 1275. That said, the fact that it is a super-big longsword should not discount it due to being some kind of early zweihänder et.al. Indeed, this weapon goes to some lengths (all pun intended) to support the plausibility of the modernly-controversial wielding of similarly huge longswords in the famous Liechtenauer Lineage fight-book Goliath (1510-20). (Again, such bespeaks the validity of maintaining that wieldy is in the arms of the holder.) So, with that fechtbuch in mind: Is this longsword specifically from Germany—one of the proverbial grans espées d’allemagne? (Incidentally: EO points out that the original grip of XX.1 is intact; and that it is made of wood bound with cord and covered with leather, thus in a three-layer construction. Although Records describes multiple swords with existent grips which exhibit this evidently standard & trusted & historical design; it is nonetheless a rarity when modern sword-makers actually bother to make such grips for otherwise authentic replica swords. Why do they not just make that standard?)

Miscellaneous 4 ~ XIII(a) ~ circa 1200-1300 (speculatively) ~ Possibly Germany (according to RA) ~ BL 33.5 in / 85.2 cm (according to RA)

EO told us very little about this rather corroded yet splendid longsword, other than at the time of Records initial publication (1991), it was on loan to Royal Armouries of Britain (RA) from the executors of the late Sir James Mann. So I made recent query to RA, which was answered by historical librarian Stuart Ivinson. He graciously provided the following information and photography: Within the War Gallery resides this item (AL.23.6). Apparently the pommel is of bronze. The blade-flats are inlaid with brass (Passau) wolf marks:


28

EO provided no dating estimate for Miscellaneous 4 in his Records. And according to its curatorial record at RA, this sword dates to “late 14th Century” (i.e. circa 1375-1400). However, I must respectfully advocate the alternative dating of circa 1200-1300; for threefold reasons: (1) This longsword features a minimal length tang/grip for two-handed wielding; a feature of Types XIIa & XIIIa which tends to date those before 1300. (2) Reinforcing that is its pairing of pommel-type J with cross-style 2; a hilting-pair which, when mounting Types XIIa & XIIIa (thus of EO’s Family C), tends to date within range of 1200-1350. (3) Its (Passau) wolf marks are stylistically similar to those of XIIa.5 (above), the longsword of Grandmaster Konrad, datable to no later than 1240. Despite its corrosion, this is truly one handsome weapon. Maybe some modern swordmaker would replicate it. And then thank me for the suggestion by giving me the first replica made.

Miscellaneous 6 ~ XIIIa (arguably) ~ 1280-1310 ~ Unknown provenance ~ BL 35.13 in / 89.2 cm

Admittedly a very late possibility for example of an early longsword, if indeed it dates as early as 1280. In any event, EO made some curious remarks about this Medieval weapon, stating it: Is almost a two-hand sword, for its grip is extremely long in spite of its ‘war-sword’ length of blade (35 1/8” (89.2 cms). It is a heavy weapon too, just under 4 lbs. Its date, c.1280-1310. The fact that Miscellaneous 6 has both an “extremely long” grip and “war-sword” blade-length seemed surprising to EO, who considered it “almost a two-hand sword”. Considering the weapon is “just under 4 lbs”, it seems its original wielder likely wanted a massive weapon of typical total length, yet he and/or the maker realised that better leverage was required & gained by this unusual ratio of grip to blade within that total. So the design was rather brilliant yet unsurprising, if you think about it. Thus said, it seems obvious by definition that any longsword or war sword, including this Miscellaneous 6, is indeed a two-handed sword.


29

Regarding Renaissance swords, Master George Silver of the English Tradition of fencing referred to what he called two hand sword in his Paradoxes (1599) (§19): The perfect length of your two hand sword is, the blade to be the length of the blade of your single sword.21 Thus he defined it as a weapon of blade-length equal to a one-handed sword (i.e. what he called single sword or short sword); yet obviously with enough tang/grip-length for wielding the weapon with both hands—thus what we could call “two-handed sword” or what we would call “longsword”. In any event, wieldy is in the arms of the holder. One replica Type XIIa/XIIIa longsword that I used to own, made by Tinker-Hanwei, was similar to this Miscellaneous 6 in dimension, proportion and mass. I found it was a very wieldy weapon, and miss owning it. Here is a photograph of that model courtesy of swordmaker Michael Tinker Pearce:

Miscellaneous 7 ~ XIa (arguably) ~ 1200-1250 ~ Unknown provenance ~ BL 38.63 in / 98.1 cm

EO stated that this weapon’s oval pommel is truly enormous (accepted); and its blade is long, rather slender (obviously); plus much lighter than Miscellaneous 6 (above). This odd-ball sword seems like an experimental custom work, and does point again to the plausibility of Type XI as the transitional type (cf. argument to that effect for XIIIa.11 above).

AL116/186 ~ XIIIa ~ 1200-1300 ~ Germany (speculatively) ~

Overall length (currently) 23 in / 58.5 cm ~ BL (?originally?) 34 in / 86.4 cm ~ Weight (currently) 2.58 lb / 1.17 kg

This last weapon is a fascinating fragmentary longsword which is found in neither EO’s Records nor his Archaeology. This weapon currently resides in the British Museum, on long-term loan from Royal Armouries. BM offers the following full-view photograph of the remaining artifact:


30

(BM also offered a close-up photograph of the severely corroded zoological blade-mark, not reproduced here. Its present state of ugly corrosion almost, but not quite, obscured what was likely the inlaid figure of an unicorn.) If I were fortunate enough to work as a curator at either RA or BM, then I would offer the following alternative commentary for that weapon. I base it upon EO’s insightful survey of many similar swords over many decades in both his Records and his Archaeology; upon my analysis of the full- & close-up views of the whole artifact and of its zoological blade mark; and upon my own insights as to context and connections as informed by the foregoing considerable evidence of this very essay: Longsword, fragmentary—what remains is only about half of what originally must have been quite a handsome knightly longsword. What remains is the forte of its broad, fullered, double-edged Type XIIa or XIIIa blade, typical of its period, together with full tang, cross & pommel, all highly corroded. Nonetheless, one side of this artifact has brass inlay of a (Marian) heart and two crisp (Romanic) letters “V V”. Each side of the blade is marked by an abstract “unicorn”, which seems a variant of the (Passau) wolf. Its hilting is the common pairing of pommel-type J (like a fat wheel) and cross-style 2 (quillons like little facetted hammers). The tang is substantial with a thick peen-button, as needed for securing the hilting of such a massive two-handed weapon. Its markings and morphology indicate German provenance and date it somewhere between 1200 and 1300.

Brief Interlude: Provenancial Providence

Provenancially speaking, if we consider every known and likely origination from amongst all the foregoing artifactal swords and longswords, then we end up with the following host of nine (9) nations: Germany, England, Austria, Sweden, Bohemia, Denmark, Romania, France, Flanders. The epicenter of that group can be imagined as lying somewhere within heart of Alpine Europe. Hence the conjecture that Germany was the birthplace of the longsword is supported yet again.


31

Personal Kinetic Evidence

Amid the athletic wielding of my own customised & sharpened replica of an early Type XIIIa longsword; whose design and dimensions make it like a mix of aforesaid XIIIa.11 and XIIIa.13; I have found it wieldy for the primary moves of Liechtenauer’s ausrichtungen / hauptstücke (directives / main moves) for longsword bloszfechten. Utilising the Liechtenauer Lineage as my metric for longsword fencing is respectable and verifiable. Aside from Gladiatoria and Nürnberg, it was the greatest lineage of the German Tradition of Chivalric Arts; which in turn was evidently the largest, but certainly not the only, tradition in Europe that taught the Art of Fencing with the longsword. Hence I think that moves like the fünf hauen (five hewings), vier leger (four stances), vier versetzen (four interceptings), duplieren-mutieren (duplicating-mutating) and vier hengen (four hangings) could have had their original devisement amongst the dynamics of the early longswords, i.e. Types XIIa & XIIIa. (Of course allowing for further development thereafter.) Moreover, the morphology of the longsword facilitated such moves, i.e. not only the longer blades and longer grips/tangs but also the more ergonomic pommels and wider crosses, as compared to earlier/contemporary and (sometimes) shorter-bladed swords, i.e. Types X, XI & XII. I think that authentic fight-book-based longsword fencing, whether practiced via solo drills with sharp replicas or practice matches with blunt replicas, confirms all that. In other words, Types XIIa & XIIIa circa 1100-1350 can be wielded for all the same moves as can later longsword Types XVa, XVIa & XVIIIa circa 1375-1475, i.e. later longswords from the existential century of Liechtenauer and the descendant gesellschaft (college) of masters in his lineage. Not as perfectly for every move, but nonetheless fairly well; especially if the fencer trains enough to do so. And verifiably, Types XIIa & XIIIa are superior designs for hewing (hauen) strikes, having relatively more forward mass and a more planar cross-sectional shaping. However, when considering bloszfechten compared to harnischfechten and the longswords best befitting each, the later Types XVa, XVIa (especially), XVII (especially) and XVIIIa have a decidedly greater piercing advantage compared to earlier Types X, XIIa and XIIIa (although not necessarily to Type XI); whereas those earlier types have a demonstrably greater hewing advantage. In any event, the highly-leveraging and accurately-aiming method of gripping by halb schwert / kurzes schwert (half-sword / shortened sword) and its interrelated mortschlag / donnerschlag (murder-strike / thunder-strike) and schlagende ort (striking-point) may be done technically well with any properly made longsword of any type; since the consequent staff-like manipulation drives the weapon both manageably and forcefully. Accordingly, here is that Type XIIIa longsword of mine. Windlass Steelcrafts made it, and I customised, sharpened, improved & photographed it. Wielding it via athletic training and target-cutting have proven the aforesaid generalities of bare fencing to me. Doing all that has provided me personal kinetic evidence which have led me to make my own value-judgements about early European longswords. Here is my photograph of that modern replica:


32


33

An Existential Question Before concluding, I make an inquisitive detour, to dare ask and to try answer the following significant question: What was/were the martial reason/s for the existence of the European longsword? My answer: I do not know, nor do I think anybody shall ever know. I may only offer further questions for answers: Was it the need for the prestige of such a special kind of sword? Was it the need to defeat the evolving armour? Indeed, was the evolving armour, from maille to plate, making the longsword needful and the shield needless? Was it the need to hit one’s foe with full-body force with a two-handed mega-blade? Was it the changing needs of warfare? Was it the changing needs of dueling? Was it simply because they could? Indeed, the pairing of sword & shield had served well for all kinds of combat for many centuries preeval to the longsword—whether afoot or ahorse, whether bare or armoured—and would serve well for some centuries coeval. A fighter could do certain offence and defence better with sword & shield (whether triangle or buckler), or with spear or axe, or with mace or falchion, or with hammer or dagger, than he could with longsword. Moreover, early longswords could be paired with shields for combat (as previously evinced). Thus a further question: Why bother to devise any morphologically specific set of kinetics, any specialised way of fencing, for this sword with it longer blade and longer grip/tang, for this weapon called the longsword? Regarding that, I would point out that the circa 1100 date for the origination of the longsword must have been contextually requisite. Thus its origination might have something to do with the major conflicts of its time and place(s), of it culture. I conjecture that meant warfare like the First, Second & Third Crusades (1095-1192) and the early Northern Crusades (1147-1212). Otherwise, I would only offer that because the longsword provided martial dynamics akin to each weapon of that aforesaid array; and because it was the most difficult & expensive to make, and arguably the most dignified & handsome to own, of personal armament; then accordingly it behooved the warrior nobility of European Chivalry, and appealed to them as their ultimate weapon. All told, there were probably multiple valid reasons for why the longsword came into existence. Yet the primary reason must always be acknowledged: It was made for fighting.

Conclusion The foregoing triad of literary, artifactal and kinetic evidence stands as positive proof that the “Art of Fencing” with the European longsword was not the sudden and sole creation of any single master but must have been the evolved and empirical perfection of multiple masters. Its fencing was based upon lore built up over time and broadly known. That evidentiary triad is grounded, material and basic. As this essay has shown via its admittedly complex wanderings, manifold modern scholars, craftsmen and martialists strive, by their various endeavors, to understand the form and function of that weapon. The evidence of form and function for early European longswords, and indeed the evidence of their form following their function, all support the axiom of this essay. ~


34

Bibliography

Der Altenn Fechter Anfengliche Kunst; Paurenfeindt & Lecküchner & Lignitzer & Nameless (auth x4); Christian Egenolph (edit & pub) & Hans Weyditz (illus); Frankfurt am Main; 1531 The Archaeology of Weapons; Ewart Oakeshott (auth & illus); Barnes & Noble; New York; 1994 (2nd edit) Arte Gladiatoria Dimicandi – 15th Century Swordsmanship of Master Filippo Vadi; Luca Porzio & Gregory Mele (transl x2); Chivalry Bookshelf; Union City; 2002 (from 1482) Döbringer Hausbuch; Anonymous; Cod. Hs. 3227a; Germanisches Nationalmuseum Nürnberg; 1389 Ergrundung Ritterlicher Kunst der Fechterey; Andre Paurenfeindt (auth); Hieronymus Vietor; Wien; 1516 Fecht und Ringerbuch; Anonymous; MS E.1939.65.341; Glasgow Museums Scotland; 1508 Fechtbuch; Peter von Danzig zu Ingelstat (edit & auth); 44 A 8 (Cod. 1449); Biblioteca dell'Academica Nazionale dei Lincei e Corsiniana Rzym; 1452 Fechtbuch; Albrecht Dürer (auth & illus); Handschrift 26-232; Albertina Graphische Sammlung Wien; 1512 Fechtbuch; Jörg Wilhalm der Hutter (auth); Codex I.6.2°.2; Universitätsbibliothek Augsburg; 1523 Fechtbuch; Paulus Kal (auth); Cgm 1507; Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München; 1470 Fechtbuch; Sigmund Ringeck (auth); MscrDresd C 487; Sächsische Landesbibliothek Dresden; 1440s Fechtbuch; Hans von Speyer (edit); Hs. M I 29; Universitätsbibliothek Salzburg; 1491 Fechtbuch; Hans Talhoffer (auth); Ms. Chart. A558; Forschungsbibliothek Schloß Friedenstein Gotha; 1443 Fechtbuch; Hans Talhoffer (auth); Thott 290 2º; Det Kongelige Bibliotek Copenhagen; 1459 Fechtbuch; Hans Talhoffer (auth); Cod. icon 394a; Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München; 1467 Goliath; Anonymous; MS Germ. Quart. 2020 (5879); Biblioteka Jagiellonska Kraków; 1510-1520 Gründtliche Beschreibung der freyen Ritterlichen unnd Adelichen Kunst des Fechtens; Joachim Meyer (auth); Straßburg; 1570 INNOMINEDOMINI—Medieval Christian Invocation Inscriptions on Sword Blades; Thomas Wagner, John Worley, Anna Holst-Blennow, Gunilla Beckholmen (auth x4); from Waffen- und Kostümkunde Vol.1.51; 2009 KnightPix; Donald Lepping (auth); personal e-mail; December 2012 Kudrun; Anonymous; Barend Symons (transcr); Max Niemeyer; Halle; 1883 (from 1230) Künste zu Ritterlicher Were; Peter Falkner (auth); MS KK 5012; Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien; 1490 Lessons on the English Longsword; Brandon Heslop & Benjamin Bradak (auth & auth); Paladin Press; Boulder; 2010 (from early 15th Century) Les Manuels De Combat (Fechtbücher Et Ringbücher); Sergio Boffa (auth); pre-publication courtesy copy; 2012


35

Mediaeval Swords from Southeastern Europe: Material from 12th to 15th Century; Marko Aleksić (auth); Beograd; 2007 Der Mittelalterliche Reiterschild; Jan Kohlmorgen (auth) & Svenia Kohlmorgen (photo); Karfunkel Verlag; Wald-Michelbach; 2002 Mittelhochdeutsches Handwörterbuch; Matthias Lexer (auth); S. Hirzel; Leipzig; 1872-78 New Künstliches Fechtbuch; Jacob Sutor von Baden (auth); Bringern & Hoffman; Frankfurt am Main; 1612 Paradoxes of Defence & Bref Instructions; George Silver (auth); Edward Blount; London; 1599 Die Passauer Wolfsklingen: Legende und Wirklichkeit; Heinz Huther (auth); Dietmar Klinger Verlag; Passau; 2007 Records of the Medieval Sword; Ewart Oakeshott (auth & illus); Boydell Press; Woodbridge; 2002 (revised edit) Schwert des Landgrafen Konrad II. von Thüringen und Hessen Deutschordensmeister von 1239-1240; Jochen Grasser (auth); Die Reisecen website; 2010 Schwert des Landgrafen und Deutschordensmeisters Konrad von Thüringen und Hessen, um 1240; Arno Eckhardt (auth); Die Traumschmiede website; 2012 Strength and Balance from the North: Late Medieval Scottish Swords; Ross Cowan (auth); Medieval Warfare 1-2; 2011 Szczerbiec (the Jagged Sword) – the Coronation Sword of the Kings of Poland; Marcin Biborski & Janusz Stępiński & Grzegorz Żabiński (auth x3); from Gladius, XXXI; 2011 Walpurgis; aka MS I.33; Lutegerus (auth); Royal Armouries Leeds; circa 1280-1320

Splash Image Saint Katherine : Martin Schongauer : woodcut print (1485) : This symbol-laden iconography of the legendary holy martyress of Alexandria portrays her with typical symbols of crown & broken wheel & sword. That last symbol specifically is a contemporary example of a Type XVIa longsword. Indeed, such an image combined two of the favourite subjects of German graphic artists during the Chivalric Age: women and weaponry.

Photographic Technicalities (where & when available)

Note: In this essay I tried to present all full-view photographs of the various artifactal & replica longswords approximately to scale with each another.

XIIa.5 : Dierk Hagedorn : Canon Digital Ixus 430 Camera : Deutsches Historisches Museum Berlin : JPG : 07/22/2006 Miscellaneous 4 : Stuart Ivinson : Canon EOS-1Ds Mark 2 Camera : Royal Armouries of Britain Leeds : JPG : 09/06/2007 Windlass Longsword : Jeffrey Hull : Kodak EasyShare C513 Zoom Digital Camera : Kansas USA : Lighting diffuse, natural, outdoors : XnView JPG (300 dpi) : 01/01/2007


36

About the Author

Jeffrey Hull earned his Bachelor of Arts in Humanities from Kansas State University. His past martial arts experience involved Bushikan Jujitsu, Wing Chun and Arnis; and now he pursues Ritterlich Kunst. His other athletic pursuits included running, powerlifting and archery, and he has also enjoyed hunting, metalsmithing and Western riding. He studies Teutonic & Celtic philology & mythology, researches Medieval history and art, and enjoys music. He likes to hike, paint, swim and versify. He is author of books and essays about Chivalric Arts. He lives in Oregon, USA. ~

Also the author of:

Knightly Dueling : the Fighting Arts of German Chivalry Fight Earnestly : Fight-Book by Hans Talhoffer (1459-Thott)

Follow his work at:

Academia.edu

All words and pictures by individuals and entities other than the author are: Copyright & Rights Reserved of each individual and entity, respectively,

who kindly contributed to the enrichment of this essay.

All words and pictures by the author of this essay are: Copyright 2012 of Jeffrey Hull.


37

Endnotes 1 It is interesting how the Priest disdained parÿren (parrying) and did so such that it was distinct from favoured vorsetczen (intercepting)—thus the two were not equated, as is done so casually in some modern translations. 2 Instead of “lyric-masters” some prefer translations such as “lay-masters” or “dance-masters”. 3 The Priest later names & describes (23r-30r) those Fünff Hewe (Five Hews): Czornhawe (wrath-hew); Krumphawe (crumple-hew); Twerehawe (thwart-hew); Schilhawe (squint-hew); Scheitelhawe (skull-hew). Launched from the typical overhead right-hander version of the ward Vom Tag (from the roof), those strikes are described simply & respectively as: long edge right diagonal; long edge left diagonal; short edge right horizontal; short edge left diagonal; long edge vertical. 4 Grasping/Gripping (fassen) the longsword is revisited later in this essay by its exploration of “betwixting” versus “pommeling”. 5 Although the Priest earlier disdained drum-work (trummel werk) (15v) and other devices of the lyric-masters (leychmeistere) (15r), here he ironically speaks of “beats” (rure) (16r); and later of “beating” the four targets (dÿ vier blössen rüren) (39v) as if those were drums, with each target having “six beats” (itzliche blösse hat sechs ruren). 6 Here the word vör is the same as the timing principle das Vor (the Before), which for readability, I have synonymously rendered as the adverb “proactively”. 7 Those became “better-known…hereafter” (hernoch bas bekant) to the fencer who read/heard the many stücke (actions/plays) of fencing that followed in the fight-book—which obviously for sake of brevity & focus could not be presented in this essay. 8 Compare later similar use of bericht (arranged) by Meyer (1570) (24v). 9 Wedervechter (challenger) was an archaic term indicating legal ramifications and even biblical implications (Lexer, 1872-78); which moreover provided the Priest a convenient reemphasis of vechter (fencer/fighter). 10 Usually I would translate volbrenge as “completes”, but in this context “executes” is fitting. 11 Unfortunately this folio finishes in a phrase of untranslatable corrupt Latin. However, the reader may be somewhat assured that he is missing nothing new, since the Priest is so repetitive that he probably already told us whatever significant advice he had relating to the topic of this folio, i.e. motus. 12 Inasmuch as we may allow ourselves to speak of anything “national” during that time in Europe, although such term does have its merits. Alternatively, the terms “cultural” or “geographical” may be preferable to some. 13 This use of the noun kreften (plural of kraft) with modifying genetive noun (des leybes) literally means “bodily forces” and hence specifically “physical power” rather than generally “(martial) prowess”, as would usually be the case for kraft in context of any given Medieval fight-book. 14 I should like to relay an insight from fencing scholar James Acutt Wallhausen regarding the hazen reference: …The reference to the hare in HS3227a (40r, hazen wolle irlawfen) is clearly a reference to their flighty, flitting behaviour, criss-cross running pattern when hunted (unlike deer and foxes who run in a straight line). Interestingly, the minnesinger Gottfried von Strassburg noted of his contemporary Wolfram von Eschenbach that his lyrics were non-linear calling him “a friend of the hare”, such that his lyrics must always be accompanied by Glossa so people can understand what he's talking about. This interpretation seems to fit with the rest of the commentaries elsewhere in HS3227a…One thing I forgot to mention before: Von Eschenbach actually makes the use of the flitting behaviour of the Hare in his prologue to his Parzival too. (From personal e-mails from JAW: Modus Dimicandi by Magister Beringois; November 2012)


38

15 Later in that same work Paurenfeindt provided a broad definition inclusive of three basic forms of longsword (langen schwerdt) existent and prolific during his time (early 16th Century): (A3r) DAS Erst capitel lernd wie man phfortayl prauchen so im langen schwerdt welchs gnuczt wirt mit payden henden als schlachtschwerdt reydtschwerdt triecker und ander vil mer die ich von kurcz wegen aus las.

This First Chapter thusly teaches how a man gains vantage with the longsword—which gets used with both hands—such as war sword, riding sword, harness sword, and many others, which I leave out for sake of brevity.

I translated those three forms contextually not literally. Although Paurenfeindt referred to his own time, I think forms of these existed amongst types during the time of Liechtenauer (late 14th Century), as per the following artifactal examples dating within half-a-century (fore & aft) of that master (Oakeshott, 2002): Schlachtschwerdt War Sword Type XIIa.3 (Type XVIa?) circa 1350-1400 Reydtschwerdt Riding Sword Type XV.9 & Edward III c. 1400-1450 & c. 1350 Triecker Harness Sword XVII.11 circa 1375-1400 16 Such Passau-wolf marks are found on blades exported for foreign hilted swords as late and as far as 15th Century Scotland (Cowan, 2011). 17 The difference in weight/mass—a mere 40 grams in any event—is explained by the addition of wood & leather grip to the replica, which obviously the original now lacks (Grasser, 2010). 18 This point of balance, as it is commonly called, is indeed the center of gravity or center of mass of the weapon. This measure is the spot between crossguard and point where lies scale-like equilibrium of mass. Unfortunately, that of the original was not recorded, but considering how close the other major comparative measures turned out to be, it is likely that of the replica is accurate as well. Thus at a mere 8.0 cm / 3.15 in away from the crossguard, this replica has, relatively speaking, a very wieldy balance; which indicates that the original likely be so wieldy too. However, since this is the one measure not recorded for the original, this must be conjectural here. 19 Rather than so very close, realise the fencers were actually meant to be at range/stage of zufechten (entry) as they lie in their respective wards just prior to action. Thus they really should be at least one blade-length away from each other. The intentional misportrayal of range was apparently due to the constraints of full-figure portrayal within the limited canvass-space of the foliation. 20 Earlier blades refurnished with later hilting are known and existent (Oakeshott, 2002) (Biborski & Stępiński & Żabiński, 2011). 21 Although in this paradox (§19) Silver defined relatively, in a previous paradox (§15) he defined absolutely: The best lengthes for perfect teaching of the true fight to be vsed and continued in Fence schooles, to accord with the true statures of all men, are these. The blade to be a yard and an inch for meane statures, and for men of tall statures, a yard and three or foure inches, and no more. However, his Renaissance criteria are arguable, and many artifactal Medieval swords simply do not support his criteria whilst others surely do, as may be ascertained by even a cursory survey of a considerable number of artifactal swords (Oakeshott, 2002).

Early European Longswords

Documents

Transcript of Early European Longswords