Poll: How much do you think Medievil swords weigh?
- Thread starter Pennyy9
- Start date
Recommended Videos
When we talk about 'sword' using one word to summarize a huge historical arsenal of weaponry, I'll assume that everyone is thinking 'longsword' or 'broadsword', the average sword. In that case, you have to realize they were all made and tailored for the average lineman. The sword was no longer than your leg if you were of average height and a longsword being no wider than your forearm from edge-to-edge. A broadsword being slightly wider, but also quite shorter than the longsword; because it's broad, get it.
Now, if we're talking about big, shiny, heavy swords that some leaders or mouthy nobles would wield out of battle to look marvelous and knightly, then that's a different story. They held a big heavy piece of shit that did nothing except look all spiffy.
Now, if we're talking about big, shiny, heavy swords that some leaders or mouthy nobles would wield out of battle to look marvelous and knightly, then that's a different story. They held a big heavy piece of shit that did nothing except look all spiffy.
That holding 70lbs at the base and swinging it. You have to think most wrist would get sprained on the 1st swing.Altorin said:
First, it's medieval, not medievil. Now that that's straight, it depends on purpose, area, and timeframe. A claymore could weigh upwards of five or six pounds, but their purpose was mostly weight. A schlager (which is the heaviest of the fencing blades) would be a couple of pounds, and the majority of what we would consider broadswords fell in between. No sword would exceed ten pounds (even that would be excessive in and of itself). Most swords were less than six pounds (including the "war swords" that we think of when we think of big honking blades). Though, those two-handed great swords are more a development of the renaissance times than of the medieval period. But, even then, the swords became untenable in combat (even as shock troops) and most of the swords we see in museums and collections are actually ceremonial, and not meant for combat.
The idea that a medieval sword was heavy or unwieldy is only in comparison to fencing blades (which are, naturally, lighter), and based on a lack of training with them. In the same way that someone who plays ping-pong might consider a tennis racket to be heavy and unwieldy. It's a completely different physics. Modern fencing is based on holding a weapon at arms-length and flicking with ones wrist and fingers. That doesn't make them heavy or unbalanced, just differently balanced:
"Add to this the work of romantic writers in the past, who, seeking to give to their heroes a touch of the Superman, caused them to wield enormous and weighty weapons far beyond the powers of modern man, and complete the picture with the scorn poured upon these swords by lovers of the elegance of the 18th century and it becomes easier to see why so plain a weapon can be accounted crude, ponderous, and inefficient. In fact the average weight of these swords is between 2 lbs. and 3 lbs., and they were balanced (according to their purpose) with the same care and skill in the making as a tennis racket or a fishing rod. The old belief that they are unwieldable is as absurd and out-dated, and dies as hard, as the myth that armored knights had to be hoisted into their saddles with a crane." (Oakeshott, Sword in the Age of Chivalry, p. 12).
The idea that a medieval sword was heavy or unwieldy is only in comparison to fencing blades (which are, naturally, lighter), and based on a lack of training with them. In the same way that someone who plays ping-pong might consider a tennis racket to be heavy and unwieldy. It's a completely different physics. Modern fencing is based on holding a weapon at arms-length and flicking with ones wrist and fingers. That doesn't make them heavy or unbalanced, just differently balanced:
"Add to this the work of romantic writers in the past, who, seeking to give to their heroes a touch of the Superman, caused them to wield enormous and weighty weapons far beyond the powers of modern man, and complete the picture with the scorn poured upon these swords by lovers of the elegance of the 18th century and it becomes easier to see why so plain a weapon can be accounted crude, ponderous, and inefficient. In fact the average weight of these swords is between 2 lbs. and 3 lbs., and they were balanced (according to their purpose) with the same care and skill in the making as a tennis racket or a fishing rod. The old belief that they are unwieldable is as absurd and out-dated, and dies as hard, as the myth that armored knights had to be hoisted into their saddles with a crane." (Oakeshott, Sword in the Age of Chivalry, p. 12).
Training is also a huge part of that. Holding a dagger (even a fairly heavy one) is pretty easy. The muscles involved are one we deal with regularly. Wielding a sword uses muscles that we don't usually need to use (the muscles of the forearm aren't regularly exercised except on purpose, especially the ones that would help you hold up a blade while you swing it).Donbett1974 said:
I was going for how an ounce can balance two ounce if you move it closer or futher from the center like an mobile on a crib.Seldon2639 said:
A medievil sword weights nothing since Medievil is a game and the swords there are made out of pixels. If you are tryig to to show the rest of the world how smart you are at least spell Medieval right.
The rest of the people are correct in saying the word sword is just too broad, theres hundreds of weapons that existed in the medieval period that fall under that definition, on the other hand the weight options you gave are so exagerated that ANY sword ever made falls under than 15 lbs category as I cant think of any sword ever made that weighted more than 10 lbs and most of them weighting less than 5.
The rest of the people are correct in saying the word sword is just too broad, theres hundreds of weapons that existed in the medieval period that fall under that definition, on the other hand the weight options you gave are so exagerated that ANY sword ever made falls under than 15 lbs category as I cant think of any sword ever made that weighted more than 10 lbs and most of them weighting less than 5.
The centre of mass of a sword is actually deceptively close to the crosspiece. It's no more than a few inches away.Donbett1974 said:
This is why modern replica swords "feel" much clumsier, because they're generally not designed properly, they have the centre of mass too far out. Real swords were very quick and easy to handle.
I once had a workshop in medieval swordfighting, and the dude (whose last names were Lopez Cardozo, so you KNOW the man's legit) let us handle an accurate replica of a two-handed templar sword. Told me it weighed about 4 to 5 lbs, and I believed him. Thing was tapered, looked like a giant needle with a crossguard.
Seriously, 15 lbs is the minimum? How dumb do you think we are?
Seriously, 15 lbs is the minimum? How dumb do you think we are?
18 people have voted 45-55lbs.Spacelord said:
So the (justified) answer to that is evidently "very".
(Full gothic plate armour only weighed 45lbs or so, less than modern infantry armour, and spread well around the body not concentrated on the torso and head.)
