George silver writes that a short man should use a sword of a yard and an inch while a larger man should use a sword of a yard plus three or four inches. He was talking about using a basket hilted backsword. I have been looking at historical sword lengths (of this period) and cannot find any that come close to his upper measurement (39-40 inches) most coming in at about 32 inches. Looking at the spotlight series in the features section it looks like most of the single handed swords across history come in on average at about 31-33 inches.
There is a nice chart on sword weights on this thread
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...mp;start=0
Maybe we should not be suprised but could there be a median sword length and weight that holds true throughout culture and time for single handed swords?

I think Silver talking about overall length not blade length when he mentions a yard and an inch or yard and four inches. My Albion Crecy has a 35 5/8-inch blade but is 44 3/4-inch total. Considering that it is a war sword, and is too long to be the shorte sword of Silver's mention, this leads me to think he meant overall blade length. On a single handed sword, the blade lengths were typically between 28 - 34 inches, but with the overall lengths between 35 - 40 inches. If you look at the overall lengths, it is much more in line with Silver's recommendations.

Swords seem to meet a length in keeping with the technology of the time, the use it was put to use for (infantry use versus cavalry use), the owner's station, and the current fashion.

Great replies, thanks chaps.
I suppose I should have said single handed cutting/thrusting weapons. I love the thibault pic thanks alot!

I think Silver meant what he wrote. I'm a man of meane stature (five foot ten) and I can easily draw a thirty-seven-inch blade within my dagger. Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but I've got thirty-seven inches between my right armpit and left hand. I don't know how I could get a lower measurement. Rapiers of his era could be enormous, so this would still be a short sword by comparison.

If surviving basket-hilt swords don't match his ideal length, that's likely because other folks had different ideas. John Smythe, for example, wanted blades between three-quarters of a yard and a full yard. Tons of historical weapons fall into that range.

Silver is taken very seriously by WMA and I frequently see backsworders weilding very long swords and singlesticks according to his specifications. Silver complains about the length of other martial artists throughout his work claiming that they are too long (or of imperfect length if you like). He even says that some fencers use swords too log by up to a foot (49-52 inches by his reckoning). He does say that the blade of a longsword should be of the same length as a short sword so maybe his picture is right for him.
It's quite interesting trying to verify what a past master said through the record of historical arms

The average length of a one handed sword depends entirely on time and place.
A viking age sword has an average of ca 75cm blde length (29"), but with some examples longer than 90cm (3ft)
High medevial swords are longer, averaging ca 85 cm (33") with some types in the 95cm range, while late medevial swords are back to 75cm, before the long cut-and-thrust types of the early renesance.

Basically, this is a result of different defensive measures and the resulting fighting styles.
Viking age swords are made to manouver around large round shields to cut and slice largely unarmoured opponents. High medevial swords, on the other hand, are made to strike at the head and hands of an mail clad opponent over the edge of a kite or heater shield.
As better armour technolgy (helmets covering the side of the head, gauntlets and so on) made striking swords less efficient, one returns to shorter, manouverable stabbing blades.
The longer cut an thrust types of the renesance develop in a civilian setting, and are adopted for battlefield use as armour becomes less frequent.

For unarmoured duelling, range is a definite advantage, as rapid strikes can be effective from a relatively safe distance.
A sword that is to long, however, will be cumbersome in close combat, and move more slowly in feints and other manouveres.
Exactly where the perfect balance of range and speed lies would be a matter of personal taste. Silver has his view, but as he says himself, not everybody agreed with him.

If you look at the development after Silver's age, rapiers also grow shorter and more manouverable over time. (probably as a reaction to the specialication of the long rapiers, and the decline of the use of bucklers and off-hand daggers to improve the laters close defence) I'm not familiar with the lenghts of later broadswords, though.

Here is a Scottish baskethilt with a blade exactly matching Silver's specifications.

Here is a schiavona with a similarly long blade.