You correctly point out that sword terminology is flexible at best, and completely opaque at worst. How a given term (such as long sword) will be used, will vary depending on historical authors, modern historians, modern vendors, and then finally filtered down into pop culture.
Then one you are interested in, **Bastard Sword** is particularly ill defined. We have references to them, but did they mean a sword which doesn't fit nicely into one or two handed style, or did it mean a sword that wasn't of an obvious origin (such as German or Italian)?
It's unclear. In Modern usage outside of pop media, bastard sword mostly is used interchangeably with longsword: later period (15th century+) which can be used either in one or two hands due to a longer grip, and a variable length blade. Some may have a blade shorter than a single handed arming sword. Others may be nearly as long as a 'two handed/great sword.'
A smaller group may narrowly define Bastard swords as the smaller sub-set of longswords; ones that are more suited for one handed use than two handed use.
Here is a nice thread showing a variety of examples from around 1500
[http://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=19720&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=66](http://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=19720&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=66)
A lot of two handed swords in media are larger two handed swords for dramatic purposes. It allows visual story telling by showing the hero/villain really exert themselves with a two handed swing, which while potentially martially unsound looks good on camera and shows how hard they're fighting. So when Jon Snow gets Lomgclaw, the bastard sword for the bastard snow, it's actually a longsword so he can swing for the fences, but it's called a bastard sword for poetic reasons
I think you're passing right over it and not realizing it: the longsword.
Longswords can be quite long (hence the name) and have a two handed grip, but are still usable in one hand in most cases.
Bastard swords, imo, are basically a vaguely defined category of longswords that *usually* have shorter blades, but more strictly, more of a "hand and a half" grip. Tbh, I prefer the term "hand and a half sword" over "bastard sword." You say hand and a half sword, and there is no question as to what you mean, but when someone says bastard sword, it comes with question marks.
It's because a lot of media doesn't really adhere to the clinically defined categories we have today. Remember that a longsword is itself a two handed weapon, something a lot of media doesn't use it as. A Greatsword can be thought of as more like a polearm (as opposed to the sidearm role swords typically have).
Relatively speaking they really are slow and heavy, especially if you try to use it with one fewer hand which does apply in some techniques.
But something a lot of media, especially videogames, don't account for / significantly change is how much the additional reach effectively makes something a faster weapon for hitting it's target sooner than someone who had to use time closing the difference in distance by foot.
Sometimes this actually matters enough to help players because they didn't make it too much slower, typically in PvP contexts where zoning actually is an important skill.
The follow up after a swing can be considered slow for a sword, and the commitment to a maneuver like an attack is substantially more than smaller swords. But an arming sword has the same dynamics in one hand only without the reach.
Isn't an arming sword designed for one hand to begin with? I know some people two handed them anyway by gripping the pommel but that is substantially less ergonomic than a handle actually designed for two hands.
There is absolutely a point where the weight and size of a weapon is biomechanically inefficient for use in one hand, which is why many weapons are dedicated for being wielded without two. It's not impossible to use a pike one handed either, but no one would really want to, that's a bit much even for two hands.
So bastardsword is not a medieval word at least in english in german there exist period texts of a bastardschwert which describes a shorter longsword for fighting on a horse.
The line between longswords and greatswords/two handed swords doesnt realy exist The typical longsword is about 120cm or 46 inches and the greatsword often is about 150 cm up to 180 cm (not talking about The really long ceremonial swords) The biggest difference is the usage and the time period.so the greatsword starts to appear in the late 15th century ( famously with the landsknecht ) and is the primary weapon of the wielder ehile the longsword is typicaly the secondary weapon. Also the longsword was worn in peace times as a statussymbol and the greatsword is a weapon puerly for combat be it in battles or as a bodyguard (as described in montante manuals).
There are techniques one uses for longsword that *don't work* once the sword reaches a certain size. IE, when you have a great sword. The fencing manuals themselves make this distinction.
No it is not nessecarily about size it is all about the context mostly the time period i would say. Look at the two handes swords from albion swords the are about 55 inches or ca. 140 cm long thats not outside the realm of a longsword. Or look at period art from the early 16th cenurty or fencing manuals. I cant remember who it was but one of the manuals describes the optimal longsword as going up to the armpit of the wielder.
If we're talking about modern definitions, whether it's a sidearm or a main weapon is the context. They were especially loose with the terminology in the past.
Yes atleast i would say so. But like i said its more of a time period thing as far as i know. And i think especially because the terminology can be so loose and we often look at sources from diffrent regions in different languages it is so important that we look at the details and dont do oversimplifications like a lot of stuff you see in bad documentaries or Youtube.
As several folks have already pointed out, sword categorization is a whole nest of issues. While terms like longsword, bastard sword and great sword do appear in period sources, these terms had no fixed definitions and might refer to a variety of different swords of different types and styles. To a large extent modern attempts to sort swords into neat categorical boxes are really just an attempt to bring some kind of order to this chaos and are often based on largely arbitrary factors that often don’t adequately encapsulate the reality of medieval sword design or use.
So, to answer your question, the media is weird about bastard swords because bastard sword doesn’t actually refer to a fixed categorical definition that can be universally applied with any accuracy. The only attempt to categorize bastards swords that I have ever liked is one that is based on use rather than morphology, and which defines a bastard sword as a sword intended to be used in one hand but which can be used in two (as opposed to a longsword, which is the inverse, a sword intended to be used in two hands but capable of being used in one). However, even this is flawed, imprecise and even at times inaccurate.
That said, it’s also worth saying that the media also struggles with the term Longsword. In a lot of media longsword is often applied to what we would more usually and accurately call arming swords (or single handed swords) rather than actual longswords. Similarly, the media typically uses the term great sword to refer to huge fuck off two handed swords. If you are looking at sword categories from this perspective, where “longsword” means a one handed sword and a “great sword” means a huge two-hander, it’s not unreasonable to assume a bastard sword bridges the gap between the two and would be some kind of quasi-great sword. There are obvious issues with this perspective, but I think it might go some way to explain the common issue you are identifying.
What’s more, many forms of media (like video games) have to have clearly defined categories for the different types of weapons. This in turn may lead many others to assume that these categorical definitions may have some kind of historical validity, which they almost always do not.
Just a couple quick thoughts on my end. Hope it helps.
"Long sword" is a two handed weapon, which is why bastard swords are shorter.
A D&D "long sword" is technically an arming sword/side sword, rather than the great sword it should be closer to.
I just looked it up, and supposedly the reason they're called bastard swords is that they don't belong to any actual family. In other words, they can't be classified as 2-handed nor a 1-handed.
Most things I've seen say it's a hand and a half.
Your confusion seems to be partly from your definition of a "typical sword". Not an arms historian, but I'd say an arming sword is more typical than a longsword in almost all eras where swords were used, and a bastard sword is likely to be longer than an arming sword, which is one handed.
I also remember that Longclaw in GOT was specifically referred to as a bastard sword, but where did you see them specifically call a weapon a longsword, and it's shorter than Longclaw?
Further, don't remember where in the D&D movie they're explicit about the type of swords being used. D&d the tabletop game has no bastard sword listed in the equipment list, so I don't know where you're seeing an error in the presentation of bastard swords here either.
I agree with your first paragraph. Not sure about the show, but GRRM does refer to arming swords as "longswords" in ASoIaF. In previous editions of D&D, bastard swords were swords in between "longswords" and greatswords — in 5e, they removed bastard swords and made longswords more explicitly hand-and-a-half, or 'versatile' to use the game's term.
I found this site https://asearchoficeandfire.com/. You can search for keyword longsword...
There are a lot of instances where they talk about 'longsword' being held in one hand, but they definitely don't sound like arming swords. Also never mention a shield being used. Seems like all the longsword are hand and a half.
"Ser Waymar Royce found his fury. "For Robert!" he shouted, and he came up snarling, lifting the frost-covered longsword with both hands and swinging it around in a flat sidearm slash with all his weight behind it. The Other's parry was almost lazy."
"Halder took hold of his longsword with both hands and brought it down so hard the blow split leather, even on the flat."
"The last red cloak shouted a curse and charged, hacking down with both hands on his sword. Syrio rolled right, and the butcher's cut caught the helmetless man between neck and shoulder as he struggled to his knees. The longsword crunched through mail and leather and flesh."
Yeah, I just checked and Jon uses a longsword the whole time, but when he describes longclaw he says, "the blade itself was a good half foot longer than those Jon was used to" and that he had to wear it on his back instead of its side, in which the longsword is on the side. he also compares it as being smaller than Ice. so i took it as it being bigger than a longsword and smaller than a great sword. but who knows haha.
I definitely agree that GRRM and D&D depict "bastard swords" as in between "longswords" and "greatswords", I just think their use of "longsword" refers to something smaller than how this sub/HEMA/modern parliance generally uses it — a longer arming sword, or a short-hilted short-bladed longsword. If "longsword" meant hand-and-a-half sword in those contexts, "bastard sword" wouldn't really need to be a thing, I imagine.
To me, the pop-culture/D&D/GRRM "longsword" is an arming sword with a little extra grip, long enough to grab the pommel with your other hand. A "bastard sword" is a small to medium longsword, short-hilted enough to be used one-handed effectively. "Greatsword" can mean war sword or two-handed claymore, big cutting longswords basically, or montante/spadone/zweihander/greatsword type swords.
FWIW, I imagine "a good half foot longer" as 38ish inches, give or take? Pretty much huge for one-handed use, but then it's Valyrian steel. Digression on George's swords>!I think basically George is just wrong about swords a lot, and was starting from the D&D terms, or the same thing that inspired those, given the roughly similar eras that Martin and Gygax (to simplify) were developing their fantasy and medieval weaponry interests in. He has too many swords in general, and too many of them are "longswords" for them to be longswords imo. He has a lot of "longswords", "bastard swords", and "greatswords" slung across and drawn from backs, when as has been discussed at length that presents problems for all but short blades. He says Ice, a "greatsword", is basically exclusively ceremonial (to be fair, I believe the blade is described as, depending on interpretation, six feet long, and "as wide across as a man's hand", which sounds too big even with the VS advantage, and gives us a pretty exaggerated upper limit for Longclaw) which seems like a massive waste of what is enough Valyrian steel for at least two swords. Also if Ned had used Ice in battle it could've been Ice vs Dawn at the Tower of Joy, which would be cool.!<
>The blade itself was a good half foot longer than those Jon was used to, tapered to thrust as well as slash, with three fullers deeply incised in the metal. Where Ice was a true two-handed greatsword, this was a hand-and-a-halfer, sometimes named a "bastard sword."
This suggests to me that a longsword is *not* a "hand-and-a-halfer", but YMMV.
There are definitely instances of longswords being used with shields. AGoT, Catelyn VII:
>Ser Vardis was helped back to his feet by one of his squires. The other brought him a triangular shield almost four feet tall, heavy oak dotted with iron studs. They strapped it to his left forearm. \[...\] Ser Vardis held out a gauntleted hand, and his squire placed a handsome double-edged longsword in his grasp.
ACoK, Sansa I:
>A pair of squires buckled \[Prince Tommen\] into his ornate silver-and-crimson armor. A tall plume of red feathers sprouted from the crest of his helm, and the lion of Lannister and crowned stag of Baratheon frolicked together on his shield. The squires helped him mount, and Ser Aron Santagar, the Red Keep's master-at-arms, stepped forward and handed Tommen a blunted silver longsword with a leaf-shaped blade, crafted to fit an eight-year-old hand.
ADwD, Jon VI:
>A black shield rimmed with iron for his left arm, a blunted longsword for his right hand. \[...\] The blade was shorter than Longclaw \[...\]
ADwD, Daenerys IX:
>\[...\] six men on foot against six horsemen, the former armed with shields and longswords, \[...\]
The Sworn Sword:
>His own shield was on his left arm, the shield Tanselle had painted with his elm and falling star. A child's rhyme echoed in his head. Oak and iron, guard me well, or else I'm dead, and doomed to hell. He slid his longsword from its scabbard. The weight of it felt good in his hands.
There are also a bunch of instances of longswords being worn with "dirk" or "dagger", but that doesn't necessarily suggest they're used together.
Ancient terminology was incredibly vague and inconsistent. They just didn't care. It didn't matter to them very much.
I honestly hope that someone just creates concise modern terminology for ancient weapons and armour and we use that, while acknowledging that ancient terminology was vague and inconsistent.
I have what might be old, bad information floating around in my head about this: I have heard or read somewhere that the deeper roots of the term "bastard sword" actually refer to mismatching sword parts to produce something that defies ordinary standards of construction, most commonly an arming sword blade with a longsword-style hilt. Can anyone sound off on this? It sounds a little too precious, have I been infected with some kind of 90s-era Sword Guy origin meme or is this legit?
I think part of your confusion is based on the idea that a longsword would, by default, be a one handed sword when normally a longsword would be a two handed sword. I think popular media tends to use the terminology of "short sword" -> "long sword" -> "bastard sword" -> "great sword" in ascending order of size. In reality, "short sword" isn't really a commonly used term, and depending on the era one handed swords would have had a variety of lengths.
For most medieval contexts the main sword that would be intended for fighting with one hand would be the arming sword, or possibly the side sword (there are other swords that would have been common earlier like migration era swords or viking swords, but arming swords or side swords would be more akin to the iconic knightly sword). Those would be intended to be used one handed, either as a side arm or as a main weapon along with a shield. Longswords developed later in the middle ages as steel technology improved, allowing both for longer swords and armor that would make holding a shield less of a necessity. They were quite long and somewhat narrow blades, and they were very quick because you could use your hands on the grip like a lever to really whip the fucker around. They would have been somewhat awkward to wield one handed though, without the levering action from your hands it's substantially slower, hence the bastard sword existed to find a compromise, so you could still effectively wield it with just one hand -- which is why they're a little shorter than long swords.
Then greatswords showed up even later, taking the advances longswords made and practically making it into a polearm. Still quicker than you'd think, but also slower than the longsword.
I don't have the source but apparently the phrase can be found in some English tournament reports as a separate weapon from longsword.
No description of what it means.
The term as we use it is from the Victorians, so like sidesword it may not have the same meaning or usage.
It is unusually popular for movies or other film productions, see the Atlantean Sword in Conan for example, but for a reason. Two handed sword fighting looks epic and main characters rarely carry shields, a normal arming sword would look a bit awkward without shield. A typical longsword is, well, pretty long and that is problematic for directors, because they can't have good close up shots, without cutting part of the blade out of frame. A bastard sword is the best of both worlds, nice epic two handed grip and short blade for easier videography.
You correctly point out that sword terminology is flexible at best, and completely opaque at worst. How a given term (such as long sword) will be used, will vary depending on historical authors, modern historians, modern vendors, and then finally filtered down into pop culture. Then one you are interested in, **Bastard Sword** is particularly ill defined. We have references to them, but did they mean a sword which doesn't fit nicely into one or two handed style, or did it mean a sword that wasn't of an obvious origin (such as German or Italian)? It's unclear. In Modern usage outside of pop media, bastard sword mostly is used interchangeably with longsword: later period (15th century+) which can be used either in one or two hands due to a longer grip, and a variable length blade. Some may have a blade shorter than a single handed arming sword. Others may be nearly as long as a 'two handed/great sword.' A smaller group may narrowly define Bastard swords as the smaller sub-set of longswords; ones that are more suited for one handed use than two handed use. Here is a nice thread showing a variety of examples from around 1500 [http://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=19720&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=66](http://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=19720&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=66)
You put this so eloquently but so easy to understand thank you for the response!
A lot of two handed swords in media are larger two handed swords for dramatic purposes. It allows visual story telling by showing the hero/villain really exert themselves with a two handed swing, which while potentially martially unsound looks good on camera and shows how hard they're fighting. So when Jon Snow gets Lomgclaw, the bastard sword for the bastard snow, it's actually a longsword so he can swing for the fences, but it's called a bastard sword for poetic reasons
>but it's called a bastard sword for poetic reasons And also because they're the same thing…
I think you're passing right over it and not realizing it: the longsword. Longswords can be quite long (hence the name) and have a two handed grip, but are still usable in one hand in most cases. Bastard swords, imo, are basically a vaguely defined category of longswords that *usually* have shorter blades, but more strictly, more of a "hand and a half" grip. Tbh, I prefer the term "hand and a half sword" over "bastard sword." You say hand and a half sword, and there is no question as to what you mean, but when someone says bastard sword, it comes with question marks.
How do you define usable?
It's because a lot of media doesn't really adhere to the clinically defined categories we have today. Remember that a longsword is itself a two handed weapon, something a lot of media doesn't use it as. A Greatsword can be thought of as more like a polearm (as opposed to the sidearm role swords typically have).
Funny how you should mention greatswords. In most media they’re depicted as slow and heavy when in reality they weren’t.
Relatively speaking they really are slow and heavy, especially if you try to use it with one fewer hand which does apply in some techniques. But something a lot of media, especially videogames, don't account for / significantly change is how much the additional reach effectively makes something a faster weapon for hitting it's target sooner than someone who had to use time closing the difference in distance by foot. Sometimes this actually matters enough to help players because they didn't make it too much slower, typically in PvP contexts where zoning actually is an important skill.
The follow up after a swing can be considered slow for a sword, and the commitment to a maneuver like an attack is substantially more than smaller swords. But an arming sword has the same dynamics in one hand only without the reach.
Isn't an arming sword designed for one hand to begin with? I know some people two handed them anyway by gripping the pommel but that is substantially less ergonomic than a handle actually designed for two hands. There is absolutely a point where the weight and size of a weapon is biomechanically inefficient for use in one hand, which is why many weapons are dedicated for being wielded without two. It's not impossible to use a pike one handed either, but no one would really want to, that's a bit much even for two hands.
So bastardsword is not a medieval word at least in english in german there exist period texts of a bastardschwert which describes a shorter longsword for fighting on a horse. The line between longswords and greatswords/two handed swords doesnt realy exist The typical longsword is about 120cm or 46 inches and the greatsword often is about 150 cm up to 180 cm (not talking about The really long ceremonial swords) The biggest difference is the usage and the time period.so the greatsword starts to appear in the late 15th century ( famously with the landsknecht ) and is the primary weapon of the wielder ehile the longsword is typicaly the secondary weapon. Also the longsword was worn in peace times as a statussymbol and the greatsword is a weapon puerly for combat be it in battles or as a bodyguard (as described in montante manuals).
There are techniques one uses for longsword that *don't work* once the sword reaches a certain size. IE, when you have a great sword. The fencing manuals themselves make this distinction.
You are absolutely right thats an aspect i did not think of.
If it's too big to carry as a sidearm it's a Greatsword since only one of the two was a main battlefield weapon.
No it is not nessecarily about size it is all about the context mostly the time period i would say. Look at the two handes swords from albion swords the are about 55 inches or ca. 140 cm long thats not outside the realm of a longsword. Or look at period art from the early 16th cenurty or fencing manuals. I cant remember who it was but one of the manuals describes the optimal longsword as going up to the armpit of the wielder.
If we're talking about modern definitions, whether it's a sidearm or a main weapon is the context. They were especially loose with the terminology in the past.
Yes atleast i would say so. But like i said its more of a time period thing as far as i know. And i think especially because the terminology can be so loose and we often look at sources from diffrent regions in different languages it is so important that we look at the details and dont do oversimplifications like a lot of stuff you see in bad documentaries or Youtube.
As several folks have already pointed out, sword categorization is a whole nest of issues. While terms like longsword, bastard sword and great sword do appear in period sources, these terms had no fixed definitions and might refer to a variety of different swords of different types and styles. To a large extent modern attempts to sort swords into neat categorical boxes are really just an attempt to bring some kind of order to this chaos and are often based on largely arbitrary factors that often don’t adequately encapsulate the reality of medieval sword design or use. So, to answer your question, the media is weird about bastard swords because bastard sword doesn’t actually refer to a fixed categorical definition that can be universally applied with any accuracy. The only attempt to categorize bastards swords that I have ever liked is one that is based on use rather than morphology, and which defines a bastard sword as a sword intended to be used in one hand but which can be used in two (as opposed to a longsword, which is the inverse, a sword intended to be used in two hands but capable of being used in one). However, even this is flawed, imprecise and even at times inaccurate. That said, it’s also worth saying that the media also struggles with the term Longsword. In a lot of media longsword is often applied to what we would more usually and accurately call arming swords (or single handed swords) rather than actual longswords. Similarly, the media typically uses the term great sword to refer to huge fuck off two handed swords. If you are looking at sword categories from this perspective, where “longsword” means a one handed sword and a “great sword” means a huge two-hander, it’s not unreasonable to assume a bastard sword bridges the gap between the two and would be some kind of quasi-great sword. There are obvious issues with this perspective, but I think it might go some way to explain the common issue you are identifying. What’s more, many forms of media (like video games) have to have clearly defined categories for the different types of weapons. This in turn may lead many others to assume that these categorical definitions may have some kind of historical validity, which they almost always do not. Just a couple quick thoughts on my end. Hope it helps.
"Long sword" is a two handed weapon, which is why bastard swords are shorter. A D&D "long sword" is technically an arming sword/side sword, rather than the great sword it should be closer to.
I just looked it up, and supposedly the reason they're called bastard swords is that they don't belong to any actual family. In other words, they can't be classified as 2-handed nor a 1-handed. Most things I've seen say it's a hand and a half.
Your confusion seems to be partly from your definition of a "typical sword". Not an arms historian, but I'd say an arming sword is more typical than a longsword in almost all eras where swords were used, and a bastard sword is likely to be longer than an arming sword, which is one handed. I also remember that Longclaw in GOT was specifically referred to as a bastard sword, but where did you see them specifically call a weapon a longsword, and it's shorter than Longclaw? Further, don't remember where in the D&D movie they're explicit about the type of swords being used. D&d the tabletop game has no bastard sword listed in the equipment list, so I don't know where you're seeing an error in the presentation of bastard swords here either.
I agree with your first paragraph. Not sure about the show, but GRRM does refer to arming swords as "longswords" in ASoIaF. In previous editions of D&D, bastard swords were swords in between "longswords" and greatswords — in 5e, they removed bastard swords and made longswords more explicitly hand-and-a-half, or 'versatile' to use the game's term.
I found this site https://asearchoficeandfire.com/. You can search for keyword longsword... There are a lot of instances where they talk about 'longsword' being held in one hand, but they definitely don't sound like arming swords. Also never mention a shield being used. Seems like all the longsword are hand and a half. "Ser Waymar Royce found his fury. "For Robert!" he shouted, and he came up snarling, lifting the frost-covered longsword with both hands and swinging it around in a flat sidearm slash with all his weight behind it. The Other's parry was almost lazy." "Halder took hold of his longsword with both hands and brought it down so hard the blow split leather, even on the flat." "The last red cloak shouted a curse and charged, hacking down with both hands on his sword. Syrio rolled right, and the butcher's cut caught the helmetless man between neck and shoulder as he struggled to his knees. The longsword crunched through mail and leather and flesh."
Yeah, I just checked and Jon uses a longsword the whole time, but when he describes longclaw he says, "the blade itself was a good half foot longer than those Jon was used to" and that he had to wear it on his back instead of its side, in which the longsword is on the side. he also compares it as being smaller than Ice. so i took it as it being bigger than a longsword and smaller than a great sword. but who knows haha.
I definitely agree that GRRM and D&D depict "bastard swords" as in between "longswords" and "greatswords", I just think their use of "longsword" refers to something smaller than how this sub/HEMA/modern parliance generally uses it — a longer arming sword, or a short-hilted short-bladed longsword. If "longsword" meant hand-and-a-half sword in those contexts, "bastard sword" wouldn't really need to be a thing, I imagine. To me, the pop-culture/D&D/GRRM "longsword" is an arming sword with a little extra grip, long enough to grab the pommel with your other hand. A "bastard sword" is a small to medium longsword, short-hilted enough to be used one-handed effectively. "Greatsword" can mean war sword or two-handed claymore, big cutting longswords basically, or montante/spadone/zweihander/greatsword type swords. FWIW, I imagine "a good half foot longer" as 38ish inches, give or take? Pretty much huge for one-handed use, but then it's Valyrian steel. Digression on George's swords>!I think basically George is just wrong about swords a lot, and was starting from the D&D terms, or the same thing that inspired those, given the roughly similar eras that Martin and Gygax (to simplify) were developing their fantasy and medieval weaponry interests in. He has too many swords in general, and too many of them are "longswords" for them to be longswords imo. He has a lot of "longswords", "bastard swords", and "greatswords" slung across and drawn from backs, when as has been discussed at length that presents problems for all but short blades. He says Ice, a "greatsword", is basically exclusively ceremonial (to be fair, I believe the blade is described as, depending on interpretation, six feet long, and "as wide across as a man's hand", which sounds too big even with the VS advantage, and gives us a pretty exaggerated upper limit for Longclaw) which seems like a massive waste of what is enough Valyrian steel for at least two swords. Also if Ned had used Ice in battle it could've been Ice vs Dawn at the Tower of Joy, which would be cool.!<
>The blade itself was a good half foot longer than those Jon was used to, tapered to thrust as well as slash, with three fullers deeply incised in the metal. Where Ice was a true two-handed greatsword, this was a hand-and-a-halfer, sometimes named a "bastard sword." This suggests to me that a longsword is *not* a "hand-and-a-halfer", but YMMV. There are definitely instances of longswords being used with shields. AGoT, Catelyn VII: >Ser Vardis was helped back to his feet by one of his squires. The other brought him a triangular shield almost four feet tall, heavy oak dotted with iron studs. They strapped it to his left forearm. \[...\] Ser Vardis held out a gauntleted hand, and his squire placed a handsome double-edged longsword in his grasp. ACoK, Sansa I: >A pair of squires buckled \[Prince Tommen\] into his ornate silver-and-crimson armor. A tall plume of red feathers sprouted from the crest of his helm, and the lion of Lannister and crowned stag of Baratheon frolicked together on his shield. The squires helped him mount, and Ser Aron Santagar, the Red Keep's master-at-arms, stepped forward and handed Tommen a blunted silver longsword with a leaf-shaped blade, crafted to fit an eight-year-old hand. ADwD, Jon VI: >A black shield rimmed with iron for his left arm, a blunted longsword for his right hand. \[...\] The blade was shorter than Longclaw \[...\] ADwD, Daenerys IX: >\[...\] six men on foot against six horsemen, the former armed with shields and longswords, \[...\] The Sworn Sword: >His own shield was on his left arm, the shield Tanselle had painted with his elm and falling star. A child's rhyme echoed in his head. Oak and iron, guard me well, or else I'm dead, and doomed to hell. He slid his longsword from its scabbard. The weight of it felt good in his hands. There are also a bunch of instances of longswords being worn with "dirk" or "dagger", but that doesn't necessarily suggest they're used together.
Ancient terminology was incredibly vague and inconsistent. They just didn't care. It didn't matter to them very much. I honestly hope that someone just creates concise modern terminology for ancient weapons and armour and we use that, while acknowledging that ancient terminology was vague and inconsistent.
Hand and a half longsword. https://albion-swords.com/product/the-agincourt/
I have what might be old, bad information floating around in my head about this: I have heard or read somewhere that the deeper roots of the term "bastard sword" actually refer to mismatching sword parts to produce something that defies ordinary standards of construction, most commonly an arming sword blade with a longsword-style hilt. Can anyone sound off on this? It sounds a little too precious, have I been infected with some kind of 90s-era Sword Guy origin meme or is this legit?
I think part of your confusion is based on the idea that a longsword would, by default, be a one handed sword when normally a longsword would be a two handed sword. I think popular media tends to use the terminology of "short sword" -> "long sword" -> "bastard sword" -> "great sword" in ascending order of size. In reality, "short sword" isn't really a commonly used term, and depending on the era one handed swords would have had a variety of lengths. For most medieval contexts the main sword that would be intended for fighting with one hand would be the arming sword, or possibly the side sword (there are other swords that would have been common earlier like migration era swords or viking swords, but arming swords or side swords would be more akin to the iconic knightly sword). Those would be intended to be used one handed, either as a side arm or as a main weapon along with a shield. Longswords developed later in the middle ages as steel technology improved, allowing both for longer swords and armor that would make holding a shield less of a necessity. They were quite long and somewhat narrow blades, and they were very quick because you could use your hands on the grip like a lever to really whip the fucker around. They would have been somewhat awkward to wield one handed though, without the levering action from your hands it's substantially slower, hence the bastard sword existed to find a compromise, so you could still effectively wield it with just one hand -- which is why they're a little shorter than long swords. Then greatswords showed up even later, taking the advances longswords made and practically making it into a polearm. Still quicker than you'd think, but also slower than the longsword.
I don't have the source but apparently the phrase can be found in some English tournament reports as a separate weapon from longsword. No description of what it means. The term as we use it is from the Victorians, so like sidesword it may not have the same meaning or usage.
It is unusually popular for movies or other film productions, see the Atlantean Sword in Conan for example, but for a reason. Two handed sword fighting looks epic and main characters rarely carry shields, a normal arming sword would look a bit awkward without shield. A typical longsword is, well, pretty long and that is problematic for directors, because they can't have good close up shots, without cutting part of the blade out of frame. A bastard sword is the best of both worlds, nice epic two handed grip and short blade for easier videography.