Museum swords, no blade damage
Dr.Colon Oscopy
history. I've never seen (perhaps I've missed it) swords that have
battle damaged blades. I've always wondered what battles swords would
look like after a given battle and what would they do with the battle
damaged blades, regrind, scrap after a battle? Some of these blades
must have susatained some pronounced nicks and gouges yet historical
blades I have seen show nothing of this type of use damage. Just
wondering............Doc
Good soldier Schweik
I suspect that museums try to select the best looking of several
choices for their displays. A bedraggled, battered, splintered object
is probably not what they would like to have hanging on the wall :-)
Cheers,
Schweik
(goodsoldierschweikatgmaildotcom)
Chilla
There are a lot of swords displayed around the globe, and yes there are
a lot that show nicks and some are broken. There are many examples of
damaged blades.
What you see in museums and on the web are usually the wall hangers,
swords that never saw action and were simply created to be pretty.
I suggest that you do more research, I can help if you provide me with a
period in history you are interested in.
Regards Charles
Tetsubo
I think I lot of museum pieces were 'wallhangers' to begin with. Never
actually made for use in combat. Which is why they have survived into
the modern era.
--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
Daily Booth: http://dailybooth.com/Tetsubo
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57
Dr.Colon Oscopy
>
> - Show quoted text -
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was thinking about the "middle " ages actually, however my question
is not so much about a particular point in history rather what damaged
blades would reveal historically, forensically. For instance might
damage reveal how or what type of fight or battle was waged one on
one? Would the damage contribute to an understanding of what type of
weapons and tactics the enemy was using? That sort of perspective.
Also what was done with "used" blades after battle? If you have a
site you could point me to that might show or answer some of these
questions, would be great, thanks...................Doc
Chilla
> I was thinking about the "middle " ages actually, however my question
> is not so much about a particular point in history rather what damaged
> blades would reveal historically, forensically. For instance might
> damage reveal how or what type of fight or battle was waged one on
> one? Would the damage contribute to an understanding of what type of
> weapons and tactics the enemy was using? That sort of perspective.
> Also what was done with "used" blades after battle? If you have a
> site you could point me to that might show or answer some of these
> questions, would be great, thanks...................Doc
The middle ages (I'm assuming Europe)is a really big period of history.
Damage caused by weapons is best done by examining bodies.
"The Armour from the Battle of Wisby", is an excellent resource for
looking at battle damage caused by non-powder weapons.
From the forensic evidence of the mass grave at Wisby (pronounced
"Visby"), we can see that there were a lot of cross bow bolt wounds to
the top of the head. This indicates that the bolts were clout shot
(meaning that they were fired into a steep arc, and almost falling
vertically onto their targets.
Also from this mass grave, it appears that after the volley of bolts,
the rest of the "fat merchants" were finished up by people wielding two
handed swords, as a lot of the bodies have had both legs amputated at
thigh height. It was determined that the legs were mostly removed in
one hit.
---
Unfortunately you can't really tell how a sword was used by its damage.
All you can tell is that it was damaged.
Used blades were either recycled or buried with the owner, or simply
discarded.
If we're lucky we can find a "lost" weapon on a battle field. Usually
we refer to documentation.
---
For this kind of research it's better to refer to books, as the internet
is very unreliable for this kind of information.
Go to you library, and read a book, it will get you away from the
computer, and you'll get some fresh air ;-)
Regards Charles
Dr.Colon Oscopy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amputation of the leg(s) certianly is not a quick way to "finish" off
ones opponent nor is it, I would imagine, particularly efficient in
terms of conservation of energy to the one swinging to the two-handed
sword?....................Doc
Bigguy
> On Nov 10, 3:28 am, Chilla <charlesander...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> Also from this mass grave, it appears that after the volley of bolts,
>> the rest of the "fat merchants" were finished up by people wielding two
>> handed swords, as a lot of the bodies have had both legs amputated at
>> thigh height. It was determined that the legs were mostly removed in
>> one hit.
A good tactic if victims were wearing mail shirts?
G
Del Cecchi
"Chilla" <charles...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:4af9242c$0$5993$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
I never realized "monty python and the holy grail" was a documentary.
(famous combat scene, probably available on youtube for those not
familiar)
>
> ---
snip
> Regards Charles
>
Chilla
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Amputation of the leg(s) certianly is not a quick way to "finish" off
> ones opponent nor is it, I would imagine, particularly efficient in
> terms of conservation of energy to the one swinging to the two-handed
> sword?....................Doc
Hell yeah, if the leg are taken off in one sweep, it's very effective
for stopping and opponent.
If you have your legs removed, I can assure you that putting up a fight
would be the last thing on your mind, if you didn't die outright from shock.
Energy conservation was not an issue, maybe there was a little blood
lust happening, and it was basically a slaughter. The defenders of
Wisby were fat merchants or teens, it is presumed they had little or no
martial skills. A two handed sword does not have to be heavy to be an
effective weapon.
It does sound implausible to amputate both legs in one go, but it was
done and we have the forensic evidence to back it up.
Borrow the book and read up about it.
"Armour from the Battle of Wisby 1361" by Bengt Thordeman
ISBN 1-891448-05-6
Regards Charles from Oz
Chilla
Bigguy wrote:
They were wearing transition armour.
Regards Charles
Chilla
Dr.Colon Oscopy wrote:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Amputation of the leg(s) certianly is not a quick way to "finish" off
> ones opponent nor is it, I would imagine, particularly efficient in
> terms of conservation of energy to the one swinging to the two-handed
> sword?....................Doc
Hell yeah, if the leg are taken off in one sweep, it's very effective
for stopping an opponent.
Chilla
Del Cecchi wrote:
>>It was determined that the legs were mostly removed in one hit.
>
>
> I never realized "monty python and the holy grail" was a documentary.
>
> (famous combat scene, probably available on youtube for those not
> familiar)
Yes it's a very silly movie, and even more funny when done in Lego.
Back to Wisby.
Not only were a lot of defenders dispatched with bolt wounds, but those
left standing were cut to pieces.
Some received injuries from one opponent, some from multiple
opponents... like I said before it was a slaughter.
Regards Charles
Good soldier Schweik
There was another study of the remains made by a Swedish anatomist, Bo
Inglenark, published 1939, that presents a good picture of the
damages. It attributes the cut wounds to swords and possibly axes and
perhaps to two handed swords, which he says were uncommon at the time.
The excerpts I read were on Google books and the URL was extremely
long so I won't post it here but the search of Battle of wisby +
Danish army should find it.
I suspect that two handed swords, as they are shown in movies,
probable were rare in Scandinavia if for no other reason then the
Danish forces would be made up of the King's earls, and other noblemen
and their retainers, who would have provided their own arms which
likely were conventional Scandinavian weapons of the period. Which
does not preclude them being used with two hands :-)
Cheers,
Schweik
(goodsoldierschweikatgmaildotcom)