[S.R. Lewis]

Out of curiosity, I was wondering if anyone on here might know what the advantages and disadvantages of a leafbladed sword would likely be when compared to a conventional straight blade?

[Artis Aboltins]

Well, first disadvantage that comes to mind is the different distribution of weight in the blade itself, and second - difficult blade shape and profile that makes it harder for maker to produce such blades without giving them any significant advantages to warrant such effort.

[Bartek Strojek]

One could theoretically gain some width around CoP, while possibly taking it from other parts, without making balance and profile too forward...

It would be probably weird in the thrust in most cases.

Anyway, from whatever reason, they seem to have pretty much disappeared in Europe after first millennium had begun.

[Stephen Curtin]

I think in a short blade of may about 25" or less, a leaf shape has advantages over a straight one. The increased mass at the COP, the shape also lends itself to a cut and thrust style of use, and the waisted part of the blade would also be fairly useful for back handed slashes.

BTW, all of the above is just my observations, based on no hands on experience of leaf blades.

[Jeroen Zuiderwijk]

There's a lot of myths around the leafblade:

Myth 1: it brings the COB forwards. This is not the case. The leafblade is created by moving material sideways. The taper is usually quite more severecm compared to straight swords.

Myth 2: They are more difficult to make then straight swords. Making something straight is much more difficult by hand then something curved. Slightly more or less curved is still curved, while there's only one straight. It's the simple geometric shapes that are the most difficult to make by hand.

For short swords, the leafshape has many advantages. It gives the greatest in plane bending strenth at the COP, where the in plane bending moment is the greatest. And in gives the greatest out of plane bending strength near the hilt, due to more material in thickness. The curved edge also makes the blade cut better, which is improved further by the thinner cross-section. In a thrust, the increasing width creates more damage. The only real downside is that in a thrust, the blade needs a high out of plane bending strength all the way. That's why in the bronze age you see both straight and leafbladed swords simultaneously, some more optimized for cutting, others more for thrusting (though still used for cutting too). The real reason for no leafbladed swords later, is that the advantages become less as they get stretched out to greater lengths. But you do still see the same principles repeated in later short weapons, but then single edged (falcata,yatagan, machete-sax!)

[Timo Nieminen]

[Eric G.]

As of today my collection is rather small, but it just so happens that one of my swords is a leaf blade.

I really like my leaf blade. It is not a high end sword, but I feel like it is a very pretty sword nonetheless. As far as performance goes, I feel like my leaf blade would be well suited for "hacking" rather than "cutting." I remember reading somewhere that the old Falcata swords that perform more like an axe than a sword. I feel like my leaf blade is somewhere between a Falcata and a regular one handed sword. It still handles well on the thrust, there's just a little more mass in the front of the blade than normal.

Also, just as a side note, I have thought more than once that the Oakeshott's XIV's remind me of a more medieval version of a leaf blade. I can't say why, but there it is.

[Artis Aboltins]

[Carl W.]

Jeroen Zuiderwijk wrote: