opinions on heavy vs. light swords -- myArmoury.com

P. Cha · Posted: Tue 12 Feb, 2008 11:17 am Post subject:

Bennison, If you read further, I do admit that I don't use a lot of daos. So I'm not rulling out a fast dao...but most I DO use weights less then 1.5 kg (which goes out above 3 lbs I beleive? and the daos I do use ate less then actually...or maybe a smidge over). Anyways why I don't consider dao to be fast in my experience is that why yes you CAN do forms very fast. Forms were made for you to use the balance of the various daos it was made for and move fluidly and quickly...the problem happens when you need to BREAK from the traditional forms. Then they show their slowness.

When I said jians aren't particularly fast, I mean they are about as fast as arming swords. Yes a quick well made arming sword in unbelievably fast...just like a quick well made jian. A poorly made jian will be slow...like a poorly made arming sword.

As for the korean sword...It's just THAT particular style (that I saw one example of...if somebody has seem more and know what I saw is wrong, then please share, but that is the ONLY example I have seen anywhere).

To david...my personal preference is for balance close to the hilt. So I favor Type XIV and XV(a). I actually have a pretty easy time adjusting for the size of the blade for some odd reason so that isn't too much an issue for me. As for mass...as long as it isn't too heavy of light off what the style should be I'm okay. A few onces...not so bad...half a pound to a pound above/below what is considered heavy/light for the style...too much. That AT seems to be right on the edge of too light for my taste. Note that this is all my personal taste...as per your request Happy

.

James R.Fox · Posted: Mon 17 Mar, 2008 7:58 pm Post subject:

Gentle Sirs-I would point out that some of you forget the issue of armour. From my reading, the far eastern countries, Indo-china, Burma ,Maylasia, as a rule used no armour, or only very light armour due to climate. Therefore a light dao was a good weapon. On the other hand Europeans have always used heavy armour as a rule. Finally, horse archers tend to use light armour as well, hence the popularity of lacquered leather lamilar and light mail in central asia and the hotter portions of the middle east, who relied as a rule on horse archery.

Lafayette C Curtis · Posted: Fri 21 Mar, 2008 3:51 am Post subject:

James R.Fox · Posted: Fri 21 Mar, 2008 9:33 am Post subject:

Lafayette-Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I was dicussing general rules. not specific tactics. I admit I did not know Sassanid cataphracts used archery as well.The few accounts of Roman-Sassanid conflict I have read stated that the cataphracts were backed by 3-4 times their number in light horse archers to soften the enemy up for a cataphract charge.This was a common tactic among steppe peoples who had enough metal, by trade or by holding more civilized people as slaves, to arm and armour cataphracts. The Sythians, Sarmatians,Huns and Mongols all armed their nobles as cataphracts when possible, but the only people I was aware of where the cataphracts carried bows as well were the Mongols.(Rene Grousset " Empire of the Steppes" Herodotus' chapters on the Scythians,etc) My Mistake. Also, I was referring to war, not judicial duels, etc, I know from the ARMA translations of fighting Manuals these were often fought w/o armour. As for daggers and Estocs,why teach all the tactics in these fight books about how to cut and thrust at armour with a longsword? The only use of daggers I saw was when you had thrown your enemy or knocked him down.They had ceased to use estocs by that time, but the knights always did love that mesericorde.Maybe I read too selectively Happy

Bill Tsafa · Posted: Sun 23 Mar, 2008 10:27 am Post subject:

I will only give an opinion of single handed swords and rapiers because that is where my fighting experience is. I am still forming my opinion on longswords and other two-handed swords.

My opinion of the desired weight and length of swords has changed as my fighting experience has increased. Rapiers typically have most of their weight in the hilt because of all the hand protection. I have seen people use rapiers weighting as much as 3.5 lbs. As I have gotten better in my bladework, I prefer to use a rapier with no hand protection, just a straight cross and two side-rings. This has allowed me to bring the weight down to 2.5 lbs with a 40" blade. Since most of my rapier work is with the tip, a lighter or heavier rapier does not have much effect on how I use it. A heavier rapier only tires the arm faster. So weight effects how long I can fence effectively. However, I usually find that the hand protection effects the balance along the y-axis of the sword. Most rapier are heavier on the knuckle side. With a straight cross the sword is balanced along its y-axis and I can rotate the quillons efficiently with minimum torque.

For single handed swords that would be used with a shield I have found that the desired weight has everything to do with the length. On an arming sword with a 30 inch blade I prefer the weight be in the 2 lb 13 oz area up to 3 lbs. The reason is that the long blade makes a large arch at high speed that delivers a lot of force. As the weight of a sword of this length goes over 3 lbs I start to feel stress in my elbow and shoulder as I initiate rolling cuts. In order for cuts to have any effect on light armor with such a light sword they must be done with speed. With a short sword, one that has a 24" blade I prefer the weight be about 3.5 lbs. The shorter blade means that the tip will be traveling slower, so I find more mass is necessary to make up for it. With a short heavy sword I can still initiate rolling cuts with no stress in my elbow or shoulder. One issue with longer swords is how to land effective strikes with the forte if the swords effectiveness is based upon its tip speed. I have found that you can still strike effectively with the forte when you have to if you punch the sword out a bit.

So in my opinion, a longer sword should be lighter and a shorter one heavier.

James R.Fox · Posted: Sun 23 Mar, 2008 10:39 am Post subject:

Vassilis-Thanks a lot for the info. Since I don't fight anymore, This is the kind of practical experience I don't have, and explains a lot abut such weapons as the gladius,the falcata, and the longsword.It also explains more clearly the fact that the average medieval knights sword only weighed 2-3 lb.

Lafayette C Curtis · Posted: Thu 27 Mar, 2008 10:45 pm Post subject:

M. Eversberg II · Posted: Fri 28 Mar, 2008 7:13 am Post subject:

Yeah, they're versatile creatures to say the least. One must imagine how much it costs to equip a single one O_O.

M.

Bill Grandy · myArmoury Team