half-swording?

[Brian Leybourne]

Tired of waiting for Jake

Just FYI, Jake is back from Europe, but in the middle of moving home (state, even) at the moment, which is why he's not been around much.

Brian.

[Salamander]

Tired of waiting for Jake, I did some of my own research. Seems that like all things in real life, that the answer is fairly complex.

From the ARMA site (http://www.thearma.org/spotlight/heymr.htm):

Another element of a real Medieval or Renaissance sword is its edge, or rather, the bevel from its center out toward the intersecting point of the planes of the two sides. The edge then is not just the sharp part but the entire surface angle. Commonly however, we refer to the edge of a sword as being its degree of sharpness, and here there is considerable misunderstanding and debate as there are different degrees of sharpness and ways of polishing edges. Even then, there are differences between edges for soft as opposed to hard targets.  The variety of possible edge types for impacting different targets is considerable.  Most cutting swords do not have a knife-like wedge-shaped edge (which can fold upon impact) but more of a rolled tear-drop cantle shape which is stronger. As well, edges for slicing soft yielding materials are not the same as those for shearing harder resistant materials. Expert swordsmith Dan Maragni explains the importance of the edge on cutting swords by noting: "The edge is in many ways the most important part of the sword.  This is the interface between the blade and the target and must be properly shaped and presented to maximize the effects of the cut.  If the edge is shaped incorrectly for the target, too thick or thin depending on hard or soft targets, it will either not 'bite' or it will fail by either chipping or collapsing on contact."  Paul Champaign also suggests, "Think of a sword edge as a shape moving through water, the least resistance will win. This has nothing to do with ease of sharpening, chip resistance, blade handling, or manufacture, etc. As the target gets harder you have to adjust the 'meat' of the rolled edge or the angle of the cantle, etc. You could also leave the edge the same and soften the edge so it won't chip. There are multiple solutions to the problem...it's all in the execution. The best solution is the one that holds up the best to the various things you have to cut." He adds, "Different periods and sword types will use different bevel and edge geometries according to what they are intended to do, just as the blade shape changes between a cutting blade and a thrusting one."

Interesting article, and really great pics of Clement and the other guys in a Sweedish armory. Check out the "Flambard" and the huge falchion looking thing. Who'd have imagined that that one.

Anyhow, it seems that European swords came in a variety of formats. I'd suggest that ones that were intended for Half-Swording would have had that "rolled tear-drop cantle shape" that they mention. "More meat" as the one guy puts it.

What's really cool about this is that you can come up with rules for this, I think. Have three classes of blade edge. Sharp, "normal", and thick. Sharp gets a +1 damage vs. foes unarmored, unaffected by leather, and may become damaged if it hits metal armor. Thick would be -1 overall, but negate two points of metal armor. Probably not really realisitic, but a potentially fun rule.

Mike

Yes, the answer is quite complex, if you were asking about the sharpness of a sword in generic terms. In regards to a specific type of weapon and to what purpose it was intended the answer is often quite straight forward. From what i have learned in my limited time as a scholar, most swords were sharp and edge geometry plays a bigger part in what the sword was used for than the edge itself. In the case of the Viking weapons, the blades had a relatively narrow distal thickness while being quite wide in profile, relatively speaking. Making for quite good shearing weapons capable of gruesome wounds. These were used against folk wearing mostly cloth armour or a bit of chain, but with mixed effect. These weapons had a terribly narrow and acute/severe blade geometry designed for cutting and slicing. Next up were the blades which were designed to deal with heavier armours, such as chain and gambezon. These blades had a less acute geometry on average, but were still formidable cutting weapons, able to cleave an opponent readily. An example is at Wisby wherein a man lost both his legs to a single blow from what is most likely supposed to be a greatsword. As we go forward in history we see the blade geometry change, but few of the examples are ever what we can consider to anything but sharp. However there is also the fact that many theorists are supporting a recent idea that only the first half or third of the blade was sharpened, allowing one to hold the blade in halfsword with relative ease. I have seen demonstrated to me a man holding a sharpened weapon by the blade before.

Also of note is something I found out at my first cutting session. We used a Type XVa blade and a Type XVIa blade and compared them in cutting power. The heavier tipped Type XVIa readily defeated the Type XVa in cutting. Now, I admit freely that both weapons have rebated blades for sparring, but having said that, the manufacturers of both have indicated that they would have to be sharpened to be more authentic. As it stands, they did do gruesome amounts of damage to the pumpkins. This has toi do with several things, from the shape of the blade in profile to the amount of blade at the Centre of Percussion (Sweet spot) to the shape of the blade distally and in cross section.

Also for your reference...http://www.oakeshott.org/

So that you know what the heck I am on about with all this Type X and Y stuff...

[Mike Holmes]

As it stands, they did do gruesome amounts of damage to the pumpkins.

Happy Halloween (a little late).

To distil a bit: You're saying that a sharpened sword is safe to half-sword with? In addition to holding it by the blade, did they also run their hands along the edge? The question I have is what the effect would be if your hand slipped, which I'd imagine, sans grip, would be pretty common with a half-sword thrust.

BTW, I'd expect that more extant blades would be more recent, and in general that later blades would tend to be sharper, as armor became less and less common. Also meaning that Half-Swording would be less neccessary.

Mike

[Salamander]

As it stands, they did do gruesome amounts of damage to the pumpkins.

Happy Halloween (a little late).

Yeah, everybody brought pumpkins and jack 'o' lanterns to class to slaughter

To distil a bit: You're saying that a sharpened sword is safe to half-sword with? In addition to holding it by the blade, did they also run their hands along the edge? The question I have is what the effect would be if your hand slipped, which I'd imagine, sans grip, would be pretty common with a half-sword thrust.

The weapon was handled safely, but nobody was willing to run an unprotected hand down the sharpened portion of the blade. A side note, almost all of the time the blade would be halfsworded would be against armored opponents, and this would indicate you were in a battle. If you were there halfswording in a battle, then odds are you are armoured too. Of note however is that the Mordeschlag is shown being done in both armoured and unarmoured states. I have also held a sharpened blade in my hands and experienced no negative effect, as the blade, while sharp will not cut as long as your hand does not slide along the blade.

BTW, I'd expect that more extant blades would be more recent, and in general that later blades would tend to be sharper, as armor became less and less common. Also meaning that Half-Swording would be less neccessary.

Mike

Again, it is more the geometry of the blade that will determine the material it was to be used against. Edges while seldom razor sharp, were still sharp enough to cut quite readily. In one instance at a cut-in/Bar-B-Q they had at ARMA Houston a fellow cut the back of his knee on the backswing and had to go to the hospital for stitches. At the vidoes page the descriptions do indicate a degree of sharpness between various examples but do tend to indicate that the weapons are either dull or sharp http://www.thearma.org/Videos/NTCvids/testingbladesandmaterials.htm. Also check out the essays section http://www.thearma.org/essays.htm where they tend to mention several types of weapons being quite sharp and others not so much. And you are correct that most weapons became more functional in the cut as the blade geometry was altered to improve the cut as armour waned. However the half sword technique tended to go by the wayside as the weapons became lighter and more one handed in orientation. There are also a few other factors, such as the rise of the civilian smallsword and the re-direction of heavier cutting blades to service in the military. I forget who it was, but one fellow of history was quoted as saying "smallsword for honour & broadsword for service". Of course the era of armour led to a different blade geometry which, while still allowing an edge, was more oriented to fighting an opponent wearing armour. But one caveat we have overlooked here. Swords were not the first choice to fight armored opponents, these were the Mace, Flail, Morningstar, Axe & Pollaxe.

Anyhow, I have to go somewhere and am pressed for time, but I will expand upon this and continue the discourse if you wish.
:)

[Caz]

Don't forget, at any given period there were many different blade forms, for many different purposes, and not everybody and his mother in medieval europe went into battle with much in the way of armour.  
   And whether swords were your first choice or not is all personal preference.  One master said that regardless of what weapon you use, if you face some one in armour with it, use only the thrust.
   Maces and hammers are less skillful (less versatile) weapons and relatively less lethal than a well handled sword.  A properly used sword can incapacitate and kill someone in armour far more efficiently than beating them down with a mace or hammer.  
   Most writings from the period plate armour was in use advise men at arms to use swords and estocs after the lance before resorting to anything else.  And don't forget, swords were used just as much in self defense and duel as in battle.  In fact it was only the minority who could afford much armour, and even then it was rare for one to use a full harness in battle.  
   Even in the 15th century there were a great deal of very sharp, wide flat cutting blades being used along side narrow and tapering, thicker sectioned thrusting blades.

[Salamander]

Thank you. I wanted to get there, but you saved me the trouble.

[Mike Holmes]

Cool. It seems to me that there are some general points. The more your game parallels armor wearing periods, the more likely you are to encounter armor defeating geometries with swords. Some blades are less "sharp" to some extent to enable halfswording, and be better against armor. If you want to half-sword, and happen to have a sword that's sharper, then wear a gauntlet of some sort. That all sound roughly right?

Wyerth seems to strike me, as a fantasy world, as having more armor than historically would be available. That is, it's fun to have guardsmen in chain mail at times and such. Given that, in my game, I'd definitely have the same variety of swords that existed in the real world.

To get back to my point above, is it worthwhile to consider geometries in terms of rules? Seems to me to make choice of sword another interesting tactical consideration. Or is TROS too gross in effect to bother detailing this sort of minutia?

Mike

[Caz]

To beat a dead horse, half swording isn't a consideration in the blade geometry.  The sharpness won't effect it.  But coincidentally, if a blade is meant for use against armour, it's going to be pointier, narrower, and therefore thicker, which in turn means it can't be as sharp as a wide, flat cutter, so it will be that much easier to 1/2 sword with.  
   
   As for what you can do with it in the game, some of the differences are already there.  You've got the bastard sword, estoc, cut and thrust, arming sword, longsword, etc.  
   But if you want to get further, here's what I do.  For example, take your basic longsword stats.  We'll say this one's more tapering thruster to mke use against armour easier.  Shift one point over from the thrust ATN to the cut ATN, and shift one point of damage from the cut DR to the thrust DR.  Now you have a spadone.  Do the opposite if it's more a cutter than usual.  I wouldn't reccommend shifting by more than one point either way though.

[Valamir]

Would you do both?  That's a pretty huge advantage.  I'm thinking one or the other would be good enough.

The TROS damage system isn't very granular.  1 point means alot.  To increase both the successes generated (lower TN) and the raw damage...I think is probably too much.

[Caz]

You're probably right.  I haven't messed with it much.  Do as you see fit, that's what it's all about

[Salamander]

Cool. It seems to me that there are some general points. The more your game parallels armor wearing periods, the more likely you are to encounter armor defeating geometries with swords. Some blades are less "sharp" to some extent to enable halfswording, and be better against armor. If you want to half-sword, and happen to have a sword that's sharper, then wear a gauntlet of some sort. That all sound roughly right?

Wyerth seems to strike me, as a fantasy world, as having more armor than historically would be available. That is, it's fun to have guardsmen in chain mail at times and such. Given that, in my game, I'd definitely have the same variety of swords that existed in the real world.

To get back to my point above, is it worthwhile to consider geometries in terms of rules? Seems to me to make choice of sword another interesting tactical consideration. Or is TROS too gross in effect to bother detailing this sort of minutia?

Mike

Well, the geometries are pretty much figured into the rules as is. As has been mentioned. I wouldn't worry about them in this game.

[Ingenious]

First off let me inform you of how half-swording was meant to be.
http://www.knightsedge.com/swords/german-landsknecht-flamberge-sword.htm
check out that picture, not the place above the hilt, and notice at which the point that your "off hand" would be in order to choke up on the sword. This is a doppel-hander, and a seriously large one mind you. The part at which you grasp in order to 'half-sword' as it were, is not actually part of the blade itself, as it is neither 'sharp' or edged in that respect.  Also the second 'cross guard' or whatever is meant to protect the 'off hand' used while half-swording.
http://swordsofeurope.tripod.com/parts.htm
Above is a link to a page filled with definitions of the parts of swords, very interesting.
Another point to be made is that while choking-up/half-swording you should have more momentum/force/power/whatever and logic would dictate with that means more damage would occur on a hit, also it would make you a bit faster as you have more leverage of a 6' sword.
If you do not agree with this, go open a door. Then with one finger try to force the door closed pushing on a point as close to the hinge as possible.
Then try the same thing at a point furthest from the hinge. Note it takes less force to move the door when pushed on the outside edge.
Mmmmmmm physics, as tasty as the beer in hand.

-cheers
the ingenious one
p.s. my hypocracy knows no bounds, so don't bitch about the nuances of my grammar and ranting as i make no quarrel with the rest of yours

[Salamander]

First off let me inform you of how half-swording was meant to be.
http://www.knightsedge.com/swords/german-landsknecht-flamberge-sword.htm
check out that picture, not the place above the hilt, and notice at which the point that your "off hand" would be in order to choke up on the sword. This is a doppel-hander, and a seriously large one mind you.

Actually... that is about average size for a doppelhander.

The part at which you grasp in order to 'half-sword' as it were, is not actually part of the blade itself, as it is neither 'sharp' or edged in that respect.  Also the second 'cross guard' or whatever is meant to protect the 'off hand' used while half-swording.

That part is known as the ricasso, and the second cross guard is known as the lugs, at least to me.

http://swordsofeurope.tripod.com/parts.htm
Above is a link to a page filled with definitions of the parts of swords, very interesting.
Another point to be made is that while choking-up/half-swording you should have more momentum/force/power/whatever and logic would dictate with that means more damage would occur on a hit, also it would make you a bit faster as you have more leverage of a 6' sword.

Speed? Not quite... The weapon would not really get more speed. The door analogy actually works well, for doors. Swords run with a bit more added to the system. As for the halfswording of the Doppelhanders, that was used to deal with threats that closed in, or threats that used spears offensively, or to breach metal armours.

If you do not agree with this, go open a door. Then with one finger try to force the door closed pushing on a point as close to the hinge as possible.
Then try the same thing at a point furthest from the hinge. Note it takes less force to move the door when pushed on the outside edge.
Mmmmmmm physics, as tasty as the beer in hand.

Replace door with pool cue and undertake the same exercise, you will see there IS a difference twixt door and sword. Or better yet, pick up a sword... just don't use it on anybody please...

-cheers
the ingenious one
p.s. my hypocracy knows no bounds, so don't bitch about the nuances of my grammar and ranting as i make no quarrel with the rest of yours

I won't correct your grammar, mine is hardly up to snuff since I left the senior forms...

[LordSmerf]

To address Mike's question.

In the game i'm currently in we worked out a way for me to get in my love of Iaijutsu (Japanese quick-draw dueling) and katanas.  As has been discussed, Eastern blades weren't really designed to go up against metal armor.  So when we made stats for the katana we ended up modeling this in the damage section.  Cutting damage is ST+2 against flesh (or "soft" armor) or simply ST against metal armor.  We haven't really had to deal with it much yet...  But i think it should work.

Thomas

[Jake Norwood]

Um, it's late and this is a pretty convoluted thread, but for what it's worth...

First, I've handled the swords that Mike's referring to. One of the sharper ones was a Raven Longsword that cuts beautifully, and has an edge that you can run your hand along. I've also cut with razor-shart CAS-I swords, which could do nothing against a substantial target. Blade geometry is more important that "sharpness," for sure. I've also handled antique blades ranging from butter-knife sharp (you can run it along your throat safely) and chisel-edged (you can squeeze hard and carefully run your hand along it, but I wouldn't). Both were single-handed blades. Both were intended for use against unarmored opponents, both cut beautifully. I would rather not half-sword with either if I wasn't well practiced at the moment.

It's a technique issue. It is, where technique is lacking, a glove issue. Either way you're more likely to damage your hand from concentrated brusing and whatnot that from a cut. That's why all halfswording in "the manuals" is thrusting and deflecting, not striking. It's a bad idea to strike with a thin peice of metal in you hand.

Anyway, I just figured I'd pop in.

Jake