[Larry Bohnham]

I have read the articles on this site regarding blade geometry and design and would like a clarification as to how important the center of balance is when selecting a sword. Specifically, it seems that a PoB that is numerically greater, say 6 inches rather than 3 inches would indicate a blade that feels, and probably is, less point heavy because there is more of the mass of the hilt behind the PoB. Would this be correct? Further, would a PoB which is father toward the point be better or not for improving the speed and agility of a hand and a half type sword?

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

Hi Larry,

The consensus is that point of balance on its own does not mean much. It tells certain things, though, and I'll try to clarify.

[Nathan Gilleland]

I am far from an expert, but a POB that is closer to the hilt would result in a "quicker" point. The further out on the blade the POB is, the heavier the tip of the sword will feel. If the POB is close to the hilt, this lets you know that more weight is in the hilt, allowing it to counterbalance the length and weight of the blade.

I see that Vincent explained what I was going to say very well. I can't say it any better than he has.

[Michael Edelson]

I'm going to disagree with Vincent on the importance of PoB (or CoG, center of gravity, which I prefer). I own quite a number of swords, mostly reproductions, and I can sum up each of them, in terms of handling, with two bits of information: COG, and weight.

In fact given a specific type of sword (longsword, arming sword, etc.) and those two figures, I can predict how the sword will handle (as far as I'm concerned, it's accurate to me). My own swords behave in accordance with their types, weights and COGs.

To give a concrete example, before going to the New York Custom Knife show I looked at the statistics for the Albion Viceroy and got a feel for how the sword would handle. Then, at the show, I got to handle one, and it was exactly as predicted.

One thing that is not easy to predict is how a sword will feel in prolonged use, as in continuous practice, drills, etc.

One thing I find absolutely useless is the so called "pivot point" or point of rotation or whatever it is called. It tells me absolutely nothing.

[Nathan Robinson]

[Walter S]

Generally sword dynamics range from cutting swords with point of balance far down the blade and a lot of bulk toward the tip (less agile, good for powerful cuts) to thrusting swords with point of balance near the hilt and not much bulk near the tip (more agile, good for accurate thrusts).

(Im not much of a sword expert, so I hope I didn't screw this up)

[Jared Smith]

[Michael Edelson]

[Alen L]

let me put in my two cents as well, more in terms of what a PoB generally does when you use a sword.

As many people said, the larger the PoB is, the more point-heavy the sword will feel. What this means practically is that it's not as fast as a sword with a small PoB, and will throw you off your balance much quicker. This is not necessarily a bad thing, in fact, i would recommend it for beginners. It gives you a good feel of what your stance should be like, since if it's not good enough, a swing will throw you off-balance. It will also make you "feel" the point a lot more, which is very important, and you will automatically strike with point first, the body following it, and not the other way around. Also, the point will not dance as much when you strike (talking for beginners, of course), which also strengthens the correct strike mechanics.

If a PoB is smaller, that is closer to the guard, the sword will be much faster, nimbler, and more controllable, but also more difficult to use properly. This might seem like an oxymoron - it's more controllable, but more difficult to control. It is also quicker, and usually much more responsive.

So, if you're taking up swordfighting, i would recommend a more point-heavy sword, if not a sword with a smaller PoB. I find it quite useful, though, to do a few swings with the sword i started out with, just to check how much i can control it.

regards!

[Thom R.]

[Michael Edelson]

[Michael Edelson]

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

I've handled the Cavalier rapeir (I think...maybe it was one of the similar looking ones A&A makes), and to me the difference between the two is summed up nicely by weight and COG.

However, those are rapiers, and I'm not a rapierist. Also, I evaluate single hand swords differently from longswords, so to me, differences such as those you describe are already accounted for by sword type.

This may not be a very scientific system, but it doesn't have to be, it just has to work for me. People often ask me which longsword I recommend for their studies, how it would handle, etc. Or they tell me how they want a sword to handle, and I recommend one for them. So far I've been accurate in matching people's needs and wants to the right sword, so I must be doing something right. That doesn't mean pivot points are useless, it just means that thus far, they are useless to me.

[Timo Nieminen]

3 numbers will do:

1) Centre of mass a.k.a. centre of gravity a.k.a. point of balance
2) Mass a.k.a. weight
3) Moment of inertia, which is the rotational inertia, which says how much torque is needed to get any given rotational acceleration. (Some fields of engineering call something very different a "moment of inertia"; the one meant here is the standard meaning in rotational dynamics.)

For handling involving rotation of the sword, you want to know the moment of inertia about the point that the sword rotates about. If the hand is stationary, this point is on the grip. Conventionally, moments of inertia are given about the centre of mass, but this is easily converted to MoI about any other point given the location of centre of mass and the mass.

All three matter. 3) MoI is very important, and is why distal and profile taper are important. If it didn't matter, a sharpened uniform bar with an appropriate pommel would be a well-handling sword.

[Dustin R. Reagan]

[Michael Edelson]

[Harry J. Fletcher]

As most of you know I have long been an advocate of the proposition that early medieval swords were more for percussive use and as such would have been slightly blade heavy. Early viking swords and some German swords bear out this blade heaviness hypothesis. A blade heavy sword aids in cutting much as a cleaver blade does and hence its percussive ability. the PoB would be very close to the PoP which is to say very much toward the end of the blade. considerable strain is placed upon the wrist with these swords. This is not true of all swords or even of a great many swords.

A sword for hand use with a PoB close to the cross has a good balance and agility. One must remember that in the early medeival period that the thrust was not used but the slash and smash of the sword. Thus one must not think of the Viking or Norman sword as rapier type weapon but as one where the wrist could develop better control of the blade to direct it along with the arm to the point one wished to deliver a blow. The PoB would most likely be around 3 inches from the cross.

Swords are of different types and periods and of different tastes but I think that when armor got better and other weapons developed for use or were used such as the war hammer, poleax, morning star (ball and chain) Swords of war (two handed swords, Bastard swords ( one and one half hand swords) were all mixed up and there was no quick delineation between the two but one purpose was paramount...to give more power to the cut! Apparently this was originally a German innovation and spread to the rest of Europe and England. As to the point of balance I would hazard a guess that most of these swords would have had a PoB of about 6 to 8 inches from the cross to keep the sword blade heavy for the cut and slash. These varied somewhat and there was no hard and fast rule as differences between smiths of one region and another as well as personal prerequisites of the end user would have some impact.

In reference to an earlier post it goes back to the stick analogy. If you want a more agile sword the PoB is closer to the cross and this tends to be the case in single hand wielded swords. In longer blades such as two hand swords of war the PoB would more likely be further from the cross.

Now that I have made this clear as mud, I know that I am going to be attacked for my percussion use of the sword hypothesis and simplified analysis of the PoB.

[Timo Nieminen]

[Larry Bohnham]

Thanks to all of you for your input.
Sounds to me like predicting the handling qualities of a sword is very similar to predicting the qualities of a race car or airplane. One can get a general idea from the numerical design specs of how it will handle, but there are always the intangibles that make something work well for one person, but less well for another. Thanks for setting me straight on how to interpret sword specs, it will be helpful going forward in my search for hand-and-a-half sword that I will like.

[Bill Grandy]

[Jean Thibodeau]

Past the numbers the feel in hand tells an experienced swordsman how the sword will perform for him and if it's a well balanced sword for it's type and the type of techniques adapted to the type.

One would judge a single hander, a rapier, a twohander, a 19th century sabre as good or bad within it's type and not using the criteria for a different type.

Personal preference i.e. subjective like or dislike would vary according to experience and habit ! At times one can hate a sword's handling but after getting used to it or learning techniques better adapted to it's nature one can learn to like a sword one first hated.

There is a wide spectrum of good swords that handle very differently but there is also lots of potential " lemons " modern or period swords.