Hank Reinhardt's The Book of the Sword by Hank Reinhardt

some confusion about the development of fighting styles and swords. I have encountered people who believe that the fighting style was projected, and the sword designed around it, and others who believed that the sword was developed and the style evolved around it. Both of these ideas are true, and both are false. Confusing, isn't it?
    The truth is that swords and fighting styles revolved and evolved around each other. This was particularly true in Europe, if less so in other parts of the world. A sword can have many purposes. It can be a cutting sword, it can be piercing sword, it can be both a cut and thrust weapon. It can be made to oppose lightweight armor, heavy mail, or even plate. It can be made to slice cleanly or to rip and tear, or even to crush. Japan, for instance, developed a particularly effective sword that was suited for their early forms of combat. Fighting and dueling styles evolved around this sword, and the sword remained essentially the same for close to a thousand years. Now, I know that the purist will scream that there were many differences over the years. But all of these differences are rather subtle, and to the casual observer, they all look pretty much the same.
     
    The basic parts of a handle—grip, guard and pommel—may be further subdivided, as this drawing of a rapier demonstrates.
     
    Europe, however, seemed to revel in constantly trying new sword forms. This was due to constantly shifting and improving armor, as well as to changing tactics and concepts on the battlefield. Social changes allowed the carrying of swords during the normal course of the day, and this also caused differences in the style of swords. But it is not the purpose of this book to discuss all of the relevant sociological changes that took place. Nor, as it has been previously stated, to discuss the history of the European sword. Ewart Oakeshott has covered this better than anyone else, and I strongly recommend his books. You should start with The Archeology of Weapons .
THE EDGE
    For a sword that has a cutting function, the working part of the blade is the edge. There is nothing mysterious about an edge, it is simply a wedge. It cuts by exerting a tremendous amount of pressure on a very small area. It will also cut when the blade is slid along material being cut. This is a result of both the wedge and the friction that the blade encounters. In addition to this, in many blades there will be very tiny teeth (when observed through a microscope), and these act as a saw by actually tearing the material.
    Now, not wishing to be particularly bloody, I still have to point out that the sword is basically designed to cut flesh and bone. However, most people are rather reluctant to be cut, so they make many efforts to defend themselves with armor. So the swordmaker has to take into account the armor that his sword will be facing. This is reflected in the type of edge, as well as the shape and dimensions of the sword.
    But let's look at the edge.
    The edge of a sword must have support, and it must have mass to allow it to cut. The mass is achieved by either the width or the thickness of the blade, and this also supports the edge. Generally speaking a thin, flat blade will cut quite well. When a blade cuts into a substance, it must displace the substance it is cutting. Therefore, it is an advantage for the blade to be flat, and thus offer less resistance. There are problems with blades that are too thin. The temper of these blades must be exactly right. If the blade is too hard and not flexible enough, it will break. If it is too flexible, then the blade will flex during the cut, and may even turn slightly and thus not hit the object properly. In the many years that I have been playing with swords, I have seen both. I have encountered one sword that is extremely flexible and have seen a gentleman in India so skilled in its use that he could cut a lime while a friend stood on it, and not take off his friend's foot. But this takes