parade swords for training

[Zach Palfreyman]

I was reading about some swords that were really heavy and just for parades or ceremonies. One reason I was reading that they might be heavier is just because they were less concerned about function, but in the extreme examples it was talking like 5-7lbs for the real version and 10-15lbs for the parade version, which seems a bit exessive for a mock sword. Anyway, my thought, and maybe others have had a similiar idea, was that they were purposely more heavy to be used while training to help build up strength. The theory being that the heavier version is going to build up more strength, and being stronger will make handling the combat version easier and maybe more agile. Anyone have evidence for or against this theory?

[Casper Bradak]

Generally the parade swords were quite ornate, and though I haven't examined any in person, they don't look like they were foils. If someone trained with them, it was probably solo sans targets.

[Zach Palfreyman]

Well I was thinking you'd mostly just do it in a solo drill. Being ornate might be strange for a practice tool, maybe it was more practical to make your solo drill practice sword nice rather than your real sword (since your decorations could get damaged in battle easier than in practice). Well, maybe not the best arguement, but IMO not any more strange than having a mock sword just to pack around and look cool with. But I will give that as one point of them not being used in practice.

Also feel free to argue not if they were used in practice, but even just if using a heavier sword in practice might be helpful or not helpful.

[Casper Bradak]

Well, using a heavy waster or foil is an ancient practice, supplementally. A lot of people around here, including myself, advocate it on occasion.

[Shane Smith]

I'm not opposed to the use of a "double-weight" sword for training purposes. I used to do flouryshes with a poorly-weighted replica sword I had in hand for awhile.

[JeanryChandler]

yeah but a double wieght sword would still be much lighter than those parade swords, which were often as much as 15 lbs., and over length as well, as long as eight feet. I've never heard of any actual combat sword of any length weighing over 6 pounds and very few over 5, these being the 'true' two hand doppleswords or zwiehanders.

In many cases the specific use of individual parade swords is known, by the way, as this practice starte rather late and continued to even later. Many of these swords did not see the light od day year round except for certain special events.

JR

[Patrick Hardin]

I think using extra-heavy weapons for training is a good idea. I do it myself from time to time. And if you want to know where to find heavy swords for sale, Del Tin has many models that will fit the bill perfectly. <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

About the parade swords: I do believe most of them were made to be extremely large and unwieldy, something like six feet long or longer, which is really too big to be a useful sword, or at least too big for training as a longsword. In fact, these swords only weighed 10-15 lbs. because they were so huge, not because they were made to be extra heavy for practice. The more impressive the sword's size, and the more ornate it is, the better the parade, you see. <img src="/forum/images/icons/cool.gif" alt="" />

Patrick Hardin

[Casper Bradak]

The size and unwieldyness was a side effect of their wall hangerness, not their purpose. They absolutely weren't too big to be useful as a sword, and they didn't weight so much because of their size, but again, because of their decorative purpose.
They were usually modelled on the true two handed swords, of the same size, but less than half the weight, and very wieldy and useful weapons.
Too big to simulate a longsword? Yes. But certainly not too big to be a decorative version of a greatsword.
I find the weights of some parade weapons, such as the parade swords and halberds to be astonishing. Who would've thought that a decorative weapon would weigh so much? Even the horrible wall hangers now don't quite get up to those weights.

[Zach Palfreyman]

For those who have used heavier swords during practice, did it seem to help build up strength and such? If so, I would like to try that out myself.

[Aaron Pynenberg]

Zach, no doubt for me it did. I started with a waster then bought a steel blunt from Heimrick Arms. These are no non-sense training weapons which are sometimes know to be on the heavy side.

I love mine however, and just ordered another just a little heavier still. I go back to the waster or my Albion sharp and it feels almost weightless to me.

I also have a pair of hand/wrist weights that I wear for portions of my training. Using these are something I think you could overdue though, Aaron

[JeanryChandler]

I have a heimrick blunt too, it's definately good for a hard workout, about 45" and over 4 lbs! Tough as nails though.

Jr

[Patrick Hardin]

Heh, yeah, it helped. Just ask some of the people I've hit in padded sparring! Sorry, I don't mean to brag. I just love it when people say I can hit hard. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Another thing you could do to develop certain muscles would be to go out and buy some lumber, a hammer and a big box of 16 penny nails, and then build something until you can't open your right hand (if you're right handed). All that hammering really works that muscle group. Of course, that's an expensive way to train. You could just go join a framing crew for a few months. <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> I know that sounds a little silly, but I've found that hard work can do you a lot of good that you might not get just training with the weapons. But that's a topic for another discussion.

Anyway, using a heavy weapon will help, I think. Still, there's no real substitute for cutting things with a sharp sword. Learning the proper mechanics and speed involved in good cutting is as good or better than training with heavy weapons.

Patrick Hardin