More Logic on Real Sword Weight

[JeffGentry]

Hey Robert

i think i remember thread some on tthe froum were someone had mentioned the fact they had hit hit something and they experieneced and saw the effect of blade wrap first hand .

Jeff

[Benjamin Abbott]

I dont know about pikes and the larger pole arms, but for all hand weapons from 3 to up to around 7 feet in length the average range of weight seems to be around 2.5-5 lbs. Much more than that and the reach / weight tradeoff becomes inefficient.

I think that's a little bit on the low side. 5-7 lbs is a good rule of thumb for a two handed polearm, but some were more (though it's unclear if such weapons were really meant for fighting).

I guess pike weights are hard find, because wood doesn't last as long as steel...

You can see several antique weapons, many listed with their actual wieght at the myarmoury site. You can also look at a lot of online auction sites which deal with antique weapons, they almost always list the weight.

Yes, I've seen numbers here and there, but never real study.

[Stacy Clifford]

Jeff, that was probably me. I watched JC do a destruction test of a longsword against a cinder block, and the damage on the block clearly showed how the edge of the sword wrapped from one corner to the other without touching the flat of the block. The sword snapped in a manner consistent with that type of deformation.

[Casper Bradak]

The pole arms in the wallace collection, regardless of type, all average about 5 lbs. Some quite a bit less, a small number as much as 7. Jeanry's estimate isn't on the low side. At least half the weight in many of them is the haft.
There are a few, clearly marked as processional weapons of over 7 lbs. It's clear that anything over 7 1/2 lbs. is not designed for combat (and the processional ones, even if not handled, are obvious. They're quite large and decorative).
Many of the polearms have heads alone of less than two pounds.
The hand weapons such as battle axes and war hammers all (go figure) average about 3 lbs., the same as swords. Ranging from around 2lbs. to some rare specimens topping off at about 4 lbs.

[Benjamin Abbott]

The pole arms in the wallace collection, regardless of type, all average about 5 lbs.

In that case, a range of 2.5-5 lbs IS on the low side. Topping out at 5 lbs is too low. That's about what a good 8-9 foot staff weighs. If black bills, battle axes, and halberds didn't weigh any more than that a staff, why would Silver call them "weapons of weight?" Many polearms meant for combat passed 5 lbs.

For example, see this link. A number of the partisans and halberds weigh more than 5 lbs. One of the pollaxes weighs almost 7 lbs.

It's clear that anything over 7 1/2 lbs. is not designed for combat

According to that recent article, John Clements seems to think that greatswords slightly over that weight were meant for combat. But given the balance on most polearms, I certainly wouldn't want anything heavier than seven.

[JeffGentry]

Benjinman

Topping out at 5 lbs is too low. That's about what a good 8-9 foot staff weighs. If black bills, battle axes, and halberds didn't weigh any more than that a staff, why would Silver call them "weapons of weight

Remember that is an average the weapon's on the link you posted there were a few that were around 6 lbs, so they would be a little heavier at the axe head so it would be weightier on that end.

Jeff

[Casper Bradak]

In that case, a range of 2.5-5 lbs IS on the low side.

Not for the lengths Jeanry specified. 5 lbs. is about average for all of them. Jeanry was more or less correct in the average weight range for the lengths he mentioned (the shorter ones, including spears).
There are of course, always exceptions, but it's safe to say 5 lbs. is a general weight for pole arms (aside from spears and staves).
The heads of general purpose pole arms average about 2lbs., and they were normally shorter than 8-9' from what I've seen.

why would Silver call them "weapons of weight?"

Relative weight, and end balance. There is no poundage at which it becomes "of weight". It certainly doesn't mean they were heavy. Perhaps a longsword would be a "weapon of weight" when compared to a rapier, or a battle axe or mace when compared to a longsword, but that doesn't mean it was heavy, awkward, or ineffective, or even of heavier weight.
If it were "heavy", a soldier would more than likely leave it on the rack, and therefore it would not be produced. Master Silver certainly didn't look down on them, and I'm sure he wouldn't favor overly heavy weaponry.

[JeanryChandler]

Relative weight, and end balance. There is no poundage at which it becomes "of weight". It certainly doesn't mean they were heavy. Perhaps a longsword would be a "weapon of weight" when compared to a rapier, or a battle axe or mace when compared to a longsword,

Lately I've been playing around with a lot of different sparring weapons trying to find an ideal weight and length for myself, in the range between 45-50" and from about 2.75 - 3.5 lbs, both with padded weapons and some steel blunts we have.

One thing I noticed is that as little as an eight ounce difference in a swords weight can have an immense impact in how the weapon handles, and how you must fight against it... a 3 lbs 4 oz sword feels like a monster to me compared to a 2 lbs 12 oz sword of the same length.... the former is much stronger in beats and binds, the latter much quicker in twitching and winding... at least this has been my impression.

Jeanry

P.S. I'm not saying the heavier sword is inferior, btw., in fact thats why I'm having so much trouble deciding on an ideal size and weight for myself... the heavier and lighter weapons each have features which make them appealing to use.

[JeanryChandler]

For example, see this link. A number of the partisans and halberds weigh more than 5 lbs. One of the pollaxes weighs almost 7 lbs.

Thanks so much for posting that link, there is some very good data there!

With regard to the weight, as Caspar pointed out in my original range, I specified average weight for weapons of 3-7 feet. I could have been clearer though, for which I apologize, the way I worded it is kind of clumsy.

On the weapons listed on the St Louis Art Museum site, I'd also have to wonder if all the hafts were original or not. Most historical ones have deteriorated. So how long the haft was, and in some cases even what wood it was made from may have been decided upon by museum curators.

And finally, from the description of some of the weapons that they were quite late era, and made for special events, they may have been more parade weapons.


Ultimately while I agree some pole arms were certainly more, I still feel that 5 lbs is about the average for those from 5 to 7 feet. Swords and longswords under 4' or so considerably less.

Jeanry

[Benjamin Abbott]

Casper:

Master Silver certainly didn't look down on them, and I'm sure he wouldn't favor overly heavy weaponry.

Certainly not; I'm not at all suggesting they were poor weapons, but just the opposite, that they could be effective weighing six or even seven pounds.

Jeanry:

On the weapons listed on the St Louis Art Museum site, I'd also have to wonder if all the hafts were original or not.

I don't know, but considering the pictures they would have had to have done a lot of work to give the weapons entirely new shafts. The way the length vary so much also suggets original shafts to me, but I'm no expert. I would hope that they would say if the shafts were modern, but perhaps not. Maybe I'll e-mail them.

And finally, from the description of some of the weapons that they were quite late era, and made for special events, they may have been more parade weapons.

That's certainly possible, but the heaviest weapon on the page comes from around 1500 and they specifically say it was "for foot combat." Not a ceremonial weapon.

Ultimately while I agree some pole arms were certainly more, I still feel that 5 lbs is about the average for those from 5 to 7 feet.

Yeah, it's not a bad average. If the lighter spears were included it could be even less. If only polearms with large heads were included it could go a bit higher.

[John_Clements]

Ben,
You need to be very careful with assuming all weapons in armories must reflect typical combat models. There are a great many polearms from later centuries (as well as two-handed swords) that were produced as decorative parade or precessional weapons, not intended for actual combat. These tend to be much more ornate and thus typically heavier. Further, if they have had their shafts replaced over the centuries heavier or longer wood may have been used.

The genuie epolearms and polaxes I have handled in several collections were impressively well-balnced, with thin blades, tapered in cross-section, and nthing lke the ornamental pieces of later centuries or the cheap modern replicas cut out of sheets.

JC

[JeanryChandler]

That's certainly possible, but the heaviest weapon on the page comes from around 1500 and they specifically say it was "for foot combat." Not a ceremonial weapon.

Without beating it to death <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />, I'm not sure i understand that part, if this is the website you are talking about, the one linked in this thread above,

http://www.slam.org/exhibits/armsandarmor/staff.html

...it lists a Partisain from 1719 , Halberds from 1622 and 1615, one of these last being commissioned for the appointment of the governor of Bohemia, and another for the bodyguard of the elector of Saxony. Both of these (particularly the first) sound like they might very well be for ceremonial use.

Jeanry

[Benjamin Abbott]

Jeanry, I was referring to only one weapon on that page, the heaviest one, as I said. It's the 7th one down, with the title "Pollaxe for Foot Combat, c.1500." You're quite correct that many of the others might well be ceremonial.

JC, that's exactly why I'd like to see a proper study done.

[Benjamin Abbott]

Well, I have few more numbers, this time from John Waldman's Hafted Weapons in Medieval and Renaissance Europe.

Early halberd heads, probably 13th century: one weights 2.1 lbs., the other 1.3 lbs. Even with robust shafts it seems unlikely the complete weapon would weigh more than 5 lbs.


A 16th century Danish morgenstern: 6'6" long, weighs 5.4 lbs.

A 16th century Russian guisarme: 7' long, weighs 8.4 lbs. Yet, it's huge. Depite the weight, Waldman writes that it was most likely intended for use.

A Swedish guisarme, perhaps 15th century: 5'11" long, weighs 6.5 lbs.