[LT] Sheaths for melee weapons

[DanHoward]

I am not entirely convinced that an average Broadsword weighs under 1 kg. I am not a weapon collector, but the normal one-handed swords I wielded (12th century) were quite broad and heavy. They were shorter than hand-and-a-half swords, but not so much lighter.

Believe it. I've been collecting and analysing weapon weights from museum catalogues and private collections (not replicas) for a long time and from the very first maces until modern times the median weight for a one-handed weapon is 1.8-2.2 lbs. It doesn't matter if it is a sword, axe, or mace. Once you get to 3 pounds they are clearly meant to be used in two hands, though, with training and an appropriately balanced weapon, they can still be used in one hand. There are exceptions - some freakishly long rapiers can be up to 3 lbs for example. The occasional mace gets to around 3 lbs.

The problem with archaeological remains is that swords are often more rust than iron. As iron oxidises its weight increases. One should only use blades that are in decent condition to get an accurate idea. The problem with this is that it is difficult to know how much "restoration" was done on the weapon by the time someone got around to weighing it. A lot of weight could have been lost while cleaning the blade. There really aren't that many swords dating to the periods we are interested in that are in a good enough condition to get an accurate weight from.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by Lupo

I surely agree, but I don't understand what you are implying here.

Are you saying that GURPS weapons weights should exclude the pommel? Or that they are unrealistically high because they assume an above-average pommel, rather than an average one?

I'm pointing out that saying that a 3 lbs broadsword of average weight is 30" - 40" in length, is the same as saying that a 220 lbs man of average weight will be between 5'6" - 6'6" in height.

A 30" blade for a broadsword is going to weigh half a pound less than a 40" blade, add in a heavier pommel to maintain balance and you have either a 2 lbs broadsword or a 2.75 lbs broadsword.

[DanHoward]

There were plenty of techniques to make a blade longer and not increase the weight too much. Fullers and distal tapers were the main methods.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

There were plenty of techniques to make a blade longer and not increase the weight too much. Fullers and distal tapers were the main methods.

Which starts getting into quality levels and how good the smith is, which is great as far as I'm concerned.

Though regardless of how skilled the maker is, you still end up having to increase the pommel/hilt weight in order to maintain a good CoB as blade length increases.

That CoB is more important than anything, having a few extra ounces in your pommel can mean that the sword moves faster than it would without that extra weight.

[safisher]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

Once you get to 3 pounds they are clearly meant to be used in two hands, though, with training and an appropriately balanced weapon, they can still be used in one hand. There are exceptions - some freakishly long rapiers can be up to 3 lbs for example. The occasional mace gets to around 3 lbs.

Hardly seems like much of a rule then, Dan! "With training" and "balance" and "occasional" and so forth. It might be better to say "that 2.5-3 lbs. is certainly acceptable and that higher weights are certainly not impossible."

Originally Posted by DanHoward

A lot of weight could have been lost while cleaning the blade. There really aren't that many swords dating to the periods we are interested in that are in a good enough condition to get an accurate weight from.

And I might add that those few which exist, understandably, are not very frequently available for testing of material composition and so forth. They are rare artifacts.

In any event, I felt compelled to post on your (now corrected) 1.5 lbs. figure, which you have since edited. Your position, however you want to present it, certainly leans enough on the dogmatic side that have cause to double check you on occasion. It's not uncommon to find to not only your interpretations in question, but your facts as well. I say this because not everyone that reads these forums may know how vociferously you argue for your bias. To give one example of a historical sword and its reproductions: http://swordforum.com/summer99/st-m.html

That is, of course, presuming that the stats listed here are correct. And as Dan stated in his amended statement, the fundamental and unalterable fact is that there are precious few examples available to study, much like tools from many periods in human history -- they simply were used up because they were made of valuable materials. Unless of course we draw the very reasonable conclusion that since so few examples of various weapons and armor survived that must mean that medieval Europeans fought naked with bare fists!

And therein lies my final cautionary statement. First, with so little evidence, what we know is quite limited. Two, reproductions are hit and miss for evidential purposes. Some good, some very bad. Third, that partisans in these fields (like others in the social sciences) are hardly in any position to claim perfect knowledge -- which Dan's terse replies so often appear to do. Often those who study material culture are incredibly limited in the conclusions they can properly draw. Unfortunately, they nevertheless often overstate their sometimes very tenuous evidence. Confirmation bias is a frequent pitfall of the diehards converted to cause.

Thus, take the presented evidence or opinions with a grain of salt. In an adventure game, 0.5 lbs. or even 1 lb. is hardly much of a concern when the metric is measured against a very generic weapon type in the first place. The issue is not "incorrect" stats, as Dan likes to intone, but where the authors set their benchmarks.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by safisher

To give one example of a historical sword and its reproductions: http://swordforum.com/summer99/st-m.html

Not to be pedantic, but those two swords, at 41.4" and 43.3", fall outside the bounds of the GURPS Broadsword, which are "Typically 30” to 40” long." (MA, p.213), but even so they are both under 3 lbs.

The Sword of Saint Maurice in Vienna, Austria
The overall length is 1100 mm (43.3"), with a blade-length of 953 mm (37.5"). The sword weighs 1300 grams (2 lbs. 14 oz).


The Sword of Saint Maurice in Turin, Italy
It has a total length of 1051 mm (41.4") and weighs 1330 grams (2.93 lbs.).

[safisher]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

Not to be pedantic, but those two swords, at 41.4" and 43.3", fall outside the bounds of the GURPS Broadsword, which are "Typically 30” to 40” long." (MA, p.213), but even so they are both under 3 lbs.

You rather make point, Ze. Nonetheless, it's clearly a one-handed sword and 1" hardly disqualifies it from being a GURPS Broadsword (note the "typically"). And while the original is in fact below 3 lbs., it's closer to 3 than 2.5 lbs. Which was my point. And if you look at the reproductions you'll note they are broad category marginally heavier than 3 lbs. None of this indicates that a 3 lb. broadsword is verbotten -- or as Dan likes to say "wrong." Simply that the range of this broad category is, well, quite broad.

[Lupo]

Originally Posted by safisher

Simply that the range of this broad category is, well, quite broad.

Don't say that too loud, or in GURPS 5E there will be no weapon weights whatsoever - just a digression about how weapon weights were historically very variable and thus GURPS, being universal, cannot provide "hard" stats for them, and a GM should do his own research checking museum catalogues :P

[demonsbane]

Originally Posted by safisher

And therein lies my final cautionary statement. First, with so little evidence, what we know is quite limited. Two, reproductions are hit and miss for evidential purposes. Some good, some very bad. Third, that partisans in these fields (like others in the social sciences) are hardly in any position to claim perfect knowledge -- which Dan's terse replies so often appear to do. Often those who study material culture are incredibly limited in the conclusions they can properly draw. Unfortunately, they nevertheless often overstate their sometimes very tenuous evidence. Confirmation bias is a frequent pitfall of the diehards converted to cause.

Maybe, although the problems and insights that you are pointing here affects not only to Dan and his sections on weapons and armor; rather, it permeates all sciences . . .

Originally Posted by Lupo

Don't say that too loud, or in GURPS 5E there will be no weapon weights whatsoever - just a digression about how weapon weights were historically very variable and thus GURPS, being universal, cannot provide "hard" stats for them, and a GM should do his own research checking museum catalogues :P

. . . and thus, strictly speaking, the same would be applicable to many other sections of Low-Tech (including the Companions) and to a number of GURPS books: your tongue-in-cheek "concern" for a GURPS 5e lacking of weapon weights whatsoever due to this, would be aggravated to a GURPS 5e lacking of many other things, too!

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by safisher

You rather make point, Ze. Nonetheless, it's clearly a one-handed sword and 1" hardly disqualifies it from being a GURPS Broadsword (note the "typically"). And while the original is in fact below 3 lbs., it's closer to 3 than 2.5 lbs. Which was my point. And if you look at the reproductions you'll note they are broad category marginally heavier than 3 lbs. None of this indicates that a 3 lb. broadsword is verbotten -- or as Dan likes to say "wrong." Simply that the range of this broad category is, well, quite broad.

Except that the first of those swords was specifically used as a ceremonial blade, a coronation piece, and the second blade was never used, indicating its status as likely that of a large wall hanger.

The fact that the reproductions are heavier than the originals is simply a symptom of the amateur decorative status of much current sword manufacturing.

All that being said, it's really an issue of CoB, when you're extending blade length that far you need the extra weight in the hilt/pommel to counterbalance it, the extra weight isn't at the end of an unbalanced stick, it's right in your hand balancing that stick and it's another reason for the basket hilts for rapiers.

When you don't balance that extra weight the fighting style invariable requires that the wielder use two hands in certain recoveries and moves, which means that at that point we're talking about hand-and-a-half techniques and not simply one-handed styles.

CoB is why something like a katana is not a one-handed weapon.