[Adam Simmonds]

hi there,

i have recently been wondering about how light a sword could be while still remaining an effective cutter. I have a sword weighing 730 grams or about 1 pound 8 ounces which cuts well against unarmoured targets. as i have not practised with heavier swords of similar dimensions i am not sure whether there is an increase in cutting performance with increased blade mass (weight).

how light do people out there think or have experienced swords to be while still remaining effective cutters? it seems logical to believe that there must some kind of limits to the weight of swords - on the one hand they must not be so light as to be insubstantial, while remaining not too heavy to be used quickly and continuously.

personally, i like light swords as i find them agile and fast - i just wonder, how light can swords get while still remaining effective cutters and substantial enough to parry etc?

I have seen pictures of cutlasses from the 1700's which, though i was not able to handle them, appeared to be very light, having short and thin blades designed for vigrous close combat slashing, hacking and stabbing.

if anyone could provide any weight specifications for light cut and thrust swords i'd be very interested.


cheers, adam

[Nick Trueman]

Hi

Some of the early Khazar/Magyar Alanic sabres were around 800g. The Magyars experimented with pistol grip 2edge European swords ( Maybe the blades were won in battle or tradded?). They simply bent the tangs and fitted sabre fittings to them. This may suggest there sabres werent effective against european maille? The idea was soon abandoned, as the blades were poorly balanced.

Also many early sabres from this period have sharpened back edges wich has been suggested was done for thrusting.

I have done some fast sabre fighting (blunt) in armour, the light sabres can still parry, but I would think they would be useless against maiile and helmet. Though a good thrust would prob work against maille? I would think these horseman like all other warriors would find weak points to cut against eg like the face.

well theres my 2 cents, hope it helps.

Nick

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

Hello!

In fact a sword can be a good cutter even if light because cutting is not really a matter of mass but one of energy.

Cutting is like a completely inelastic impact. At least, it is so as long as the sword has not exited the cutting medium. In the end, if the sword has not got out, the sword and the target travel at the same speed at the impact point. The energy used for cutting can then be computed (assuming that the target was not moving at the beginning) as:

cutting energy = kinetic energy of the sword before the cut - kinetic energy of the sword after the cut - kinetic energy of the target after the cut.

What you give to a weapon when trying to cut is not really speed, but energy. The perceived efficiency of the cut depends of the ratio between the energy you have put in the sword, and the energy that was used for the cut.

If the target is fixed and cannot move, this ratio does not depend on the mass of the sword, but only on the location of the impact. If the target is allowed to move according to its mass, the key thing is that a light sword will be more efficient against a light target (and also that as the target's mass diminishes, the point of the blade where you have most efficiency moves to the tip). Thus indeed, light swords can be good cutters.

This is however limited by biomechanics. The lighter the sword, the faster it should move to acquire the same energy. But your arms can only give a limited speed, so that really light sword can be less efficient because you cannot transfer the same energy into them.

Note that the exact same could be said about heavy swords. If you are just concerned about cutting, as long as you provide the same energy (all other things like center of gravity, holding point, blade profile, and inertia being the same of course), you will have the same efficiency of cut. If the sword is so heavy that you cannot transfer energy in a realistic motion, it becomes less efficient, but I believe there is much room between the extremes...

Of course the story would be different against armoured target, because you could have elastic impacts then.

A sword mass has other effects. For example, a heavy sword is more difficult to set aside. On the other hand, a light sword is quicker to manipulate. In the end, as usual, it's all a matter of compromises...

Regards

[Jean Henri Chandler]

[Douglas S]

[Greg Coffman]

An acceptable weight range for a sword depends on what kind of sword it is, which is furthermore dependant on a number of other factors such as use, time period, etc. Also, pictures can be very misleading. I don't think of cutlasses as having thin blades or as being light but rather having a thick back spine and "a good heft." Another thing, just because a sword is heavy on paper or at rest does not mean it is slow in the swing.

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

[Scott Hanson]

I think the physical characteristics of the wielder are an important consideration here, as well. As you said earlier Vincent, this is limited by biomechanics. A very strong person and an average person can both only swing their arms at roughly the same speed. If both people had as heavy a weapon as possible that doesn't slow their swing, the energy in the strong person's swing would of course be much higher with a heavier blade. I think the reason for choosing a lighter blade may have more to do with speed of recovery and thrusting, both of which are more hampered by mass than a swing.