Highly Recommended: an English Site on Early Swords

[Matchlock]

Please go to

http://www.truefork.org/DragonPreser...Swordheavy.php

Michael

[cornelistromp]

please also have a look at.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm

and for the weight of twohanders

http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html

[Jim McDougall]

Matchlock and Cornelis, I must apologize for having missed these entries entirely! What interesting links, and indeed a fascinating topic. The misinformation and romanticization regarding arms in medieval and Renaissance times is often unbelievable. I dont think people really think in terms of weight when they use carelessly placed exaggerations to elevate or embellish stories. I have always thought the one about knights being hoisted into thier saddles with block and tackle due to the weight of the armour a classic example.

Since these links were obviously placed here to generate discussion, I hope I might add something.

I recall some years ago, I was trying to help an author writing a novel placed in 17th century Scotland, who was admirably making an effort to accurately research a storied sword of a factual local hero. It was said that this larger than life hero had a huge sword, presumably a claymore (two hander, not the also later so designated basket hilt), which had a remarkable feature in a sliding weight on the blade. Allegedly, this was a TEN pound weight mounted
on a rod that would slide to the end of the blade as the sword was swung to add force to its cut.

I recall trying to imagine these incredible dynamics, and no matter how strong the man, the heft of one of these huge swords, without a heavy sliding weight, would seem hard to hold onto. I recall illustrations of one of our family's clansmen standing holding one of these, which is actually taller than he is. Even as I recall in fencing many years ago, it was required that one exercised a great deal before actual use of the sword, as even the light sabres became very heavy quickly in combat as strength was spent.

I was never able, as far as I can recall, to establish any real instances of sliding weights on sword blades, which apparatus would seem to dramatically impair the effectiveness of the blade. It seemed possible that some of the bizarre innovations of I believe 18th century, where supposedly mercury was encapsulated within a blade to promote the weight distribution concept. This seemed another idea that 'looked good on paper' only.
There were the Oriental slotted blades ('tears of the wounded') in which small bearings (pearls) actually moved within the slots, but these were more for parade or ceremonial use and the moving bearing for sound effects.

I believe the actual outcome of the search was, as expected, simply a claymore with typically large blade, but no rod and sliding weight, and the myth remained just that.

I hope others might bring in examples of unusual or dramatic weight or features from literature that might be interesting in this intriguing topic.

All the best,
Jim

[kisak]

There's some weights for swords, shields, and armour listed here as well: http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/cariadoc...n_weights.html
There's some bits there about SCA rule peculiarities, but I never ad any problems ignoring those.

Originally Posted by cornelistromp

http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html

There's one thing about that essay which has always struck me as odd. First there is a list of swords, with weights, from the Royal Armoury in Stockholm, the heaviest one which isn't labelled as ceremonial being LRK 16662 at 4630 gram (10.2 lbs). Immediately following this we find the statement:

"Note that unlike ceremonial specimens, none of the fighting weapons exceeded 4 pounds and the heaviest ceremonial was less than 11."

There seems to be a direct contradiction between the evidence presented and the conclusion drawn there. I can't see anything in the essay where it is suggested that the authors thinks the Royal Armoury's idea of what is a fighting and what is a ceremonial weapon should be doubted either, except of course for this mismatch in the weights.

I've also double-checked with White Arms of the Royal Armoury, and the weight and lack of "ceremonial" in the description for LRK 16662 is there as well, so it doesn't seem like a typo.

Quite odd, IMO.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Allegedly, this was a TEN pound weight mounted
on a rod that would slide to the end of the blade as the sword was swung to add force to its cut.

Even if made form lead, that would still be nearly a half litre of volume in the weight. Should look nice on the sword in the illustration on the first page linked in this topic...