Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Estimated weight of the Bayerisches sword Reply to topic
This is a standard topic  
Author Message
Lance K.




PostPosted: Wed 10 Aug, 2005 11:25 pm    Post subject: Estimated weight of the Bayerisches sword         Reply with quote

Anybody have an idea? The Christian Fletcher version says 2lb 10oz, which i find to be quite amazing. Being nearly a pound less than other long swords I have to imagine it to be lightning fast, and I would have to think it has an edge over most any other sword.

Any thoughts are welcome.

Lance
View user's profile Send private message
Patrick Kelly




Location: Wichita, Kansas
Joined: 17 Aug 2003
Reading list: 42 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 5,739

PostPosted: Thu 11 Aug, 2005 12:10 am    Post subject: Re: Estimated weight of the Bayerisches sword         Reply with quote

Lance Karsten wrote:
Anybody have an idea? The Christian Fletcher version says 2lb 10oz, which i find to be quite amazing. Being nearly a pound less than other long swords I have to imagine it to be lightning fast, and I would have to think it has an edge over most any other sword.

Any thoughts are welcome.

Lance


Oakeshott doesn't list a weight in his mention of this sword, perhaps Peter Johnsson could tell us since he's done considerable study on the original. The CF version, while inspired by the original, is still a far different sword. Any attempt at a comparison would largely be irrelevant.

Quote:
and I would have to think it has an edge over most any other sword.


For what use? In what context? To imagine this based simply upon an estimation of the sword's weight is an over simplification of a complex subject. Light and fast don't always indicate superiority.

The fact that it's a beautiful sword in both line and proportion is enough to indicate that the maker knew his business. I'd love to see a quality recreation of this one. It was never one of my favorites in years past, but the more I look at photos of the original the more I come to appreciate it's beauty.

"In valor there is hope.".................. Tacitus
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Peter Johnsson
Industry Professional



Location: Storvreta, Sweden
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 3
Posts: 1,757

PostPosted: Thu 11 Aug, 2005 1:48 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I get many inquieries for detailed information about this sword.

The weight of the original is 1470 grams (±2 grams), or 3,3 pounds.
It is quite astounding in its handling charactersitics.
The sword as a whole is remarcable in every way.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lance K.




PostPosted: Thu 11 Aug, 2005 4:13 pm    Post subject: Re: Estimated weight of the Bayerisches sword         Reply with quote

Thank you very much Peter.

Patrick Kelly wrote:

For what use? In what context? To imagine this based simply upon an estimation of the sword's weight is an over simplification of a complex subject.


I know what you are saying but in my mind it doesn to have to be that complex, what may be considered something of the pinnacle of sword design is just that, one of the best swords made.

Seems to me given equally skilled fighters trained on their chosen blade the one with the most well designed and technologically advanced sword is going to have the edge.

Defenses may come into play but I would also think a later period weapon like that will be just as effective against earlier period armors as it is against the more advanced armor of its own period.

Its true I don’t know much about period details, I only see a generalized view, but to me a wholly remarkable sword speaks for its self.

Lance
View user's profile Send private message
Patrick Kelly




Location: Wichita, Kansas
Joined: 17 Aug 2003
Reading list: 42 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 5,739

PostPosted: Thu 11 Aug, 2005 6:07 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

But it is the complex. In order to truly understand a subject like this it's necessary to grasp those complexities. This is a beautiful sword to be sure, but assuming that it is a "pinnacle" because of that is false logic. As with any other sword this one was designed to meet a certain set of circumstances at a certain point in history. Assuming it's superior simply because it's pretty may provide a false conclusion. A Ferrari is pretty but I'm not going to use one to haul a load of cattle to market. Form always follows function and vice-versa. Oversimplifying the issue does both the sword and the field of study that surrounds it a disservice.
"In valor there is hope.".................. Tacitus
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

Location: Northern VA,USA
Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Reading list: 43 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 4,194

PostPosted: Thu 11 Aug, 2005 7:01 pm    Post subject: Re: Estimated weight of the Bayerisches sword         Reply with quote

Lance Karsten wrote:

Seems to me given equally skilled fighters trained on their chosen blade the one with the most well designed and technologically advanced sword is going to have the edge.


Is a type XVII better than a type X? You can't answer that. Now, is a type XVII better for dealing with opponent's in plate armor than a type X? Now we're getting warmer, at least in the type of question we should be asking. If it were so simple, there wouldn't be such a wide variety of sword types and style. Even within one type of sword there's still a huge amount of variance between weight, mass distribution and handling. If such a superior sword existed, why would there be such variance between each sword?

BTW, I happen to own the very sword pictured on CF's site. It's a very sweet handling sword. Is it better than A&A's Durer, which is a similar design but heavier? No way. They feel different, and I love both swords. On a personal preference, I happen to like the Durer in handling a tiny bit more, but I know people who've handled both who prefer the 1593. FWIW.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin


myArmoury Admin

PostPosted: Thu 11 Aug, 2005 7:06 pm    Post subject: Re: Estimated weight of the Bayerisches sword         Reply with quote

Bill Grandy wrote:
BTW, I happen to own the very sword pictured on CF's site. It's a very sweet handling sword. Is it better than A&A's Durer, which is a similar design but heavier? No way. They feel different, and I love both swords. On a personal preference, I happen to like the Durer in handling a tiny bit more, but I know people who've handled both who prefer the 1593. FWIW.

This is a very interesting comment, Bill. I have handled both swords and I happen to agree with you. But it got me thinking about it. I prefer a heavier sword over a lighter one. That doesn't mean that I prefer an "unwieldy" sword, of course, but looking at only weight (a slippery slope for sure), I'd say I prefer a heavier sword with more "heft". (Whatever that means...)

Your comments about asking more complete questions about these things are absolutely spot-on.

.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Patrick Kelly




Location: Wichita, Kansas
Joined: 17 Aug 2003
Reading list: 42 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 5,739

PostPosted: Thu 11 Aug, 2005 7:41 pm    Post subject: Re: Estimated weight of the Bayerisches sword         Reply with quote

Nathan Robinson wrote:
Bill Grandy wrote:
BTW, I happen to own the very sword pictured on CF's site. It's a very sweet handling sword. Is it better than A&A's Durer, which is a similar design but heavier? No way. They feel different, and I love both swords. On a personal preference, I happen to like the Durer in handling a tiny bit more, but I know people who've handled both who prefer the 1593. FWIW.

This is a very interesting comment, Bill. I have handled both swords and I happen to agree with you. But it got me thinking about it. I prefer a heavier sword over a lighter one. That doesn't mean that I prefer an "unwieldy" sword, of course, but looking at only weight (a slippery slope for sure), I'd say I prefer a heavier sword with more "heft". (Whatever that means...)

Your comments about asking more complete questions about these things are absolutely spot-on.


I strongly agree with both of you. I also happen to like heftier swords myself, as you both probably know already. A more accurate descriptor might be to say that I prefer swords with more "mass", or maybe even "dynamic mass" to take it one step further. The ones that don't necessarily feel any heavier in a static sense, but seem to have more "hoo-ahh".

"In valor there is hope.".................. Tacitus
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Lance K.




PostPosted: Thu 11 Aug, 2005 10:14 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Thanks for the comments.

Patrick Kelly wrote:
This is a beautiful sword to be sure, but assuming that it is a "pinnacle" because of that is false logic.


This sword came late in the technological evolution of sword design, and I know designs typically build toward an apex before they are transcended by the next level. So I assumed it was something of a pinnacle, not only because of its advanced design, but also because of those late period technologically evolved designs, it is the one sword I have seen Peter speak most highly of.

This says to me sword design evolved to a point, and that point occurred at a point in relative history. Looking upon that point there is a number of swords that can be seen, and this particular sword seems to stand out as a performance leader, from what I have read.

It could be true that this sword can only be compared to the specific period in which it occurred, and it may or may not be a standout sword from that period. But if there were earlier period armor that could counter a late period sword more effectively than late period armor, I have to wonder why one would not dig the old armor out of the closet upon the observation that the enemy is using a sword designed for late period gear.

If swords are truly only affective against certain armor types, I really have to wonder why not keep two armor types on hand, and send a scout to see what swords are in use by the enemy before suiting up?

Seems to me armor kept getting better, so swords naturally got better, or vice versa. I don’t think countering a certain sword design is as easy as suiting up in an older style of armor.

My point is that it seems to me an advanced weapon like this is not only going to be affective against the advanced armor of the period, but also against the less advanced armor of previous periods. Given the best armor out there, there is going to be a best sword against that given armor, and of those best swords, can there not be a best of the best?

This leads me to believe there truly can be a more advanced sword, a more effective sword, a better sword, over all. If this is not true maybe somebody can paint a picture for me that illustrates an example why this cannot be the case.

Big Grin
View user's profile Send private message
Jean Thibodeau




Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Likes: 50 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,310

PostPosted: Fri 12 Aug, 2005 1:23 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Lance;

Sounds like a logical argument to me.

When plate armour became the norm the sword, any sword might not be the best possible weapon ? A poleaxe or other polearm might be more effective.

But if we limit the argument to just swords the heavy narrow and very pointy blade do seem to be favoured and as you say if the older armour was more effective why bother with plate.

How did one attack someone wearing plate armour, what are the weak points ?

The vision sights would be a prime target, then maybe getting the blade in between two plate lames and forcing the point through, lastly those area defended only by maille.

With the maille I assume that a type XVII sword would have the most chance of breaking a few links and piercing the maille.

If the maille used with the plate armour was a major point of weakness then older armour being ALL maille would share the same vulnerability but everywhere and not only were plate defences were not usable.

Now although this may work as a theoretical exercise historically you have to wonder why they used the X type swords for instance. The heavy slashing sword must have been at least reasonably effective against maille or they would not have been used !

If fighting in a battle were the majority of opponents would be un-armoured or lightly armoured a heavy cutting sword might be better at stopping enemies quickly than using a thrusting sword with less cutting ability: A slash capable of major dismemberment would stop an attacker faster than an eventually deadly thrust acting more slowly.

Sort of the stopping power argument that was never completely resolved about what is the best and fastest stopper a cut or a stab ?

You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
View user's profile Send private message
Kenneth Enroth




Location: Finland
Joined: 04 Dec 2003

Posts: 288

PostPosted: Fri 12 Aug, 2005 2:22 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

The Bayerisches sword is highly ornate and exqusite. Looks like the status symbol/self defense weapon of someone rich. Does not look like a battlefield weapon.

Can you equate the maille used to reinforce weaknesses in plate with a full hauberk? If you have two guys in plate that fights with the same weapons you can expect both to duke it out at halfsword. If one of them has full maille and is armed with sword and shield the guy with the pointy sword has to get in past the shield and the man in maille must try to keep his opponent at distance and whack him with the cutting sword. Could he affect the man in plate with a solid blow? I'd say it's quite likely he could. Look at the modern destructive testing against oildrums. I wouldn't want to be hit like that.

In the Maciejowski bible knights are wrestling and thrusting daggers through eyeslits so they aren't defenseless at close quarters either.

A warrior from any period is equipped to fight his own kind. It you hypotethically pitted different period warriors against each other all bets are off. So you cannot say this sword is superior beacuse it's later period. In some cases you probably could when metallurgy improved but an early/high medieval slashing sword s a fearsome weapon for what it's meant to do as well as the later ones.

In the 14th and 15th century plate armour developed and the pointy sword evolved as a response. It's safe to say that the pointy swords excel at what they are meant to do, combat plate armour. But you cannot say that pointy swords are superior to cutting swords across the board, or if you took an XVII back to the 12th century that it would be superior in that context.
View user's profile Send private message
Daniel Staberg




Location: Gothenburg/Sweden
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Likes: 2 pages
Reading list: 2 books

Posts: 570

PostPosted: Fri 12 Aug, 2005 2:51 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Kenneth,
The destructive testing of swords against oildrums shows nothing more than that, the effect of a sword against an oildrum. An oildrum is in not very similar to a suit of steel plate armour, to determine the effect of cutting sword on plate amroru yu have to use both a high quiality sword and pieces of high quality armour. Not sub-standard substitutes.

http://www.rdg.ac.uk/engin/home/material/ancient/AW_poster.jpg
Dr Alan Williams is the author of the massive "The Knight and the Blast Furnace: A History of the Metallurgy of Armour in the Middle Ages & the Early Modern Period"
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Johnsson
Industry Professional



Location: Storvreta, Sweden
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 3
Posts: 1,757

PostPosted: Fri 12 Aug, 2005 4:55 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

To develop an understanding of the functions of cutting and/or thrusting swords we need to look beyond the ability to withstand shocks of deflecting parries, possible edge damage from edg to edge or the ability or inability to cut through plate.

Swords were not constructed/designed to defeat other swords, nor were they made to defeat armour (rather to exploirt the weak aspects of the armour of the time).
They had to *withstand* violent use and still perform as killing tools. That is why development in armour can be traced in the changing shape of the sword. They had to be shaped so they afforded their wielder good intiative and opportunity to put an end to his opponent, taking advantage of his weaknesses. Those could be limited mobiliy, limited sight, limited coverage of armour et.c. As has ben pointed out a few times in this thread: even a full set of plate armour does not afford complete protection. Rarely the combattants on a battlefield are so well armoured that a cutting sword could not be used to disable opponents with a well aimed thrust or cut. A blow from a sword does not have to cleave through the plate to do disabling or killing damage.

The design/type of the sword must be seen in context with the swordsmanship of the time. Also important to note is in what type of combat it would be used: coordinated battlefield use (gladius) or man to man duel (rapier). Perhaps both situations?

The Bayerishes longsword is indeed a very rich weapon that would have been carried by some one of influence and wealth. Beneath gilding and decoration it is still very much a no-nonsense weapon though. A longsword for longsword fighting, be it a self defence "duel" or from horse back in a battle.

We can imagine the owner wearing a suit of high quality armour, perhaps even made by Lorenz Helmschied. He sits on a horse of the most excellent quality. He is surrounded by men at arms equipped in high quality and very business like arms and armour (that probably has some amount of decoration as well).
He is a player for high stakes.
Will he use his sword? -Of course, if the situation arises. How often will that happen? -A good question!

A swordsman might train his whole life to prepare for the life or death encounter with bare blades, but never actually kill an opponent in a swordfight. A sword can be handed down for generations but be destroyed in a few seconds.

This is a long and rambling post.

I only mean to point out that there are many different aspects that define a sword. Quite a few of these aspects might well be misunderstood by us modern enthusiasts, or even un-known, The result is often simplifications and exaggerations that befuddle our understanding.

An idea that I like to propagate is that the sword has *always* been at its peak of development. In every time and culture, the sword has has exactly the shape and quality it needs to perform its intended purpose.
Then once in a while something happens that puts old ideas to shame and new ways need to be found: new types of swords develop as society changes.
Equally important to functional aspects is the economy of making and scale of making. We must also remember for whom it was made: the elite social class during the migration era or the soldiers of the Napoleonic wars. Scale and economy of the production has as large impact on sword design as anything else. This is still very much true today.
Time changes and the sword follows (and sometimes take the lead role).
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Gordon Clark




Location: Purcellville, VA
Joined: 28 Aug 2003
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 501

PostPosted: Fri 12 Aug, 2005 5:50 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

There have also been instances of "cycles" over a few hundred years - where armor and other battlefield conditions were enough like the conditions 200 years before that similar (or even exactly the same swords) were used again. A good example is the XIII longswords of the 13th century showing up again in the 15th-16th centuries. There were instances of blades rehilted for use many years later.

I think that pinnacles were a much more personal thing. Particular makers might produce a sword that, for a particular function, they believed was the finests sword they ever produced. Their "masterwork". Such a sword would be a wonderful thing to handle, and subsequent makers might learn much from it. Could they produce a better one? That depends on their skill (and the context of use, of course).

Gordon
View user's profile Send private message
Kenneth Enroth




Location: Finland
Joined: 04 Dec 2003

Posts: 288

PostPosted: Fri 12 Aug, 2005 6:55 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Daniel Staberg wrote:
Kenneth,
The destructive testing of swords against oildrums shows nothing more than that, the effect of a sword against an oildrum. An oildrum is in not very similar to a suit of steel plate armour, to determine the effect of cutting sword on plate amroru yu have to use both a high quiality sword and pieces of high quality armour. Not sub-standard substitutes.

http://www.rdg.ac.uk/engin/home/material/ancient/AW_poster.jpg
Dr Alan Williams is the author of the massive "The Knight and the Blast Furnace: A History of the Metallurgy of Armour in the Middle Ages & the Early Modern Period"


I'm not thinking about the effect on the drums so much. Rather the force with which the swords hit.
View user's profile Send private message
Lance K.




PostPosted: Fri 12 Aug, 2005 4:47 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Wow such very good information here. Thanks to all for providing this additional understanding and insight. It is very appreciated.

Peter Johnsson wrote:

An idea that I like to propagate is that the sword has *always* been at its peak of development. In every time and culture, the sword has has exactly the shape and quality it needs to perform its intended purpose.


I really like this idea. There is no more advanced moment in history than the current moment.

Gordon Clark wrote:

I think that pinnacles were a much more personal thing. Particular makers might produce a sword that, for a particular function, they believed was the finests sword they ever produced. Their "masterwork". Such a sword would be a wonderful thing to handle, and subsequent makers might learn much from it.


This point is also excellent.

Kenneth Enroth wrote:

In the Maciejowski bible knights are wrestling and thrusting daggers through eyeslits so they aren't defenseless at close quarters either.


I can imagine the the brutal chaos that one might encounter on the battlefield. I know even in modern warfare soldiers are trained in eye gouging and the whole works. This give an idea of the vast array of skilles beyond the swrod one must employ to survive.

Jean Thibodeau wrote:

If fighting in a battle were the majority of opponents would be un-armoured or lightly armoured a heavy cutting sword might be better at stopping enemies quickly than using a thrusting sword with less cutting ability: A slash capable of major dismemberment would stop an attacker faster than an eventually deadly thrust acting more slowly.


I also find this point of pure stopping power interesting. It reminds me of the stopping power of something like a .45 vs a 9mm.

Thanks again to everybody.
View user's profile Send private message
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

Location: Northern VA,USA
Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Reading list: 43 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 4,194

PostPosted: Fri 12 Aug, 2005 6:54 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I think one of the problems that causes many misconceptions (misconceptions that date as far back as the Victorian era, and probably before) is the connotation of the word "evolution". To quote Christoph Amberger, "I blame Darwin". To evolve does not mean to become better. It means to change to fit the time.

Which is better, a basilosaurus or an orca whale? One has been extinct since prehistory, does that mean the other is somehow better? What about a tyranosaurus compared to a gecko? One evolved, one didn't, does that mean the gecko is the better creature?

Quote:
Seems to me armor kept getting better, so swords naturally got better, or vice versa. I don’t think countering a certain sword design is as easy as suiting up in an older style of armor.


By this logic, the saber is the pinnacle of the European sword. But put a 19th century cavalry saberist in a time hole and put him against a 10th century Norman in mail, or a 15th century Italian in full plate, and I somehow don't think he'd manage so well. It's all about context.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Steve Grisetti




Location: Washington DC metro area, USA
Joined: 01 Mar 2004
Likes: 9 pages
Reading list: 28 books

Posts: 1,812

PostPosted: Sat 13 Aug, 2005 4:11 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Bill Grandy wrote:
...
Quote:
Seems to me armor kept getting better, so swords naturally got better, or vice versa. I don’t think countering a certain sword design is as easy as suiting up in an older style of armor.

By this logic, the saber is the pinnacle of the European sword. But put a 19th century cavalry saberist in a time hole and put him against a 10th century Norman in mail, or a 15th century Italian in full plate, and I somehow don't think he'd manage so well. It's all about context.

Yes, it is all about context. When you consider the whole package, the 19th century saberist was likely also equipped with one or more firearms. If he has his complete package when he goes through that time hole, the 19th century saberist would likely do just fine. At least, until he runs out of ammo Laughing Out Loud .
View user's profile Send private message
Jean Thibodeau




Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Likes: 50 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,310

PostPosted: Sat 13 Aug, 2005 4:29 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Steve;

This is why I like GOOD Sci. Fi. alternate history or fantasy fiction that does this kind of mix and matching of period arms and armour by author who are actually knowledgeable of the real history: It give you a chance to explore the "WHAT IF " without annoying anyone here with the old Samurai versus Knight thing. Laughing Out Loud ( Which I think can be fun if people would not take it TOO seriously. )

You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Estimated weight of the Bayerisches sword
Page 1 of 1 Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You 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 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum