My brother asked his friends how heavy a one handed sword was and most answers were 10-20 kg, someone even said 25 kg. Nobody said 1 kg which is the right answer.
Why do people believe swords were super heavy?
My brother asked his friends how heavy a one handed sword was and most answers were 10-20 kg, someone even said 25 kg. Nobody said 1 kg which is the right answer.
Zweihanders are a whopping 10-13 lbs. They're kinda heavy but nothing insane and your average person can swing them around.
>Zweihanders are a whopping 10-13 lbs
Nah, more like 5-7 lbs most of the time. Parade swords could have been bigger but swords people actually used rarely exceeded like 6 lbs or so.
The parade ones are, actual combat zweihanders weighed about 5 pounds which is deceptively light. A massive phalanx pike might have weighed 20 kilograms but marching with one of those was hell.
Coz the only things they know are from movies and games and in those swords look heavy as frick because you need the characters to telegraph their intentions and struggles.
they only look heavy in dark souls because everyone is a weak little b***h in those games (or maybe because they are swords made to be used by bigger people who knows) but everywhere else swords look light and fast
It's literally the opposite. In a lot of video games, particularly japanese shit, weapons look like they weigh nothing, as if they're made of cardboard. That's basically the effect you get when you have a ridiculously oversized weapon that a comparatively small, homosexual character swings around as there's no weight or mass to it.
Dark souls brain rot
big sword -> stronk -> thicc -> heavy -> sword 10kg
pretty much, everyone thinks melee weapons are about weight, when they're more about length and speed.
Dungeons and Dragons was a disaster for this kind of thing. That's why people think leather armor existed and that plate weighed as much as a car.
Leather armor existed
Not in the way it's portrayed in D&D and other fantasy settings, which often completely ignore the existence of gambesons
>lol, padded cloth armor? you're so silly, anon
Real life doesn't have magical creatures with supernaturally tough hides or magical enchantments.
And in DnD leather armor isn't made out of that shit; so what's your point? Plain old +0 leather armor is explicitly just cow hide. If you want the supernatural hides or magic stuff you're looking at a completely different armor type or +2 and above enchanted gear.
My players handbook describes "hide" armor as being layered like a gambeson, and "leather" armor as having portions of it boiled for extra strength. No mention is made of the kind of animal used, regardless.
While perhaps not common, experiments with boiling leather (in various substances) have produced good results, in that you get a hard to cut or pierce, rigid material.
There are historical references to leather armor, and "boiled" or "hardened" leather armor. Common? Perhaps not. More likely to be arranged in "scales" or such rather than large plates? Sure. Extant? Almost certainly.
What's troubling is the idea that a lack of historicity is even a criticism of DnD. It is a fictional setting, not just in small ways different from our world, but in vast, sweeping ways that effect day to day life and the construction of regular objects.
Simulating medieval history is not only not the objective, but it would be patently absurd given the basics of the settings involved.
Its not absurd because if you go back to his original point, he was lamenting the fact that DnD has ruined stupid peoples impressions of actual historical arms and armor. The historicity of DnD is not relevant, you fricking NERD.
>DnD has ruined stupid peoples impressions of actual historical arms and armor
That's a pretty silly position, considering fantasy and history films, as well as the poor standards of historians, are the actual origin points of most misconceptions about medieval warfare and equipment. Most of the fuddlore you whine about was a hundred years old AD&D came out.
You, and that other poster, are searching for some nearby origin based on roughly the time you've been alive during, refusing to accept that the rot goes back infinitely further, and has it's origins in targets that don't let you feel like a brave contrarian rebel against something that's in internet vogue at this second.
DnD neither began nor popularized these images of history, it's just comfortable for you to think so.
DnD was actually pretty well researched for its time, gary gygax was a history autist who spent a lot of time in the library
the issue is just that a single autist relying on publicly available resources from a public library instead of the national archives or consulting with a musuem will never get everything right no matter how dedicated
especially in a pre-internet age where its very difficult to fact check what you read in a book is even correct
basically any armor prevents swords slashing action and renders it short thrusting weapon - axes hammers and maces were used to defeat armor - swords were mostly ceremonial, status symbols and secondary fallback weapons for nobility - its like witth japan and katanas - they were status symbols and not weapons of war hence over engineering and muh 1000 folds costed more than yours regardless of practicality
Swords were also used for personal defense. If you were just jobbing around town or visiting the next village over you wouldn't suit up with 30 pounds of steel armor and a war spear, you'd just grab your doublet and sword.
>swords were mostly ceremonial, status symbols and secondary fallback weapons for nobility
Anon all medieval documents that state what weapons and armor you need to bring to serve all state that all soldiers need to have sword (among other gear). If you would come without sword you would be kicked out from military.
are you trolling/being sarcastic? "medieval" is a very broad range, but generally you only needed a spear and maybe a shield, or an axe in case of scandinavia.
armor was very expensive and as such, optional, nobody would get "kicked out" for not having a full suite of armor, most ground troops were lucky to have a chainmail and a helmet.
It was mostly a city militia thing. Part of the tax requirement was that every household needed to provide at least one well armed man and that meant armor and sword. This worked because city land was expensive and if you actually owned land you could afford to hire a professional soldier.
>"medieval" is a very broad range
Indeed. But another point written records were started to be abundant from high medieval age, so yeah it apples starting from that era. Dark ages were indeed dark.
>armor was very expensive and as such, optional, nobody would get "kicked out" for not having a full suite of armor, most ground troops were lucky to have a chainmail and a helmet.
Man-at-arms would be kicked out if he doesn't bring full suit of armor (pro tip: in every medieval military man-at-arms were core of the force). Lower pay and grade soldiers, yes didn't need full suit, but some sort of armor was mandatory too ("jack", "maille" or "brigantine", and mandatory some sort of the helmet).
Militia members in cities were citizens themselves. It were artisans, merchants etc, core members of the city society they all were obligated to own armor and weapon set according to their income bracket. Top citizens were obligated to own man-at-arms set of armour and weapons and a battle horse. Concept dating back and coming out from the greek city-states and their hoplite "citizen-soldiers."
Aside from maybe high medieval age, I seriously doubt your regular, non-elite man-at-arms non-city guy was require to own specifically a sword, as opposed to spear + any side arm. If you have evidence, I'd like to see it.
Transcript of a friesian ordinance, from the Lex Frisionum. This was written around 800 A.D. in Latin at the behest of the emperor Charlemagne:
>Thit is riucht thet thi fria Fresa ni thor fira hereferd fara, thur ban ni thur bod, than mittha ebba wt and mittha flode up, truch tha ned, thet hi thenne ower alle degan wera skel with thenne salta se and with thenne wilda witsing, mith fif wepnem, mith spada and mith forka, mith skelde and mith swerde and mith etkeres orde [thur thet, thet hi thenne ower waria skel], bi enre liudwerthene, ther hit him keth worde mith boda iefta mith bakne. Iefta sexasum swera, thet hit him mith boda ni mith bakne keth ni worde.
Translation:
> This is the law: the free Frisian need make no further foray, whether under proclamation or order, than out with the ebb and back with the flood; because he needs must guard the shore, day in, day out, against the salt sea and the wild viking with five weapons: with spade and with fork, with shield and with sword, and with spear's point. (And this he must do) on pain of one wergeld, whenever notice is given him by messenger or by beacon, or else swear with five compurgators that such notice was not given him.
>swords were mostly ceremonial, status symbols and secondary fallback weapons for nobility
no they werent
we literally find loads of swords in battlefields, skeletons with sword wounds on them, art depicting swords in battle, manuals telling people how to fight, and the literal morphology of the sword changing over the years because swordsmiths would evolve the design to match battlefield conditions
they were literally one of the most common weapons of their time despite their high cost
>axes hammers and maces were used to defeat armor
maces were actual ceremonial pieces, with them falling out of use by the late medieval period
which is why renaissance era maces are actually just decorative pieces with lots of gold on them while swords continued to be made of steel, which would only be done if the person using it was going to use it combat at one point
>with them falling out of use by the late medieval period
During late medieval and early Renaissance there was renaissance (heh) of the blunt weapons with development of plate armor. War hammers (that were actually war picks first ) , war axes (that were actually war picks first ) and new type of full metal relatievly heavy maces, specific for that period. But they were additional weapons to supplement swords not replace them.
This. Swords got tapered tips for slipping through gaps and joins and half-swording techniques kept swords relevant.
>swords were mostly ceremonial, status symbols and secondary fallback weapons for nobility - its like witth japan and katanas - they were status symbols and not weapons of war
Katana absolutely were weapons war, uchigatana and tachi developed during wars, especially the former. Likewise, everybody who could have a sword as their soldier kit, from europe to the middle-east to far east Asia, bothered to, because sword are that versatile and useful (and lightweight as the thread reminds us). Swords have always been used in war and in many conflicts, be it in cities, in the rural life or on battlefields, this "status symbol" shit is just slapped on because they were so useful and ubiquitous.
No they weren't, there is a document showing katanas were responsible for less kills than fricking rocks, most casualties in Japan were due to spears and arrows.
Sword is neither versatile nor particularly useful, it's a dueling/self-defense instrument, spear paired with a dagger(for when things got too personal) is the most common combination worldwide. Up until very late medieval era, swords very mad expensive as well.
>The document shows the averages of five hundred years of combat
My, no one lies quite like a historian.
>No they weren't, there is a document showing katanas were responsible for less kills than fricking rocks, most casualties in Japan were due to spears and arrows.
Yet go look at any artistic depictions of bushi from the Heian era to the late Edo era and you'll see them hauling swords. The tachi developped during times of war for use on horseback, the uchigatana was developed during the Onin war to fight at close range during the pike pushes (see "The Connoisseur's book of Japanese Swords").
>spear paired with a dagger(for when things got too personal) is the most common combination worldwide.
How about making that dagger really long mmh...? And then you can also have a dagger! Crazy I know.
>Up until very late medieval era, swords very mad expensive as well.
We're talking Japan and warrior armies. The whole point of being a warrior is that you have the equipment.
Your whole talking points have been time and time rebuked. All of the warrior classes used and hauled swords and daggers and spears and all that gizmo because they were useful. Your point goes against all artistic depictions of warrior, all sources talking about warriors equipment.
>Sword is neither versatile nor particularly useful, it's a dueling/self-defense instrument
So why did all the people who could afford them wear them in war exactly!? Yeah because swords ARE particularly useful and more versatile than a freaking dagger, that's why!
You read Froissart (Chronicler of the first half of Hundred Years War) and you can see hundreds of references to swords being used.
> swords were mostly ceremonial, status symbols and secondary fallback weapons for nobility
The vast majority of swords were not ceremonial.
Swords were status symbols in some periods. Generally, post-roman empire, swords were rare and of immense value, and that value fell through the centuries to about the 13th century, when steel had become plentiful enough that there are plenty of wills and inventories, which list swords valued at pennies.
Swords were a secondary fallback weapon in many eras - the spear, later the polearm and crossbow, eventually the firearm took precedence on the battlefield. But that's not just for nobility. And those common soldiers almost universally carried a sword, or a sword and buckler alongside their primary weapon - and in the case of archers and crossbowmen, the sword would be the primary melee weapon.
there were eras where it was masculine israeliteellery - the 17th and 18th century small-sword, with cut and faceted hilts, for example, are almost entirely status objects of an upper class - not always nobility. But at the same time, cavalry sabres are the primary weapon of horsemen and hussars, and carried in warfare.
Trying to make one blanket statement is foolish. Making the statements you've made is just stupid.
Imagine defending a bunch of Dunning–Kruger nerds who saw brigandine and went:
>"hmmm yes verily, this is obivously leather with metal studs added for protection, hmm yes *unpleasant phlegmy mouthbreathing sound* hmm yes, we shall add this to our role-playing game game, yes"
The original D&D inventors were playing historical battle tabletop games and made them into fantasy RPGs. I'm sure they knew what brigadine is.
They evidently didn't, given that they put "studded leather" into their game system, having mistaked brigandine for whatever studded leather is supposed to be..
Also I don't think chainmail is anything more than loosely based on history.
They most assuredly did. DnD was evolved from Chainmail a fantasy wargame, which itself was evolved from historical wargames of the time; which were pretty much exclusively like napoleonic era games focused on history and realism.
>Dungeons and Dragons was a disaster for this kind of thing.
what kind of thing? The stuff in there isn't 20kg. What are you even on about?
In DnD guys use big swords as quick as anything.
You never played.
>plate weighed as much as a car.
My 3.5 players handbook says 50lbs for the heaviest suit of plate, including chain and gambeson worn underneath. The only fantasy weight is for the giant tower shield, which weighs 45 pounds, described as six feet tall and made of wood, but drawn as like five feet and made of steel.
ADnD has a 3lb short sword, a 4lb long sword, and a 10lb claymore
the main issues are the naming convention
the short sword would be called an arming sword
the long sword, being able to be used in both single and double hand, is closer to the bastard sword than a long sword
but as far as weight is concerned, they were only about a pound or two too heavy and not giant hunks of steel
>the long sword, being able to be used in both single and double hand, is closer to the bastard sword than a long sword
"bastard sword" is a modern term. the historically accurate term is longsword.
i remember reading about the modernly called bastard sword was a sword that wasnt as long as a long sword but not as short as a short sword, i guess it was a mid sword
the original bastard swords, or hand and a half swords, were arming swords that had their handle lengthened to allow for two-handed use
so you have a short-ish blade that can be used with either one or two hands
which perfectly describes the longsword in DnD, a mid-sized weapon that accommodates both one and two handed use
the real life longsword is defined by needing two hands, which would be what DnD calls the greatsword
though an actual wiener up would be the claymore from ADnD, which described the quillons as additional blades rather than being a small handguard for half-swording
modern DnD just rolls describes the claymore as a type of greatsword, though it still doesnt have an alternate profile for its half-swording
Actual longswords could absolutely be used one handed, though. They're not long or heavy enough to be hard to handle.
Hand and a half sword.
My biggest complaint with Gygaxshit is "Dexterity" controlling bows especially, but also a lot of things it covers is more about agility than dexterity. D&D is a shit system all-around, although personally despite the games being meh I think the SPECIAL attribute system is the best designed.
>D&D is a shit system all-around, although personally despite the games being meh I think the SPECIAL attribute system is the best designed.
COC's skills based system using percentiles was a bit better for me. Converting takes time though.
Also — D&D 3rd Ed. had two handed weapon wielders go take their fighting actions after single handed ones all the time in battle (automatic loss of initiative).
Dexterity covering bows was due to aiming.
All the best bows in 3.5 had a strength requirement.
d&d stats are completely stupid and shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone
>you can roll strength to move a boulder but you can't roll intelligence to solve a sliding block puzzle
>the wise but blind old man has a stat bonus to spot checks
>charisma is supposed to represent force of personality but when someone is trying to mind control you the save is based on wisdom
Can you actually name a blind npc from 3.x?
Pretty sure he's referring to old age giving a WIS bonus, and WIS is the stat used for Spot checks
I know exactly what he's referring to, my question stands.
Name a blind NPC.
Leather armor not only existed, it was the protection of choice for one of the biggest empires in history, making it statistically more common than quilted or padded cloth. Granted, it's a pretty left-field choice for a setting trying to vaguely emulate European fantasy outside of that, like including samurai armor as a default protection type next to knightly plate.
Don't know what's going on with "ring mail" though.
historically leather armor were made of hardened leather, hard enough that they would need to be worn as breastplate or as lamellar armor.
Leather armor as depicted as in DnD is unrealistic. "light armor" should have been entirely gambeson or the like.
>protection of choice for one of the biggest empires in history
Well as the cuckboys say I’m gonna need a source on that
thank fromsoftrannies and the fans of that one cuck manga
to be fair the dragonslayer was ridiculously huge to the point that nobody could use it, except the main character just because...
It's a setting with supernaturally strong men scattered around, like Conan and every single mythology ever.
Also, everyone who dislikes Berserk is a noguns gay.
Like with most things, the average person has no frame of reference for just how heavy 25 kg actually is, or how impossible it would be to effectively wield a weapon that weighed anywhere close to that.
lmao imagine handing a full sized olympic barbell to the average dude and asking him to kill someone with it, not by using it as a bludgeon but by slashing them with blades attached to the sides
i mean it'd fricking hurt but god just imagine seeing some neckbeard/office worker trying to do that
You and your friends are probably Americans and due to the shit poor education systems in your country, that is why people believe in stupid shit. It's because the people are moronic.
obsessed
He is right doe
American's don't use kilograms
>kilograms
>moronic
sasuga
Not helping you when your family start getting raped by chinks and russians
people r moronic
> kg
Noguns country.
>and most answers were 10-20 kg, someone even said 25 kg. Nobody said 1 kg which is the right answer.
Democracy, yay
People are ridiculously stupid, that's why gun laws are so bad.
Because people don't understand the lever effect, let alone understand work, force and weight as being distinct separate concepts. You could hand them a 1kg dumbbell to hold in thier offhand and it would certainly feel like a fraction of the weight of the sword.
>why do people who don't care about obscure random stuff don't know anything about it
gee i dunno
It's a big thing that's made of steel. Most people have never held a steel sword, but they have held a large variety of steel items like guns, tools, or building materials. Thus, they think the steel swords are as heavy as the steel stuff they're familiar with. Basically, what said.
moronic take.
What fricking gun / tool / building material the size of a sword weighs 25kg?
A rifle, a crowbar, 1m rebar rod?
Tolkien, D'n'D and the plethora of fantasy that followed them completely warped perceptions by making archers nimble figures and swordsmen strong. In reality it was the other way round. The archers needed STR and the swordmen DEX.
For example there was a time when it was the law in Britain that every male adult had to learn how to use a longbow. Exhumed bodies from that time show deformations on the wrists due to the repeated activity of pulling that large draw weight. Bows need that large draw weight for range and penetration. But when you think about it, it is this repetitive motion that's just like a gym exercise which requires STR above all else, in particular since bows ar best employed en masse so that aiming becomes less of an issue.
Swords, OTOH, while STR is no disadvantage, need to pierce/slice the weak spots of the enemy's armor. Reaction time and precision are much more relevant than force.
>Tolkien, D'n'D and the plethora of fantasy that followed them completely warped perceptions by making archers nimble figures and swordsmen strong.
Anon stronger swordsman wins. Denying it it just manlets and wristlets cope.
Its especially true fro armored combat because moving with armor and not running out of breath in three seconds is feat for strength, penetration of armor is feat of strength, and armored combat has much wrestling in it and its a feat of strength.
But in non armored sword combat stronger swordsman has abilty to exploit their strengt. By using longer swords. Reach rules non armored fencing and stronger fencer can swing longer sword and swing it faster than weakling can wing his shorter sword.
All HEMA champions from unrestricted competition are tall and strong lads Aragorn style.
Only fencing when you can get away without strength is small swords fencing where length of the sword is limited by rules and sword itself is very light by design.
Can you quote where Tolkien actually described an archer's build?
Legolas being a twink was a later conception.
"and the Teleri had less strength, and were armed for the most part but with slender bows."
The Silmarillion
>and the Teleri had less strength
Less strength than whom?
>Why do people believe swords were super heavy?
Its britbong victorian boomers propaganda that continued with ADnD slop.
Here is the thing in Britain during Victorian period (when Britain was relevant and people listen to them) were running propaganda of Britain been more advanced in historical development then "archaic continental dwellers" (especially French). And in France nobility role was reduced much latter than in Britain. So French nobility and european knighthood in general became point of the britbong propaganda when britbongs made fun if everything european knight. All those bollocks came out from britbong eternal boomers:
>muh longbow!
>muh medieval (french) swords are metal clubs unlike our elegant sabres!
>muh (french) knight's armor is so heavy they needed a crane and cant get up!
>etc etc etc
A renaissance theater running-gag at the time known to be untrue .. turned into "history" shown in movies and children's books.
In addition, distal taper was almost non-existent in sword-replica up until the early 2000s.
Taking swords and European arms history and usage seriously in general culture is a recent thing.
>distal taper
Is that because it removes weight from the business end of the weapon, and lessens its swing power?
Center of mass is supposed to be close to the crossguard to make fighting less exhausting
>Is that because it removes weight from the business end of the weapon, and lessens its swing power?
quite the opposite.
Speed produces more energy than mass. A sword weighing 100g less, but moving only a little bit faster will have more energy - and will wear out the user less.
There's also the fact that to cut, you are displacing material. think of it like pushing two blocks aside to make a gap. if you're having to force the material 2.5mm, that's half the effort it is to push it 5mm. so a narrower blade will cut better.
The main reason that 90's swords were lacking in distal is partly, a lack of knowledge, partly, it was cheaper - why grind huge amounts of material away? just bevel the edges and that's sword shaped.
There has been a renaissance in swordmaking in the last 20 years, particularly in european arms, partly as a result of a shift in interest after the 80's katana mania, but also partly because you, or I can both get access to more photographs of swords in high-detail, by doing a search on Pinterest, than Ewart Oakeshott collected in a 50-year career in the subject - especially when it comes to the whole eastern half of Europe which was cut off by the iron curtain. Simply put, the internet has enabled a massive improvement in available data, and that has both enabled the creation of high end makers, and the mid-low end manufacturers of stuff to improve their quality. understanding stuff like distal taper, proportion, and pattern-welding and the likes has been instrumental in the creation of a new generation of smiths who are the match for their ancestors, and in many ways, outperform them thanks to modern steels and tools.
Thanks for the detailed answer anon, much appreciated! : )
>Speed produces more energy than mass.
There is a diminishing returns situation with swing speed vs weight. A baseball pro who can swing a bat at 90MPH cant swing a bat half the weight at 180MPH.
>There is a diminishing returns situation with swing speed vs weight.
Yeah. This is why all swords are actually pretty similar in length and weights. One handed been 2-3 pounds, it's the sweet spot of speed and mass.
This. Kinetic energy for a swing is this logarithmic issue where the faster you've got a weapon moving the less time you have to speed it up. It's why axes and hammers are so tip heavy.
Consequentially, swords are precise weapons. You don't try to smash through armor, you go for weakpoints, gaps, and joints.
Counterpoint. That 1 kg is spread out in a long form factor, meaning you need to heft it to get it moving.
Most swords keep the center of mass within an inch or two of the hilt. It gives the user more control over the weapon and is less tiring to swing.
>Most swords keep the center of mass within an inch or two of the hilt.
in the context (frick me, I've turned into Matt Easton. where's my hair gone?) of medieval and early modern european arms, the balance point is usually closer to 4 inches (on average).
generally, 1-2 inches from the crossguard (or worse, at the cross) ends up feeling "vague" and it becomes difficult to control the tip because it moves too easily. a more forward Point of balance also aids in the cut by helping the weapon track and giving better control and presence in the cut.
once your balance point goes past about 6 inches that in turn starts to become detrimental in the opposite direction, with the weapon feeling "leaden" and sluggish, and again, hard to control the tip, only in it feeling like it takes too much work to move around.
the optimal position really depends on the style of sword. a thrusting estoc will be better with a balance around 3 inches, while a broader cutting sword might be 5.
>kg
What language are you speaking?
Swahili.
Reproductions tended to be excessively heavy for the longest time. Partially a requirement for blunt reenactment bashing.
Given that even the lower range of those replies is 10kg and a barbell of that is feasible to comfortably lift but not swing wildly (unless you want to go to snap city) even for a roided weight lifter, I doubt your friends have lifted weights and you can't expect any sort of reasonable reply from them. They just don't have a frame of reference for the weight of objects. You might as well ask them how much a crowbar or sledgehammer weighs and see what they answer, because 10kg is a heavy-duty sledgehammer that requires two hands and is slow to swing.
yeah people don't seem to realize that one part of your body (your quads for example) being able to take high weight in one direction does not mean that every other part of your body can take similar weights in all directions. swinging around a barbell like a dumbass is going to frick you up, why would a sword be any different?
Swinging a long steel sword quickly creates a lot of torque
Because low-quality repros are milled out of giant stocks of steel to reduce manufacturing costs, which gives them terrible balance. Weight isn't an issue, genuine swords were heavy, but since they were well balanced you could wield them efficently thanks to them having a good taper and having most of it's mass near the hilt.
If you ever have to ask "why do people believe [stupid myth] about the middle ages?" the answer is always Mark Twain.
Swords are visually very large and made of metal. Like, they seem to be many times the size of a wrench, just not in all dimensions. For someone who doesn't know about weapons it's not obvious that they are thin to the point of being so light.
People only see swords from movies, stories, and plays, in which a more heavier sword simply looks more dramatic than the reality of a lighter sword.