I'd say these are totally different given that in one case one has to manage weight and leverage, and in the other weight and recoil. Handguns reaching 2kg isn't unheard of (some large wheellocks, some modern high-power guns...). There's still a limit to what one can hold with the arm outstretched though.
You think ppl prefer metric? Ugh, keep your killa-grahm whatever, we Americans might have havta think again about coming to rescue the country we defeated twice then had to save twice should need arise in the future
So it all comes down to the biomechanical limits of the human body being able to handle a combination of leverage (blade length beyond the wrist) and weight, plus depending on training?
Broadly speaking, yes. Different weights can contibute to different purposes (greater weight = greater inertia, which gives some advantages and disadvantages), yet that is always within the context of biomechanics putting both hard and soft ceilings on it.
@johnfisk811 yep, it's always at 50-60 pounds for infantry gear (for fighting, not marching). There was a video I saw some years ago, where they had a modern soldier, firefighter, and plate harness wearing (iirc) hema practitioner. They all have very similar amount as of weight in both a light load (no helmet, extra magazine, oxygen tank, exc) vs full load, and went through a fairly long obstical course.
I've seen rapiers/sideswords and basket hilted swords which are around 1500g! They got a longer blade than an arming sword and its usually thicker to make it better for the thrust and on top of it, they have more hand protection... Just imagine a girl holding it in the Verdadera Destreza Style... (holding a 1.5kg longsword in your average Kendo-guard would be much easier!)
I've also seen elsewhere that combat load [CEFO] hasn't changed much since the days of the legions. It's basically what a man can "comfortably" deal with.
Aha, "comfortably", a term of art in the infantry world. I can remember lugging my own loadout plus the tripod and barrel bag for the M60 plus ammunition for the M60 plus one mortar round for the M224. "Comfortable" was not the word I would have employed!
I think for non sword people, the medieval/pre industrial and earlier swords have a visually much thicker/broader blade compared to more modern swords, which proportionally appear to have a much slender blade. This may lead to the myth that older swords were heavier.
folks also forget to consider the weight of complex hilts and assume that a more nimble point means an overall lighter weight weapon when in reality it is of equal weight or even heavier that is balanced closer to the hand.
Also, non-sword people usually see pictures of swords. 2D approximation of a 3D object. And the difference between reality and what they imagine might very often lie in the thickness.
I have a theory that the myth that medieval swords or swords in general originates from Hollywood. In early films if there were swords involved the sword props were made much thicker than real ones to make the edges more blunt and safer to use and as a result the swords were much heavier than real ones. So when the actors were interviewed they would mention that the swords they used were really heavy and maybe wondered how medieval soldiers could use them all day. Since more people tend to watch/read interviews of actors than historians the myths started and everyone kind of accepted them
@@exantiuse497 I think it also stems from masculinity fantasies of authors whether we are talking about books, films or video games. Swords are the representation of manhood and the heavier the sword, the manlier the man is, supposedly.
One UA-camr recently showed an original one-handed reverse edge falchion of 1500g and it was in beautiful condition (including the grip and the decorations on it still visible). He said that it wasn't quite as choppy as an axe but he can't imagine it being used without a shield... and that's coming from someone who has handled Flammberge two-handed swords and poleaxes...
Matt! Beefiest handweapon for the 19th century included a musket and bayonet which you've mentioned matches a polearm. Just wanted to show I've been paying attention ha
Hey Matt! Matt! When are you finally going to talk about fending off tens if not dozens of guards just to grab a rope, cut it and graciously take off over your attackers? I find that somehow lacking in your videoessays, and its fundamental to swordfighting
It's funny, people really don't have a good sense for how much swords weigh. When I got my LK Chen Town Guard, I let my non-swordy partner handle it, and her reaction was "Wow, that's really light!" Which of course made me chuckle, since it's actually at the upper end of weight for single-handed swords and even weighs more than some longswords. (In fact, it's just shy of the 1500g "upper bound", at 1420g.) I don't know where this idea of medieval swords being massively heavy came from. But I'm going to blame the Victorians, since that's usually a pretty safe bet.
@@caderly123 Matt waved it around and promised a review, but who's to say when that's actually coming. So, just to establish a baseline, this is my first sword. I haven't had the opportunity to try out any others, so I really can't tell you how it compares to any other swords out there. That said, it's a purchase that I have been *extremely* pleased with. I fell in love immediately. All I had to do was draw it and wave it around a little to know I made the right choice. It fits right in the hand and feels great to swing around even if you're unpracticed and not in particularly good shape, like me. I've only done light cutting with it so far, but it's nice and sharp straight from the factory with a sturdy, appropriately springy blade. I do have one of the initial run that had the sandblasted finish on the guard. I don't mind it, in fact I prefer it. But I know a lot of others don't. Fortunately for them, the newer ones have a satin finish on the guard instead. You can see what the new finish looks like in this KoA video: ua-cam.com/video/ni2P7b7IWjE/v-deo.html If you like the style, it's a fantastic sword.
For people who have never handled a sword before, or who don't have strong wrists/forearms, even relatively light swords can feel heavier than they might actually be if you get them to wield one.
You could know nothing about swords and still surmise that there would not be much difference in weight between types/eras of one handed swords. Being one handed and used exclusively by humans, you could just kinda guess that there'd be a weight beyond which a one handed sword becomes an edged club.
Hey Matt, could you possibly make a video discussing complex hilted longswords/two-handed swords? I know in the video you made with Todd a few years ago about that Swiss saber, you mentioned that there are some, and the Hanwei Rhinelander you reviewed a while ago could count as one, but it seems like they are far less common than one-handed sideswords and such. Could you discuss why you think that is? Is it because you don't get hit in the hand as much because the sword is longer? Is it that the longsword faded out of popularity before complex hilts really became popular? Would like to hear you weigh in on that.
complex hilts are a bugger to wear, plus expensive. Two-handed swords (obligate and optional) are a bugger to wear. Combine them, and it's pretty obvious why they're rare.
A video dedicated to the Castillon swords would be great! It's one of the coolest medieval designs and such an important collection of swords, and given the amount of interest given to the Alexandria swords, it's really only right that the Castillons get more love. You should also make a video about the earliest state regulated sword models across the world! Would be really interesting to see, given that there where countries who instituted regulation patterns way before the napoleonic era swords!
One thing that comes to mind is rifle and bayonet verses a cavalry sword or a sabre. I can't remember which source I read it in Hutton or Roworth but how frequently did that match up happen on the 19th century battlefield?
I got to hold a civil war era cavalry saber when I was 14. At the time, it seemed heavy. The guy and his wife , liked having kids visit. Guess they were bit bored in their retirement and he got to show off his collection. 69 now so main point is the fascination I do recall had about the. Small collection they had and that old "wrist-breaker" he had.
My one handed swords range from 287g for my late 18th century English smallsword to 1790g for my Albion Ulvbane. The average overall might be around 1000g
An excellent informative video matt thanks.. could you briefly touch on the strength issues with swords from different periods with the knowledge of better steel lighter weight maybe ..shouldn't be an issue with anything I might worry about but a gr8 vid deserves note maybe ..thanks in advance Peace
I imagine you'd see a period where the swords are the same size but lighter (reflecting more optimized steel), followed by a period where the swords get longer enough to make the same weight (e.g., 1kg @ 28 in -> 800g sword @ 28 in -> 1kg @ 30 in.)
As a longtime viewer of the channel I am beginning to suspect that when Matt gets bored he starts weighing his sword collection. If he's underfoot in the house while he does it, Lucy banishes him to the shed to make a video about sword weight.
I've always wondered if this myth comes from people trying to handle a sword or observe a blade and feel that if it's more inclined for choppy choppy then it's "heavier" and then that miscommunication twisted into talks about weight.
Based on what Pietro Monte wrote about how weapons should be light, I suspect some of heavier historical swords were simply excessive. I'm sure a strong person could effectively use a 1,600g rapier, for example, but I doubt it'd be the ideal choice even for them.
The Bronze Age is huge, and varies quite a bit across the various culture across the globe. However you will find the distribution tends to become a bit left shifted. For much of the Bronze Age swords are of quite a bit shorter designs than the transition to steel age blades. For example looking at the super populate Naue II type sword which was used for 700+ years you’d see a mass distribution probably between 450-950g on a 40-60cm blade.
@@dlatrexswords Is that because bronze is more fungible - more easily re-used? Or because bronze blades cannot be so large? Or because Bronze Age warriors were wimpier?
@@QuentinStephens generally speaking bronze swords were shorter, and used for slightly different types of combat (closer to the format of Roman era soldiers) than later period swords. There are exceptions. Long two handed bronze Jian during the Eastern Zhou and Qin dynasty. Type A bronze “rapier” with blades more than 1 meter in length in the eastern Mediterranean from as far back as the turn of the 2nd millennium BC. The switch from bronze alloy to iron and finally steel shows pretty much a universal lengthening sword blades across all cultures as the elastic properties of steel become exploited. 80cm+ blades and especially cutting blades are much more difficult to reliably produce in bronze, and often require laminate construction, using different bronze recipes for various parts of the cross section of the sword. A very sophisticated design.
I think a much more common misconception among non sword people is that Japanese Swords are lighter, stronger, and even THINNER than European-style swords..... I don't hear much about medieval vs later period swords
I found the modern modern oney of some swords really heavy.. Some from windlass marto. I dont go in details. Because its a 5273839 world problem but... One handed saber for theoretical practice use weights 1,5 kg... I dont know if i could grind the blade thinner but its too heavy in my opinion. I am sad that i never hade the experience of a "real maked modern sword" under 400 or 300 tossed coins.
Thank youvfor your wonderfyl videos ! They are very interesting. Every "medieval" roleplaying nowadays have no excuses and should take into account this knowledge for their "weapons tables" .
And yet, still, you like the original Conan the barbarian movie. With the giant sharpened club that he swings around. Oh, well, I don’t blame you too much. You were young when that movie came out.
I'd always assumed that 2 - 2.5 lbs was average for a one handed sword; but that it really depended on what the weapon was designed to do and how it was intended to be used.
Sorry mate I can’t be bothered to try and do the conversions, they’re meaningless really if you are interested in British swords. just say the spread of sword weights,excluding smallswords and foils is about a pound.
That Windlass sword looks very similar to the Albion Kingmaker, which is perhaps my favorite type of arming sword (I own an Albion Kingmaker). The shape, length, and design just appeals to me as the stereotypical knightly sword what with its general proportions with the Golden Ratio.
I'm telling you now, one day I will ask Tod to make me a CJM version of that 1788 Heavy Cavalry sword: Marrying his version of that hilt with his version of that blade, which so far as we know he never did.
Here’s something related, is it possible to ground modern swords made of homogenous steel to closer represent their historical counterparts. For example, grinding a distal taper into a cold steel 1796?
A comparison I've used to non-sword/history enthusiasts - Two handed medieval longsword is roughly the weight of a cricket bat (3.5 lbs). One-handed medieval sword = baseball bat (3 lbs).
Problem is, baseball bats are horrifically out of balance to use like a sword, so this will communicate a weapon that is vastly more clumsy than a sword really is.
I got a tour of a Cali Mission from an anthropologist years ago. He showed us all a Mexican calvary saber that was used by the guards that patrolled the Mission grounds. It was soooo long compared to other sabers and waaaay heavier. He explained the reason was that it was less a sword and more a long metal mace. The number one threat they face was no bandits like in Spain. It was the bears. That's why the saber was so long and so unbalanced and heavy. it was meant to get a good downward chop with from a fair distance on horseback.
I wonder how many swords a medieval soldier would go through in a long period of service in an army? Seems they would suffer a great deal of abuse and wear out rather quickly. Great discussion. Thank you. Cheers!
So that really varies based on a few factors. First, most of the medieval age would not have a large standing army- so if you're thinking of an average infantryman, they wouldn't be soldiering for most of the time. If you mean men-at-arms ('knights'), there's the fact that: Second, swords were like pistols are now, just a sidearm. They didn't see A TON of use in battle, and battles weren't even a guaranteed thing in war.
In Les Franc Archers De Compiègne 1448-1524, there are prices for various prices of equipment for soldiers to purchase. A dagger might be 3-4weeks worth of pay and a sword closer to 4-6 weeks. A cross bow might cost 3.5 months worth of pay!
Probably none. Most soldiers would probably be conscripted and trained. The spear was the best choice in general. A spear hits way before a sword does and takes less training.
In 1809 there was in Tyrol the famous Rebellion of Andreas Hofer against Napoleon. For reason of a law of 1515 , similar to US second addment, Andreas Hofer could mobilize 36000 Schützen with firearms, and 40000 Landsturm without firearms. This men had to use their tools, selfmade weapons like spiked clubs, but also every edged weapons, remaining in castles or weapons chambers of towns. So some medieval weapons Had been used in 1809!
@@ferociousmaliciousghostso more likely one. Because, at least for the late medieval times, in typical lists swords are a required item. Like a citizen of a city at the lowest end had to own a helmet, a spear, a sidearm and a mail shirt. But as you said the pole arm was the main weapon, the sword wouldn't wear out and lasts long enough (until you buy a new one anyways, because even more than today peer pressure was a thing)
Probably not. I see comments asking questions that Matt has already made a video directly covering frequently. He does have a _massive_ catalogue of videos, and most casual viewers (ie, most of them) go for the shiny new thing and less so videos from years ago, regardless of their quality.
Smallsword Matt showed: 400 g = 0.88 lbs Certain military sabers: 600 g = 1.3 lbs 800 g to 1300 g = 1.76 lbs to 2.87 lbs 500 g = 1.1 lbs French Cuirassier sword :( no weight - googling quickly wasn't helpful ... lots of stuff that didn't match, including with curved blades and very different guards - I think Matt did not list a weight for this one? 1788 pattern British Cavalry: 1335 g = 2.99 lbs, per Royal Armories page Windlass Royal Armouries Longsword: 4 lb, 2 oz ~ 1870 g Windlass Royal Armories 2h sword (visually the one Matt has against the wall): 4 lb, 10 oz ~ 2097 g 1400-1500 g = 3.09 lbs - 3.3lbs I do not in the least dispute what a longsword is vs a 2h sword; this is how they are labelled on the Royal Armouries website. The one listed as a "longsword" has quillions that are turned up at the end instead of bulging slightly like the one Matt has against his wall, is 44" rather than 58" (111.76 cm vs 147.32 cm), and has a round pommel instead of the fishtail that Matt has here. Royal Armouries also refers to the "longsword" as a hand and a half sword. Toby and Matt need to work this out, eh? Personally, I quite prefer the fishtail pommel over the round one. This was done purely for my own entertainment and should not be relied upon for anything because I really didn't put much effort in.
I have a Pigface Bascinet for Christmas was a total shock, I just took a lot early rust from it, people recommend beeswax and olive oil mix to stop helmet 7 sword from rusting, I brought myself a Saxon sword just a good copy.
Quality swords are quite often much lighter than people who have never held a quality sword (or any sword at all) would think they would be. I've got a decently-made 13 inch blade hanging on the foyer wall in a glass-door shadow box. people (usually guys) ask if it's real and sharp. I say sure it's sharp, go ahead but be careful. "Wow, I thought it'd be heavier, but it's nimble.".
Hey, Matt! Firstly, THANK YOU! I have about 4 people off the top of my head that I'm about to send that video to, as I'm tired of arguing with them. 🤣 Secondly, I love falchions. My personal favorite is the Thorpe Falchion. But my favorite typy of swords overall, is backswords, particularly English ones like Mortuary Hilt swords. So naturally, I absolutely adore that 1788 Pattern. I'm going to have to be on the look out for one of those to add to my collection. Anyways, cheers for another great video! Hope you are doing great.
Matt, did you check the type 2 falchion Björn Rüther did a video about? I think that one is even heavier than what you usually see for a heavy falchion. Quite interesting piece
Since we are talking about industrially made swords, I think there is one more detail to mention. In pre-Industrial Revolution times, to the extent that everyone could order their sword to be made by a blacksmith, then everyone had a suitably heavy sword. Conversely, a standardized sword to equip all soldiers probably could have been heavy for some and light for others.
I imagine early iron age swords were pretty heavy. Also people suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect that consider themselves historians seem to call every thing mid evil.
The Shadiversity channel had a video that compared period accurate falchions with modern "recreations" which tend to be particularly thick and heavy, then Shad proceeded to have a modern machete rehilted into a falchion. Machetes tend to be broad from spine to edge, particularly as they get near the tip, but with a narrow distal profile which saves on weight.
I would imagine one reason that the cav swords could be more beefier that earlier era's. Unlike earlier era's, the cav sword does not have to deal with much armour. So, the sword may have to deal with more twisting stress as it penetrates the body more, on the ride past. Earlier era's are more often going to glance off the more prevalent armour and heavy leathers.
They were so heavy they had to use a crane to lift them up into the hands of mounted knights. Knights were like the tanks of the middle ages, you know.
@@scholagladiatoria thanks so much. Is there any such reproduction you would recommend that are not albion type money? Looking very forward to the next batch of royal armories swords as well! Maybe a anglo saxon sword? Eh? Eh?
There's something intrinistically biomechanical about the fact that ~1kg is a comfortable weight for one-handed weapons be they swords or pistols.
I'd say these are totally different given that in one case one has to manage weight and leverage, and in the other weight and recoil. Handguns reaching 2kg isn't unheard of (some large wheellocks, some modern high-power guns...). There's still a limit to what one can hold with the arm outstretched though.
Pistols are two handed weapons, if you're using proper technique and not shooting Hollywood style
@@darrylbordeleau4715 Tell that to almost every handgun shooter prior to the 1950s
You think ppl prefer metric? Ugh, keep your killa-grahm whatever, we Americans might have havta think again about coming to rescue the country we defeated twice then had to save twice should need arise in the future
Somewhat ironically, the heaviest swords (spadone/montante/zweihander/grossmesser) are actually post-medieval early industrial/gunpowder age.
So it all comes down to the biomechanical limits of the human body being able to handle a combination of leverage (blade length beyond the wrist) and weight, plus depending on training?
Broadly speaking, yes. Different weights can contibute to different purposes (greater weight = greater inertia, which gives some advantages and disadvantages), yet that is always within the context of biomechanics putting both hard and soft ceilings on it.
Much the same as the infantryman’s load remained much the same from antiquity to the present day.
@johnfisk811 yep, it's always at 50-60 pounds for infantry gear (for fighting, not marching). There was a video I saw some years ago, where they had a modern soldier, firefighter, and plate harness wearing (iirc) hema practitioner. They all have very similar amount as of weight in both a light load (no helmet, extra magazine, oxygen tank, exc) vs full load, and went through a fairly long obstical course.
I've seen rapiers/sideswords and basket hilted swords which are around 1500g! They got a longer blade than an arming sword and its usually thicker to make it better for the thrust and on top of it, they have more hand protection... Just imagine a girl holding it in the Verdadera Destreza Style... (holding a 1.5kg longsword in your average Kendo-guard would be much easier!)
"Smallswords can be as light as 400g"
Excuse me while I laugh with 309g superiority 😎
I say, how well turned the heel!
* nimbleness intensifies *
@@dlatrexswords Continue your perambulations, brethren.
287 g smallsword
1790g Albion Ulvbane 😂
That's what I tell my wife. It's "superiority."
I've also seen elsewhere that combat load [CEFO] hasn't changed much since the days of the legions.
It's basically what a man can "comfortably" deal with.
Aha, "comfortably", a term of art in the infantry world. I can remember lugging my own loadout plus the tripod and barrel bag for the M60 plus ammunition for the M60 plus one mortar round for the M224. "Comfortable" was not the word I would have employed!
I think for non sword people, the medieval/pre industrial and earlier swords have a visually much thicker/broader blade compared to more modern swords, which proportionally appear to have a much slender blade. This may lead to the myth that older swords were heavier.
folks also forget to consider the weight of complex hilts and assume that a more nimble point means an overall lighter weight weapon when in reality it is of equal weight or even heavier that is balanced closer to the hand.
Also, the older a sword is, the more likely it is to be rusted. And rust is much thicker than pure metal, giving al kinds of wrong impressions.
Also, non-sword people usually see pictures of swords. 2D approximation of a 3D object. And the difference between reality and what they imagine might very often lie in the thickness.
I have a theory that the myth that medieval swords or swords in general originates from Hollywood.
In early films if there were swords involved the sword props were made much thicker than real ones to make the edges more blunt and safer to use and as a result the swords were much heavier than real ones. So when the actors were interviewed they would mention that the swords they used were really heavy and maybe wondered how medieval soldiers could use them all day. Since more people tend to watch/read interviews of actors than historians the myths started and everyone kind of accepted them
@@exantiuse497 I think it also stems from masculinity fantasies of authors whether we are talking about books, films or video games. Swords are the representation of manhood and the heavier the sword, the manlier the man is, supposedly.
One UA-camr recently showed an original one-handed reverse edge falchion of 1500g and it was in beautiful condition (including the grip and the decorations on it still visible).
He said that it wasn't quite as choppy as an axe but he can't imagine it being used without a shield... and that's coming from someone who has handled Flammberge two-handed swords and poleaxes...
Could you tell me who it was? I'd like to see the video
@@Varkeify Björn Rüther
@@rikospostmodernlife thanks.
It also might not actually be an original.
@@breaden4381 it's definitely old, but whether it's 500 or 200 years is the question. The level of detail are however unusual for early replica.
Matt! Beefiest handweapon for the 19th century included a musket and bayonet which you've mentioned matches a polearm. Just wanted to show I've been paying attention ha
Hey Matt! Matt! When are you finally going to talk about fending off tens if not dozens of guards just to grab a rope, cut it and graciously take off over your attackers?
I find that somehow lacking in your videoessays, and its fundamental to swordfighting
It's funny, people really don't have a good sense for how much swords weigh. When I got my LK Chen Town Guard, I let my non-swordy partner handle it, and her reaction was "Wow, that's really light!" Which of course made me chuckle, since it's actually at the upper end of weight for single-handed swords and even weighs more than some longswords. (In fact, it's just shy of the 1500g "upper bound", at 1420g.)
I don't know where this idea of medieval swords being massively heavy came from. But I'm going to blame the Victorians, since that's usually a pretty safe bet.
How do you like the LK Chen Town Guard? There seems to be no reviews on YT of it at all.
@@caderly123 Matt waved it around and promised a review, but who's to say when that's actually coming.
So, just to establish a baseline, this is my first sword. I haven't had the opportunity to try out any others, so I really can't tell you how it compares to any other swords out there.
That said, it's a purchase that I have been *extremely* pleased with. I fell in love immediately. All I had to do was draw it and wave it around a little to know I made the right choice. It fits right in the hand and feels great to swing around even if you're unpracticed and not in particularly good shape, like me. I've only done light cutting with it so far, but it's nice and sharp straight from the factory with a sturdy, appropriately springy blade.
I do have one of the initial run that had the sandblasted finish on the guard. I don't mind it, in fact I prefer it. But I know a lot of others don't. Fortunately for them, the newer ones have a satin finish on the guard instead. You can see what the new finish looks like in this KoA video: ua-cam.com/video/ni2P7b7IWjE/v-deo.html
If you like the style, it's a fantastic sword.
Metric is superior. Thanks for embrace evolution!
For people who have never handled a sword before, or who don't have strong wrists/forearms, even relatively light swords can feel heavier than they might actually be if you get them to wield one.
okay imma play this vid to my students in high school
You could know nothing about swords and still surmise that there would not be much difference in weight between types/eras of one handed swords. Being one handed and used exclusively by humans, you could just kinda guess that there'd be a weight beyond which a one handed sword becomes an edged club.
Hey Matt, could you possibly make a video discussing complex hilted longswords/two-handed swords? I know in the video you made with Todd a few years ago about that Swiss saber, you mentioned that there are some, and the Hanwei Rhinelander you reviewed a while ago could count as one, but it seems like they are far less common than one-handed sideswords and such. Could you discuss why you think that is? Is it because you don't get hit in the hand as much because the sword is longer? Is it that the longsword faded out of popularity before complex hilts really became popular? Would like to hear you weigh in on that.
complex hilts are a bugger to wear, plus expensive. Two-handed swords (obligate and optional) are a bugger to wear. Combine them, and it's pretty obvious why they're rare.
My industrial revolution swords certainly feel heavier than my comparably sized medieval ones, is all I'm gonna say on that.
A video dedicated to the Castillon swords would be great! It's one of the coolest medieval designs and such an important collection of swords, and given the amount of interest given to the Alexandria swords, it's really only right that the Castillons get more love.
You should also make a video about the earliest state regulated sword models across the world! Would be really interesting to see, given that there where countries who instituted regulation patterns way before the napoleonic era swords!
One thing that comes to mind is rifle and bayonet verses a cavalry sword or a sabre.
I can't remember which source I read it in Hutton or Roworth but how frequently did that match up happen on the 19th century battlefield?
It's like with people. A taller person might look thin, but be heavier than a "fat" shorter person.
I got to hold a civil war era cavalry saber when I was 14. At the time, it seemed heavy. The guy and his wife , liked having kids visit. Guess they were bit bored in their retirement and he got to show off his collection. 69 now so main point is the fascination I do recall had about the. Small collection they had and that old "wrist-breaker" he had.
Which civil war? There's a lot to choose from.
My one handed swords range from 287g for my late 18th century English smallsword to 1790g for my Albion Ulvbane. The average overall might be around 1000g
You earned my like the moment that you used metric.... Thank you.
An excellent informative video matt thanks.. could you briefly touch on the strength issues with swords from different periods with the knowledge of better steel lighter weight maybe ..shouldn't be an issue with anything I might worry about but a gr8 vid deserves note maybe ..thanks in advance
Peace
I imagine you'd see a period where the swords are the same size but lighter (reflecting more optimized steel), followed by a period where the swords get longer enough to make the same weight (e.g., 1kg @ 28 in -> 800g sword @ 28 in -> 1kg @ 30 in.)
As a longtime viewer of the channel I am beginning to suspect that when Matt gets bored he starts weighing his sword collection. If he's underfoot in the house while he does it, Lucy banishes him to the shed to make a video about sword weight.
I've always wondered if this myth comes from people trying to handle a sword or observe a blade and feel that if it's more inclined for choppy choppy then it's "heavier" and then that miscommunication twisted into talks about weight.
for part 2: please compare the wight of the blades, and the hilt separately.
That's ... almost literally moving the goalpost. :)
Yeah. That makes sense. Cause we don't carry both, much less attach them both, at the same time. -.-
Based on what Pietro Monte wrote about how weapons should be light, I suspect some of heavier historical swords were simply excessive. I'm sure a strong person could effectively use a 1,600g rapier, for example, but I doubt it'd be the ideal choice even for them.
Does this normal weight range stretch back to the Bronze Age? If not, does that tell us something about Bronze Age warriors?
The Bronze Age is huge, and varies quite a bit across the various culture across the globe. However you will find the distribution tends to become a bit left shifted. For much of the Bronze Age swords are of quite a bit shorter designs than the transition to steel age blades. For example looking at the super populate Naue II type sword which was used for 700+ years you’d see a mass distribution probably between 450-950g on a 40-60cm blade.
@@dlatrexswords Is that because bronze is more fungible - more easily re-used? Or because bronze blades cannot be so large? Or because Bronze Age warriors were wimpier?
@@QuentinStephens generally speaking bronze swords were shorter, and used for slightly different types of combat (closer to the format of Roman era soldiers) than later period swords.
There are exceptions. Long two handed bronze Jian during the Eastern Zhou and Qin dynasty. Type A bronze “rapier” with blades more than 1 meter in length in the eastern Mediterranean from as far back as the turn of the 2nd millennium BC.
The switch from bronze alloy to iron and finally steel shows pretty much a universal lengthening sword blades across all cultures as the elastic properties of steel become exploited.
80cm+ blades and especially cutting blades are much more difficult to reliably produce in bronze, and often require laminate construction, using different bronze recipes for various parts of the cross section of the sword. A very sophisticated design.
@@dlatrexswords Very interesting, thank you.
I once read a fantasy book where a dwarf king was wieldieng a warhammer weighting
TEN KILOGRAMS.
I cackled so hard when I read that.
I think a much more common misconception among non sword people is that Japanese Swords are lighter, stronger, and even THINNER than European-style swords.....
I don't hear much about medieval vs later period swords
I found the modern modern oney of some swords really heavy.. Some from windlass marto. I dont go in details. Because its a 5273839 world problem but... One handed saber for theoretical practice use weights 1,5 kg... I dont know if i could grind the blade thinner but its too heavy in my opinion. I am sad that i never hade the experience of a "real maked modern sword" under 400 or 300 tossed coins.
Thank youvfor your wonderfyl videos ! They are very interesting.
Every "medieval" roleplaying nowadays have no excuses and should take into account this knowledge for their "weapons tables" .
And yet, still, you like the original Conan the barbarian movie. With the giant sharpened club that he swings around. Oh, well, I don’t blame you too much. You were young when that movie came out.
Weight and/or weight distribution is dependent on the intended purpose and/or intended adversary.
I'd always assumed that 2 - 2.5 lbs was average for a one handed sword; but that it really depended on what the weapon was designed to do and how it was intended to be used.
Sorry mate I can’t be bothered to try and do the conversions, they’re meaningless really if you are interested in British swords. just say the spread of sword weights,excluding smallswords and foils is about a pound.
Spanish 1728 pattern "Bilbo" is perhaps heavier than the English 1788. Review one!!
That Windlass sword looks very similar to the Albion Kingmaker, which is perhaps my favorite type of arming sword (I own an Albion Kingmaker). The shape, length, and design just appeals to me as the stereotypical knightly sword what with its general proportions with the Golden Ratio.
I'm telling you now, one day I will ask Tod to make me a CJM version of that 1788 Heavy Cavalry sword: Marrying his version of that hilt with his version of that blade, which so far as we know he never did.
Sounds glorious!
97cm long Han Jian from 2nd century: laughs with 457 grams of weight
Here’s something related, is it possible to ground modern swords made of homogenous steel to closer represent their historical counterparts. For example, grinding a distal taper into a cold steel 1796?
Funny enough as I was watching I started thinking, hmm, when did a sword for cavalry first
come into being.
Truly love your Royal Armouries type xiv, but I already have the Windlass xiv.
Will you be doing a short xviii or perhaps a xvi?
How sharp were historical blades? They couldnt be as sharp as they are today just for a lack of our fancy abrasives, right?
A comparison I've used to non-sword/history enthusiasts - Two handed medieval longsword is roughly the weight of a cricket bat (3.5 lbs). One-handed medieval sword = baseball bat (3 lbs).
Problem is, baseball bats are horrifically out of balance to use like a sword, so this will communicate a weapon that is vastly more clumsy than a sword really is.
I got a tour of a Cali Mission from an anthropologist years ago. He showed us all a Mexican calvary saber that was used by the guards that patrolled the Mission grounds. It was soooo long compared to other sabers and waaaay heavier. He explained the reason was that it was less a sword and more a long metal mace. The number one threat they face was no bandits like in Spain. It was the bears. That's why the saber was so long and so unbalanced and heavy. it was meant to get a good downward chop with from a fair distance on horseback.
I wonder how many swords a medieval soldier would go through in a long period of service in an army? Seems they would suffer a great deal of abuse and wear out rather quickly. Great discussion. Thank you. Cheers!
So that really varies based on a few factors.
First, most of the medieval age would not have a large standing army- so if you're thinking of an average infantryman, they wouldn't be soldiering for most of the time. If you mean men-at-arms ('knights'), there's the fact that:
Second, swords were like pistols are now, just a sidearm. They didn't see A TON of use in battle, and battles weren't even a guaranteed thing in war.
In Les Franc Archers De Compiègne 1448-1524, there are prices for various prices of equipment for soldiers to purchase. A dagger might be 3-4weeks worth of pay and a sword closer to 4-6 weeks.
A cross bow might cost 3.5 months worth of pay!
Probably none. Most soldiers would probably be conscripted and trained. The spear was the best choice in general. A spear hits way before a sword does and takes less training.
In 1809 there was in Tyrol the famous Rebellion of Andreas Hofer against Napoleon. For reason of a law of 1515 , similar to US second addment, Andreas Hofer could mobilize 36000 Schützen with firearms, and 40000 Landsturm without firearms. This men had to use their tools, selfmade weapons like spiked clubs, but also every edged weapons, remaining in castles or weapons chambers of towns. So some medieval weapons Had been used in 1809!
@@ferociousmaliciousghostso more likely one.
Because, at least for the late medieval times, in typical lists swords are a required item. Like a citizen of a city at the lowest end had to own a helmet, a spear, a sidearm and a mail shirt. But as you said the pole arm was the main weapon, the sword wouldn't wear out and lasts long enough (until you buy a new one anyways, because even more than today peer pressure was a thing)
I thought you founded the channel to fund the lovely Lucys Tulwar addiction? 😁
But surely a katana weighs less than a silk handkerchief and can cut cleanly through all of these swords plus the swordsman and potentially his horse…
early sword weight difference could be attributed to less standardization and more costume made to order?
"I am Matt Easton, and will continue to be" unless of course Matt desides to start a firearms channel...
I am hoping that you eventually make the video on the Castillon swords
Later European swords have more weight in the hilt, compared to earlier swords.
I was holding my bastard sword when you mentioned the bastard sword. What are the odds? Pretty good actually.
Stop making the same video a hundred times just to make money off your viewers with sponsors
Haven't these people watched you weigh a bunch of weapons in the garden?? 😄
Probably not. I see comments asking questions that Matt has already made a video directly covering frequently. He does have a _massive_ catalogue of videos, and most casual viewers (ie, most of them) go for the shiny new thing and less so videos from years ago, regardless of their quality.
They havent, but you just awakened an old memory of me watching that video years ago^^
Thank you professor for clarifying this. I learned and always learn a lot from you!
The average person (soldier) is heavier and stronger today so could they handle a heavier sword?
Just bought a sword that i thought would be good one handed... It is 1250 grams
What's the blade balance like?
@@Raven-qj8xk It's a Kukri so it's very forward heavy. Unfortunately no distal taper, and it's only 24 inches in blade length
I don't know how one would be able to know this, but do we know to what extent the weight of a sword changes due to corrosion?
Perhaps some presentations on Norther Crusad weapons?
"This is a 38 inch sword", Matt Easton said in metric.
thanks for sticking to metric mat. A real gentleman
I didn’t watch yet adds. It’s because of armour
Smallsword Matt showed: 400 g = 0.88 lbs
Certain military sabers: 600 g = 1.3 lbs
800 g to 1300 g = 1.76 lbs to 2.87 lbs
500 g = 1.1 lbs
French Cuirassier sword :( no weight - googling quickly wasn't helpful ... lots of stuff that didn't match, including with curved blades and very different guards - I think Matt did not list a weight for this one?
1788 pattern British Cavalry: 1335 g = 2.99 lbs, per Royal Armories page
Windlass Royal Armouries Longsword: 4 lb, 2 oz ~ 1870 g
Windlass Royal Armories 2h sword (visually the one Matt has against the wall): 4 lb, 10 oz ~ 2097 g
1400-1500 g = 3.09 lbs - 3.3lbs
I do not in the least dispute what a longsword is vs a 2h sword; this is how they are labelled on the Royal Armouries website. The one listed as a "longsword" has quillions that are turned up at the end instead of bulging slightly like the one Matt has against his wall, is 44" rather than 58" (111.76 cm vs 147.32 cm), and has a round pommel instead of the fishtail that Matt has here. Royal Armouries also refers to the "longsword" as a hand and a half sword. Toby and Matt need to work this out, eh?
Personally, I quite prefer the fishtail pommel over the round one.
This was done purely for my own entertainment and should not be relied upon for anything because I really didn't put much effort in.
Matt has weighed the Cuirassier sword in an older video. Took me a few mins to find it. But, it's 1450g
Non sword friends? Who are they....
I have a Pigface Bascinet for Christmas was a total shock, I just took a lot early rust from it, people recommend beeswax and olive oil mix to stop helmet 7 sword from rusting, I brought myself a Saxon sword just a good copy.
Quality swords are quite often much lighter than people who have never held a quality sword (or any sword at all) would think they would be. I've got a decently-made 13 inch blade hanging on the foyer wall in a glass-door shadow box. people (usually guys) ask if it's real and sharp. I say sure it's sharp, go ahead but be careful. "Wow, I thought it'd be heavier, but it's nimble.".
Hey, Matt!
Firstly, THANK YOU! I have about 4 people off the top of my head that I'm about to send that video to, as I'm tired of arguing with them. 🤣
Secondly, I love falchions. My personal favorite is the Thorpe Falchion. But my favorite typy of swords overall, is backswords, particularly English ones like Mortuary Hilt swords. So naturally, I absolutely adore that 1788 Pattern. I'm going to have to be on the look out for one of those to add to my collection.
Anyways, cheers for another great video! Hope you are doing great.
Matt, did you check the type 2 falchion Björn Rüther did a video about? I think that one is even heavier than what you usually see for a heavy falchion. Quite interesting piece
Learning stuff now: I knew there is a right size, and heavy doesn't change. You already taught me what weapons weigh- thanks!
I've learned a lot off this
Since we are talking about industrially made swords, I think there is one more detail to mention. In pre-Industrial Revolution times, to the extent that everyone could order their sword to be made by a blacksmith, then everyone had a suitably heavy sword. Conversely, a standardized sword to equip all soldiers probably could have been heavy for some and light for others.
I imagine early iron age swords were pretty heavy. Also people suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect that consider themselves historians seem to call every thing mid evil.
But Matt, medieval swords heaviER and chunkiER than say my pocket knife! ;)
I expected you to pick up your Cluny falchion, from that Christmas video some years back.
Swords range in weight, size, strength and style like people range in weight, size strength/age and style.
Thanks, Matt.
The Shadiversity channel had a video that compared period accurate falchions with modern "recreations" which tend to be particularly thick and heavy, then Shad proceeded to have a modern machete rehilted into a falchion. Machetes tend to be broad from spine to edge, particularly as they get near the tip, but with a narrow distal profile which saves on weight.
I mean they have more blade presence but not heavy . Side note the 1780 needs a good replica I love the rib cage like basket .
That new Windlass/RA arming sword is beautiful! I can't wait to see the complete second batch!
I would imagine one reason that the cav swords could be more beefier that earlier era's. Unlike earlier era's, the cav sword does not have to deal with much armour. So, the sword may have to deal with more twisting stress as it penetrates the body more, on the ride past. Earlier era's are more often going to glance off the more prevalent armour and heavy leathers.
neat
What gets me is the Anime swords. They're often bigger than the guy wielding them.
They were so heavy they had to use a crane to lift them up into the hands of mounted knights.
Knights were like the tanks of the middle ages, you know.
Yes, greatly reinforced by Conan and his whopper.
I think this perception is mostly due to the balance of a blade than its actual weight.
Us Yanks take great pride in the imperial system.
The imperial measurement system is British :-)
Most people who have ever held a sword these days, are people who've held a decorative sword, and these tend to be massive.
Good quality information for helping others out in the future ⚔️
both arming sword and falchion are very generalised terms with include a variety of different designs across a long period of time
👍
who makes the replica anglo saxon sword at the begininng of the video?
That's a custom piece by my friend Paul Binns
@@scholagladiatoria thanks so much. Is there any such reproduction you would recommend that are not albion type money? Looking very forward to the next batch of royal armories swords as well! Maybe a anglo saxon sword? Eh? Eh?
Swords are a soft man’s weapon. Real men use axes, hammers and spears.
Is that a new henry v sword? Look different than the old one with red handle
Thanks Matt, great video as usual.
How heavy can be a scandinavian sword?
Thank you,
for this!