When having a conversation with some friends on weapons I was ardently defending the efficacy of western sword arts and most importantly the two-handed swords and greatswords that became common through the 15th and 16th centuries. I was told repeatedly that these weapons, and longswords as well weighed it at a mighty 20 or even 30 pounds(!) and try as I might I could not convince them otherwise. I despaired and went searching on the internet for answers, and came across this little gem:- http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html the important part of this article is as follows:- (uncut and pasted, NOT MY WORK) 40-Pound Sword? By C. Jarko One of the most outrageous (and wildly incorrect) statements made about Medieval swords is that they were heavy and weighed as much as 40 pounds. While the fact that this statement even came once from a respected scholar and expert on Medieval warfare is surprising, it's not at all an uncommon claim. Let's take a look at just how large a sword would have to be to weigh that much or anywhere close to it. Simple Science (with a little algebra thrown in): How do we know Medieval swords weren't 40 pounds (or for that matter, even 15 or 20 pounds)? The answer is density. Density is a way of expressing how much an object (of a certain size and of a given material) weighs. The size of the object is expressed in terms of its volume. Volume is the size of an object as measured by its length, width and thickness (or height) and is expressed in cubic inches. Written as a mathematical equation, it looks like this: V = L x W x H. One cubic inch is one inch long by one inch wide by one inch thick. For the purpose of this discussion, we can use a simple three-dimensional rectangle to represent our sword. Let's pick a typical longsword with an overall length of 48 inches and a general width of 2 inches (the widest part of the blade). We'll get to the height later. Swords were made of carbon steel, which has a known density of roughly 0.284 pounds per cubic inch (lbs/per cubic inch). If we know how much weight we have (in this case "40" pounds), we can figure out how many cubic inches the object would have: 40 pounds divided by 0.284 (the density of steel) = 140.85 cubic inches (the volume or "V" of a 40 pound sword). Our sword is 48 inches long, 2 inches wide and "H" inches thick, thus: V = 48 x 2 x H. Using our volume of 140.85, we can solve for H for which we get: 140.85 = 48 x 2 x H 140.85 = 96 x H H= 1.47 inches (140.85 divided by 96) This means our steel sword is 48 inches long, 2 inches wide and 1.47 inches thick along its entire length. This would definitely be a blunt object and not a sharp cutting instrument like a sword. Just for fun, let's see what we get when we say a sword (again 48 inches long and 2 inches wide) weighs 15 pounds or 10 pounds: 15 pounds divided by 0.284 (the density of steel) = 52.82 cubic inches (the volume "V" of a 15 pound sword). Using our volume of 52.82, we can solve for H: 52.82 = 48 x 2 x H 52.82 = 96 x H H = 0.55 inches (52.82 divided by 96) That's over half an inch thick, still a blunt object. Let's try one more time for 10 pounds. 10 pounds divided by 0.284 (the density of steel) = 35.21 cubic inches (the volume "V" of a 15 pound sword). Again, we can solve for H: 35.21 = 48 x 2 x H 35.21 = 96 x H H = 0.37 inches That's almost three eighths of an inch thick. If you look at three eighths of an inch on a ruler, you'll see we are now starting to get "sword-like" but we're still not there. If we do the math using the thickness of a real sword (say an average 1/8th inch thick across a roughly 48" by 2" rectangle) it turns out such it weighs a reasonable 3.408 pounds. Which, when you take into account things like differential cross-section, distal taper, edge bevel and overall taper of the blade geometry, as well as the weight of the pommel and cross, then an average weight of 2.5 - 3.5 pounds works out just about right. So, the next time When someone says "a longsword weighs 15 pounds", you can reply, "Oh, like this?" as you hand them 15 pounds of a half-inch thick steel slab four feet long and two inches wide. There's nothing like holding the truth in your hands. If there were really battle swords that actually weighed 40 pounds, or even just 15 or 20 pounds, then where are they? Why don't we have a single historical example as proof? It would be such an easy thing to prove. So, if you have a modern made sword which you bought and it weighs far more than the real life working versions of history, no matter what the manufacture claims, that sword is just not made correctly. When we use the mathematical proof, we need to understand that there are variables which we aren't taking into account here, but this line of argument works well enough to debunk the more outrageous claims about sword weight. The next time you're arguing with someone who refuses to budge off their claim that swords were very heavy and unwieldy, you can tell them: "Hey, you do the math!" An ordinary exercise bar (available at most large sporting goods stores) is an excellent way to demonstrate how real swords were not "heavy." These 50" poles come in 9, 12, and 14 pound versions and comparing the heft of such weight to a sword blade makes it very clear how absurd a weapon of such mass would be.
Interesting, I was always into Oriental swordsmanship more than western, but I agree that the weight of the european sword is a common misconception. Same thing with armour and things of that nature.
I think that early on the swords were real heavy, because the europeans just used flattened pieces of metal with a piece of leather around the bottom of them which did not make them that heavy but they were not balanced. Later on they learned techniques such as the blood channel (i think) and other ways to make it lighter. They obviously would have applied this to two handed swords. So im pretty sure you are correct.
and when do you believe that europeans were making high quality weapons then? the Romand were forging good quality steel and iron blades for hundreds of years before christ. The Carthaginians were making similar weapons at around the same time, Celts and other 'barbarian' cultures were making their own well forged weapons. again look at the Romans, they obviously knew how to work metal or they would not have made use of their Pilum with the specially designed bending heads. people seem to believe that western swordsmiths were just stupid, clearly westerners knew how to forge high qualty metal objects and build great buildings as well as develop a great deal of new technology over a short amount of time due the constant evolution and dynamism that was rpesent but for some reason they decided to forget how to make good quality weapons for a few hundred years(cos it might be fun...). remember weapons technology in europe was very high quality for along time, the Iron age passed in 500BC not AD and steel followed shortly after so clearly the technologies to make the metal needed for high quality blades was there and looking at the works of smiths it is clear that they had the aptitude for making high quality weapons. most people wouldagree that the japanese made the 'Best' weapons but I disagree and will elaborate if asked. remember the original Japanese swords were copied from Korea and China and were straight not curved...
I think that its not that the western swords were thought of as bad, but that japanese sword were regarded so highly. You cant realyl say which sword is better since they have different purposes. I read a comparison between the two styles and it went something like, Western swords are like AK-47's, they arn't the most accurate but they are reliable and dont break. Japanese swords on the other hand are like m-16's. Very accurate and powerfull, but you must use them the right way.
Another thing to consider is that the japanese have very inconsistant steel, meaning if you took a big chunk of iron out of the ground, some would be great, some would be horrible. Europe on the other hand, had much bette steel. Which explains alot, but i wont get into that now because i dont feel like typing, unless someone wants me to explain.
Firstly. do a search. I or soemone else posted a link to another artcile on two handedsword weights, as well as the countless threads started on this an similar topics. Secondly, if westerners did in fact start out just using crude iron or steel bars how would they have gathered enough metal to make the crude bars? Having teh technology to smelt and refine iron ore as wel as being able to make steel out of the raw iron would imply that they already had an idea of how to work with metals. never mind the fact that swords have been used longer than iron has been used and knives/daggers longer than that. So the design of the first iron and steel swords would already exist before iron and steel were discovered. And Japanses swords are not teh pinicale of sword evolution. the design of a katana came about becuase of their poor iron ore, as has been stated already. They there fore had to make their swords thicker and more robsut because the steel would have a good chance of lots of flaws as well as to with stand shock because they arent usually tempered just differntly hardened so they would have a soft spine and hard and brittle edge. Soft metals usally bend but dont flex back and hard brittle merals usally crack so a robust sword as well as a high emphasis on making teh cuts perfectly become important. The better the iron and steel that is used the thinner and longer a blade you can make. The average katana will out weigh a Europena cutting blade of the same length and a European sword of teh same weight will often be 6 inches longer than a katana. And katana arent very long the average for one made for a westerner with longer arms and whatnot is around 30 inches or less and that is for a sword designed to used with twop hands.
I think the real reason that japanese swords are constantly made to seem better is simply because of the gun and what it changed in western war. With the gun armours became far less effective and thus people wore less armour, due to this swords need not be made to withstand such forces to deal with armour, furthermore civilian combat and duelling became far more popular ad thus the rapier and shortsword increased in popularity. due to this european weapons were made to fight in a specific way against unarmoured people and as such were never going to be as high quality war weapons as japanese weapons of the time as the gun was used in war, not the sword. Westerners met the japanese in the 1600d's and were using guns and rapiers while the japanese were using their war weapons still which were of far higher utility(I dont wish to say quality as rapiers were exceptional) and were used in such a way as to awe westerners who certainly were not versed in fighting methods that they encountered(plus if a fight broke out a pistol ended it). so we were using guns and them swords, we forgot our western martial heritage as guns made it obsolete, while the japanese kept theirs and encouraged its growth.
Well yes and no, the reason the katana was effective(correct me if im wrong) was because in japan's later history they strayed less from the tachi style sword, which was longer, a bit heavier and more curved and usually carried on horseback. Later in history, cavalry warfare wasn't as big as it was, so lighter armour was invented. And then the katana became the sword of choice.
And what you said about the rapier was correct, i think. I also think that there is another topic, simaler to this somewhere.
Erm...... sorta Yes the wide spread manufacture of more accurate firearms did more or less cause the downfall of armor, but sword were never made to withstand armor. You never or rather you didn t want to go around bashing your sword agaisnt another mans armor. They werent really designed to take taht abuse neverm,ind taht it would be futile as you cant cut through steel plates with a edged weapon. most of taht is true. The Japanese were still using swords well into the 19th century, mostly because they closed their borders and stayed in the smae level of devolpment that they were in the 17th century. But in the 15th to 17th century when there was tehmost contact between europe and Japan swords were still being used in warfare alongside firearms, rember they still hadnt created repeating firearms yet so guns were a single shot afair. Both Cutting and thrusitng swords weres still being used. Cutting swords were mostly using in warfare and thrusting swords, ie rapiers, were solely a cilivan self defence and dueling weapon, you cant go walking around town with a zweihander slungover yor shoulders unless you want trouble with teh authorities. SO to say that in the 17th century we had lost most our martial heritage would be wrong. Most of teh katana hype was caused by the widespread issuing of gunto to Japanese soliders during the Second World War.
Pleace don't post theese theories!! You obviously just replicate somthing you think you know, and it's statements like this that makes the IDIOTIC MYTHS about WMA-swordmanship live on!! First off, twohandsswords didn't come around until the 14th century, and by then europe made far better blades than anywhere else; not because they were better people, but simply because they lived where the best ironqualyty-ores were (it's not a coinsidence that the industrial revolution, the eiffel tower, etc is in Europe...) As it happens a dude (Jan Petersen) took the time to weigh and meassure all of the 1500 vikingswords found in Norway around 1919, and he published the results. The swords in question is from year 500 to year 1000 and they all vary in range form 90,7cm to 66cm and weigh between .7kg and 1.8kg (this is including heavy pommels; the heaviest weighing as much as .6kg to act as counterweight and to make swords that are extremely well balanced). Now most of theese swords are somewhat rusty, but say that you add as much as 20% to the weight to counter weightloss from rust, you still end upp with swords that are quite light.
