The Armour Archive

So I am looking at "British and Foreign Arms and Armour" by Ashdown, and aside from wondering why we don't have this kind of work of this quality being published today (maybe we do but I'm unaware of it) I was having a long look at the leaf bladed Bronze age swords that are depicted.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/syrjustus/2571428412/" title="Bronze by Justus Koshiol, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3166/2571428412_c60d11b67a_o.jpg" width="195" height="577" alt="Bronze"></a>

I've seen these before along with types that had the the entire hilt/grip riveted on to the blade in a half moon shape. I've always wandered why this blade shape and hilt/tang design was abandoned in later iron weapons.

It seems like an ideal way to strengthen the weapon to have the handle forged as one piece with the blade as opposed to the more narrow tang and riveted pommel that are the norm for swords in the middle ages.

Is this simply a matter common to earlier lost technologies like more advanced helms and armor in Roman times? What would be the advantages and disadvantages of forging a sword with a tang that was the size and shape of the finished grip with to scales attached as opposed to the narrow tang with a grip that completely surrounds?

Did the leaf shape blade fall out of favor because an iron weapon did not need the same blade mass to be effective, was it due to the improved thrusting capability of a straight edged blade?

-Justus

Yeah, there's a really good reason. Those swords were CAST, not forged. If you want to try forging a replica of some of those intricate cast hilts, I wish you well, but I think you'll give up after about six hours without noticeable progress.

Honestly it wouldn't be quite that bad, but it would be awfully rough.
And there's no reason for it! Iron is a much hardier material, and steel even more so; unlike early bronze swords that attempted tanged construction (and broke), ferrous weapons and be used and abused with ridiculously small tangs (smaller than I would ever make) and still survive quite well.
This doesn't even mention the expense of the material. Nor does it mention the fashion of the times.

Now, leaf blades you see surviving into the roman era, but I think the primary reason they fell out of fashion was because they're so hard to sharpen. If you're "sharpening" with a hammer and anvil as you do with a bronze weapon, hammering the blade to an edge (and work hardening it too), you can have whatever blade shape you want and it won't matter. But when you're sharpening on a stone as you must with ferrous metals, convex blade shapes are problematic. And you can't just do everything with a slipstone.

I am aware that bronze swords are cast. I do not believe that the difficulty of forging a weapon in the shape above had anything to do with the transition to a narrow tang. Your point on material toughness is much more likely.

As for a curved blade being more difficult to sharpen, I don't think that is valid at all. A long sweeping curve like that is no more difficult to sharpen than a straight blade.

Those swords tended to be rather short, I wonder if the leaf shape was more along the lines of a falchion, or that as swords got longer it was necessary to remove more material to lighten the blade.

-Justus

I believe Oakeshott's <u>Archeology of Weapons</u> has a discussion of the move to a tanged hilt... I'll check it out.

-Donasian.

The discussion is there, but it's briefer than I remembered. However, narrow tangs and riveted pommels did exist in the bronze age, contemperous with swords of this type. Some swords of this type exist with large pommels, but Oakeshott does not reveal if they are riveted on.

An alternate question might be this:

With what frequency did the tangs on iron swords break? If it was a rare event, then a thicker/stronger tang would simply not be considered necessary.

Sharpening curved blades is not difficult. I can do it, and my sharpening skills are rather rudimentary.

-Donasian.

There area also the Bronze age blades that have a hilt riveted onto the blade in a half moon shape, with no tang at all.

Further in this book it states that the early iron swords mimicked the bronze swords before transitioning into the narrow tang cross guarded style we are familiar with.

On Greek Weapons:

"The sword continued to be of the leaf-like form which
prevailed in the Bronze Age, and was longer than the
Roman sword of the following era. At the same time a
sword was in use which was the prototype of the subsequent
weapon : it had a long, straight blade slightly tapering
from the hilt to the point, where it was cut to an acute
angle for thrusting. A central ridge traversed both sides
of the blade, and it was double-edged."

In the section on Roman weapons:

"The early sword, like that of most nations,
was of bronze of the well-known leaf shape, and, compared
with those of other nations, comparatively short.
In the first century B.C. it had become modified into a
weapon about two feet in length, having a two-edged
blade with parallel sides, and the point at an obtuse angle"

Obviously the narrow tang worked, I'm not doubting that, I'm just wondering how the change came about and why. Perhaps it was easier to replace components of a tang hilted sword. If the cross guard were damaged, it could be removed and replaced. likewise the pommel.

The transition from leaf bladed to straight bladed is also fascinating to me, though I'm leaning towards weight reduction. If you have that much more mass at the end of a long sword it's got to be unwieldy. First the sides go and then you add a fuller. Some of the bronze leaf bladed swords were pretty long though, it must have had some advantage.

-Justus

I would have to guess that simple speed and cost of manufacture would be principle reasons for letting go of the leaf shaped blade. The Romans continued the use of a leaf shape for some time in iron. A slow transition of swords can be seen as the Roman sword styles go from wasp waisted swords to straight sided swords. In the drawing and pictures below the sword styles do follow a rough chronology with the Hispaniensis being the origanal form of the gladius and the Pompeii being the final form. You can see the evolution. It is thought that the pompeii sword came about due to the lower cost of equipment the Marian reforms required. Marius allowed soldiers who would not have been able to be in the army to pay off gear on an installment system. Before Marius a Roman would have had to supply equipment for themselves. Due to this cost becomes a driving factor.



PS the shortest sword (middle) is my scratch built. Sheath also. I'm kinda proud of it.

http://www.larp.com/legioxx/blades.gif

A lot of early iron age implements mimic the styles of their bronze age counterparts. Socketed axes, adzes, and hammers quickly come to mind as other items initially made in the bronze style.

Additionally, some of the early iron age swords and other edged tools also show forging styles (work hardening) that are now considered a non-ferrous technique.

Eventually as iron working becomes more common these non-ferrous styles and techniques are dropped because the strengths and advantages of the new material are understood.

justus wrote:There area also the Bronze age blades that have a hilt riveted onto the blade in a half moon shape, with no tang at all.
(snip)


Obviously the narrow tang worked, I'm not doubting that, I'm just wondering how the change came about and why. Perhaps it was easier to replace components of a tang hilted sword. If the cross guard were damaged, it could be removed and replaced. likewise the pommel.

The transition from leaf bladed to straight bladed is also fascinating to me, though I'm leaning towards weight reduction. If you have that much more mass at the end of a long sword it's got to be unwieldy. First the sides go and then you add a fuller. Some of the bronze leaf bladed swords were pretty long though, it must have had some advantage.

-Justus

The riveted blades had a problem with the rivets shearing according to several scholars I have read, who whave found examples of a riveted hilt divorced from it's blade in somewhat close proximity to each other while excavating battlefield sites. They were designed as a thrusting weapon, and the scholar's hypothesis is that inevitably in the heat of battle someone would forget that and strike with them resulting in a badly timed lack of offense.
My take on the built up point of the leaf shaped early blades is that it was a means of adding foundation for a thrusting point. Rigidity is a functon of cross section, and if you have a light cross section in a non ferous material it will bend on a thrust, if you have a heavy cross section behind the point taht will maintain the geometry of the point (the added mass will help act as a hammer driving the spike too, so thats a benefit) metal does not cut, edge and point geometry do, the metal makes retaining that geometry possible. I think as the metals improved the possibility of a sword that would survive delivering a slashing cut became apparent, and tactics and weapon design changed hand in hand ultimately evolving into straight edged distally tapered fullered blades like the Norman Sword

just my opinion

-Thorpe

Getting small sharply defined ridges on *bith* sides of a wide flat tang is not a job smithing is well suited for. Especially when working with real wrought iron.

Even today people wanting to make T backed blades tend to use a set of dies to produce the ridge and to protect one of them when hand working the other.

Thomas

pagesunshadow wrote:The riveted blades had a problem with the rivets shearing according to several scholars I have read, who whave found examples of a riveted hilt divorced from it's blade in somewhat close proximity to each other while excavating battlefield sites. They were designed as a thrusting weapon, and the scholar's hypothesis is that inevitably in the heat of battle someone would forget that and strike with them resulting in a badly timed lack of offense.

Oakeshott generally agrees with you. He notes that virtually all extant riveted hilt swords have at least one pulled-out rivet.

-Donasian.

Wow, we're trying to cover almost a thousand years of evolution, here, over a very wide area. Not easy!

Yes, bronze swords of a couple different styles from the Late Bronze Age were also made in iron. In Greece that would be the Naue II, which is intriguing since the Bronze Age Greeks had never been much on leaf-bladed swords, yet the iron Naue II does seem to have evolved directly into the classic leaf-bladed hoplite sword! Bronze Naue II:

http://www.larp.com/hoplite/2Naue2c.jpg

In Italy it's not as clear, but there were leaf-bladed and straight-bladed bronze swords, and probably iron versions of both. (And those that I've seen are not really shorter than those used elsewhere!) Western Europe seems to have given up on the leaf blade before they took to using iron, as far as I know.

Now, the Greek iron hoplite sword (also used heavily in Italy) did still have a full tang shaped to the outline of the hilt, though from what I can tell it was flat and not flanged.

http://www.larp.com/hoplite/GMarc1.jpg

The development of the Roman gladius is complex! In the 3rd century BC the Romans adopted a Spanish sword which originally was straight-edged and had a blade over 2 feet long. (The Spaniards had gotten it from Gaul.) The Roman version (gladius hispaniensis), however, was sometimes wasp-waisted, not really leaf-shaped but not straight-edged. It was used to the end of the first century BC. At some point the well-known Mainz version was introduced, shorter and broader than the hispaniensis. There was also the Fulham (like Tascius' nice sword), which could just be a shortened hispaniensis! I don't think the Pompeii version (shortest of all, narrow, and straight-edged) dates back earlier than the first century AD--Marius' men were using the hispaniensis, and possibly the Mainz.

I'm a little leery of saying that these changes were the result of cost-saving. When you look at the amount of decoration on the armor of the time, not to mention the sheer number of troops in body armor, I don't think a few ounces of iron per sword was a big deal. I really think most of it can be blamed on FASHION.

That could very well be the reason for the use or non-use of leaf-bladed swords. The leaf blade developed fairly early in the Bronze Age, and had a total history in bronze and iron of almost 1500 years. That's a longer span than the use of straight-edged blades by the Romans! So clearly it worked for someone.

I also don't think it's safe to assume that iron is a much better material than bronze. A high-tin bronze, properly work-hardened, is harder than wrought iron. Neil Burridge, who casts excellent bronze weaponry, has said that a good bronze blade can be bent at a right angle and straightened before it will break. As has been pointed out, though, there are things that can be done with one metal that can't be done with the other! So yes, tang styles are likely to have changed because of the use of iron rather than bronze.

The riveted blades had a problem with the rivets shearing according to several scholars I have read, who whave found examples of a riveted hilt divorced from it's blade in somewhat close proximity to each other while excavating battlefield sites.

What?? Of all the bronze finds I've ever heard of, basically NONE have been from "battlefield sites". Do you have any citations for these finds? LOTS of blades with little or no tang have been found, and while sometimes the rivet holes seem to be "torn out" at the edge, closer examination reveals that the holes were cast that way in the first place. The bronze was plenty strong, and shows no sign of breaking or tearing. Besides, the hilts were wood, horn, or bone, and would have been the first thing to break. And it is certainly possible that some hilts DID break, but so few organic hilts have survived that it's impossible to say. Not to mention the fact that almost all these swords are from graves or votive hoards, and could have been broken deliberately. So if you have data from excavation of a Bronze Age battle site, I'd love to see it!

Granted, a tang IS stronger than no tang, and eventually tangs grew from just a short stub to the full hilt shape complete with flanged edges.

Whew! Fashion. Never underestimate its power!

Khairete,

Matthew