Hacker News Reader

Comment by automatic6131 | Hacker News Reader

What stands out to me is the pommel with the large handhold. That makes me think that it's a slashing sword, not a stabbing one. Then there's the fact that it's all metal, unlike how most ancient and medieval swords which were made with an handle of organic material around the tang of the blade. Probably not intended (ever) for use in fighting? Since it doesn't have a replacable handle.

View on HN

Generally speaking, shorter swords from that period (as the current one), which are more like large daggers, were typically cast in one piece with the handhold. For larger swords, we often find some with separately attached handles, too.

Here you can see a selection of Danish swords of both types alongside each other from the same period: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Images-of-Danish-swords-...

The handle seems to be a separate piece of metal from the blade, and it appears to have been riveted to the blade (with two pairs of lateral rivets), so it might have been replaceable, even if there should have been little need to replace a bronze handle.

The blade seems thick, so even with a bronze handle the sword might have been balanced well enough to be usable.

Just from the pictures it cannot be guessed whether the sword was too heavy to be easily handled by a normal human.

> "What stands out to me is the pommel with the large handhold. That makes me think that it's a slashing sword, not a stabbing one."

it looks like the pommel of a rondel dagger which is as stabby as it gets

A pommel is supposed to be small, this one is so large and protruding, how do you even slash or stab with this thing? The only thing this seems good for is for beating your opponent on the head with its handle.

I was under the impression that bronze swords' lifespans were limited by the metal; they can't be sharpened, but would need to be re-cast. A replaceable handle probably wouldn't help much.

Wait, can you really not sharpen bronze? From what I know it takes a good edge, just not quite as fine as steel would. But I don't know anything about not being able to sharpen it.

Am I wrong? Can you really not sharpen bronze?

I have been told that, but I really don't know. It's a tech that's been obsolete for a couple millenia now, so I hadn't put much actual research into it.

You can definitely resharpen bronze. The castings are not perfectly sharp, the edges are further worked (and can be hammered and work hardened). I don't think you can redo work hardening indefinitely but you can a bit and can scrape and grind and hone repeatedly. There are (or were last I looked) some people supplying cast blanks these days for re-enactors to try sharpening up. Always wanted to try that one day.

Bronze can be resharpened that much is fine.

But other damage was limited. Bends and dents andd the like can only be repaired so often before the metal becomes brittle. Work Hardening is sort of the application of this process just to the surface/edge.

If the handle is metal, why would it ever need to be replaced? It's not going to rot, and it's not going to break.

It’s not that the handle is going to rot, it’s that there’s zero shock absorption. The fact that it doesn’t have a replaceable handle probably means that it’s for ceremonial purposes, not fighting. Hitting another sword with it would be exhausting and painful.

I doubt that "shock absorption" would have been a problem.

This kind of sword would not have been used like a hammer.

The wavy pattern on the bronze handle would have ensured a firm grip even with a sweaty or wet hand. I have some Japanese Tojiro kitchen knives, which have stainless steel handles with a similar pattern on the handle, and they are more comfortable than most of the knife handles made of wood or plastic, especially when used with a dirty hand.

So based on this experience, I do not believe that such a bronze handle would have been a serious disadvantage, even if it is possible that the sword was purely ceremonial.

I have found though that my kitchen knife is not very good when I have to parry, or when I have to bash my way through a shield.

Nobody would have parried with a sword, except in desperate situations, because of the risk of breaking the sword or damaging its edge. That's what the shield was for.

However you have a valid point that anyone wielding a sword had to resist the shock of a successful parry with the shield done by the opponent.

For thrusting movements, I do not believe that such a bronze handle would have been worse than any other handle, because it is unlikely to have been more slippery.

Only for cutting movements you are right that a handle wrapped in leather or cords should have been better at absorbing shocks.

The reason I bring it up is a (minuscule) amount of personal experience: I've had the chance to practice/play fight with a replica bronze sword & shield against an opponent. We were expressly forbidden from parrying with the swords and it surprised me just how physically demanding the parries were against the shield, largely I think due to the ringing. Regaining control after the impact of the sword was hard.

That said, the craftsmanship of the sword I used was nothing like the one in the TFA and it didn't have a handle cast onto the blade, nor such an intricate design. I don't know how accurate the shield were to the time period (one was leather bound, the tower shield was not) but they didn't have metal rims and shield bosses.

If the blade breaks, that handle is fancy enough that somebody might want it fitted with a new blade.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com