Sword Welding

An article explains the spread of bronze sword making techniques across Europe. It also makes some guesses about fighting techniques.
Unlike axes, spears, or arrows, “swords are the first objects invented purely to kill someone,” says University of Göttingen archaeologist Raphael Hermann, who led the new study. Bronze swords—used across Europe from 1600 B.C.E. to 600 C.E.—were made of a mixture of copper and tin, which was softer and harder to repair than later iron weapons. That meant Bronze Age weapons and fighting techniques had to be adapted to the metal’s properties. “Use them in a clumsy way, and you’ll destroy them,” says Barry Molloy, an archaeologist at University College Dublin who was not involved in the study.

As a result, some archaeologists suggested bronze blades served a largely ceremonial purpose. At most, they argued, fighters adapted their technique to the metal’s limitations: Perhaps Bronze Age warriors actively avoided crossing swords to spare their weapons. “Stab somebody in the guts, and you won’t have a mark on your sword at all,” Hermann says....

For example, marks on the replica swords made by a technique known to medieval German duelists as versetzen, or “displacement”—locking blades in an effort to control and dominate an opponent’s weapon—were identical to distinct bulges found on swords from Bronze Age Italy and Great Britain.

Next, Hermann and colleagues put 110 Bronze Age swords from Italy and Great Britain under a microscope and cataloged more than 2500 wear marks. Wear patterns were linked to geography and time, suggesting distinct fighting styles developed over centuries, they report this month in the Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. Displacement, for example, didn’t show up until 1300 B.C.E. and appeared in Italy several centuries before it did in Great Britain.

“In order to fight the way the marks show, there has to be a lot of training involved,” Hermann says. Because the marks are so consistent from sword to sword, they suggest different warriors weren’t swinging at random, but were using well-practiced techniques.
Our studies of fighting techniques even of steel swords in the Middle Ages -- which were quite well-made -- suggests that most parries were done with the flat rather than edge-to-edge. No surprise this would have been even truer of bronze swords.

9 comments:

raven said...

Debatable-Odds are, the mace was the first weapon designed excursively for combat purposes. King of the field until helmets were invented.
I wonder how widely the bronze alloys differed. Surely some must have been superior to others. The development and heat treating of metals is a whole story to itself.

Tom said...

W-i-elding?

And, I like the idea of designing weapons excursively ... That's kinda how I design anything these days.

Really interesting article.

douglas said...

Blocking with the flat will certainly save your edge, but isn't the risk of breakage much higher?

Anonymous said...

Now there's an interesting question - was the mace purely a weapon (and symbol of status) or did it have other uses (in which case it might not be a "mace" but closer to a hammer-used-in-fighting-too).

I've been doing a lot of reading about the early Indo-European speakers and surrounding cultures, and a number of what appear to be high-status pre Chalcolithic and pre Bronze Age burials include stone mace-heads, or what archaeologists think are mace heads. Or stone hammers. Or yes. Some seem ceremonial only, others have wear marks. They continue into the metal-using eras, suggesting that they have become ritual items as well as continuing on as use items, just like flint tools stayed in use after metal arrived.

LittleRed1

ymarsakar said...

Blocking with the flat will certainly save your edge, but isn't the risk of breakage much higher?

That depends on how much the steel can flex before it permanently bends and or becomes brittle enough to snap. But generally speaking, edge on edge blocking, causes "friction" between the sharpness, which is why a lot of sharp swords have these "dents" in them or chips. This chip can fracture the sword core like slamming a hammer on top of a diamond stress point. It does not matter how dense or hard the matter is, when its structural weak point cracks wide open.

The flat part of a blade is involved in "binding" but also "slipping". Meaning, an edge on edge block causes an on guard struggle where you can't move. But if a person hits the flat part of the sword, it can easily "slide off", causing problems for attack or defender.

ymarsakar said...

To Raven, a lot of bronze swords are indistinguishable from maces or clubs. Because they didn't have much of an edge. And nor could they hold one even.

So what they did was to use the bronze metallic content to crush wooden parts of an opponent's weapon or shield. Like the falx of the barbarians. Or the heavy two handed "swords" (clubs) of certain tribes.

The fact that the two handed "sword" was not sharp... is not that much of a problem. As a person with enough strength and skill, can still cut mostly through a person using just the velocity and edge alignment of the sword mass. Even I can cut through an aluminum can with a blunt sword, causing a friction rupture through vector speed. A barbarian with 3, 5, 10x the strength, and the weight, and a sword weighing 3x the weight, with approximately the same edge thickness... no problem smashing weak humans apart.

Because there is no edge, it won't catch on vertebrae or bones as much either. They Smash.

This is partially why the R Legions had to reinforce their segmenta loricas with the shoulder plates. The falxes cut from over the shield and slammed it down.

ymarsakar said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHsfGWkO7SM

I can't find the guy who cut through a tameshigiri roll with a blunt katana, but this 9260 Silicon spring steel test is still here. 9200 for the silicon spring. 60 for the .6% high carbon content.

I have a short sword made out of this material. It is quite weighty and somewhat denser feeling. It really needs a two handed grip or a one and half handed grip for better leverage.

So once swords were made to kill people? Okay, now we use it to chop up wood blocks haha and dig trenches. It's all one Circle.

ymarsakar said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lo8q-BDLuzc

This versetzen is quite clever. It combines offensive with defensive movements as one, which is a kind of upper level unity.

The counter would be to use the gauntlets and forearm armor, to grab and deflect the thrust vector. It also shouldn't be as easy as depicted in the video, because if they are "cutting" against cut blade, then the blades itself will cause a "friction" effect and bind together. It won't be as loose as they show in the video, almost as if they are using the flat of the blade. If you attempt to "cut" someone with a flat of a blade, you may not have enough power to blow through their core guard. The weirdness of a two hander like that is that it functions like a staff. Its range becomes variable. Changing the grip changes the center of gravity/weight, speed, attack techniques, and range of technique.

The Germans have always been very clever.

Grim said...

W-i-elding?

I was wondering who would ask that. :) It's both, right? In fact, it's interesting that there turns out to be this relationship between the material/construction and the usage.