Two-Handed Swords

>>3318589
In fairness, 9 pounds is pretty damn heavy when it's not right in the palm of your hand. Most people couldn't just pick up a two handed sword and swing it without throwing themselves off balance, the same way most people do that retarded chick lean thing with firearms.

>>3318589
>To put this in perspective, an M1903 Springfield rifle from WW1 would weigh around 9 pounds when loaded and ready. So the average two-handed sword would weigh less than a WW1-era infantry rifle
Yeah but you don't fight by swinging a rifle around, the weight only really matters in terms of portability and can be evenly supported from cover. But a sword you can only grip from the hilt, while its weight is often more heavily distributed along the blade. So no shit the swords were not that heavy, even at only 5 pounds your arms would turn to wet noodles after swinging it around at full combat speed for 10 minutes.

>>3318675
Well made swords were balanced so that the hilt was able to counter balance the blade enough to make it easier to control, but even so there were limitations in pre-modern metal working, they could only get the steel and iron so light before it lost its strength. At a certain point you just gotta tell people to build up their arm strength.

Fighting with something and carrying something is totally different. A lot of beginners in HEMA can totally exhaust themselves swinging around a pound and a half nylon waster

>>3318725
This. 5 - 9 pounds doesn't seem like a lot until you start swinging it around for 10 minutes and realize if your arms drop, you'd probably be dead.

>>3318589
Even a two pound sword can be a lot for a beginner, especially if its not balanced right, which is not uncommon in modern reproductions

>>3318589
>thearma
Wow, wake me up are we still in the 2000's?

>>3318675
>chick lean thing
?

>>3318589
If they are as heavy as an M1903 then it is fucking heavy. Can you swing a rifle around?

>>3318589
Since we are posting old stuff, then better post some Matt Galas.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhNnwby--yQ

>>3319306
Just google chick lean

>>3319318

Keep in mind that 9 pounds is the absolute maximum for a sword to be useful in a non-ceremonial context. Most examples weigh much less than that.

This museum I used to work at had a bunch of 19th century sabres, including some civil war era cavalry sabres. Surprisingly light.

>>3320733

9 lbs is a ceremonial sword, no real sword weighs more than 4 or 5.

It comes from the meme back scabbard, in reality you had a bitch boi to lug all your heavy shit so you never had to do any epic meme draws of it

>>3318589
So what you are saying is my DM has no good reason to stop my DnD character from dual wielding 2 2-handed swords? What about great axes?

>>3318745
>Well made swords were balanced so that the hilt was able to counter balance the blade enough to make it easier to control
Actually the point of balance was usually ahead of the grip, although how far ahead of the grip varied from sword to sword by personal preference. A perfectly balanced sword is easier to twirl around like a jedi but much harder to bring down with force, especially if it's a heavier sword, making it unbalanced allows the weight to do more of the work. And like a lever, if the fulcrum is at your hands, someone parrying your blade will have a much easier time pushing it aside to kill you.

>>3318589
You ever swing around a mosin nagant carbine? Shit's heavy as fuck! Even in a synthetic stock.
Granted, the swords are more balanced.

>>3318750
>>3319028
Indeed. Combine that with a mask and people get drenched in sweat.

>>3319318
>>3320977
A large two-handed sword is better balanced towards the hands.

>>3320794
Yep. Actual swords produced during their "period of context" were well balanced and light. Most replicas you see today are too heavy and bulky and mostly made in India.

>>3320803
9lbs is maybe a bit high but plenty of real swords weigh 6-7.5lbs, what a silly thing to say.