Hank Reinhardt's The Book of the Sword (3 page)

Just like manufacturing in copper, manufacturing in bronze is not a simple procedure and requires more than one or two men. It also requires the extra step of alloying the tin and the copper. A bronze sword must be cast. It cannot be forged like iron. In order to make a sword, one must have the required amount of bronze, a good furnace in which to melt it, and molds in which to pour it. First a pattern must be made. This was probably done in wood, although I do not know of extant archeological remnants that would verify this. After the pattern was completed, a mold was made. This was done in clay, with a coarse clay on the bottom, and a much finer clay on the top. The pattern was then impressed into the clay and another mold for the top was made. After the molds were completed, they were then baked until it was dry and hard. (Dry was very important: molten bronze poured on water could have an interesting effect on those standing around.
^[1]
) Gates were provided so that gasses could escape, and the sword was cast.

After the sword cooled, the mold was broken and the sword taken out and finished. The blade edges were hammered thoroughly. The hammering was very necessary, as this work added about twenty percent to the hardness of the edge. The sword was then polished and decorated.

Without a doubt the manufacturing process was quickly streamlined. We can see this from the recent excavations in Jordan. This was not a small operation, as it had sections devoted to certain tasks. This is practical and economical. There is a tendency today to think that our ancestors were not nearly as bright as we are. This is nonsense. They did not have the amount of knowledge available that we do, but for sheer IQ and ingenuity they were easily our equals.

In the manufacture of items with a specific usage, you are limited by the material being used. All swords can be broken down into swords used for cutting, for thrusting, and for both cutting and thrusting. You can't make a practical sword out of rock, bone, wood or glass. Rock and bone are too brittle, wood too dull and glass too fragile. Bronze, on the other hand, can make a pretty decent sword. It is easily seen that a sword designed for a single purpose will do that one thing better than one that attempts to do both. Bronze Age weapons are no exception to this rule.

Weight can be a problem, and bronze is almost one-third heavier than iron. While bronze is heavy, it is also attractive. Many Bronze Age swords are as elegantly beautiful in shape and design as anything ever produced in steel. They have the additional advantage that the metal itself, when properly polished, is strikingly beautiful.

In today's world we are used to brass, a copper-zinc alloy, and encounter bronze only rarely, and never in swords. This can easily lead to a misunderstanding of the bronze swords in their design and use. Because bronze is heavier than iron, and because it is also softer, it requires more metal to give it strength, and this makes it even heavier. This leads to a certain similarity in the forms of all bronze swords, even from widely separated areas. It seems likely that this was due to several things: dispersion of both knowledge of manufacture and the weapons themselves, plus the fact that the designs are quite effective.

A shotel is usually sharpened on the inside, but many are sharpened on both edges.

There is one exception to this statement: early Egyptian and Assyrian swords are quite different, but both show a mutual influence. There are many illustrations of Egyptian swords, and one or two originals, that show swords that are a long triangle in shape, and are cut and thrust weapons. These are, in both form and function, almost identical to many swords shown on Assyrian bas-reliefs. But one Egyptian sword, the kopesh, is believed to be the ancestor of the Greek kopis, and subsequently the falcata and then the kukri. Now, the kopesh is sickle-shaped, but in the few that I have seen, the edge is on the outside of the curve in some of the swords, and on the inside in others. (On the kukri and falcata, the edge is always on the inside, and the lineage attributing the kopesh as their ancestor may simply be apocryphal.) When the edge is on the outside of the curve, it bears a great deal of resemblance to some Assyrian and Sumerian swords that have been excavated. In Abyssinia a sword that was in use until quite recently is the shotel. This is a highly curved sword that is usually sharpened on the inside, but many, including one in my possession, are sharpened on both edges. Although we cannot know for sure, it seems reasonable to assume that it is a descendent of the kopesh.

There has not been an in-depth study of Chinese bronze weapons. I feel that this has been due to political climates and proximity rather than a lack of interest. The few Chinese weapons that I have been able to see, both in photographs and in person, are quite attractive, well made, yet with a definite touch of the exotic about them. I would dearly love to see a good study made of all of them, and not just the sword.

Bronze Age swords did show some variation because they varied in their use. There were cut-and-thrust swords, short cut-and-thrust weapons, rapiers, and long slashing weapons. But due to the limitations of the material the weapons were heavier, thicker, and slower than comparable ones made of iron. Nevertheless, they were still effective enough to kill people.

The classic Bronze Age rapier is found from Ireland to Greece and from Denmark to Italy. We do know that there were extensive trading networks linking Europe with the Middle East, so it is impossible to tell from whence the sword originated. However, we also know that many were made in separate locations such as Ireland and Crete, as we have archeological evidence of this. There is a sword found in Lissane, Ireland, dated between 1500–1000 BC, that is almost completely identical to a Cretan rapier of a slightly earlier date. It is not only the rapiers that are similar, but the cutting swords as well. From the accompanying drawings you can see the great similarities of these swords, although they come from different parts of the world.

The Lissane (left) and Cretan (right)
blades are surprisingly similar.

Most of these weapons were rather long, with blades of more than thirty inches. All of the thrusting swords have thick and rigid blades. The thickness gives them great power in a thrust. It is doubtful that they were used in what we would consider "fencing"; the sword is simply too heavy. Although a blow from one of these might be as severe as a blow from a mace or club, undoubtedly the blade would bend. But I do believe that a style of fighting did evolve around this type of sword. I have no proof of this, just a strong hunch. Possibly they were used with the right hand on the grip, and the left hand on the blade, such as you might use a short spear. Certainly the thickness and the weight of the sword would give them enough power to penetrate most armor of the period.

It is generally believed that these weapons were the first true swords, and that they developed from the knife. There is a lot of evidence in support of this. There are many bronze knives that have been sharpened to such an extent that they no longer resemble knives, but rather stilettos. It does not take much imagination to see a bronze knife maker looking at one of these, and thinking about making a longer knife. Since these are weapons, it is obvious that a much longer blade would be better in combat than a short one. To strengthen the case even more, grips are attached in such a way as to make it impossible to use the sword in any cutting actions. Some of the early rapiers have the handles fixed by a rather odd method. The grip is a separate piece, and is fastened to the sword blades by rivets. The butt of the sword blade is curved, and the handle riveted over it. This grip is weak, and this is why I began to wonder if they may not have been used with two hands. The grip attachment is so weak that if a thrust was made and hit slightly off center, it could cause the grip to break. Again, pure speculation on my part, with no evidence except my own playing around to support it.

A riveted grip is weak and better suited for thrusting.

While this kind of riveted handle is not very strong, as long as the user's force is directed forward in a thrust, it is sufficient. The moment you tried to cut with it, though, or should the blade be struck hard from the side, the rivets would start popping and the blade come loose and fall off. This leaves one with only the grip. Not only is this disconcerting and dangerous, it also plays holy hell with the Heroic Image that we warriors like to cultivate.

The majority of the extant swords with this construction show damage, and are oft times missing their grips. As a result, this particular method of attaching the hilt was discarded, and two other methods were used, both of which worked very well. One was to draw the blade out into a tang, and attach the grip to this. This method was a forerunner of the way sword grips were attached in the Middle Ages, and how most modern functional reproductions are produced. Although superior to the first method, it was still not as optimal as it could be. While this method works very well in steel, bronze is not strong enough and it often broke. Again, I'm sure this was rather disconcerting to the warrior in the middle of a vicious fight. I can imagine what it would be like to land a blow, swing your sword aloft for a killing strike, only to have the blade fly away from you like someone who owes you money!