ARMA has an excellent article up on Historical Sword Weights .

Check it out at the link below ! Mac

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

Thanks Mac for posting this.

Of course, John Clements is preaching to the choir for the most part. As he acknowledges in his article, however, those whose beliefs are already set on the "heavy" and "ungainly" medieval swords will not be persuaded.

I'm interested in knowing how others handle this situation. I basically give out the numbers, show them my own swords (under strict supervision) and try to argue logic. Met with indifferent success so far..."this isn't an accurate reproduction...medieval warriors were much stronger than people today...steel weighed more back then (I'm serious, a lawyer w/ a degree in history told me this)...etc." Making progress though, slowly but surely.

Hi Steve

Most of the people I've tried to enlighten have been open to the possibility that I speak the truth !
I get alot of "Oh really, thats interesting , I always thought you had to be Conan to swing them" !

Myths do indeed die hard !
But as long as we keep putting out the facts, with a good mixture of common sense, we will slowly dispell all the misinformation !

I like to think of ourselves as history teachers without the degree ( well some of us anyway ... Does the school of hard knocks count ;-).
But we must always be positive that the info we pass along is factual, so as not to start a new fairy tale !

Mac

Indeed Mac, we must strive to educate rather than start a new fairy tale. I suppose I've drawn some "bad cards" lately. I do get every now and then a surprised, "Man! This is a LOT lighter than I thought!" when I hand someone my VE River Suck Sword, followed by a "GAAAAAAAAH" when I tell them how much a custom sword costs. :D

Ewart Oakshott's name gets mentioned more than once in the more involved discussions, as well as the referrals to A&A and Albion websites. And of course, this website.

"History teachers without a degree" I like that.

Thomas McDonald wrote:

Hi Steve Most of the people I've tried to enlighten have been open to the possibility that I speak the truth ! I get alot of "Oh really, thats interesting , I always thought you had to be Conan to swing them" ! Myths do indeed die hard ! But as long as we keep putting out the facts, with a good mixture of common sense, we will slowly dispell all the misinformation ! I like to think of ourselves as history teachers without the degree ( well some of us anyway ... Does the school of hard knocks count ;-). But we must always be positive that the info we pass along is factual, so as not to start a new fairy tale ! Mac

Thanks for posting this, Mac. I had not known the article was completed. It's a very good piece!

I went on a family outing with my mother to the St. Louis art museum recently and they had an Arms and armor exhibit up where they had a couple of two handers, the swiss type (never could spell the name starts with a Z though, sorry its late, I'm lazy). Anyway I covered up the tag for the sword that had the weight listed (I think it was in the 7 pound range) and asked her how much she thought it weighed, which she answered fifty pounds. It was cool seeing the shocked look on her face when I showed her the real weight. I mean even that claymore that Mac has isn't even 5 pounds if memory serves me right.

I think some in our own community help to maintain this level of misunderstanding unfortunately. A friend and beginning Swordsman recently loaned me a sword for testing which is made by a well known(dare I say "notorious?") manufacturer of "battle ready" replica's. The sword looks pretty good...until you pick it up. I can only assume that the people behind this weapon were seeking to make "double weight" training swords as discussed in the article in question. The sword is just so beyond the reality of historical weights that it could serve no other purpose than wall-hanging if isn't meant as a specialized training piece. Consider how many folks decide they want a "real battle ready medieval sword" and buy one of these replica's(somebody is buying them and I doubt it's knowledgable Swordsmen or collectors). This kind of thing isn't furthering understanding among the multitudes that believe these kinds of weapons to be truly representative of reality. That is my opinion.

One thing that helps perpetuate these misunderstandings is the fact that weight is often left out of the stats for original swords. I suppose it is easier to carry a tape measure than a scale. Several months ago I began collecting the weights that I could find published for original pieces. Most of these come from George Neumann's book and from Claudio's Page. The rest were picked up here and there. (I have heard that weights are published for swords in the Wallace Collection, but I have yet to find a way into their sword collections.) Any ideas of how I can access these Wallace Collection stats, or any others, would be welcome.

Here is a chart of what I have collected so far. I have broken it down into some very basic categories. In each case the data is plotted from lightest to heaviest. Median weights for sword groups would be where the line begins to level out. In most cases I will need to find more data to get an idea of median weight.

ks

Great work Kirk ! I think you're really onto something. In your chart,when you refer to 1.5 and 2 hand swords,are you referring to longswords when you say "two handed" or are you referring to true two handers in the zweihander sense?

I believe the Wallace Collection is compiling a new catalogue, as the old one is out-of-print since many years.

If they are, I would certainly be interested in a new one. Are there any British members here who can find out if this is true?

Hey Bill. I believe all of the pieces (there weren't a huge number) are in the Art Museum's perminant collection but this is the first time I can remember them being on display. We're a little poor here in StL for historical arms and armor.