[Robin Palmer]

Being serious when discussing arms and armour is no sin in fact I find people who do not take it seriously annoying so please be serious besides a serious question promotes good debate and advances our understanding of our interest.

Heavy or light is a question which has been argued since man picked up the first stick and whacked his nabour over the skull. I have used swords for thirty years in re-enactment made them for twenty plus handled numerous origionals over the years. Various people have made a very good case concerning the somewhat inaccurate press on medieval weapons I would only add a couple of points for consideration.

referance the apparant weight difference between european and oriental weapons I suspect it has a lot to do with armour development weapons are designed to combat the defences the users faces. On the whole asian armour was lighter rarely developing to the extent european did. Not least because of climate tropical jungles and deserts do not mix well with plate armour thus weapons did not need to be so heavy.

I would point out that the katana we see today is the product of the shoganate and the urbanization of the samurai. historically the standard katana has had blades up to 42 inches long many a meter long are held in shrines. These would handle completly differently to the ones we see today especially as the Katana has no pommel in the westen sense to counter the long blade.

Plate armour beyond giving better protection against kinetic enegy strikes than mail it is in fact easyier and cheaper to make sheet plate than mail where the metal has to be drawn into wire then linked.

One last point which is often overlooked in this argument is balance. Take two swords of identical weight one has point of balance 6 fingers down blade the other three the difference is considerable effecting handling speed and strike. i have been making swords for twenty years and the one thing i have learned is that without proper balance the best looking sword is an iron bar. I have seen and handled a lot of beautifully finished swords that have been totaly ruined by lack of attention to balance. Beyond allowing free movement and rapid response to attacks proper balance increases strike by creating the right movement to focus the available enegy on target.

As to which is better heavy or light neither as always the middle ground is the way to go light enough to use easily heavy enough to deliver the strike needed.

[Alex Oster]

(Dangerously close to a samurai vs knight thread, but I'll toss in my personal view on contrasting weapon types and by the same token time periods)

One thing to consider is that a weapon used two handed will have a diferent "feeling" than a single handed weapon. This can get over looked. I think that in looking at the development of armor and weapons over time, one can see that both constantly evolved to match each other. When one became good, the other became better, and then the prior caught up and forced the other to do the same. Any sword or armor was great at the time of its invention, as were the weight and style of weapons. Hindsight is 20/20, so one just can't compare any time frame, style, region, or methodology against ANY other without loosing the integrity of the history of the arms race. From sticks and stones, to ICBM's and kevlar, picking any two to compare agaist the other just dosent work no matter how close in time they are. Even 20 years apart is the differance between a single fire bolt action and a gas operated 30round standard issue rifle. One wouldn't think about comparing the two, so even if its sabre vs scimitar, they can't be contrasted for performance agaist each other.

On a side note, I did see a cute samurai vs knight video on youtube the other day. It wasn't made to proove anything, but it was funny to watch as sheer horsing around.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDV5fontZbc&feature=related

[Anders Backlund]

[Bill Grandy]

Hi Robin,

[Chase S-R]

have you ever worn armour?????????? chain-mail to me is more restrictive than plate armour as its weight is un distributed. leather armour is light but can also be restrictive. in duelling a single opponent less armour is wise however in battle there are mmany men and projectiles in battle the best fighters do not always win as often pure chance dictates who lives and dies. and more armour will protect you from more. as for swords 3 lbs of balenced weight feels like little more than a willow wand, try holding an albion hollow ground blade and you will see what i mean. there is a large fallacy that a heavy sword helps in cutting but it does not as it weakens your arm. the best cutter is a very thin sword quite litterally paper thin. but width from edge to edge does help. viking sword s are notorius for being heavy but this is also not true as the long fuller helps to lighten the sword for the wrist movements in this style of fighting. when you said asian swords are light you were wrong in the sense atleast as far as china the early chineese sword that i have is an authentic one and easly the heaviest in my collection.

[M. Eversberg II]

It's the age-old Hollywood stereotype (or should I say, Victorian?). At least this member has taken the first step into not believing it anymore

M.

[Michael Edelson]

I just thought I'd chime in on the katana weight issue, being a "just add water" expert on Japanese swords.

I've had the opportunity to handle upwards of a hundred antique katana ranging from the early koto period to the showa period, and a fair number have passed through my hands. Katana tend to fall into the same spectrum as the lighter European swords, usually under 3lbs (in my experience less than 2.5). There are exceptions, of course, but if in doubt, go lighter.

My gendai is considered heavy by modern practicioners and is a hair under 2.5lbs. Katana tend to have COGs at the upper range of what many of us are used to (mine is 5"), though certainly not as far out as some of the early period European cut oriented swords I've had the priveledge of handling, so a katana that weighs 3.5lbs could feel like a monster (like the Hanwei W&T...I've never handled an antique that felt that heavy).

When considering the weight of antiques, however, it is important to keep in mind that a katana or tachi will have gone through several polishes throughout its working life. Several of the koto pieces I've handled have been polished so many times that the core steel showed up in the hada (grain). I owned a koto wakizashi that had this. The point is, koto swords (really old katana) were a bit heavier than they are today. The same is true to a lesser extent of more recent antiques.

Oh, and I've never seen an antique nihonto with a 42" blade. Ceremonial swords existed on both sides of the pond, though. The longest blade I've ever seen on a real katana was under 30". Longer swords existed, of course, but not by much (and we're not counting katana-like pole arms such as the no-dachi).

[Michael Edelson]

[P. Cha]

You know, I'm not sure how historical it was but if I am using barrowed chain (i.e. not very well fitted for me), I found that some leather lines weaved in through the chain around the chest and waist makes it fit a lot better and easier to deal with.

[M. Eversberg II]

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

[Michael Edelson]

[Robin Palmer]

Hi Bill I consider myself duly picked up. generalizations are not a good idear. I was aware of the European style armours in 16th century Japan but feel that my statement in general stands. Generaly middle eastern and oriental armour was lighter than European. I agree they were more than capable of making plate and some did but the full harness seen in Europe did not appear. Even in japan plate only appeared after the Spanish introduced it and did not even begin to replace traditional styles. I believe the main reason why the Japanese did not embrace plate earlier may well be due to the fact Japan is not an iron rich country as I understand it the best swords were always made with imported iron.

The term lighter may be wrong the Otterman turks had ample access to European plate yet preferred to use mail and fabric defences which was better suited to the climate, the same in India both peoples had highly developed metal working skills. It is fact that steel imported from India to Britain in the early 1800s was considered superior to all but the best made in Britain at the time.

On the matter of swords I bow to superior knowledge I do not claim to be an expert on the Japanese sword my statements are based on what I have read. I read somewhere that during the conquest of the north island swords became longer up to 42 inch and were referred to as Moor swords. I am more than happy to be corrected.

As to my statement on plate being easyier and cheaper to make than mail I stand by it the man who made it to me was a blacksmith of fifty years experience. Plate is a matter of forging sheet which is not rocket science all you require is a good team of strikers plus medieval smiths used water powered hammers to ease the work. With mail the smith has to forge the metal into a bar then draw it down a long and time consuming process requiring repeated passes through the formers. It then requires winding into rings and linking a much longer process than forging and shaping a sheet. Plus requiring more equipment and skilled labour to create the end product. In Europe rising labour costs were an important factor in the middle ages one which saw huge changes many underestimated.

[Robin Palmer]

Hi Anders as i understand it the temple swords fall into two classes those made specifically for donation to a temple rather like the Greeks used to dedicate especially made shields. The second were blades captured or family blades given to dedicate a victory. The key is that whichever type once given to the temple they were outside the normal rules and protected so when the Shoganate decreed that swords be cut down to certain length they escaped. As a result they are as made providing a accurate reference of the history of the sword.

[Ed Toton]

[Chris Arrington]

[Bennison N]

[David Beams]

Hi everyone,

new poster here. I've been into swords for a little over a year and have been reading these forums for a while (i've been posting at SBG for some time... 'david')

Anyway. Interesting discussion here. What i would like to know more about is people's personal preference when it comes to weights and balances of specific types of swords, especially swords that they own or have handled extensively enough to form solid opinions on.

for example, if someone has lots of experience with viking swords do you tend to prefer lighter ones (maybe under 2.5lbs or something) with a balance point far down the blade (maybe 6" or more...) or heavier ones with slightly closer balances? (i'm just pulling those numbers off the top of my head... hopefully you get the idea though )

but what do you guys think in terms of handling and/or effectiveness as related to weight and balance? (again answers will likely be personal preferences... )

my experience is pretty limited. i own a Gen2 Witham River Viking, which i love, but its around 3lbs with a balance about 6" down the blade... so, while i don't have much experience with other viking blades, i know that there are MANY better handling one's out there (hopefully i'll own some of them one day soon too )

I'm also waiting on an atrim 1566 from the 'pay off the machine sale'. while i havn't handled it yet, it seems pretty interesting in terms of weight and balance too since its pretty light for a sword its size (36" blade 48" overall and under 3lbs with a balance of like 5.5" or so). what do you guys think of something like that compared to a heavier sword of the same type (XIIa or XIIIa) with, perhaps, a closer balance? i've briefly handled an atrim 1319 which seems pretty similar to what i'm expecting from the 1566 - it was very fast in two hands and a great light cutter - but could 'war swords' that were this light be as effective on the battlefield as one's heavier by at least half a pound?

sorry for the rambling on my first post... hopefully it'l spark some discussion

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

[Elling Polden]

Well, in general, my experience is that light swords are more responsive and agile; you can partially compensate for a higher weight with a Point of Balance close to the cross, but a lighter sword does not need this.
In my experience a blade in the 2 pound range is actually better of with a PoB a bit forward, to retain blade presence.

However, weight is just one property of a sword. But in general, you want your sword to be as light as the other properties allow.
If I have the choice of two 85 cm blade striking swords, I'll go with the lightest. Same if I have the choice of two diamond section hand a halfs with blades stiff enough to stab at armour, or two katana of similar measurements.

(and, oh, I have worn armour. For days on end. Running after pesky unarmoured sword and buckler-men, and catching them. And, oh, being lightly armored in a duel is a really, really bad idea...)