Hank Reinhardt's The Book of the Sword (4 page)

Bronze sword with leaf-shaped blade, 950 BC.

Cutting swords appear to have arrived slightly later than the rapier, but again, this is something that we can only speculate about. Certainly the cutting swords have a much stronger grip. With the development of the improved grip, we now encounter what we can call the typical Bronze Age sword. This is a leaf shaped blade with a narrow waist, swelling to a very effective cutting section, and then tapering to a deadly point. This is one of the most beautiful of shapes, and is also quite effective. This blade shape shows up in many places, even as far away as Africa, and two thousand years later. Most of the cutting and cut-and-thrust swords have grips that are cast integral with the blade. This is much stronger, as the grip is part of the sword. Of course this also adds weight, and the weight may be the reason that two other methods were tried. One method was the tang construction that was later so successful with steel swords.

Bronze sword, 400 BC, 23 inches long.

The other method was much more successful in bronze weapons. In this the grip is made with two extended flanges. Then a piece of material is inserted between them, and the flanges folded over. The material could be plain wood or ivory or any decorative material. These grips follow a timeline. Once the grip was cast integral with the blade, they never went back. But flanged and solid bronze grips coexisted until the bronze sword was replaced by the steel ones.

Reproduction steel leaf-shaped blade. HRC198.

The cross sections of bronze swords do not vary as much as those later ones made of steel. Indeed, on many of these bronze swords it is difficult to tell what the original shape actually was. A sword could have been quite broad, and yet over years of use be transformed into a much more narrow sword, with much thicker cutting edges. There are swords whose edges are so thick as make you wonder if they were really maces. However, a closer inspection leads one to think that they are swords that saw a great deal of use, and whose edges have simply been worn away. Some blades were made with a well defined central ridge that strengthened the blade. Others had thick diamond cross sections, and still others had thick center sections, and wide flat blades.

A mid-rib cross-section provided the strength needed for cutting blows.

The most common form of cross section is that of a raised center section, almost a mid rib, with the blade sloping down to the edges. This provided the strength needed for cutting blows. It appears that some swords were made with blades that are thick on the edge, while some have much thinner blades and thin, very sharp edges. It is difficult to tell how much of this is intentional, and how much is due to use, corrosion, and sharpening. Certainly many of them do show file marks. I believe that some swords were made with a thicker edge simply to enable them to cut through some of the armor worn, and I also believe that there are others that were made with thin, flat edges. It should always be remembered that the swords, even mass-produced, were still individual items. A Bronze Age warrior might easily grind and file his sword into a shape that he preferred. (Steel swords would always show a greater variety in shape, since they were individually forged, and bronze weapons were cast). There are a few bronze swords that are flat and would be capable of delivering a terrific cut. How well they would hold up is the question. I do not know of any research along these lines for Bronze Age swords. A larger number of these swords have the flattened diamond cross section of many medieval swords.

I know of two bronze swords that are pure choppers with no capability of thrusting. They are both located in Sweden. Both are large and heavy, and each has a small bronze pellet that appears to be there for weight. One of the swords has two of these pellets and also has a curved section that appears to be for carrying the sword. They are thick and heavy, and it would take a strong man to use them in battle, but they would deliver a blow that would likely not be forgotten.

There has been some confusion regarding some bronze daggers. Early attachments of the handle to the blade with rivets made a very poor juncture. While this is known to have been done, there are many bronze blades that are not properly daggers, but rather what are termed halberds. These weapons had the blade attached at right angles to the line of the hilt. Usually the blades were attached to the shaft by being inserted into a slot in the shaft, and then rivets inserted. This is also not as strong as a socket, but was more substantial than being tied on. The Chinese liked this weapon, but quickly learned to make the halberd with a socket.

Bronze swords were used in conjunction with a shield. The shield is the earliest bit of defensive armor known. Just about everyone used the shield at one time or another. (The Japanese appear to be the only civilized society in which the shield was not in general use at one time or another.) Bronze swords were not designed to be both offensive and defensive weapons, so what happened when someone was caught without a shield is anyone's guess. But the guy without the shield was in deep trouble. With the shield, the fighting techniques were pretty much the same as they were a thousand years later, though probably a little less refined. This would be due to the type of armor more than lack of knowledge or skill.

Reproduction bronze helmet. HRC342.

Although this will be dealt with more fully in a later chapter, suffice it to say that steel armor was more protective than bronze. A steel sword striking a steel helmet was more likely to skip off or fail to bite, so more effort would be made to hit the enemy in the unprotected area, shoulders for instance, than on the head.

However, with bronze it's different. Bronze helmets are not as thick and protective. A hard blow with a bronze sword could crack or crush the helmet. The sword would be only slightly damaged, especially if it was one with a thicker edge. Armor and helmets were designed for protection against glancing blows, and not for well aimed full force hits. I imagine in the heat of battle there would be a lot of glancing blows. Blows would be coming from all directions, even from those on your own side. Swords would be knocked aside, bounce off of shields, rebound right and left, and be thrown up in spasms as someone was hit and killed. We know that such combat took place from the
Illiad
and the
Odyssey
, not to mention pictorial representation on vases, and from other written sources. In short, armor was needed not only as protection from your enemies, but your friends as well. It could not give you complete protection, but it was a lot better to have some protection than none at all.

Although weapons were cast, most of the armor was cold worked. Bronze is easily worked once you realize that it quickly work hardens. Then it has to be annealed. The easiest way to anneal bronze is to heat it up quite hot, and then quench it in water (note that this is the reverse of annealing iron). Helmets and breastplates were forged. The very early armor, like the Dendra panoply, is really rather ugly. It took a good while for them to come up with the muscle breastplate that we all love.

Here weight enters into the subject once again. Bronze is heavy, and the result is that the armor cannot be made too strong, or the weight will be prohibitive. People who get to see a real helmet or breastplate for the first time are usually shocked at how thin the metal is. Thin—but a good armorer would work harden the metal, so that it would be thin, but strong. Not perfect, but a lot better than nothing.

Bronze is a comparatively simple material to work and cast. If you have all the ingredients—the right amount of tin, the right amount of copper, proper molds with gates, and a sufficiency of heat—then your casting is generally going to come out pretty well. During the Late Bronze Age (1550 BC–1200 BC) castings were very good, and it is obvious that the metal workers knew their craft. The one real advantage here is that the swords were consistent in their hardness and their quality.

But even as bronze workers improved their craft, another discovery was waiting in the wings. One that would be the most important ingredient in war even until today. As Kipling phrased it, "Iron—Cold Iron—was the master of them all!"

Bottini, Angelo et al.,
Antike Helme
. Verlag de Roemisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, Mainz, 1988.

Byock, Jesse L., "Egil's Bones,"
Scientific American
, Jan. 1995, Vol. 272 #1, pages 82–87.

Peake, Harold and Herbert John Fleure,
Merchant Venturers in Bronze.
Yale University Press, New Haven, 1931.

Eogan, George,
Catalog of Irish Bronze Swords
, Stationary Office—Government Publicans, Dublin, 1965.

Eogan, George,
Hoards of the Irish Later Bronze Age.
University College, Dublin, 1883.

Gamber, Ortwin,
Waffe und Rustung Eurasiens.
Klinkhardt & Bierman, 1978.

Ottenjann
,
Helmut
, Die Nordischen Vollgriffschwerter der Alteren und Mittleren Bronzeit
, Verlag Walter De Gruyter & Co., 1969.

Seitz, Heribert,
Blankwaffen.
Klinkhardt & Biermann GMBH, Munchen, 1981.

Snodgrass, Anthony,
Early Greek Armour and Weapons from the End of the Bronze Age to 600 B.C.
, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 1964.

Buehr, Walter,
Warrior's Weapons
. Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York, 1963.

Connolly, Peter,
Greece and Rome at War
. Greenhill Books, London, 1998.

Macqueen, J.G.,
The Hittites and Their Contemporaries in Asia Minor
. Westview Press, Boulder, 1975.

[1] If there was moisture of any kind in the mold, the molten bronze would make the mold explode—right in your face. Such a drastic change in temperature between the molten metal and the water always ends with a violent result. It's like having your engine overheat, and then pouring cold water into your radiator; you'll crack your engine block. —Peter Fuller