A question about range of swing

[Richard Quincy]

Hello. I'm doing a bit of personal research and I thought this was the best place to pose my questions.

I was wondering the average arc length of a sword swing was. In this case the person doing the swing is a 5 foot 5 inches tall man with a sword that's 4 foot long. It's a one handed swing as well.

I'd be grateful if someone would give me some tips in how I can go about finding the actual number.

[Stacy Clifford]

First of all it depends on which direction it's being swung. Do you want a vertical strike from over the head, or a diagonal strike from the shoulder? Strikes from the shoulder or the wrist can complete a 360, but strikes from the elbow are more limited. There are quite a few different ways cuts can be made, so you need to define your "average" striking motion to get an answer. For the record, most of us would probably use the zornhau (also known as the peasant strike because any peasant can do it) as the standard for this sort of question, a downward diagonal strike from the shoulder at about a 45 degree angle, starting with the sword held at 45 degrees above the shoulder (vom tag) and ending somewhere at the lower left. Where it ends would be the tricky part because everybody's follow-through is a little bit different depending on power, arm length, stride length, etc.

Also, a 4 foot sword is usually used two-handed when cutting, though it can be used one-handed by someone well trained and exercised. I'm 5' 6" and I do so occasionally, but not habitually. Most one handed cutting swords are a bit shorter than that, more like 3 to 3.5 feet on average. It is an interesting question, so I hope this helps you define your terms a little more thoroughly.

[s_taillebois]

Also have to consider that in the range of that swing the arc might be modified.

For example going from crown beginning the arc, to stopping it to go into the tail guard, or breaking the arc as a feint.

It may not have been that common historically to swing the arc beyond what was necessary to complete the strike-due to the concern of moving to the next ward or having the weapon too far through to be usable for another offensive move. Over carrying brings on its own risks.

Another factor, is historical related to the physical distortions the men of the period seemed to get as a result of proficiency with these weapons. From the medical research of the dead at Towton, shoulder impingement seem to have been common-some of these men may not have been able to use swords, or any other weapon in a full arc.

One handed, can't comment as don't have any sword or staff which can be properly used that way.

But if your looking for a range of the arc without these considerations that would seem to be a geometry problem as much as anything else.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

One more factor that must be considered is footwork and body movement. I don't think I've ever seen a competent swordsman who swung a full-range blow only with the arm--there's always some sort of lunge, passing step, hip twist etc. involved, and these movements simply can't be divorced from the issue of the range of the swing because the Zufechten/Krieg distinction is, after all, partially based on the amount of foot/bodywork necessary to reach the enemy with a cut.

[Jonathan Newhall]

Indeed, the very principles of combat dictate that you are within fighting range when you may strike your opponent WHILE USING a passing step of some kind. So the "range" of a swing is not only the range of using your arms, but also incorporating a step.