Just
how heavy were swords from the Middle Ages and Renaissance?
This question (perhaps the most commonly encountered in this
subject) is easily answered by knowledgeable students of the
subject. While understanding of the true weights of Medieval
and Renaissance swords is appreciated by serious enthusiasts
and practitioners of historical fencing today, in contrast
the general public and even specialists are often woefully
ignorant on the matter. Finding accurate information on what
real historical swords actually weighed can sometimes be difficult,
making efforts to convince skeptics and the uninformed a considerable
challenge.
A
Weighty Issue
Erroneous
statements about the weight of Medieval and Renaissance swords
are unfortunately common. It is an issue of the most habitual
misinformation and misstatement. This should come as no surprise
given the misrepresentation Medieval and Renaissance swordplay
continually receives in popular media. Everywhere from television
and movies to video games, historical European swords have
been depicted as being cumbersome and displayed with wide,
exaggerated movements. On a recent national television appearance
on The History Channel, one respected academic and expert
on medieval military technology even declared with conviction
how 14th century swords were "heavy" sometimes weighing
as much as "40 pounds" (!).
 From
ordinary hands-on experience we know full well that swords
were not excessively heavy nor did they weigh 10 or 15 pounds
and more. There is only so many ways we can repeat how these
weapons were not at all heavy or ungainly. Remarkably, while
one would think a crucial piece of information as the weight
of swords would be of great interest to arms curators and
arms historians, there is no major reference book that actually
lists the weights of different types. Perhaps this vacuum
of documented evidence is part of the very problem surrounding
the issue. However, there are a few respected sources that
do give some valuable statistics. For example, the lengthy
catalog of swords from the famed Wallace Collection Museum
in London readily lists dozens of fine specimens among which
it is difficult to find any weighing in excess of 4 pounds.
Indeed, the majority of specimens, from arming swords to two-handers
to rapiers, weigh much less than three pounds.
Despite frequent claims to the contrary, Medieval swords were
indeed light, manageable, and on average weighed less than
four pounds. As leading sword expert Ewart Oakeshott unequivocally
stated: "Medieval Swords are neither unwieldably heavy
nor all alike - the average weight of any one of normal size
is between 2.5 lb. and 3.5 lbs. Even the big hand-and-a-half
'war' swords rarely weigh more than 4.5 lbs. Such weights,
to men who were trained to use the sword from the age of seven
(and who had to be tough specimens to survive that age) ,
were by no means too great to be practical." Oakeshott,
the 20th century's leading author and researcher of European
swords would certainly know. He had handled thousands of swords
in his lifetime and at one time or another personally owned
dozens of the finest examples ranging from the Bronze Age
to the 19th century.
 Medieval
swords in general were well-made, light, agile fighting weapons
equally capable of delivering dismembering cuts or cleaving
deep cavities into the body. They were far from the clumsy,
heavy things they're often portrayed as in popular media and
far, far more than a mere "club with edges." As
another source on arms affirmed: "the sword was, in fact,
surprisingly light·.the average weight of swords from
the 10th to the 15th centuries was 1.3 kg, while in the 16th
century it was 0.9 kg. Even the heavier bastard swords which
were used only by second-grade fighting men did not exceed
1.6 kg, while the horse swords known as 'hand-and-a-half'
swords weighed 1.8 kg on average. When due allowances are
made, these surprisingly low figures also hold good for the
enormous two-hand sword, which was traditionally only wielded
by 'true Hercules.' Yet it seldom weighed more than 3 kg."
Starting
in the 16th century there were of course special parade or
bearing swords that did weigh up to 8 or 9 pounds and more,
however these monstrous show pieces were not fighting weapons
and there is no evidence they were ever intended for use in
any type of combat. Indeed, it would not make sense given
that there were other far more maneuverable combat models
available which were several pounds lighter. Dr. Hans-Peter
Hils in his 1985 dissertation on the work of the great 14th
century master Johannes Liechtenauer noted that since the
19th century many arms museum collections typically feature
immense parade or bearing greatswords as if they were actual
combat weapons ignoring the fact they are not only blunt edged,
but of impractical size and weight as well as poorly balanced
for effective use.
Expert
Opinions
The belief
that Medieval swords were lumbering or unwieldy to use has
virtually taken on the guise of urban folklore and still perplexes
those of us who today exercise with such weapons regularly.
It is even something of a challenge to try to find a 19th
(and even 20th) century fencing author (and even arms historian)
who does not unequivocally declare in their writings that
Medieval swords were "heavy", "cumbersome",
"unwieldy", "clumsy", and (in a complete
misunderstanding of the handling, purpose, and application
of such diverse weapons) were designed only for "offense."
Despite
the measurable facts, 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 1746 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 or 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 use to featherweight
smallswords and the occasional saber and short cutlass.
In
the early 1870s, Army Captain M. J. O'Rourke, a little-known
Irish-American historian and teacher of the sword, in referring
to earlier weapons described them as those "ponderous
blades, in wielding which they required all the strength of
both [hands]." We might also recall pioneer historical-fencing
researcher Egerton Castle's notorious comment about the "clumsy
old fashioned sword." Wielding
a beautiful specimen of a real 14th century arming sword in
order to see how it plays and handles.
Quite frequently, some well-meaning academician or elderly
curator trained in art history who is not an athlete, not
a martial artist, and has not trained in handling historical
arms since childhood will declare with authority that a knightly
sword is "heavy." The same sword properly wielded
in well-conditioned hands will typically be found light, well-balanced,
and agile. For example, noted British arms curator Charles
Ffoulkes in 1938 declared: "The so-called 'Crusader'
sword is heavy, broad-bladed, and short gripped. There is
no balance, as the word is understood in swordsmanship, and
to thrust with it is an impossibility·its weight made
swift recovery impossible." (Ffoulkes, p.29-30). Ffoulkes'
opinion, wholly without merit yet shared by his military co-author
Captain Hopkinson, was derived from his understanding of what
could be done only with sporting tools in polite contests.
Ffoulkes was no doubt basing his opinion on his understanding
of contemporary fencing as conducted with the featherweight
foils, epees, and duelling sabers of the modern sport (in
the same way a tennis racket might feel "heavy"
to a ping pong player).
Sadly,
Ffoulkes in 1945 even stated, "All the swords from the
ninth to the thirteenth century are heavy, ill-balanced, and
are furnished with a short and unpractical grip." (Ffoulkes,
Arms, p. 17). Imagine that, 500 years of professional warriors
and fighting men had all gotten it wrong, but a museum curator
in 1945 London, who had never been in a real sword fight let
alone trained with real swords in any form himself, is able
to inform us of the failings of these magnificent weapons.
A noted
French medieval historian later repeated Ffoulkes' opinion
of Medieval swords verbatim as a trustworthy judgment. Respected
medievalist and authority on medieval military matters, Dr.
Kelly DeVries, writing on military technology of the Middle
Ages still referred in a book during the 1990s to "the
thick, heavy, awkward, but finely crafted medieval sword."
(Devries, Medieval Military Technology, p. 25). With "authoritative"
opinions such as these, it is no wonder modern students of
the subject have been so ill-informed and we today have so
much work remaining.
Such
opinions on "ponderous old-time swords" as one mid-19th
century French fencing master once called them can perhaps
be overlooked as products of the climate of the age and the
information then available. But at present, similar views
expressed by modern students and fencers are not so easily
excused. It is particularly sad when leading fencing masters
today (schooled only in the weapons of their modern dueling
game) will proudly issue naive statements about how much earlier
swords weighed. As I wrote in my 1998, Medieval Swordsmanship,
"It can be quite pitiful when leading sport fencing maestros
(experienced only with flimsy foils, epees, and sabers) will
reveal their prejudices with laughable statements about how
Medieval swords 'weighed 10 pounds' or could only be used
for 'clumsy bashing and chopping.'" For example, the
respected 20th century fencer Charles Selberg referred to
the "heavy and unwieldy weapons of early times"
(Selberg, p. 1). While modern fencing master C. L. de Beaumont
declared typically: "In the Middle Ages, the general
use of armour required weapons, such as the battle-axe and
the double-handed sword, to be heavy and clumsy." (de
Beaumont, p. 143). Armor required weapons to be heavy and
clumsy? Additionally, the 1930, Book of Fencing, with great
confidence declared: "With a few rare exceptions, the
sword, throughout Europe in 1450, was still a heavy, clumsy
weapon and for balance and ease of fence it was about as convenient
as an axe." (Cass, p. 29-30). Even at our present time
this idiocy over sword weight continues. From the recent aptly
titled book, Complete Idiot's Guide to the Crusades, we are
informed that knights fought in tournament melees by “hacking
at one another with heavy (20 - 30 pound) broadswords.”
(P. Williams, p. 20).
Hefting a superb example of a rare 14th century warsword from
the famed Alexandria Aresenal collection.
Examining an authentic 15th century great-sword at the British
Royal Armorries, above; and a fine 16th century bastard sword
at the Glenbow museum, Calgary.
Such comments reveal more about the biases and ignorance of
the writers than about the nature of real swords and swordplay.
I've personally encountered the same kind of sentiments countless
times in public conversations and in Internet chats with fencing
instructors and fencing students so I've no doubts of its
continued pervasiveness. As recently as 2003 one author on
medieval knights writing of the longsword stated incomprehensively,
"It was so heavy it could even be used to split armor"
and further described greatswords as weighing "up to
twenty pounds and capable of crushing heavy armor with ease."
None of this is accurate. Probably the most damning example
that comes to mind is Olympic fencer Richard Cohen in his
recent book about fencing and sword history stating early
on how, "Swords, which could weigh in excess of three
pounds, were heavy and ill-balanced, requiring strength to
wield rather than skill." With all due respect, even
when he accurately acknowledges their weight (in the process
denigrating the prowess required to wield them) he nonetheless
is still able to consider them only in terms of how they compare
to the mock swords of his modern sport, even inexplicably
describing them as used "primarily to bludgeon."
So, according to Cohen we must imagine that real swords designed
by real warriors for real life-and-death combat were heavy,
ill-balanced, and didn't require real skill? But now toy swords
for a pretend game are apparently just right?
Handling a fine specimen of a 16th century Swiss war-sword.
Sturdy, light, functional.
For some reason, many classical fencers still seem to perpetually
fail to grasp that earlier swords, being real weapons, weren't
designed to be held at arms length and whipped back and forth
by the fingertips. Here we are at the dawn of the 21st century,
in the midst of a renaissance of historical European martial
arts study, and yet knowledgeable fencers are still perpetuating
a 19th century misunderstanding. When you don't understand
how a particular sword is used, it's not possible to appreciate
what its true capabilities are or recognize why it was designed
the way it was. Invariably, you end up interpreting it only
through the prism of what you already know.
Even basket-hilted broadswords of the 16th century are easy
to wield cut-and-thrust weapons.
Oakeshott recognized this problematic mixture of ignorance
and prejudice more than three decades ago, writing in his
influential, Sword in the Age of Chivalry, he noted: "Add
to this the work of romantic writers in the past, who, seeking
to give to their heroes a touch of the Superman, caused them
to wield enormous and weighty weapons far beyond the powers
of modern man, and complete the picture with the scorn poured
upon these swords by lovers of the elegance of the 18th century
and it becomes easier to see why so plain a weapon can be
accounted crude, ponderous, and inefficient. In fact the average
weight of these swords is between 2 lbs. and 3 lbs., and they
were balanced (according to their purpose) with the same care
and skill in the making as a tennis racket or a fishing rod.
The old belief that they are unwieldable is as absurd and
out-dated, and dies as hard, as the myth that armored knights
had to be hoisted into their saddles with a crane."
Working-out with a superb example of an actual 15th century
estoc. Only by vigorously putting such weapons through their
paces can we be sure about their performance.
Long-time student of arms and senior fight interpreter at
the British Royal Armouries, Keith Ducklin, states: "From
my experience at the Royal Armouries, where I have handled
many genuine weapons from different periods, I would personally
suggest that a broad-bladed European fighting sword, be it
a cutter, cut-and-thruster or thruster, is likely to weigh
between two pounds for a single-handed sword and four-and-a-half
for a two-handed. Swords specifically produced for other uses,
e.g. ceremony or execution, may weigh less or more, but these
are not fighting weapons." (personal correspondence with
the author, April 2004). Mr. Ducklin would certainly know,
as he has held and examined literally hundreds of fine swords
in this famous collection and considered them from the point
of view of a fighter.
In a brief
article on swords specimens of the 15th to 16th centuries
from three major museum collections, including samples from
the Stibbet Museum in Florence, Dr. Timothy Dawson noted no
single-hand sword weighed more than 3.5 pounds and no greatsword
weighed more than 6 pounds. He concludes, “From these
examples it can be seen that the ideal that medieval and Renaissance
swords were heavy, clumsy objects is far from true.”
(Dawson, p. 34 & 35).
Subjectivity
and Objectivity
The fact
is, if you know what you are doing, understand the necessity
of the fighting style, and the dynamics of the weapon, then
Medieval and Renaissance swords can rightly feel agile and
robust.
Writing in 1863, the sword manufacturer and authority John
Latham of Wilkinson Swords mistakenly noted of a fine specimen
of a mid-14th century Medieval arming sword that it had “a
tremendous weight” because “it was intended for
a time when swordsmen had to deal with iron-plated men.”
Added, Latham, “They got the heaviest weight they could,
and they put as much force behind it as they could possibly
give.” (Latham, Shape, p. 420-422). Yet, commentingon
the “overweighting” of swords, Latham however
noted a 6-pound sword designed at the time by a cavalry officer
who imagined it would strengthen his wrist but the result
was that “no living man can cut wit hit…The weight
is so great that it is impossible to give it any velocity,
and it’s cutting power is therefore nil. A very simple
test shows this.” (Latham, Shape, p. 420-421).
Latham
also added that, “The nature of the body cut at, however,
affects the result very much.” He then concluded by
commenting that the common mistake is to believe a strong
man would take a heavier sword so he could do more damage
with it. “The weight a man can move with the greatest
velocity is that with which he will produce the greatest effect,
but the lightest sword is not necessarily the one he can move
the quickest. It is possible for a sword to be so light that
we feel the resistance of the air in making a cut with it,
and this is what we express when we say a sword feels ‘whippy’
in the hand. Such a sword is worse than one too heavy.”
(Latham, p. 414-415).
A sword
certainly had to have enough mass to support an edge and point,
parry strikes, and give a blow weight, but at the same time
it could not be so heavy as to be slow and unmanageable or
else a quicker weapon would fight circles around it. This
necessary weight was a factor of what the blade was designed
for, whether to cut, thrust, or do both against whatever particular
materials it would encounter.
Imaginary
tales in chivalric fiction often featured massive swords wieldable
only by heroic champions or great villains and capable of
cleaving through horses and even trees. But these accounts
were mythic and allegorical, not literal. In Froissart's Chronicles,
when the Scots defeat the English near Melrose we do read
of Sir Archibald Douglas who "wielded before him an immense
sword, whose blade was two ells long, which scarcely another
could have lifted from the ground, but he found no difficulty
in handling it, and gave such terrible strokes, that all on
whom they fell were struck to the ground; and there were none
so hardy among the English able to withstand his blows."
The great 14th century fencing master Johannes Liechtenauer
himself said, "the sword is a scale, and it is great
and heavy" and that it is balanced by a suitable pommel,
by which he meant that the weapon is itself "balanced"
and handles well from that balance, not that the sword was
weighty. The Italian master Filippo Vadi in the early 1480s
instructed, "You'll take a light weapon and not a heavy
one, to easily control all of it, to avoid being hindered
by heavy weight." Thus, we have a teacher of defense
specifically acknowledging there were both "heavy"
and "light" blades to choose from. But again, the
word "heavy" should not be taken as equivalent with
being "too heavy" or necessarily awkward and cumbersome.
Instead, it should be viewed in the same context as one might,
for instance, choose a heavy tennis racket over a light one
or a heavier baseball bat over a lighter one.
So many
fine Medieval and Renaissance swords are so perfectly balanced
and weighted, they seem to virtually cry out to the holder,
"Wield me!"
In my experience, having handled in arms museums and private
collections well over 200 fine European swords ranging from
the 12th to 16th centuries alone, sword weight is something
I have paid careful consideration to. I am consistently amazed
at the liveliness and balance of virtually every specimen
I encounter. The antique Medieval and Renaissance swords I
have personally examined in six countries, and in some cases
practiced and even cut with, were time and again light and
well-balanced. Being accustomed as I am from years of exercise
swinging blades and handling weapons, with extremely few exceptions
did I ever find a historical sword to be anything other than
agile and quite manageable. Few, if any fighting swords, from
short blades to bastard variety and rapiers weighed even close
to 4 pounds and those which did typically were still well-balanced.
Even when I came across a piece I personally found "too
heavy" or just not balanced for my own tastes, I recognized
there might be others with a different build or fighting style
who no doubt could find it appealing.
ARMA members
investigating swords at the Swedish Royal Armory, Stockholm.
On an occasion when I worked out with two 16th century war-swords,
each weighing just over 3 pounds, they performed beautifully;
nimbly cutting, thrusting, guarding, recovering, and arcing
around in rapid slashes and fierce full-arm cuts as if they
were nearly weightless. There was nothing "heavy"
about such fearsome and elegant tools. I recall during one
wonderful opportunity to floryshe outside for several minutes
with an actual 16th century two-handed infantry sword, my
being entirely surprised at how easily the immense 6 pound
weapon handled so that it readily felt as if it weighed half
as much. Even though it was not designed for someone of my
stature, I could see its clear functionality and utility because
I understand the techniques and methods for such weapons.
The reader can take such anecdotes for what they are worth.
But the countless times that I have hefted fine antique swords
from the 14th, 15th, or 16th centuries, posing in wards and
performing stance transitions with them under the watchful
eyes of benevolent curators, have left me with the unshakeable
conviction as to what real swords weighed (and how they really
handled).
Measuring
and weighing two excellent
specimens in a private collection.
At one time, while inspecting a few select 14th and 16th century
swords in the possession of the late Ewart Oakeshott, we even
had the opportunity to weigh several fine examples on a digital
scale just to confirm and record for ourselves an accurate
understanding of their weight. Other colleagues have done
similar things and their findings corroborate with ours. It
is from such experiences with real swords that ARMA has come
to be so critical of the weight and balance problems so widespread
in many (certainly not all) modern swords. My experience with
real blades makes me all the more disappointed in the current
inferior accuracy of many modern versions. Obviously, the
more a modern sword handles like a historical one, the more
accurate our interpretations of the historical teachings for
using it will be. Indeed, it is arguable that appreciation
for the true weight of historical swords is prerequisite to
understanding their true application.
Having
handled countless Medieval and Renaissance swords to collect
impressions and exact measurements for his work, respected
swordsmith Peter Johnsson tells us how they, "have a
feeling of agility about them that can be astounding. In general
they are quick and precise and expertly well balanced for
their intended use. You get a strong impression of lightness
that often belies the actual size and weight of the sword.
This is more a result of a careful distribution of mass than
just the placing of the point of balance. Finding the weight
of a sword and its 'point of balance' is only half way to
understanding its 'dynamic balance' (i.e., how the sword handles
when put in motion)." He adds, "In general, modern
replicas are very far from original swords in this respect.
Distorted impressions as to what authentic sharp weapons were
all about can easily result from enthusiasts today learning
only by training with modern weapons." Thus, as Johnsson
notes, the bottom line is again that real swords are lighter
than most people realize. Even then, weight is not the whole
story because handling characteristics are a matter of mass-distribution
along a blade, which in turn, affects the point of balance.
What needs
to be understood in regard to modern copies of historical
swords is that even when made to closely approximate the weight
of an actual historical specimen, this does not guarantee
at all that it will feel the same as, or handle identically
to, the original model. Unless the geometry of a reproduction
matches that of the original (i.e., along its entire length,
shape, and cross-section) the balance will not be identical
between them.
Carefully weighing and measuring some actual 14th & 16th
century pieces.
The modern
piece can easily feel heavier and be less wieldy than the
original. Accurately reproducing balance in swords today is
an important aspect of their construction. Nowadays, many
cheaply made and inferior swords whether historical replicas,
reenactment weapons, fantasy-designs, theatrical props, or
ornamental pieces are regularly made heavy with poor balance.
Part of this problem is due to an unfortunate lack of understanding
of blade geometry on the part of the manufacturer. Other times,
intentional cost-cutting considerations are to blame. Either
way, even if they know, sellers and makers cannot be expected
to acknowledge to consumers that their swords may be too heavy
or poorly balanced. It's apparently much easier to simply
offer statements to the public about how they are "supposed"
to be that heavy.
There
is another factor in why modern swords are typically made
heavier than historical originals. Out of ignorance many sword
makers and their consumers honestly expect that a sword should
feel heavy. They have been conditioned by endless displays
of lumbering swordsmen with great sweeping blows of slow blades
to believe that unless their "barbarian broadsword"
is hefty and causes strain when lifted, it can't be a "real"
sword as if sheer mass alone affects a successful sword blow.
[When contrasted with the lightening-quick featherweight aluminum
swords used in many Asian martial arts displays and choreographed
routines, its hard to blame anyone for such misunderstanding.]
While the difference between a 3.8 pound and a 5.3 pound blade
may not seem like all that much, when trying to correctly
perform proper fighting techniques it very much is. Additionally,
when it comes to rapiers, which generally weighed between
two and two-and-a-half pounds, their weights can be somewhat
misleading. Being such slender thrusting blades, rapiers often
have the majority of their mass at their hilts, giving them
a balance that lends agility to their points despite their
weight comparative to much wider cutting swords.
Trying out an authentic 16th century two-handed infantrysword.
Facts and Myth-conceptions
Interestingly,
several times I have been fortunate to have had the opportunity
to compare a modern reproduction side by side with the original
sword it was based on. Though there was a difference of only
few ounces in weight, the disparity made the new one seem
to weigh at least a pound heavier.
Two weapons,
a fine replica, and an original. Despite being very close
in dimensions and weight, there is no comparing the difference
in"feel" betweeen the two.
Two of examples of modern reproductions side by side with
their originals.
Despite
their having the same dimensions, the minute and subtle differences
in cross-sectional geometry between them (the mass distribution
in the tang, the shoulder, the edge bevel, etc.) was dissimilar
enough to severely affect the balance and thus, their "feel"
when handled. I've also had the remarkable opportunity to
examine 19th century forgeries of Medieval swords and in some
cases the difference in "feel" between these fakes
and the real thing were noticeable right away.
When showing
replica swords in my lectures and presentations over the years,
I have repeatedly experienced surprise from attendees who
discover for the first time that swords were not nearly as
stocky or burdensome as they assumed or expected. Their surprise
is often accompanied by questions as to how to enlighten others
to this. As well, when teaching beginners I've very often
heard comments as to how heavy a particular sword was that,
in contrast, senior ARMA students actually considered to be
fairly light and well-balanced.
Examining
historical blades: A 14th century arming sword without handle,
a 10th century Viking sword, and a 16th century military field
sword.
Just how can one respond intelligently when confronted with
insistent declarations that swords "had to be heavy"
or "weighed 20 pounds?" How best to go about factually
refuting such nonsense statements? I have no sure advice.
If you directly answer that Medieval and Renaissance swords
were light, agile, and typically weighed around three pounds,
you can often expect to be met with a certain disbelief and
even argument. All that can be done perhaps, is to suggest
that the other party may not fully appreciate the true attributes
of real swords, that they may have been misled as to the actual
weights of historical pieces, that they might consider whether
or not they have ever handled sufficient historical examples,
and finally, that they might realize historical fighting men
trained hard and kept fit. The many types of Medieval and
Renaissance swords were versatile, agile, and highly effective
weapons that's why they were around for so long in so many
forms. As a tool of self-protection, nothing clumsy or awkward
to use would have been continually popular for centuries.
Claims that they consisted merely of crude hacking and artless
chopping without true skill, insult how versatile and elegant
these fighting blades really were.
ARMA Members
contrasting two pieces, an original and a similar modern reproduction.
Good swords
were light, agile, well balanced, and though fairly stiff,
still flexible and resilient. They were killing tools and
their study should be approached from that understanding.
A sword's weight cannot be judged just from its size or blade
width. Thus, while the weight of Medieval and Renaissance
swords can be accurately recorded and compiled, the matter
of their being "heavy" or not is one of perspective.
It is clear that despite the facts, regardless of the objective
mass of historical swords, their "heaviness" is
a subjective matter. The same three-pound weapon is elegant
and robust to a skilled practitioner while his desk-bound
colleague might think it ungainly and sluggish. The understanding
we must have is that to the men who skillfully used these
tools, they weighed just right.
|
|
