How much does a zweihander weigh
Total length cm 58 inches , total weight 2 kg 4 pounds , blade length Blade's width at the shoulder 38 mm, at the point 33 mm. Blade's thickness at the shoulder 10 mm, at the point 4 mm.
National Museum Wroclaw, No. Total length cm 64 inches , total weight 2 kg 4 pounds , blade length Blade's width at the shoulder 35 mm. Blade's thickness 10 mm at the shoulder, 2. The pommel's height base included 5. Note that of the samples here the heaviest is less than 7 and a half pounds and one particularly large weapon of 58 inches weighs no more than 4 pounds.
A practical explanation for the futility of especially heavy weapons is that they are slow. In physics terms, doubling the mass of a weapon can provide twice the strike energy, but doubling the velocity of a strike provides four times the energy. Below is a table of measurements from 69 two-handed great swords from the 16th century in the famed Austrian arsenal of Graz K. Kamniker and P. Krenn, p. Note that the average weight is less than 8 pounds at an average length of 67 inches.
The weapons in the collection range up to 5 pounds difference in their weight. The lightest weapon, a slender blade, is just over than 3. A sword's weight cannot be judged just from its size or blade width. Hilt style and blade cross-section are determining factors in a weapon's mass. Just because a blade is thinner does not mean it is necessarily lighter. For example, an Italian side-sword from circa of From the late s, a large double-handed Kriegsmesser or "war knife" of One historian states, "The true two-handers really did require two hands, though their overall weight averaged only about 8 to 10 pounds.
With blades of up to 45 inches or more, the hilts had to be at least 9 inches to counterbalance such a long blade. The crossguard's length also helped in distributing weight. Military History , Oct , Vol. Despite the facts above, many are convinced today that these large swords simply are, or even have to be, exceptionally heavy. The view is not one limited to modern times. For example, Thomas Page's otherwise unremarkable military fencing booklet, The Use of the Broad Sword , exclaimed nonsense about earlier swords that became largely accepted as fact in the 19th and 20th century.
Revealing something of how much things in that period had changed from earlier skills and knowledge of martial fencing, declared how their: "Form was rude, and their use without Method. They were the Instruments of Strength, not the Weapons of Art.
The Sword was enormous length and breadth, heavy and unwieldy, design'd only for right down chopping by the Force of a strong Arm. Page's views were not uncommon among fencers then used to featherweight smallswords and the occasional saber and short cutlass. European sword making technologies throughout the Middle Ages and Renaissance were quite capable of producing high-quality, lightweight, and flexible steel blades for cutting swords that could hold keen edges.
These weapons were not intended to defeat heavy plate armor with powerful cuts but did evolve from those longswords that were developed for use against armors by thrusting rather than cutting.
Handling real specimens of some of these enormous but beautiful weapons [such as seen in the three images to the right] is enlightening, for their size betrays their exceptional balance. It very quickly becomes clear they were intended for large fighting men to deliver not only powerful slashing blows but great stabbing attacks as well as pole-weapon-like techniques.
Large as they were, they were not ridiculously heavy. For more than a century two-handed greatswords were used less for fighting against armors and more for open battlefield where pike and halberd formations were combined with firearms. Accordingly, just as with its shorter single-hand cousins, the late 15th and early 16th century two-handed greatsword was not a crude excessively heavy bludgeoning weapon but a fairly agile and balanced weapon designed for close-combat in war and occasional duel.
Appreciation to Grzegorz Zabinski for sharing additional data and Stewart Feil for editing assistance. All quotes here are provided by permission of the sources. Clements "never overlay thy selfe with a heavy weapon, for nimblenesse of bodie, and nimblenesse of weapon are two chief helpes for thy advantage" - Joseph Swetnam, The Schoole of the Noble and Worthy Science of Defence Popular media, fantasy games, and uninformed historians frequently give the impression that these immense weapons were awkward, unwieldy and ponderously heavy.
Identification - Definition of the Two-Handed Great Sword To understand what we are discussing it is important to first have a working definition. The respected work, Swords and Hilt Weapons , offers this description of the weapon: "The two-handed sword was a specialized and effective infantry weapon, and was recognized as such in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Woosnam-Savage, at the Royal Armouries writes: "The fighting two-handed sword, weighed on average between lbs.
I give the following three examples, randomly chosen from our own collections, which I hope are adequate to make the point: Two-handed sword, German, c.
Jarko One of the most outrageous and wildly incorrect statements made about Medieval swords is that they were heavy and weighed as much as 40 pounds. If we know how much weight we have in this case "40" pounds , we can figure out how many cubic inches the object would have: 40 pounds divided by 0.
Just for fun, let's see what we get when we say a sword again 48 inches long and 2 inches wide weighs 15 pounds or 10 pounds: 15 pounds divided by 0. Again, we can solve for H: So, the next time When someone says "a longsword weighs 15 pounds", you can reply, "Oh, like this?
Two-handed sword. No: LRK Swedish, c Length: mm Ceremonial Two-handed sword. Swedish, c Length: mm Solingen, Early 17th century. German, 17th century. Length: mm inches Blade: mm inches Weight: g 5. German, Late 16th century. One-and -a-half-handed sword. Southern German, c Length: mm inches Blade: mm inches Weight: g 3 pounds. German, 16th century. Probably German, c. German, c German probably Passau c Late 16th century. January Retrieved 11 May Retrieved Bronze Age sword.
Jian Dao. Dadao Zhanmadao. Liuyedao Wodao Changdao Yanmaodao. Miao dao. Khanda Firangi Talwar Kayamkulam vaal Pata. Kampilan Kalis Barong Panabas.
Talwar Kastane Krabi. Macuahuitl Macana. Khopesh Acinaces. With your heaviest weapons only weighing 13 pounds at their most extreme, this paints a good picture of how light these hand weapons tended to be.
Something for RPG and video game developers to keep in mind in the future. What's your favorite fantastical nonmetal armor material in popular culture? Like how in cr their cleric wears beetle shell armor, or how the dunmer in TES make armor from a bone and resin mixture or whatever it is they do for bone mold. My favourite fantastical nonmetal armours both come from the game Battle Brothers which I highly recommend to you guys especially with the new DLC looking absolutely delicious.
The first is the Lindwurm armour set and the second is the Davkul armour set. So this is a tough question in general due to some very iffy scholarship for both areas. Arabo-Persian weaponry is almost entirely abandoned academically with the exception of a few sources which tend to be fairly expensive like Dr.
Most of what is available revolves around the Ottoman world with almost nothing regarding the Seljuqs, Mamluks, or any preceding cultural group. The best sources I can recommend are an acquaintance of mine who specialises in this as well as two other databases linked here , here , and here. All three of these locations have source material readily available should you wish to seek out the actual sources yourself. There are some benefits to these added bits, but not enough to make considerable impacts.
This is why when fashion changes, so too does the armour. The only issues with the Witcher depictions of armour are usually the waists being just slightly too low which does greatly inhibit movement. Were Roman pila not designed to bend at the 'neck' so that they couldn't be picked up and thrown by the enemy? Would that not make them ineffective as stabbing weapons? A javelin stuck through your shield, whether bent or not, is still going to essentially cripple your shield and therefore fighting ability.
I asked a noble friend of mine who is more comfortable with western weaponry than I am and received the following answer. By using shields usually. This is the reason most shields in close combat contexts like these are pretty large. It largely comes down to the context of warfare itself.
0コメント