| Author |
Message |
|
Vladimir Sokolov
Location: Russia Joined: 03 Nov 2010
Posts: 15
|
 Posted: Sun 10 Apr, 2011 2:58 pm Post subject: Zweihander dimensions |
 |
|
Hello!
I am looking for zweihander/bidenhander dimensions, specially looking for dimensions Livrustkammaren two handed sword  .
Thanks in advance!
|
|
  |
 |
|
Aleksei Sosnovski
|
|
 |
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Apr, 2011 1:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
In particular, this sword is "Ceremonial Two-handed sword. No: LRK 16370",
The details:
Ceremonial Two-handed sword
(Germany) end of Sixteenth C.
Length: 1422 mm (55.98 inches)
Blade 1029 mm (40.51 inches)
Weight: 2700 gr (5.95 lbs)
It, and other swords, are also featured here: http://ejmas.com/jwma/articles/2004/jwmaart_shore_1004.htm
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
 |
|
|
Vladimir Sokolov
Location: Russia Joined: 03 Nov 2010
Posts: 15
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Apr, 2011 3:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
It's possible to get detailed measurements for late 16 century zweihander like on zornhau.de ? (http://www.zornhau.de/source/schwertexkursion/ZEF-1.pdf)
|
|
|
|
|
Simon G.
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Apr, 2011 4:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | In particular, this sword is "Ceremonial Two-handed sword. No: LRK 16370",
The details:
Ceremonial Two-handed sword
(Germany) end of Sixteenth C.
Length: 1422 mm (55.98 inches)
Blade 1029 mm (40.51 inches)
Weight: 2700 gr (5.95 lbs) |
I always wondered how and why some swords in ARMA's article were classified as "ceremonial". Regarding this model, I see nothing warranting it; its looks don't seem much "ceremonial" and 2700g seems well within functional range (as opposed to one which weighs 5900g...).
By the way, should this interest someone, here is a spreadsheet compiling Zweihander dimensions from several sources :
http://www.filesavr.com/G2TCT7NV26D5TQF
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vladimir Sokolov
Location: Russia Joined: 03 Nov 2010
Posts: 15
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Apr, 2011 3:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Can anybody explain me this thing - what means "klingendicke - 20 mm vor Ort" in zornhau measurements (http://www.zornhau.de/source/schwertexkursion/ZEF-1.pdf) ? Klingendicke means sword width, but what means "20 mm vor Ort - 5mm" ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nicholas A. Gaese
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada Joined: 06 Aug 2007
Posts: 100
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Apr, 2011 7:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I suspect that in this case they wrote Klingendick as to mean "blade thickness" 20mm from the point, as opposed to blade width. The word dick works either way like that I soppose since it just means "fat" as far as I remember.
|
|
|
|
|
Simon G.
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Apr, 2011 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Self-edited out for stupidity (see below)
Last edited by Simon G. on Tue 12 Apr, 2011 7:52 pm; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vladimir Sokolov
Location: Russia Joined: 03 Nov 2010
Posts: 15
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Apr, 2011 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
"20 mm vor Ort - 5mm" - so that means "20 mm from the point blade thickness is 5 mm" ?!
|
|
|
|
|
Simon G.
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Apr, 2011 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | "20 mm vor Ort - 5mm" - so that means "20 mm from the point blade thickness is 5 mm" ?! |
Ah, yes. That would be exactly that. I misread it above (edited my message). Sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aleksei Sosnovski
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Apr, 2011 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
This data is very interesting, however I have some concerns about it. A 2-handed sword 6 mm at the crossguard and 5 m for most of the blade with almost no profile taper? Well that should be a whippy blade! I have a reenactment zweihander that is 4.8-4.9 mm thick for its whole length but has a pretty strong profile taper (from 50 mm at the base to 30 mm at the point, proportions very similar to the sword in the first post). The whole sword is 156 cm and weight is around 2900 g. This sword definitely lacks stiffness in the forte and in the handle (and it has a full-width tang). Increasing round bar diameter 2 times would increase its stiffness 8 or even 16 times so 1 mm does matter here, but I still don't think that 6 mm would be enough. Round numbers add even more suspicion, though other measurements are made with good precision. Creating a replica with exactly same measurements would faithfully reproduce the sword's behavior, but one should remember that there were swords that handled poorly and there were swords that handled perfectly for their intended use but would seem too whippy or poorly balanced or heavy to us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Gallo
|
| Posted: Wed 13 Apr, 2011 1:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Simon G. wrote: | | Quote: | In particular, this sword is "Ceremonial Two-handed sword. No: LRK 16370",
The details:
Ceremonial Two-handed sword
(Germany) end of Sixteenth C.
Length: 1422 mm (55.98 inches)
Blade 1029 mm (40.51 inches)
Weight: 2700 gr (5.95 lbs) |
I always wondered how and why some swords in ARMA's article were classified as "ceremonial". Regarding this model, I see nothing warranting it; its looks don't seem much "ceremonial" and 2700g seems well within functional range (as opposed to one which weighs 5900g...).
By the way, should this interest someone, here is a spreadsheet compiling Zweihander dimensions from several sources :
http://www.filesavr.com/G2TCT7NV26D5TQF |
I wondered the same. under 6 lbs for a sword that size is not particularly heavy and the length of the handle makes them remarkably maneuverable via leverage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a standard topic