[Pedro Paulo Gaião]

Hi, I was revisiting some material to adapt a viking sword to an RPG, but became troubled by things I unexpected. First, I thought the guard of the viking sword featured an important role in its balance, but Simon Coupland's Carolingian Arms and Armor in the Ninth Century just mentions that the edge tappering as fundamental for shifting the center of gravity towards the handle, making it more maneuverable and faster. So: was there any alteration in the handle's weight compared to the previous spathae? Does it matter at all?

My other question relates to the fact that, besides the edge tappering and its implications, is there any difference between viking sword and pre-800 dC swords? I got the impression that migration-era swords were slightly longer and thicker, don't know if it's true.

Finally, not entirely related though: does a falchion or other cleavers actually needs some center of gravity care in their construction?

[J.D. Crawford]

Any increased weight on the handle (cross, pommel) is going to alter the static center of gravity on a sword, which dominates how it feels when held out motionless. But there's more to it than that; there's kinematics and dynamics, the properties of an object in motion and how it responds to an externally applied force. The blade is the dominant feature of a sword, so the distribution of mass along the blade will have a big impact on how it behaves in motion. Increased profile taper (width) and distal taper (thickness) toward the tip has a big impact on mass distribution, reducing inertia toward the tip where it counts the most. A sword that accelerates or decelerates more easily in response to a manual torque on the handle will feel more maneuverable.

Regarding Viking swords, one notices an increase in profile taper around the the 9th century, associated with the transition from Geibig type 2 to types 3 and 4. You can find more info on this here: https://myArmoury.com/feature_geibig.html

[Tyler Jordan]

What kind of RPG is it that you need to drill down into this level of detail? Consider me curious.

[Craig Johnson]

[Mikko Kuusirati]

[Pedro Paulo Gaião]

[J.D. Crawford]

[Luka Borscak]

I became aware of this especially after I aquired bare blade Albion uses for their Reeve/Bayeux. So light and agile even without fittings. So, when I ordered custom fittings for it based on the famous spanish Ulfberht (the widlass tried to replicate) I specifically asked for them to be as light as possible and the result was my favourite onehanded sword for handling and cutting. Albion Gaddhjalt is second, and it is also a light blade with light fittings, but has a great punch because it is long and PoB is quite far out. But handles great because of low total weight.

Historically, pre 800's sword fittings were often mostly organic and very light and balance HAD to be achieved with good blade mass distribution. After 800 sword makers could help themselves a bit more with fittings, but still, a good sword has a blade that needs minimum help of fittings for mass distribution. Most big and bulky metal fittings are hollow. Profile taper can be used for mass distribution, of course, but in "viking" age it is not so dramatic to have a big influence...

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

It's not that hilt components do not influence balance; they do so of course, and many bare blades are not good swords yet. But there are things you can't alter with hilt components, and therefore some defects of the blade that you won't be able to fix with hilt assembly. The most salient one is the "blade mass", the amount of mass that must be overcome when you move for example the blade node. No matter how much mass you pile on the hilt, you'll never make that part lighter, and you could even make it marginally heavier.

The hilt component that has the most influence on balance, dynamic and static, is the pommel. The cross is secondary - which is why you see pommels that have mass and not just ergonomics, but crosses that are mostly structural and seldom purposedly heavy.

Regards,