Hi Kirk,
* Thanks for the clarification. You know, looking at your graph again, there does seem to be a trend after all -- the more swords measured, the heavier they seem to get for nearly all types. So maybe historical European swords did in fact tend toward the "heavy side of light."
* Hey, what part of TX are you in? I live here too (DFW area), and even also taught science a couple times over the past few years. For now, I'm temporarily retired... :surprised:
| Ruel A. Macaraeg wrote: |
| Hi Kirk,
* Thanks for the clarification. You know, looking at your graph again, there does seem to be a trend after all -- the more swords measured, the heavier they seem to get for nearly all types. So maybe historical European swords did in fact tend toward the "heavy side of light." * Hey, what part of TX are you in? I live here too (DFW area), and even also taught science a couple times over the past few years. For now, I'm temporarily retired... :surprised: |
Ruel...
We might me neighbors... I live in the Dallas area.
I think when I redo the graph I will label the x-axis "Distribution of Sword Weight from lightest measured to heaviest measured.
Once I include the Wallace Collection data it will be interesting to see if there really is a trend to the heavier side... I suspect that it will just flatten out the middle and give me a better idea on median weight.
Yet even with these very prelimenary results it does appear that swords do get progresively heavier through history from Viking to Single-hand to Double Hand to Complex hilts. Then they get progressivly lighter to Baskethilts and Hangers.
As is oft stated, as armor became more prevalent a heavier sword might be needed to make louder banging noises and putting "door dings" in your opponents armour. Once gunpowder made it possible to punch nice holes through even the thickest plate, swords could go on a diet.
ks
* Hey, that's great -- I'm in N. Arlington, pretty central to the Metroplex. Seems like there's a good sword "underground" here after all. ;) You don't work in DISD, do you?
* No doubt you're correct about sword weights being related to the armor it opposed. I have, though, always imagined that the baskets on baskethilts added significantly to the overall weight of swords -- to the casual viewer, most baskethilt blades look more or less like the blades of earlier cruciform singlehanders. Apparently the blades thinned out in order to produce lighter overall swords.
* No doubt you're correct about sword weights being related to the armor it opposed. I have, though, always imagined that the baskets on baskethilts added significantly to the overall weight of swords -- to the casual viewer, most baskethilt blades look more or less like the blades of earlier cruciform singlehanders. Apparently the blades thinned out in order to produce lighter overall swords.
| Ruel A. Macaraeg wrote: |
| * Hey, that's great -- I'm in N. Arlington, pretty central to the Metroplex. Seems like there's a good sword "underground" here after all. ;) You don't work in DISD, do you?
* No doubt you're correct about sword weights being related to the armor it opposed. I have, though, always imagined that the baskets on baskethilts added significantly to the overall weight of swords -- to the casual viewer, most baskethilt blades look more or less like the blades of earlier cruciform singlehanders. Apparently the blades thinned out in order to produce lighter overall swords. |
Hi Ruel...
I teach history at a Bible college/seminary in East Dallas...
It is interesting that you mention the baskethilts... of all the categories, baskethilt weights suprized me. With all of that iron in the basket, it does seem reasonable that they would be heavier than cruciform singlehanders. As you say, thinner blades would make them lighter, also a smaller and hollow pommel would allow a little more mass to be shifted to the basket.
Almost all of my baskethilt weight data came from Neumann's "Swords and Blades of the American Revolution." It will be interesting to see what happens with weights from other sources.
thanks for your interest.
ks
* Do any of these sources give blade thickness numbers for cruciforms vs. baskethilts? I was just assuming that was the case (baskethilt blades being thinner), but I really don't know. A long, thick crossguard and a solid pommel might weigh more than a thin basket and hollow pommel.
* You should get in touch with Tom Carr, who's also on this forum. He's in Mesquite, and was looking to do another Dallas-area sword gethering in April. :cool:
* You should get in touch with Tom Carr, who's also on this forum. He's in Mesquite, and was looking to do another Dallas-area sword gethering in April. :cool:
| Ruel A. Macaraeg wrote: |
| * Do any of these sources give blade thickness numbers for cruciforms vs. baskethilts? I was just assuming that was the case (baskethilt blades being thinner), but I really don't know. A long, thick crossguard and a solid pommel might weigh more than a thin basket and hollow pommel.
* You should get in touch with Tom Carr, who's also on this forum. He's in Mesquite, and was looking to do another Dallas-area sword gethering in April. :cool: |
Ruel...
In the works I have seen, you're lucky to get blade width much less thicknesses.
Yes I have met Tom... he is a great guy and a kindred spirit... we both like to take used swords and make them look even older. I'm on his list when he has his next cutting party.
ks
Cool -- we'll catch up then. ;)
Page 2 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum