Medieval sword fighting has long been romanticised in films, novels, and games, often losing its historical grounding in favour of theatrical flair. The truth, preserved through surviving manuals and archaeological evidence, tells a far more complex and disciplined story. Let’s set the record straight on some of the most persistent myths surrounding medieval swordplay.
Myth 1: Medieval Swords Were Heavy and Unwieldy
One of the most widespread misconceptions is that medieval swords were massive, almost impossible to handle without brute strength. In reality, most longswords weighed between 1.1 and 1.5 kilograms. Even larger two-handed swords, like the Zweihänder, rarely exceeded 2.5 kilograms. These weapons were carefully balanced for speed and control. Swordsmanship relied on precision, not brawn.
Myth 2: Sword Fights Were Long, Choreographed Duels
Hollywood has trained audiences to expect drawn-out duels full of spinning and clashing blades. In truth, historical sword fights, especially in battlefield or duelling contexts, were often short and brutal. The goal was not entertainment but effectiveness. Fighters trained to exploit openings quickly, often ending a fight in moments through grapples, thrusts, or joint manipulation.
Myth 3: Armour Made You Slow and Helpless
Contrary to popular belief, a knight in full plate armour was not a lumbering target. Well-fitted plate armour allowed for a surprising range of motion, and many knights trained extensively to fight in it. Manuals like those from the German Fechtbuch tradition even detail wrestling techniques in armour (Harnischfechten), underscoring the agility expected of warriors.
Myth 4: Swords Were the Main Weapon on the Battlefield
While swords held high cultural status, they were often secondary weapons. Spears, polearms, and bows dominated battlefield engagements. The sword’s role became more prominent in personal defence, duelling, or as a symbol of rank. On the field, practicality often outweighed prestige.
Myth 5: Sword Fights Always Targeted the Body
A significant portion of medieval sword technique focused on control rather than lethal strikes. Manuals frequently describe binding, winding, and manipulating the opponent’s blade or limbs. The head, hands, and openings in armour were targeted with precision. In tournaments or judicial duels, combatants aimed to subdue rather than kill outright.
Myth 6: There Was a Universal European Sword Style
Europe hosted a variety of martial traditions, not a single, unified style. German, Italian, and English traditions all developed distinct techniques and philosophies, often influenced by regional weapon preferences and military culture. The teachings of Johannes Liechtenauer differed greatly from those of Fiore dei Liberi or the English Manuscript I.33 tradition.
Myth 7: Medieval Fighters Were Untrained Brutes
This could not be further from the truth. Many warriors underwent rigorous training from a young age, particularly knights and men-at-arms. The existence of extensive fencing manuals, known as Fechtbücher, testifies to the codified and intellectual nature of swordplay. These texts covered everything from stance and timing to psychological tactics.
Seven Swords Takeaway
Medieval sword fighting was a highly refined martial discipline rooted in practicality and adapted to real-life combat scenarios. Stripped of modern fantasy, what remains is a deeply technical and surprisingly sophisticated art, studied today through Historical European Martial Arts (HEMA) communities around the world. By understanding what it was not, we gain a clearer picture of what it truly was.
