|
|
|
8th February 2010, 12:42 PM
|
#1 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kent
Posts: 2,653
|
Edward III's two handed sword
Hi
watching a recent documentary Edward III was mentioned and his two handed sword shown. It was stated that this was a functional and used in battle. The reason stated for it being functional was the fact it was not ornate. This sword is 6 foot 8 inches long  a real monster (203 cms or 2 metres 3cms ) Obviously a number of two handed swords are around 6 foot ....is the extra length of 8 inches not unusual or as King ....did this length make it more of a statement of status ?Surely impressive .....but useful in battle conditions ? What do you think ??? Regards David . Last edited by katana; 8th February 2010 at 09:13 PM. |
|
|
|
8th February 2010, 04:35 PM
|
#2 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Aquae Sulis, UK
Posts: 46
|
Hi Katana
6 foot 8 inches is a pike, not a sword! Its enormous! Regarding medieval swords, I have always found monumental church brasses an excellent reference with regard to the armour and weapons of the time (and in Kent, you're particularly well endowed). Brass rubbing used to be a hobby of mine many years gone past. Below is a rubbing of Sir Hugh Hastings, d. 1347, from Elsing church in Norfolk. There are 8 mourners depicted in the canopy and the top left is Edward III. The sword he is carrying there is certainly nowhere near 6'8" Richard Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
8th February 2010, 09:14 PM
|
#3 | |
|
Keris forum moderator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 7,113
|
Quote:
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
8th February 2010, 10:15 PM
|
#4 | |
|
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 9,940
|
Quote:
Actually, I perceived the comparison with regard to the content of many TV documentaries in which rather embellished or exaggerated assertions are made. For example, many misconceptions about medieval swords have been perpetuated through romanticized literature and exuberant Victorian writers on arms, and these have been perpetuated in some of these documentaries. One such case is that of the weight of these swords being of 20-30 lbs, a preposterous assumption, yet actually stated in a documentary! Obviously this huge sword is likely to be a bearing sword, and intended to be exaggerated for its attention getting purpose. I would presume, again obviously, that the excellent item shared by Richard, was presented to display the dramatic contrast. The actual sword (or one of his array) of Edward III has been authenticated and has been documented as well as reproduced in a collectors category replica, and is of the size much more standard. It would be interesting to know more on the provenance of this huge sword beginning the thread. Best regards, Jim Last edited by Jim McDougall; 8th February 2010 at 10:29 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
8th February 2010, 10:30 PM
|
#5 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kent
Posts: 2,653
|
The sword (picture) I posted is indeed provenanced to Edward III .....
http://www.stgeorges-windsor.org/archives/blog/?p=89 I cannot though, discover the weight of the sword and whether the edge is blunt or is/has been sharpened. A little research on 'two handers' came up with this page.... which is an interesting read......... http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html The weights of some of these swords suggests that blade thickness is comparable to some shorter swords. Due to armour... logic would dictate that blades would be thick-ish (mid rib) to withstand the forces generated on impact. I am sure the longer length of blade would ....though a number of physical reasons....the increased speed/momentum of the tip in an 'arcing' strike, the 'laws' of leverage, the combined 'power' of two arms would greatly increase the impact energy and the resulting stresses imposed to the blade. I get the impression that knights using 'two handers' were 'shock troops'...disrupting the advances of the opposing knights. I know many Kings of the period lead by example, if this sword was truly used by Edward then he really must have been 'in amongst it'.  Richard , thats a very nice and clear 'rubbing' I think nowadays, it would be difficult to get permission to do brass rubbing ....what is the best paper and rubbing 'medium' to use ?Hi Jim ,we posted at similar times .....definately worth reading the link above Regards David Last edited by katana; 8th February 2010 at 10:52 PM. |
|
|
|
|
8th February 2010, 10:32 PM
|
#6 |
|
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
Dear David,
In a first reaction, i am more surprised to hear that two handed swords were already in use by the time of Edward III, than the length they have reached. There is one with precisely 2,04 Mts in exhibition near my hometown, only being dated from the XV century. There is aother one in the Oporto Military Museum with a more "decent" lenght (1,68Mts) being dated mid XVI century. Both appear to be operational, or at least they look rather plain are not quoted as cerimonial, something that seems to have happened at a later stage, when the specimens were more exhuberant. Yor humble (and ignorant) servant. Fernando |
|
|
|
|
8th February 2010, 11:39 PM
|
#7 |
|
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 9,940
|
Hi David,
Definitely an excellent link! Good work there Holmes I see that this sword is definitely attributed to Edward III, and it is stated it is intended for use in battle, and clearly the 'great sword' was well in use as early as c. 1250AD. Actually I have seen suggested that there are apparantly archaeological finds even earlier. It seems most of these great swords had blades of up to about 48", which seems of course somewhat smaller than this one. From what I understand, these huge swords were indeed intended for 'shock' action, however they were not widely employed in these earlier times, and they were not commonly seen, especially not of this size. It seems the preponderance of them are from Continental regions, especially German locations, and of course by the 16th and 17th centuries the zweihanders and claymores are well established. While this sword is attributed to Edward III, and apparantly presented to the chapel at Windsor Castle for display among knightly achievements, it must have been of his number of weapons. He was clearly a 'hands on' leader of men and very much interested in warfare and certainly its weapons. While we can presume, as typically illustrated in artistic depictions, that he led in battle, mounted, it does not seem that this type of dismounted weapon would have been wielded by him. Perhaps it may have been carried under the saddle as the heavy swords or estocs for foot combat, however more evidence of this early use of these saddle swords (14th century) would need to be seen. Illustrated The Battle of Crecy (26 Aug 1346) N. France; Edward III in lead All best regards Jim |
|
|
|
|
9th February 2010, 07:22 PM
|
#8 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Aquae Sulis, UK
Posts: 46
|
No, not at all
 I was just saying that the sword on the brass is not 6' 8". On the other hand, if this is the 6' 8" sword, we should not discount the possibility that Edward III was in fact 14' 6" tall  Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
9th February 2010, 12:21 AM
|
#9 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: The Sharp end
Posts: 2,928
|
Quote:
Man uz britz rock!
|
|
|
|
|
|
9th February 2010, 02:47 PM
|
#10 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kent
Posts: 2,653
|
Quote:
I agree, if the date for this sword is correct and it was used as a functional weapon the swordsmith whom forged this blade must have been extremely good. Bearing in mind the various qualities of iron available and the skill required to produce a long blade that could survive 'battle' conditions . ( weakness in the blade would be 'exagerated' due to the increased 'forces' imposed on it, due to its length). Also, considering that it seems this is an early example, the knowledge and technique would, likely, be in its infancy.  Or should it be...  G.B didn't exist then ............ Quote:
,thanks for your input, I was surprised at the number of 'two handers' that have survived. But, suspect the reason why this is so, is that these swords had a specific use which became 'redundent' ....and were later (possibly) 'adopted' as 'bearing swords' due to their impressive size. ...."humble"....yes ....."ignorant"....never ......"servant"....does that mean I can command you to send me your excellent collection ? My address is...  Best Regards David . Last edited by katana; 9th February 2010 at 03:01 PM. |
||
|
|
|
|
9th February 2010, 07:25 PM
|
#11 |
|
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
Obviously i have to eat a lot of bread before i have your guys knowledge on weaponry and all i can do is trusting the lines i have at hand or what i can read out there.
Through deep controversy i discern a difference between two hand swords and great swords (montantes in portuguese), admiting that the great sword was an evolution of the two hander. I can read in more than one source that the montante was 'popularized' much after the middle ages, this not impeaching that two hand swords were eventually used before, even considering that middle age warriors fought with a shield, therefore with only one hand free for the sword or other device; that with the increased use of solid armour the shield became obsolete and from then the more generalized appearance of the two hander and the later great sword. Montantes were well in use when our nobles fought in the discoveries period (1500's). Obviously they used these things for first dismantling enemy troops formation, before unsheathing the current sword for close combat. But speaking of authencity when comes to miths envolving a determined weapon having belonged to a certain King or hero, let me tell you this one. We have in exhibition in the Oporto Millitary Museum, after after having being transferred from a rather prestiged museum in the same city, the sword alledgely owned by King Dom Afonso Henriques, the first Portuguese monarch (1128-1185). It happens that a couple of serious specialists do not have any doubt in assuring that the sword belongs to a typology used at a much later stage and, assuming that it had actually belonged to a Portuguese monarch, which seems to be consensualy accepted, that would be Dom Afonso V (1438-1481). This evidence was naturally brought to the consideration of the authorities, from whom no action was taken towards deying the false pretension that the sword belonge to our first King, apparently in order not to dismantle a mith that has been cultivated for so long, thus not facing general frustration. Period. Fernando . |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
