Were Medieval European Swords Sharp?

Micro-research by Caleb Reynolds

One of the myths I have heard, since I was old enough to be interested in swords and all things medieval, was that European swords were not sharp in the middle ages. Only medieval, Asian swords were sharp. Captain Subtext steps in to tell us that medieval knights relied more on brute strength than on technique and good hardware. Sword "experts" claim, even today, that the technology to sharpen swords wasn't invented until the Renaissance and the birth of the rapier. One can go online and watch videos of non-experts claiming that the Japanese could sharpen a katana as sharp as a scalpel, but those ignorant Europeans just used "blunt crowbars". 

Why is this so? One can say, "Oh course, they sharpened swords. It wouldn't be a good sword if it wasn't sharp." One can also say, "They knew how to sharpen knives, sickles, and wood planes, why wouldn't they sharpen a sword?" Excellent points. But is there any evidence that they actually sharpened swords? Unfortunately, most surviving medieval swords have corroded over the centuries, destroying any indication of how sharp the original edge was. The court swords that have been well maintained, such as Britain's Curtana, were never intended to be used in combat and were never given a sharp edge that might hurt someone during a ritual or ceremony. 

We can infer that swords had to be sharp because people wore armor; we can see various types of armor to protect against thrusts, heavy strikes, and slicing attacks. Fighting manuals also mention cutting and slicing with one's sword. I.33, the world's oldest sword fighting handbook, uses the phrase, "and make a cut to the face" quite often when describing an attack/defense sequence. Surely, if the swords were blunt, there would be no reason to cut your opponent's face. I.33 also teaches us to use your buckler to protect your hand and arm from slicing attacks. A passage of "The Battle of Maldon" tells us that Byrhtnoth’s nephew, Wulfmær, was “slashed by the sword.” Not bludgeoned; slashed.  

Medieval battlefields give us plenty of examples of injuries that could only have come from sharp swords. The remains from the Battle of Visby (1361) show an extraordinary number of  lethal blows that clearly show that swords were sharp. The following image is from The death of a medieval Danish warrior. A case of bone trauma interpretation by Eva Forsom, Lene Warner, Thorup Boe, Bo Jaque, Lene Mollerup, published in Forensic Science. It shows a skull injury that was common among the remains excavated from Visby, a downward cut of the sword on the left-hand side of the skull; the sword sliced through the skin and bone. Notice how clean the edges are on the top edge of the cut: the sword clearly was sharp enough to cut through the bone.

There are plenty of similar examples of missing sections of skulls, as well as severed arms and legs. All with clean cuts indicating sharp weapons. But, do these injuries indicate wide-spread use of sharpened swords? What other evidence do we have? Particularly evidence that dates to the early medieval period. 

Let us start with The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (finished around 1154): it gives the following text describing the The Battle of Brunanburh (937)

There lay many a warrior by javelins strewed,
Northern man over shield shot;
So the Scots eke, weary, war-sad.

West-Saxons onwards throughout the day,

In bands pursued the footsteps of the loathed nations.

They hewed the fugitives behind, amain, with swords mill-sharp.

So, by the 12th century, we have an English reference to not only sharp swords, but swords that were sharpened at a mill. Presumably a water-mill as wind-mills had yet to reach the British Isles by 1150. If a water mill was used to sharpen swords, then it most likely would have been set up to sharpen swords (and other weapons) in large quantiles. Possibly in conjunction with a sword smithery. 

What other evidence do we have?

Well, take a gander at this image from the Utrecht Psalter (Utrecht, Universiteitsbibliotheek, MS Bibl. Rhenotraiectinae, Nr 32) completed around the year 800.

Here we see, on the left, the Armies of the Wicked lining up against the Armies of the Righteous. Behind the wicked, on the left, you can see a wicked sword sharpener, sharpening a sword the "old fashion" way, with a horizontal whetstone. But, on the right-hand side, you can see two righteous sword sharpeners using the latest technology of the 9th century, the rotary grindstone. Here is a closer look.

Clearly a sword. Clearly being sharpened. 

Here this image was copied into the 12th century Eadwine Psalter:

Better illustrator and in color, no less. Here is a close up of the wicked sharpener from another psalter that was a copy of Utrecht:

He appears to be using a whetstone mounted on a stick. Perhaps for better leverage?

Here is an image from the 14th century MS. Bodl. 264, which shows two people either sharpening or polishing a sword. 

Here, from The Romance of Alexander, are two people using a grinding wheel.

And, here from the 14th century Luttrell Psalter. Although they appear to be sharpening a knife or a dagger. 

Here is another image of a knife sharpener, this time 15th century French:

And, here is a 16th century German woodcut depicting a man using a hand held whetstone to sharpen a sword. Possibly to remove a burr or to touch up a spot on the edge.

On top of all of the manuscript imagery I have shown, there were professional sword sharpeners: distinct from knife sharpeners. But, their wages and fees will have to wait for another time, or this micro-research paper will turn into a full-blown Ice Dragon Pent Paper.

I would like to close with a question: where did this idea of blunt swords come from? I think that it started with world famous non-historian, Sir Walter Scott Raeburn. Author of Ivanhoe, Rob Roy, The Lady of The Lake, The Bride of Lammermoor and Tales of the Crusaders. In his The Talisman, Sir Walter writes of a meeting between King Richard the Lionheart and Sultan Saladin (which never happened in real life). In the story, Richard and Saladin are comparing swords, as rich and powerful men are wont to do. Richard demonstrates his power by chopping a metal mace in two. Saladin, not to be outdone, pulled a silk veil from his turban tossed it into the air and sliced it in half with a flick of the wrist. This story, which, once again never happened in real life, has taken on a life of it's own, being repeated over and over until many people believe that it actually happened. Sir Walter's descriptive language, and the reputation he had as a historian, convinced generations that medieval European swords were blunt and only to be used for brute force and Asian swords, while small and dainty, were impossibly sharp. 

So. Could Richard have cut a solid metal mace, an "inch and a half" in diameter in twain with a single swing of a sword? Highly unlikely. Although, in the text, the metal was not named: it could have been gallium. Could Saladin have cut a silk veil in half as if floated through the air? Yes. I have seen modern sword masters do that with a variety of blade types. All it takes is a sharp edge and the skill to do it: Saladin would have had both. Richard could have done it with his sword; he certainly had the money for a really good sword and the training to know how to cut with it. 

I hope that this brief paper will inspire you, the reading, to pursue a deeper dive into this topic. There are so many rabbit holes to check out. Feel free to explore.