Posts: 1,757 Location: Storvreta, Sweden
Mon 23 Jan, 2006 10:18 pm
All the fechtbuchs shown in this thread are later than the period of the Sempach. The Sempach and Landgraf are contemporary to Liechtenauer however. I would guess he was well aquaintaned with this type as it is very popular duirng his time. In Fiore“s and Talhofer“s times other swords had gained higher popularity. One should not look at these later manuals for validation of use for the Sempach or Talhoffer.
The XVII type is most prominent in the second half of the 14th C and the first few decades of the 15th C.
That you see few fullered blades in the manuals is no mystery either: in the later half of the 15h C and the beginnng of the 16th C there were many blades made without fullers, expecially those swords intended for thrusting as a priority. In the Talhoffer you can see the occasional short fuller on the longswords, but not as a standard (those swords remind quite a bit of type XVIa“s).
You see mostly thrust oriented swords with some cutting performance in the manuals: mostly just like XVa“s and pointy XVIIIa“s. The 16th C Goliath is an exception of course, as one would expect from it“s period, when cutting blades of little
profile taper were very popular.
To my eye, we see mostly type XVa and some XVIIIa swords employed in the 15th C manuals. As to length, each swordman *would* have his personal preferences (mostly based on stature). I think it is quite impossible to determine from manuals the actual length of the blades used down to the last few inches. Proportions in the manuals were not really constant anyway. You can“t rely on that as guide.
Instead it is better to look at preserved originals for guidance as to size, weigh and blade shape.
How XVa“s and XVIIIa“s look can best be found out by looking at those swords that are preserved. They tell us a lot.
If those swords do not correspond to personal preference, that is a case of personal tastes. You cannot argue with that. It all depeds on what you want to achieve and strive for.
There is also variation in the material.
The XVII family however, the original theme for this thread, are usually not that long. most are true bastard swords. Some are really just long-gripped singelhanders and a small number are of true two hand size. The blade of the Sempach is on the longer side of the typical size (as far as I can tell from what I“ve personally seen).
We can see in contemporary art (late 14th C and early 15thC) that the type XVII was used by fully armored men at arms for fighting from horseback and foot.
Liechtenauer never made an illustrated manual, so we cannot know the sword style he preffered.
We do know that halfswording was used in the techniques, Liechtenauer developed his techniques in a period when the type XVIII sword were prominent and popular. Halfswording works well with type XVII swords. It is not far fetched to think that Liechtenauer would study/develop techniques that are well suited for the most popular sword types of his time (=type XVa and XVII). Broad cutting swords did of course exist in the late 14th C but it really seems that the narrow, thick types were predominant at this time. The type XVIII had hardly begun its journey to excellence by the end of the 14th C.
Just some observations. I am sure many will find exceptions and variations to this. That is in the nature of all this.