Philip C. Ryan wrote: |
Earlier swords were not actually very well balanced at all. These swords were designed as hacking/slashing weapons....made to splinter wooden shields and crush through the advanced maille armors of the time. Even into the "Viking Age", swords were still "end heavy". It wasn't until the introduction of more advanced, stronger, and more impenetrable armors like coats-of-plates and full plate harnasses, that swords developed into more balanced weapons. They had to be, as getting around, or through, the armor now required more thrusting and point work. This resulted in smiths designing a more balanced...i.e.controllable....weapon. |
I would disagree with this statement. Swords were "end-heavy" because that makes an effective cutting sword, balanced appropriately for its intended task. Against light armour and mail, it was an effective design. When armour became more widespread, the need for using the point increased, so dimensions and balance changed to suit.
They weren't ill-balanced, they were just balanced for a different task than later swords. Why would our ancestors (who actually depended on these things for their lives) use something that wasn't well-balanced?
I heartily disagree with the notion that they weren't well-balanced. They just were balanced differently, and wholly appropriately for the armour they faced, and the tactics and techniques used to employ them.
No one should expect swords that were made hundreds of years apart and to face different circumstances to handle the same. These were purpose built tools built by people with a far better practical understanding of them than most of us will ever have.