I'm completely new to this forum, so I do apologize if my question has been asked before, or is simple ridiculous by any standard.

I was debating with someone about the merits of a longer and heavier sword versus a thinner and lighter sword. They then proposed the following hypothetical situation:

"Ok, imagine this: Guy with normal sword fighting me with a TWO-handed sword about 10 feet long. I charge at you, jump in the air and come down. guy blocks with sword...hmmmmm i wonder what happens to the guys sword, and more importantly...HIS HEAD"

I personally think he's been watching too much anime... but that's beside the point. When I argued about how difficult it would be to wield a 10 foot long sword, much less jump in the air with one, he said that the German King Fredrick Barbarossa had a sword that long that he used in battle.

Well, I've exhausted yahoo.com with searches, and haven't found ANY mention of Barbarossa using a 10 foot long sword. So now I turn to you for guidance. ^_^

Did Barbarossa really have a sword that long? And if he didn't, did someone else? I just can't imagine how a sword that long could be wielded with much control or skill.

Thank you for your time in answering my questions!

I believe post mortem legends of Barbarossa have at times rendered him in the divine giant role ala Bran but this would be pure myth if even that relating to the sword. Though I am only distantly familiar with the myths of the dead(but real) emperor I have never heard one relating to such a sword. As a weapon it is a physical impossibility.

There are no dumb questions, only dumb answers....and since no one else has replied, I will try to answer some for ya. First off, most of the swordfights one sees these days are very exxagerated. All the jumping, flipping, and fancy moves are pretty much the invention of the media to sell movies, cartoons, and comics. In truth, more people have probably died from a sword in the back than any other way. As much as we may want it to be heroic and gallant, the fact is.....ancient and medieval combat with blades was brutal, bloody, and swift. Not to say that the art of fencing was not just that, though......an art. As far as big swords go, there are some very large examples out there. There are swords called 'bearing swords' that can be up to seven feet or more....but these were not used in combat. They were carried in processions in front of kings and queens to signify their royalty. There are also large two-handed swords that were used for combat. These were called 'zweihanders' or 'twa-handit swerdes' ....they were used to break up pike formations and to knock riders from horses. The old Scots also used their great two-handed Claymores to an awesome extent. Look up a few of these things in your web searches and you will begin to get a clearer picture of the way things really were. If I may be of any further assistance, feel free to email me personally : chubmonkey75494@yahoo.com I have been a sword collector and student of the European Martial Arts for many years. I am also a knifemaker and swordsmith as a hobby. Take care!................. :D

Didn't mean to hack anyone there. Guess you just type faster than me. Ha.

Hi Laura,

I have to commend you on the sober stand you took on the issue. I know nothing about the particular German king, but the prospect of using 10ft sword successfully seem slim. I personally have not heard of the existence of such actual swords. There was a thread here asking about the biggest swords and the consensus seemed to be that the german two-hander swere among the biggest. They were still shorter than 70" overall, and weighed ~6-7lb, and these were introduced ~15 century (I may be wrong about then they came into use). Most swords will fall between 2 and 4lb in weight, but there are many examples outside this limit.

The myths about extremely large and heavy swords being used by the most skilled warriors, come partially from Hollywood, but also, and more dangerously, from medieval texts, written by non-warriors trying to please and glorify a particular noble. These texts were not written to convey historical accuracy, nut to pass down the legacy of some important person. In other words, your friend might have seen an original text or a reference to such, which states than this King used an enormous sword. Of course, this does not make it a fact.

This makes the lives of historians more complicated, as not only do they have to find references to given events, but they also have to evaluate their validity and accuracy.

And did I mention that such "glorifying" texts greatly contribute to propagating already misconceived notions about medieval arms and armour. I do not mean to say that medieval texts are to be mistrusted, but just to be read carefully and take with a grain of salt.

Welcome to the forum,

Alexi

Thank you Allen, Mark, and Alexi for responding to my questions. The internet has a vast amount of information on it, but sometimes it's hard to find just what you're looking for. That's why people are great sources of info! *grin*

In my brief research, I did learn about a sword that was around 7 feet long that was used to break pikes. I believe these were the "Zweihanders" that Mark mentioned.

Oh, Alexi, your post brought up another question for me. How much would those long swords weight? 6-7 pounds sounds light to me, but I don't know much about swords. I handled a mock sword once, and it was quite heavy. Maybe.... 28 inches long and weight close to 10 pounds. That weight is an estimate. I'm not terribly strong, so maybe it just feltlike ten pounds. *^_^* But I visualize weight in 5 pound bags of sugar, and I think that sword may have weight about 2 bags worth.

Boy, I can ramble.

Anywho, thanks for all the help thus far!

Kaiser Friedrich I "Barbarossa" (Red Beard) was born 1122 and died 1190. The typical swords of this time were single hand swords, like these here:
http://www.albionarmorers.com/swords/albion/nextgen/xas.htm
http://www.albionarmorers.com/swords/albion/nextgen/xa.htm

or very late examples he still might have seen used:
http://www.albionarmorers.com/swords/albion/nextgen/xi.htm
http://www.albionarmorers.com/swords/albion/nextgen/xii.htm

There were some large swords found, which have been dated around the last years of Barbarossa's reign, which he might have used, and which were propably a bit smaller than these two examples:
http://www.albionarmorers.com/swords/albion/nextgen/xiia.htm
http://www.albionarmorers.com/swords/albion/nextgen/xiiia.htm

As you see single-hand swords weighed around 2-3 pounds, hand-and-a-half swords around 3-5 pounds, size varied from 35"-50".

The largest war sword shown in any medieval illustration that I have seen is apparently no more than about two meters in length. It appears in an illustration from the 13th Century Maciejowski Bible. http://www1.tip.nl/~t401243/mac/mac10vA.jpg
A modern reproduction has been made that is only four feet long, perhaps underestimating the intended size of the original illustration. http://www.medieval-weaponry.com/en-us/dept_545.html

In swords as in fishes, it is easy to exaggerate the size of a 'big one' when telling a tale.

Hi Laura,

If I understand you correctly, your friend felt that a large sword (two-hander) would defeat a lighter and more agile sword. I'm not sure what kind of light sword you have in view when you say "thinner and lighter", so if you will excuse me, I will use the example of the rapier.

A few things to keep in mind (Barbarossa aside):

1. As surely as their were schools for the rapier, there were schools for longsword (and other forms of fencing). The question of rapier vs. longsword is not one of skilled (and agile) vs. unskilled (and clumsy).

2. The weight of longswords-- and even two-handers-- is not as great as many think. Also the balance of historical weapons is generally so good that the "sense" of the weight is lessened.

3. While the rapier is a faster weapon, the longsword has greater reach and, used properly, does not leave as many openings as might be imagined.

4. One would be unlikely to see a fight between a long sword/two-hander and a rapier (jump in and correct me if I'm wrong, anyone). One might easily see a longsword vs single hand and shield/buckler (which is another story again).

As to which would "win"-- I have no idea, but I would think it depends on the relative skill of each combatant and the circumstances. For instance-- in a duel between two civilians it would be very much down to skill; on the field of battle, where the combatants would likely be at least partially armoured, the rapier may not be your best bet.

I hope this isn't too vague. It is notoriously difficult to say "this would beat this"-- there are too many factors to consider.

Yours,

David

Laura you are mostly right about the zweihander though 7' sounds a bit long. I think people are confusing zweihanders with long swords/war swords when considering both weight and use as the former averaged between eight and nine pounds though they could go as high as twelve or dip into the high sixes. Ten pounders are not rare. Blades run between forty-two and slightly over fifty inches. These figures come from a catalogue of the Landeszeughaus Graz in Austria which holds probably the single largest collection of swords of this type. Personally I have held two originals weighing (by my guess) between the mid sevens and mid eights and have played with two good repros in the mid eights. I think such confusion as well as the belief that anything over six pounds must be ceremonial results from a misguided attempt to use them like normal swords. These are specialized weapons for use in pike squares(though the shorter and lighter ones facilitate more general use) and in my experience are best swung like polearms with the pommel held near the hip and relatively small movements of the arms deriving their power weight and the greater speed of the tip on such long blades. Of course when actually attempting to break pikes broader swings would be used.

I think Allen is correct. The big zwiehanders routinely went over 60". Someone, perhaps Bjorn, published a list once that gave some historical examples now housed in musems. If I remember corrcetly, average weights were about 6-7.5 lbs. One thing a person should learn on this forum is that much of how heavy a sword "feels" is in it's balance. Recently I purchased A&A's reproduction of a two-hander from the Wallace collection A474. Talking with Craig, I have little doubt that this is a very accurate reproduction of the original. It comes in right over/at 6lbs, is 60" long with a 46" blade. The blade is so balanced that I coudl actually use this sword with one hand. Yes it's a bit cumbersome to use ti this way because of the blade length, but it "feels" that light in my hand. Bearing swords were another creation entirely. There were usually carried during parades or festive events were made oversize intentionaly so that crowds could see them. Could anyone actually use a 10-foot sword? I doubt it. As a matter of fact, I woudl think it would have to be so heavy in order to keep the tip from drooping too much that it would weigh too much to actually swing with any form. I think such a creation would be viewed as a waste of good metal ;) So while there were some really big swords used in actual combat, I believe the legend of Barbarosa's sword is a myth. Or maybe that's what really drowned him in that shallow stream on teh way to crusade! HEHE too bad they could not fit the sword in with him when they pickled him.
Joel

Allen, that catalouge you mention, is it the CD-ROM? If so does it have a lot of swords in it?

Catalogue might not be the most precise description it is one of two books I picked up at the Zeughaus both illustrating examples and general descriptions of the collections. I can be precise later in the week when I actually have it in hand.

I'd like to give an observation about another point of the hypothetical.

I have barely begun to study the Western fighting arts and know virtually nothing. I have vitually no experience to draw on and there are people here though who really have an idea what they are talking about. Hopefully the will gently correct me if I am mistaken as a novice. Anyway, IMO the run and jump idea with the downward strike flies in the face of everything I've seen/read so far regarding swordplay which is admitedly little. The problem (to me) is that the attack desribed seems to be committed on the assumption that the defender will only block and not move. AND that the block will be insuffient to deflect the blow. Movement, spacing, and timing are all key elements of combat according to the limited study I've done and I don't think the scenario accounts for any of them.

In the hypotherical it seems to me the attacker better catch his opponent by surprise because the response will probably not be a block; rather a void or deflection with a counter. The attacker in the scenario is over committed to the attack, unlikely to recover in time, and probably soon dead.

Perhaps this is silly but I'm intersted in what some of the actual practicioners on the forum think.

Bill Grandy wrote:

Quote:

Not to get too off topic here, but I did want to point out that it's actually a myth that rapiers are necessarily lighter than longswords. Rapiers average between 2.5 to 3.5 lbs, though there are many variants. And (presuming we're talking about "true" thrusting rapiers) the typical rapier has a longer blade than a longsword, so the rapier actually has more reach. Rapiers are not used in the slashing, swashbuckling manner seen in movies, just as longswords are not used in the slow, clunky motions also seen in Hollywood. And now back to the original topic.

Thanks for the correction Bill-- substitute other lightweight sword, then :)

David

This forum is wonderful. I'm learning so much about swords, just from my few questions. *^_^*

I'm amazed that swords are so light. I think the cheap "reproduction" that i handled severely tainted my view on swords. I know it was a cheap sword, but I still thought they were heavy. (How cheap was it? Well my friend purchased it off of ebay for about $30, and the edge on it was non-existant. It's doubtful whether the sword could cut butter on a hot day.) Now I want to handle some quality swords so I have a better idea of their feel.

Joel Whitmore wrote:

Could anyone actually use a 10-foot sword? I doubt it. As a matter of fact, I woudl think it would have to be so heavy in order to keep the tip from drooping too much that it would weigh too much to actually swing with any form.

That was something I wondered about. When I was first arguing with the fellow, I thought that the weight of the blade would have to be increased to keep a 10 foot length of metal from bending. Now I'm wondering how much this hypothetical sword would weigh, if it was actually made. Any thoughts?

Edit: Oh, and I did use a rapier in comparison to his "10 foot sword," but now that I think about it, I may have had the wrong sword in mind. I said rapier, but I believe I was thinking about fencing foils. Whoops.

Aside from the Japanese No-Dachi (which was very specialized, and maybe not even used) there were never any swords close to 10 feet. As already noted, the biggest European swords were under 6 feet.

However, your friend could grab a 10 foot polearm (say, a halberd) and try the same thing.

First of all, you don't jump in the air - you are trying to control this weapon, and if you have no feet on the ground, you have no control.

He is right that no one tries to block a big, smashing blow like that - they get out of the way. If the blow misses, the guy using the 10 foot weapon has to pry it out of the ground - and while he is doing that, he gets killed.

Foils are more ridiculous than rapiers. A foil was originally a training tool, until the trainee could graduate to the dueling sword. The epee is a "sport" modification of the dueling sword. The dueling sword itself (as you can tell from the name) was highly specialized for use under special conditions, and was not a battlefield weapon, ever.