I have come across a few of them in critique groups, though, so they're obviously out there.
I've also been to and seen panels at conventions about making your weapons realistic, and the too-heavy sword has been mentioned there, as well. I'd think the debunking of the myth would be common knowledge by now.
But then again, I also grew up where I could watch knives made from start to finish. My view of the whole thing may be somewhat skewed.
I don't remember the first time I got to hold a real sword, but I do remember the first time I held a heavy choreography sword. My reaction was, "This is not a real sword."
The choreography sword in question was pretty, but badly balanced. I was supposed to be working out a fight with a lady who would wield the sword while I fought with quarterstaff. I believe I was equally offended by being handed a big pine dowel rod and told it was oak.
I have come across people who have used choreography swords, and who are deeply offended by the idea that they aren't real swords. Some of them are truly fine products, and they do what they're meant for quite admirably. The problem is that they aren't meant for the same use as a "real" sword, and they very definitely aren't what someone is going to run around a battlefield with.
Choreography swords are thicker and heavier than regular swords, and they usually have very blunt edges. They're meant for performances, and to hold up to being banged against each other.
Early Medieval swords were cutting weapons. You would not go around bashing your sword against other swords or metal implements--swords were something of status and prestige symbols, and you wanted to pass yours down to through your family. You wouldn't want to ruin or damage it with a careless swipe, and likewise if you were blocking a blow, you'd want to use your shield.
They also couldn't be too heavy, because you had to be able to carry and fight with them. What would be the use of having a huge, heavy weapon that would slow you down? If you're on a battlefield, you don't want to be the slow, clumsy guy who can't stop a swing once it starts.
I have a wonderful book that I absolutely love for many reasons. It's called Weapon: A Visual History of Arms and Armor. One thing that was done in it that I absolutely love is that on many of the swords, it not only lists date, origin, and length, but also weight.
The swords started at 22 inches in length, and 1/4 pound. There was another that weighed the same, but was 29 1/2 inches long.
The heaviest, by a wide margin, was a German boar hunting sword from 1662. It was meant as the primary weapon when hunting boar, and it had an extra two knives and a bodkin which could also be used as a file stored in the scabbard. It was only 35 1/2 inches long, and weighed a surprising 12 lbs.
The next heaviest was a German parade sword (paratschwerter) from 1580. It was an especially ornate two-handed sword (doppelhander or beidenhande) meant for ceremonial occasions--like parades, for example. It was made to be longer and heavier than a more practical battlefield weapon, and was recognized as being of little use as an offensive weapon. In other words, it was heavy, but it was really only there for looks.
A brief and by no means thorough Google search revealed this:
Landsknecht returning from the war, with his 20 pound sword...
(drawing by Urs Graf, adjusted for weight)
I have shamelessly stolen it from here. You absolutely must go there and read the wonderful rant regarding the weight of swords. It's brilliant.
No comments:
Post a Comment