| Author |
Message |
|
Joel Minturn
|
 Posted: Mon 10 Dec, 2007 6:31 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
Interesting view on the history of the term bastard sword. I thought the it was called a bastard sword because it was neither a true one handed or two handed sword, a bastardized mix of the two if you will. Similar in usage to the term bastard file in that bastard can mean irregular or odd. and here I was under the impression that bastard sword and hand and a half sword where interchangeable depending on the company one was with.
|
|
  |
 |
|
Fabrice Cognot
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Mon 10 Dec, 2007 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
FYI the term "Espee Bastarde" is attested in François Rabelais' Gargantua of 1532 - and therefore is probably earlier.
In 1549, the Baron d'Aguerre fought a duel against the Lord of Fendilles, in Sedan - they fought with bastard swords.
La Curne de Saint Palaye mentions, in his dictionnary, that a bastard sword is a sword too long to be a short (single-handed) sword, but too short to be a longsword or a proper two-handed sword.
The "badass" aspect of the term bastard has nothign to do with it, although it's terribly popular among French reenactors and others. Probably because they're trying to compensate for something. 
PhD in medieval archeology.
HEMAC member
De Taille et d'Estoc director
Maker of high quality historical-inspired pieces.
|
|
 |
|
Jared Smith
|
| Posted: Tue 11 Dec, 2007 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fabrice Cognot wrote: |
La Curne de Saint Palaye mentions, in his dictionnary, that a bastard sword is a sword too long to be a short (single-handed) sword, but too short to be a longsword or a proper two-handed sword. |
I greatly appreciate your input, and thank you for providing the historical references. This possibly does explain some prevailing current day attitudes about what a "bastard" sword was /is.
La Curne de Saint Palaye authored his works (3 volumes over a period of a couple of decades?) around 1750 and later, after the actual period of these swords' real usage, and at a point in time when older longsword fencing school traditions were nearly extinct. By what logic he defined a classification positioned between single hander and longsword is puzzling to me. I will explain why below.
If one attempts to describe a "historically based reproduction longsword" versus "single hander" today, they might get entangled in a small, friendly debate. You can easily pick two Albion models (maybe Kingmaker versus Count) and argue a classic single hander exists with 32.2" blade length, while a short longsword with blade length less than 34" also exists. This is basically a division of 5% length. Published weights being identical, and CoG actually appearing to favor the Count "longsword" for one handed use if you can just imagine re-hilting it (changing its weight and CoG further) as a dedicated one hander, possibly being more nimble than the Kingmaker. This is only attempting to differentiate between generic (if such a thing is possible) single handers versus longswords! Trying to insert a 3rd classification ("bastard") between this very fine division strikes me as a statistical nightmare.
Personal opinion; the above definition is either a historical impossibility, or one of those terms that actually was historically confused (lumping two handers together with general longswords?) and inaccurate! Plenty of real time such confusions exist today... Example; why is that heat exchanger located on the front of most cars called a "radiator?" Of the 3 obvious modes of heat transfer (conduction, convection, and radiation), the name given to it least accurately describes what type of device it is (a convector.) Answer; its called that because a maker inaccurately labeled it, and their misleading terminology has stuck with us for a century now during it's primary period of modern history usage. I can do more of these, but hopefully this conveys the point. Not all historically recorded definitions or terms are logical and defensible by scientific / engineering standards.
I just loosely categorize (based on reading and interpretations of others) longswords as ones with blades "approaching 36" (91.4 cm) in length." I expect them to be longer than 32". All visitors not experienced in handling accurate reproduction swords have always been amazed at how well the "longswords" in my modest collection (blades ranging from 35.5" to 36" long blades) can actually be handled in one hand.
There are some heavier swords that are a little more massive than many average (34" to 36" long bladed) objects most reproduction manufacturers are calling "longswords." Blades lengths may start to exceed 36", weight gets a little outside of that approximately 3 lb range, sometimes surpassing 3.5 lbs , etc, Yet they are not 4 to 6 lb two-handed swords with 40" + blade length. For these, one handed use is feasible, but not competitive with two handed performance, even for the fairly athletic wielder. Most of us could recognize one of them by feel if handling it blind folded. They seem equally, if not more worthy, of a separate classification than whatever might fall between "single hander" and "longsword." We could just call them "big longswords known most commonly to exist close to the 16th century." Just as an observation, around 60 to 70% of these current offerings seem to be referred to as "bastard swords" by their manufacturers. This naming convention or trend may not be consistent with history (does not actually seem that far off compared to surviving historical written evidence for the term), but it could be defended and repeated empirically as a consistent way of classifying something.
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fabrice Cognot
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Tue 11 Dec, 2007 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Jared
La Curne (one volume published during his lifetime, 10 volumes post-mortem - just for his dictionnary) does not come with his definitions out of the blue. He merely quotes older sources - some of them hard to find nowadays thanks to the French Revolution BTW.
Therefore, the term had a specific (and at the same time vague, we must get rid of this craving for bijectivism our modern societies and education enforce into us) meaning to Rabelais, to Brantôme, to La Colombiere, to others as well...often quoting each other BTW.
But one of the oldest occurences of the term "espées bastardes" is in the Ordinances of King Louis XI of France, dating of 1469 :
"Les archiers auront les salades sans visieres, arcs, et trousses et espees de passot assez longuettes, roides et tranchans qui s'apellent espees bastardes".
Now, if you compare this with what the ordinances mention for the spearmen :
"Item. Ceulx qui porteroient lances doivent avoir salades a visieres, & gantlelets & espees de passot moyennement longues, roides & bien tranchans"
The difference is in terms of length, clearly. An 'undescribed' swords is 'of medium length', while a 'bastard sword' is 'rather long-ish'.
It is even more interesting to compare this document with the July 1471 ordinances of Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy, about his archers - specifically, Burgundian archers are required to carry two-handed swords. Maybe therefore the trend of the time for this kind of troops was to fight with swords longer than those of the other troop types ?
| Quote: | | This naming convention or trend may not be consistent with history (does not actually seem that far off compared to surviving historical written evidence for the term), but it could be defended and repeated empirically as a consistent way of classifying something. |
Perhaps. But with no more, or maybe even less, founding than La Curne or his predecessors : in the things you say (and that I didn't quote), your point of view is that of a modern swordsman, even more cut from these times than the authors I quote were - mind you, two-handed swords were still in use in the XVIIIth century.
It all boils down to what we really want : either find an historically accurate term to designate historically accurate items, or use an ersatz word with a vague meaning to fit our own, XXIth century neds for definitions, whatever our purposes for the latter may be.
Cheers
Fab
PhD in medieval archeology.
HEMAC member
De Taille et d'Estoc director
Maker of high quality historical-inspired pieces.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mikkel Simonsen
Location: Denmark Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Wed 12 Dec, 2007 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Defining the "Bastard" is always an open topic. The problem with making statements out of a few historical quotes (in generality, not saying that anyone here are making statements) are that terminology were as open for interpretation back then as they are now, so you might end up with conflicting quotes from the same era.
Some years back I read a definition that I liked enough to take it for my own, sadly I can’t recall the name of the book, but the author claimed that he had the definition from a German source. (Sorry that I can’t be more specific in a historical sense)
The definition I chose to use goes as follows. The term Bastard does indeed indicate the “unholy” marriage of the longsword and the greatsword or two-hander. The Bastard differs from the longsword by firstly always having a handle that’s long enough to fully employ both hands in wielding it, and secondly the blade of the Bastard are wider than that of the average longsword, especially at the point, in such a fashion that it inspires slashing and shopping rather than stabbing. Other than that the dimensions are similar to those of the longsword, but the differences makes the Bastard heavy in comparison, and therefore it were considered a strong mans sword.
Now, as said I don’t know how reliable the source for this is, but it makes sense to me, and I like it. Guess I’ll keep it until someone can show me what the “original” meaning were, as in what the first person to speak the term meant.
A few swords from Albino that I would consider Bastards
http://www.albion-europe.com/shop/the_duke-p-...0fe5f75c77
http://www.albion-europe.com/shop/the_chiefta...0fe5f75c77
http://www.albion-europe.com/shop/the_baron-p...0fe5f75c77
http://www.albion-europe.com/shop/the_svante_...f4841a76df[/url]
|
|
|
|
|
Jared Smith
|
| Posted: Wed 12 Dec, 2007 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mikkel,
I understand and like your definition. Seems workable. I would not under rate thrusting capabilities with two handed technique. It is pretty prevalent within the fencing master's texts that survive from the era. I find it tough to decide if a Baron type sword was more of a Grande Epee or Epee de Guerre?? (war epee.)
I have been searching for what was either an AEMMA or ARMA essay that claimed a known usage of "epee de bastard" as early as 1408. These swords were characterized in that article as very long (usually not worn with a belt, but affixed to the saddle), usually diamond shaped cross section (hexagonal mentioned to.) For the most part, the period fencing masters seemed to call just about everything either a longsword or short sword though.
I am unsure what you consider to be a two handed grip. Many articles I have skimmed generalize that the majority of bastard swords were hand and a half. One "hand and a half" sword in Spain has a blade length close to 120 cm (about 47" of actual blade beyond the guard), but still had what is characterized as a hand and a half grip of around 7". It was pretty light (3.1 lbs.) This would be an odd example where weight distribution would pretty much force one to wield it two handed, even though its total weight is not that heavy and the grip is not a "generous two handed" grip. Another similar proportioned one in the J.S. Henderson collection (considered 13th century) has been posted on Anzlo Laszlo's post about his quest for a photo of one with a brazil nut pommel. These things existed over a significant span of time, but were pretty unusual!
http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/opac/search/c..._limit_=10
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
|
|
|
|
|
Jared Smith
|
| Posted: Wed 12 Dec, 2007 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just for fun, how about someone else try classifying swords shown in these 15th century manuscripts (Meyer and Gladatoria.) To me, none of them appear to be of the massive "Zwiehander" proportions. Scaling with a ruler and comparing blade versus leg length, etc. helps in my opinion.
 Attachment: 37.15 KB
[ Download ]
Attachment: 43.56 KB
[ Download ]
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mikkel Simonsen
Location: Denmark Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Wed 12 Dec, 2007 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Jared
As I recall it the definition were a comfortable grip with 2 hands be twin the guard and the pommel, a lot of hand and a half swords will feel crammed if you try to restrain you two-handed grip to not include the pommel. That does not mean that the Bastard would have a grip as long as a real two-hander, since most of that category would fit your hands (and the hands of everyone else on the forum  ) to ensure a wide grip for leverage.
On the subject of the thrust, picture a target in maille (4-1 or 6-1), the narrow point of most longswords would make it possible (with a little weight put in) to spilt open a ring or two and penetrate deep in to flesh, where as the wider point of the chopping style blade would make this a much harder task. On the other hand a chop from the slimmer point of the longsword (against armour) might damage the point of the blade, so in that respect the bastard sword might be the superior when used from a horseback.
About your 2 picture series i'd say both swords are hand and a half longswords, judging from the shape of the blade and there handle configurations.
But what’s up with the spear in the first picture of the second series? Has it been cut by the swordsman or is it some (to me) unknown angled spear?
Last edited by Mikkel Simonsen on Wed 12 Dec, 2007 8:40 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Jared Smith
|
| Posted: Wed 12 Dec, 2007 8:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikkel Simonsen wrote: |
But what’s up with the spear in the first picture of the second series? Have it been cut by the swordsman or is it some (to me) unknown angled spear? |
Cool question. I can only speculate. I would guess it got damaged in a slashing attack during the battle. It strikes me as humorous to consider it as having been made that way deliberately! The concept could result in a post that is more fun than the true meaning of "bastard sword."
I sort of debate that one of the Gladiatoria sword depictions (on the left, the pommel is at the man's eye level, but is still pretty slender, comfortably a two handed grip but not one of those 3+ hand width grips) might be a "bastard." I can't tell how close the point is to the ground. Length is questionable. It might just be a "two handed long sword" similar to Albion' s Munich. Period of the art is reasonably close to the era Peter J. speculated the real Munich museum specimen originated from.
There is really a huge range of things that are very obviously different in period depictions that originated at the same time we have surviving historical references to great/ war/ bastard epees. A lot of these just have average longsword blade proportions hilted in a variety of ways, and clearly shown used one handed , two handed, and half sword style. Other things also depicted strike me as clearly different, and unusual. Not just average longswords.
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Wed 12 Dec, 2007 11:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jared Smith wrote: | | Just for fun, how about someone else try classifying swords shown in these 15th century manuscripts (Meyer and Gladatoria.) To me, none of them appear to be of the massive "Zwiehander" proportions. Scaling with a ruler and comparing blade versus leg length, etc. helps in my opinion. |
Hi Jared,
Just an FYI, those images are from Gladiatoria and Talhoffer.
| Mikkel Simonsen wrote: | | But what’s up with the spear in the first picture of the second series? Has it been cut by the swordsman or is it some (to me) unknown angled spear? |
It is the spear of the left combatant, who has already thrown it. The fight began with both sword and spear together in the hands, which is why he is still holding the sword upside down in that plate.
HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand
"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
|
|
|
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier
|
| Posted: Thu 13 Dec, 2007 2:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bill Grandy wrote: | | Mikkel Simonsen wrote: | | But what’s up with the spear in the first picture of the second series? Has it been cut by the swordsman or is it some (to me) unknown angled spear? |
It is the spear of the left combatant, who has already thrown it. The fight began with both sword and spear together in the hands, which is why he is still holding the sword upside down in that plate. |
I think Mikkel was referring to the spear in Talhoffer's plates, on the left... I does look like it has been bent, and the fighter is still using it.
--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mikkel Simonsen
Location: Denmark Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Thu 13 Dec, 2007 6:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
You are right Vincent; it’s the first picture of the colored pair I was referring to.
Jared.
I took a tape measure to my screen ad did a bit of calculating, using myself as reference (I’m 5’9”, just about as average as one can be nowadays but 1-2” above average for the time of the paintings) what I found were that all the blades in the pictures (not including the first one, as you said it’s hard to be sure where the blade ends and the grass begins) fall in between 36” and 38”. That said I give very little regard for the “artists” sense of anatomically correctness, perspective and scale, so I’ll remain sure of the first (b&w) sword being a hand and a half long sword. That said your right that it would seem that a point is being made, by splitting the gripping hands so far apart (and as I said I don’t give a rats *** for the artists sense of scale, so the blade might just as well be 40”+) so it might very well be some sort of weird bladed two-hander. (I’m not familiar with Talhoffer, so I don’t know if it’s a general blade design in the paintings)
For the last painting all ill say is, sucky way to end a sparring session. *wonders if the hawk nosed dude ever got a new training partner.
|
|
|
|
|
Jared Smith
|
| Posted: Thu 13 Dec, 2007 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I can't disagree Mikkel. There appear to be deliberate variations to me. Not all of the swords look the same.
As we get right into the specific decades where others have mentioned individuals being killed in duels as having been described as "using Bastard swords", there is the manuscript Goliath. It is considered to predate the era when zwiehanders had the extra quillons or languetts partway up the blade. I have always admired some of the larger swords depicted within it. There are, however, what I would consider high quality art depicting some obviously different things. I worried that some apparent differences might be due to angles of perspective. After looking at sets, I decided the impression of sword size remained pretty much the same throughout a given play, and that the different impressions of proportions was deliberate. I would consider at least one of these to be a borderline "hand and a half" longsword.
In case people are wondering, I am deliberately cropping the images, greatly reducing resolution, grouping etc. on purpose as these are copy righted images easily viewed for free at the ARMA web site. http://www.thearma.org/manuals.htm These reduced, croped, and regrouped images are sufficient to look at sword proportions though. Again, I would like to hear how others classify the different objects depicted within a single manuscript from the era when "bastard swords" were actually used.
Attachment: 15.94 KB
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mikkel Simonsen
Location: Denmark Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Thu 13 Dec, 2007 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the link Jared, really nice. Should keep me out of the bars most of the holyday 
Do you happen to know a site that contains proper European sword terminology? It’s easy to find sites describing the Japanese terminology down to detail, but that’s just one country and one language. It’s a lot harder getting it right in the much broader, complexer and ever changing European sword era. I must confess that I haven’t read a lot of historical books on swords (and it's been a vile since i read the last one), but joining this forum threw the spark, and now my interest has begun to smoulder, and could burst in to flame again any time now.
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Thu 13 Dec, 2007 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikkel Simonsen wrote: | Thanks for the link Jared, really nice. Should keep me out of the bars most of the holyday
Do you happen to know a site that contains proper European sword terminology? It’s easy to find sites describing the Japanese terminology down to detail, but that’s just one country and one language. It’s a lot harder getting it right in the much broader, complexer and ever changing European sword era. I must confess that I haven’t read a lot of historical books on swords (and it's been a vile since i read the last one), but joining this forum threw the spark, and now my interest has begun to smoulder, and could burst in to flame again any time now. |
Mikkel,
I'm not Jared, but we have a lot of information on terminology on our Features Page. See these for starters:
http://www.myArmoury.com/feature_anatomy.html
http://www.myArmoury.com/feature_glossary.html
http://www.myArmoury.com/feature_euroedge.html
There's a lot more info on that page that may also be helpful. Happy hunting!
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
 |
|
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Thu 13 Dec, 2007 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: | | I think Mikkel was referring to the spear in Talhoffer's plates, on the left... I does look like it has been bent, and the fighter is still using it. |
Oh, whoops. My mistake.
The text for that plate roughly says, "The stroke from above countering the thrust." I suspect that he has partially severed the shaft, but the text unfortunately is not clear, and the both the previous plate and the following plate in the book are unrelated.
HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand
"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mikkel Simonsen
Location: Denmark Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Fri 14 Dec, 2007 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks Chad, I’m of cause feeling quite the fool for not checking myArmoury before asking
I’ll study the links (and the rest of the forum) then I’ll make a new post if I got any questions left.
And Bill, well your right that the text is vague at the least, but it makes sense that it would be a result of the block or parry of the thrust. (Thinking that it was the spearman that did the thrust)
|
|
|
|
|
Jared Smith
|
| Posted: Mon 31 Dec, 2007 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, I found one of the earlier references that I was trying to find. The ARMA glossary of fencing terms has a decent paragraph on the "Bastard sword." http://www.thearma.org/terms4.htm
One of the problems inherent with its historical usage is that "bastard sword" was applied to many greatly different forms of blades at different times. It is difficult to say much that is consistent or conclusive about size or blade form of bastard swords (cutter, estoc, guard form, etc.) There are numerous Italian and Spanish references to "hand and a half", de mano y media, which have straight forward implications about the grip form, as long as you do not attempt to associate a particular blade geometry with such a grip.
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
|
|
|
|
|
Craig Peters
|
| Posted: Mon 31 Dec, 2007 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Just to confuse things further, I know of another definition of "bastard sword". This one to my knowledge is not based upon any historical precedence. Some people, when they refer to bastard swords, are talking about Renaissance and early modern swords. Typically, they mean swords which have complex hilts, and which may or may not have a waisted grip. One example of this usage is found on Patrick Barta's webpage: http://www.templ.net/english/weapons-middleag...tard_sword
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas Parsons
|
| Posted: Thu 03 Jan, 2008 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To go back to the original object of the topic I believe that a possibility has been overlooked: most period examples surviving are unique (thus supporting the theory that there was no strict standardization of the sword).
This lack of any reliable basis for standard could point towards the possibility that each sword was tailored to the customer according to some kind of rule regarding the proportions of the weapon based upon the dimensions of the clients physique (chiefly height I believe).
This is supported by the passage in Filipo Vadi's work (circa 1485) De Arte Gladiatoria Dimicandi:
Forma de spada in arme
La spada da combatere in arme vole avere la sotoscrita forma cioé la sua longeza vole arivare el pomo el bracio, tagliare quattro dita in punta, el suo manico vole eser de una spana. L'elzo vol esere longo quato è il manico de la spada: e vol esere aguzo da ogni lato, e similmente vol esere aguzo il pomo per possere ferire ognuno de questi.
trans:
Shape of the sword to be used in armor
The sword to be used in armor should be shaped as the one below, that is: the length should be such that the pommel fits under the arm, it should be sharp four fingers from the tip and the handle should be of a span. The cross should be as long as the handle and each end should be pointed, the pommel should also be pointed so that it is possible to strike with all parts.
[folio 27v] in PORZIO L. & MELE G. Arte Gladiatoria Dimicandi 15th Century Swordsmanship of Master Flippo Vadi Chivalry Bookshelf 2002
This clear description of the close relation the height of the swordsman has with the final dimensions of the weapon, despite the fact that in this instance the sword described is clearly a two handed judicial combat sword, leads me to believe that it is more than likely that a similar "rule" existed for the less voluminous and more socially acceptable dimensions of the "everyday weapon" that we have come to term "bastard sword". unfortunately I do not think that this "rule" is known to us at present or if it ever will. How many concsientious smiths, fencers, masters or clerks might have thought of consigning this knowledge to a ledger collecting dust in some godforsaken vault or private collection?
It is my belief that the standard weapon was one created according to such a "rule" that must have existed; and it is my hope that we will one day discover proof of it. The downside is that until then we can only be sure that our current appellations are only possibly correct...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic