What’s in a Name? The Difference Between Longswords and Bastard Swords in the Fechtbücher

 Many of those who study medieval swords can be somewhat cavalier (pun intended) regarding the precise lexicology of sword types.  It is to be hoped that any who consider themselves serious students of the subject will understand that the term “broadsword” refers not to large, heavy cruciform swords of the type hoi polloi mean when they use the term, but rather to basket-hilted, double-edged swords of the type developed in England.  Some terms, however, remain indistinct or confusing, even among the cognoscenti, especially the term “bastard sword.”

Many sources tend to lump bastard swords together under the broad heading of longswords (I do so myself in my unarmored longsword book, to my shame), and yet a careful study will show a distinction between the two terms, and, indeed, we see that distinction made manifest in the Fechtbücher, as this essay will demonstrate. In this essay, I will urge the sense of the term taught by the great Ewart Oakeshott, who referred to bastard swords as “hand-and-a-half” swords, meaning that they fell between arming swords and longswords, and could be used as easily with one hand on the hilt as with two [1].  Conversely, we will limit the term “longsword” to swords which are generally used only with two hands on the hilt (except in armor, of course) because using them one-handed, while possible, would be awkward.

That definition is not absolute in the literature.  For example, in 1801 Joseph Strutt referred to a bastard sword as “A sword without edges or point.” [2] However, as early as 1617, Joseph Swetnam referred to: “The Bastard Sword, the which sword is something shorter than a long sword, and yet longer than a short sword.” [3] The term “hand-and-a-half sword” only dates to the late nineteenth century [4], but it seems clear this is what Swetnam meant and we will hold that term to be synonymous with bastard sword.

This distinction between bastard swords and longswords shows up in the Fechtbücher.  When we look at the Gladiatoria Fechtbuch from the first half of the fifteenth century, for example, we see similar swords used both in an out of armor.  All of the swords in that source, whether used in armored combat or out of armor with a Langenschilte or buckler seem to be bastard swords, with hilt and blade lengths appearing to be the same for all (note, however, that this source does not contain any unarmored longsword combat).

Longswords in Harnischfechten in Gladiatoria:  http://wiktenauer.com/images/7/74/MS_Germ.Quart.16_08r.jpg

Sword and buckler in Gladiatoria:  http://wiktenauer.com/images/1/18/MS_Germ.Quart.16_54v.jpg

Sword and Langenschilt in Gladiatoria: http://wiktenauer.com/images/1/18/MS_Germ.Quart.16_54v.jpg

In Paulus Kal’s 1470 Fechtbuch we see a distinct difference between the longswords used for halfswording in armor or for unarmored longsword and the bastard swords used one handed for sword and buckler combat.

Longsword in Harnischfechten in Paulus Kal:

http://wiktenauer.com/images/1/1d/Cgm_1507_25v.jpg

Longswords in Bloßfechten in Paulus Kal:

http://wiktenauer.com/images/4/45/Cgm_1507_65v.jpg

Sword and buckler in Paulus Kal:

http://wiktenauer.com/images/3/31/Cgm_1507_53r.jpg

The distinction is even plainer in Hans Talhoffer’s 1467 Fechtbuch.  There we see distinctly different swords for unarmored longsword or armored halfsword combat (longswords), Langenschilt combat (bastard swords), and sword and buckler combat (arming swords).

Longswords in Bloßfechten in Talhoffer 1467:  http://wiktenauer.com/images/5/53/Cod.icon._394a_8r.jpg

Longsword in Harnischfechten in Talhoffer 1467:  http://wiktenauer.com/images/7/7f/Cod.icon._394a_37v.jpg

Sword and Langenschilt in Talhoffer 1467:  http://wiktenauer.com/images/c/c4/Cod.icon._394a_68r.jpg

Sword and Buckler in Talhoffer 1467:  http://wiktenauer.com/images/c/c7/Cod.icon._394a_117r.jpg

From this we can develop a rough grouping of sword categorizations:  Arming swords are intended for one-handed use; longswords for two-handed use (except in armor); and bastard swords can be used either one- or two-handed.  Note that the distinction between bastard swords and longswords isn’t necessarily tied to Oakeshott’s sword types.  For example, while the bastard swords in Talhoffer 1467 all appear to be Type XVa’s, some of the longswords appear to be XVa’s (albeit with longer hilts than those common in the previous century) while others appear to belong to the Type XVIII series (the art is not perfectly clear on this distinction, and, indeed, Oakeshott himself pointed out that blurring occurred between types).  The real distinction seems to be that bastard swords are a bit longer than arming swords, but somewhat shorter than longswords, especially in the hilt.  This may seem unclear when merely looking at the art of the period, but becomes much plainer when actually handling swords of each type.  The author owns a highly accurate replica of a Type XVIIIb longsword which is simply not comfortable for use one handed, even though a Type XVa of similar quality by the same company is easy to use with either one or two hands.

End Notes:

[1] Oakeshott, Ewart.  The Sword in the Age of Chivalry. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1997, p. 60.

[2] Strutt, Joseph. The Sports and Pastimes of the People of England from the Earliest Period: Including the Rural and Domestic Recreations, May Games, Mummeries, Pageants, Processions and Pompous Spectacles. Methuen & Company, 1801, p. 211.

[3] Swetnam, Joseph. Schoole of the Noble And Worthy Science of Defence. Chapter XII. 1617. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1H2dBiXFry779WfdpBGFA8Bky7iLHneNi5_Lq9djVhr0/edit#. Accessed 4/19/2019.

[4] Cox, Trenchard. A General Guide to the Wallace Collection.  London: Wallace Collection, 1976, p. 155.