Medieval Swords Were Heavy (sometimes and relative to other sword types...)

[@lucanic4328]

This is just one of the few istances were the pendulum went too far. Katana being the ultimate swords, katana being the worst swords ever made. People in armor being unable to move, people in armor doing daily life activities with no problem. Armor being heavy, armor being lightweight. Leather with stud being the ultimate light armor, leather never ever been used on armor. Gambeson being understimated, gambeson being the ultimate form of armor... and the list goes on and on :/

[@bretalvarez3097]

Well said, a lot of people don’t understand that a grey area exists in almost everything when history is involved

[@andywilson8698]

Leather was used , it's was hardened though , also the buff coat really thick leather coat , ect . So it was used but usually not the best choice in most situations.

[@lucanic4328]

@@andywilson8698 While this is true for Europe, it is not for East Asia; a lot of armor there was made with lacquered hardened rawhide, which was often very stout and sturdy. In any case, there are some istances of leather/rawhide being used in Europe even during the middle ages, I believe Knyght Errant has a video about it which revolves around "new myths created while debunking the old ones"

[@mathewlau1733]

"Gambeson being the ultimate form of armor" when tf did this happen?

[@tohopes]

Sword being the main infantry weapon.

[@LuxTheSlav]

Heavy swords have deadlier pommels that penetrate deeper into the context.

[@MrHomerwilson]

Luka Pavlič yeah. The pommel was extra heavy, so you could end them rightly from the top of a fuckin cliff.

[@jeanladoire4141]

Deez pommels thicc

[@Loromir17]

Best penetration is achieved by dragon-shaped pommels, but those are only bepommeled upon the swords of the noble ones.

[@fsmoura]

MACHICOLAAAAAAATIONS!!!!

[@CoffeeSnep]

Heavy swords with dragon shaped pommels thrown through machicolations by the noble ones with the ultimate power of context to truly end him rightly.

[@Ralchire]

"Grams, I think, are the superior method of measuring the mass of swords" What a way to end a friendship with Lloyd. It's the equivalent to breaking up via text.

[@GonzoTehGreat]

At least he didn't say "Le Kilo" :-)

[@Ninjamanhammer]

Thought that the moment I heard him say it. Not that he's wrong.

[@Will-Woll]

All hail Lord iupac

[@heretyk_1337]

I imagine Lloyd is foaming from the mouth right now... Just end him with "lieutenant" and be done with it

[@fsmoura]

if it's not measured in nautical bushels, twigs, and barkscraps, it's uncivilized hogwash!

[@LucaHMafra]

On the other side of the spectrum: I remember hearing my epee sport fencing instructor explaining to newcomers how medieval swords were from 7 to 8kg on average. It was so bizarre and he spoke with such conviction that I couldn't even point the error without making him appear as a fool in front of his students. Every student of his is probably going to repeat that forever with complete confidence since it was said by a professional fencing instructor....

[@GonzoTehGreat]

Indeed. It's worth remembering just how much disinformation was spread before HEMA. We're slowly becoming more informed and less ignorant. It's a gradual process but definitely an improvement.

[@fsmoura]

HEMA master race! Keeping those fruity fencing types in check since 1999!

[@louisjolliet3369]

At the same time HEMA people think that the sport épée is way too light te constitute any form of realistic training, while in fact it weighs almost double what smallswords weighted and it's about the same weight as what it aims to replicate : the "épée de combat".

[@hauki9286]

As a youngster way back, i forged myself a one handed viking sword. It weighted about 7 to 8 kilos, i dont remember where i got the idea about the weight, but it was probably similar hearsay. It was pretty hard to wield :)

[@shadiversity]

This is what Matt does best, CONTEXT, and interestingly enough a video in which he contextualizes sword weights I don't remember him saying the word context in thew whole video. I smell a conspiracy!

[@_DarkEmperor]

I disagree, what Matt does best is fingering the guard.

[@fsmoura]

i thought what he did best was penetration

[@JetConvoy]

Shut up Shad, nobody likes you.

[@Gabrong]

#jhjkhgjhfgjg jgjyfhdhbfjhg it is all about penetration

[@Altrantis]

Nicolas Hanslik, The context is dragons. Also heavier swords do more damage when you toss them down the machicolations.

[@MisterKisk]

There's also the idea of "felt" weight, vs "actual" weight. I've held some absolutely trash wallhanger swords that only weighed about 1200 grams or so, but they felt like I was holding a 10 lb sledgehammer.

[@uzbekistanimale]

Exactly, people throw around the measurement of "3 lbs" as if it's a 3 pound dumbbell. Except in reality a 3 pound sword feels significantly heavier than a 3 lb dumbbell, and even heavier depending on the distribution. It's simply leverage

[@williamchamberlain2263]

Also different fighting styles, I think: renaissance onwards you and your opponent are fencing, so you have to be able to parry, feint, and recover in tempo. Earlier and you're both wearing armour, so you have to swing or stab hard, and can swing through or slow it on your opponent's armour - and you've got a bit of time because he's doing the same thing.

[@kyphe.]

Those blades did look like cheap mass produced diamond section trade blades, which would have been on the heavy side for the day. However it is worth remembering that when iron oxidizes 30% of it's mass becomes additional oxygen. Ofc that is fully oxidized but an old rusted sword can easy gain 10% additional weight from surface rust.

[@horvathbenedek3596]

Great point.

[@ajlancjc99]

Hey Matt - A suggestion for a video series. You could cover discoveries of swords (like you alluded to in this piece) and discuss how they impacted the perception/understanding of the swords of the era. Swords are more interesting when some historical context (there’s that word again) can be linked to them.

[@stevethegeckotv]

I commented on the Facebook post in regards to people being shocked at how light my rapier is, when they expected swords to be in the 5-6kg range. I then went on and looked at the stats of the sword Matt posted and it's an absolute monster. 7cm across at the forté, diamond cross section and a fairly even profile taper. It's an absolute beast! If they were munitions grade, it could be possible that they were mass produced and built for robustness. As they were lying in a river for upwards of 400 years however, the original finish is long gone.

[@Oversamma]

Matt, any chance you could do a video about 18th/early 19th century military spontoons sometime? Would love to learn more about them!

[@bpaigelee]

Well EVERYONE is talking about them after all....

[@heretyk_1337]

Funny bugger, ain`t ya?

[@Oversamma]

I think you guys might be confusing 'spontoon' (the spear with quillons) with 'spadroon' (the crappy sword Matt loves to talk about). They do sound deceptively similar after all. No real need to ask for more videos about spadroons as it's pretty much guaranteed we haven't nearly seen the last of them. :D

[@heretyk_1337]

Oversama-... I need to check my eyes...And i am an idiot, that can`t read... This is embarrassing actually... Well, i was wrong, i beg forgiveness. Fuck, this hurts my pride...

[@Oversamma]

No worries, I'm very well accustomed to silly mistakes as I make them all the time. :D

[@hachimanjiro]

I've been collecting swords and other edged weapons for some 25 years and i still enjoy learning more from your channel, thanks Matt,much appreciated

[@Psiberzerker]

9:07 "The metal is ground out." Okay, possibly on that sword, IDK. Very few swords were literally "Hollow Ground" in the middle ages, because that was a lot more work than Drawing Out the blade between 2 Fullers. (The blacksmith's tools, that the blade feature are named after.) Which the swordsmith would have done anyway, to get a Pig drawn out into a Brand, then broadened to a sword shape. (Well, for that particular sword shape, and cross section.) To get that central rib, you basically just don't start in the center, as you would with a Fullered (The blade feature this time) sword, then draw the metal out to each edge. Then you'd grind it, but the bare minimum possible, once you hammered it into shape, because that is time consuming, you're probably using a heavy stone on a foot treadle like a spinning wheel, instead of a DC motor bench grinder, or Dremel, and that Removes Stock. (Hence the term Stock Removal) which would make the sword lighter. Instead, they start with a pig (A lump of raw steel) about the weight they want the finished product to be, and shape it as close as possible before doing the bare minimum of grinding to finish it off. Basically, just a polish, and the final bevel to sharpen the edge.

[@Psiberzerker]

Incidentally, in the field it's just possible to make repairs with a hot fire, a water source, 2 fullers, and a Stump. I don't have any Historical documentation on this, but I do have practical experience. There's basically 2 kinds of Fullers, one has a spike on the back you can put in the square hole (The Fuller Hole) in the top of an Anvil. The other one typically has a flat back you can hammer, and some sort of handle. However, if you didn't bring an Anvil, you can beat the fuller spike into a stump, set a bent sword on it, then beat it straight with a hammer, and another fuller. (You also need a bunch of guys with shields to take turns fanning the fire to get it hot enough to Anneal it.) It's not going to be good as new, you're never going to get a proper temper that way, but it will be straight, and serviceable.The point is, it's a hell of a lot easier to carry around a pair of fullers than an Anvil, Forge, and Grinding Wheel.

[@vladdrakul7851]

*Hey Matt!* Perhaps these swords (being as they were found in barrels in large numbers) were, unlike the Henry V sword etc, mass produced swords for the regular Men at Arms and thus of less quality than the more finely crafted swords used by the Elite where more effort would be put into making them 'perfect' as the wealthy would be able to pay for finer craftsmanship while the regular soldiers would have cheaper 'mass produced' (for it's time) ones. Just an idea; what do you think Matt??.

[@MasoTrumoi]

That's what I was thinking. Ideally if we want to draw on what weights we should preferably lean towards, we should try to replicate swords used by prominent swordsmen, because they would presumably be more choosy and selective of their weaponry since they could afford to.

[@Greaser350]

That depends entirely on if you want the best sword you can buy or a sword representative of what most people carried in the period. I’d wager if you averaged out the overall quality of medieval swords, it’d fall somewhere between “pretty good” to “good enough.” Not every car is a Ferrari, not every sword was a masterpiece, most were somewhere in between very good and rather bad.

[@jerdasaurusrex557]

Is it possible the Castillon swords were the medieval equivalents of "munition grade" weapons?

[@vedymin1]

A good point, they could have been overbuilt a bit for common soldiers ? Also what was a typical medium range quality of the steel, maybe that could influence needed thickness ?

[@robertl6196]

Like a quality double-barrel shotgun vs a cheap one. A quality gun will handle like a dream, a cheapy like a tire iron.

[@ilejovcevski79]

I think we may be over analyzing this. Medieval swords were heavy, or medieval swords were light, implies people in the middle ages forged them according to some strict recipe or tradition. Even the katanas (a fairly stagnant through out the ages design) tended the vary a bit from period to period and from fashion to fashion. Medieval Europe was a much more diverse setting then medieval Japan in that regard. Just look the plate armor styles. Not exactly a uniform design. So, arming swords? Well there's a reason we state they weighted from just under a kilo to about kilo and a half. That interval is there to illustrate the variations.

[@Plumjelly]

A point about the comparison commonly made between the "diversity" within Europe vs. Japan: Why is it considered interesting to note that Europe was more diverse than Japan? Europe is a WHOLE CONTINENT. Japan is ONE COUNTRY within East Asia. It is not surprising that a whole continent of many countries/cultures had more diversity than a single country/culture. Would it make sense to compare, say, the religious diversity between, say, Norway and all of East Asia? Wouldn't it be more meaningful to compare places of approximately similar land areas and/or populations?

[@Knoloaify]

Plumjelly Yeah but even if you simply take, let's say France, and compare it to Japan, you've still got more sword types in France in the XVth century (fauchon, langemesser, sword, longsword, two-handed sword, estoc) than Japan at the same period (uchigatana, katate-uchigatana, wakizashi, nodachi, wich all a have very similar blade shape). That doesn't mean that Japan was "worse", just that it had less sword types overall. Japanese warriors didn't really need straight blades, and they didn't use shields very much (and when they did it was in a very unique way) so one-handed swords were relegated to being a sidearm of a sidearm.

[@heretyk_1337]

Plumjelly- frankly i don`t get you- why did you made tihs point? Has anybody said anythig to the contrary? What he/she said is "EVEN AMONG katanas(well, he said catanas"...)- that had very traditional size and design- there was variation...". Take it easy, or you`ll go bald

[@ilejovcevski79]

+Heretyk_13 Edited and corrected for spelling errors!

[@eagle162]

Japan didn't have a uniform armor design either, Japanese armor actually does have a lot of variety to it, going off armor there's a lot of variety in their weapons as well perhaps not as much in swords particularly when compared to Europe but definitely in other weapons, the way they fought different as well region to region, Clan to Clan. With that being said however swords did offer more diversity than what people expect, to different tsubas, different handles, even some coming with pommels that have a spike on it, even straight swords existed popular in the 14th century for foot soldiers. Here's some variety in Blade shape meiboku.info/guide/form/zukuri/index.htm meiboku.info/guide/form/kissaki/index.htm meiboku.info/guide/form/sori/index.htm

[@ericaugust1501]

to answer your very first question......because facebook sucks.

[@pikethree]

Never ever ever touch that Facebook shite mate, why have your entire rectum examined by the deep state?

[@hairyviking6047]

Yep, don't do facebook. Echo chamber of snowflakes.

[@vedymin1]

Does the fact that many medieval swords are now just mostly rust changes their perceived weight ?

[@scholagladiatoria]

Not much. Lots of medieval swords are mostly complete and very little is lost in mass to pitting. Grips, where missing, account for a bit of weight loss. Otherwise, they weigh very close to what they did originally.

[@ohauss]

scholagladiatoria The very fact that they lost very little mass to pitting suggests their weight would be higher than originally. Rust is heavier than iron/steel, because it adds oxygen. Now rust has of course much lower adherance, so has a penchant to flake off, but if that is not observed in a particular case (e.g. due to low mechanical stress), then the weight can be assumed to be somewhat higher. How much, of course, depends on how far the rust permeates the material.

[@Deadly_DoRight]

This is why reproductions are so important. You can use historically accurate material and remake with period techniques and to the dimensions of the recovered pieces and be relatively confident in the approximate weight of the original piece in its time.

[@scholagladiatoria]

There are plenty of surviving medieval swords without any rust or corrosion.

[@dynamicworlds1]

@@scholagladiatoria was curious about this too, but more for pre-migration era and even ancient era swords where good condition examples are rare if at all existent. I know your focus is later period but do you know anything about how weights are determined for such swords?

[@Sabortooftigar]

Thanks for keeping it real Matt. Archaeology. Data. CONTEXT!

[@eroktartonga4032]

Good video with nice details. Thank you very much.

[@avp5964]

"Now I'm not going to go into why that should be the case, why were they quite big you know beefy swords" Biggest tease ever that's what I was wondering since I saw the title! :P

[@avp5964]

For posterity my wholly uneducated guess is mainly advancements in metallurgy

[@contentioushackery]

My wild guess would be peak armour.

[@XanderTuron]

What, the weight of hand made metal objects with a wide array of designs and layouts manufactured without precision measuring tools existed on a wide scale?

[@wlewisiii]

It's always interesting to see how the weight is distributed. I bought a Cold Steel saber that handled like a lead pipe - even a heavy cutlass handled better. More recently I just got a Windlass 1906 commemorative US saber that is only 140 grams lighter but handles like a feather compared to that Cold Steel monstrosity and cuts better as well. Why would this be? My guess - as a fairly newby to swords in general and sabers in particular - is that the Windlass has a proper distal taper and the Cold Steel blade had almost none. as a result the Cold Steel POB was at 19 cm on a 76 cm blade length while the Windlass is at 16 cm on a 89 cm long blade. Those tidbits seem a whole lot more important than the simple gross weight of a sword.

[@camilstoenescu]

Besides not being that heavy as usually believed, they were cool, the best looking designs.

[@mpsmith47304]

Hmmmmm.... Do you have a database of the Castillon swords Matt? I looming through the The Sword- Form and Thought, and NONE of the arming swords are that mass (grams are units of mass, not weight, technically), and many of the longswords are lighter as well. I'm wondering if the mass of that sword is correct. And if it is, I'm wondering if those measurements are exceptional. I don;t have a TON of information, the The Sword - Form and Thought actually measures quite a few examples.

[@mpsmith47304]

Been checking out the Wallace Collection and the Royal Armouries. Interestingly, the swords in general seem to rather lighter(usually by quite a lot) than the Castillon sword you referred to. But some of the Castillon swords in the RA's collection seem to be heavier than other, similar swords, though the other "Group A" swords I have found are STILL lighter than that one (one at about 1300 grams, one at about 1400 others lighter). But a long sword comes in at a whopping 2200 grams. Fascinating. It strikes me that the Group A seem to all be Type XV's and XVIII's? The one you talked about has that strong mid-rib and a very acute point. It'd be very stiff and a helluva thruster. Perhaps the extra mass is intended ot aid penetration in the thrust?

[@jerdasaurusrex557]

2:01 Within the GRAM scheme of things? :P erhaps?

[@s071john2]

Jeremy A Get out.

[@s071john2]

Jeremy A ha ha ha

[@fsmoura]

www.myinstants.com/instant/rimshot/

[@Justanotherconsumer]

8/10, seen better, but definitely a quality dad joke.

[@michablacharski5826]

There is a problem with the medieval swords weight mith. People very often think that sword that is found in ground and then put on a weight, that it is actually that sword weight. The problem is in the little detail, they have found the remains of sword. My swors had lost 0.1kg with usage in about a year. Freshly made one handed sword of medieval period should weight around 1.4 to 1.8kg.(sorry for unperfect english)

[@ryszardkoprowski1414]

Good point!

[@weapontester5305]

I also believe there would be differences in the skills of the makers, and some swords from more average swordsmith maybe not have the same characteristics of that of a master craftsman. Also, the reason for the extra heft may be to make them more durable (conjecture)

[@williamchamberlain2263]

One thing to bear in mind is that in the mediaeval period archers were pulling such heavy bows for so many years that their arm bones were asymmetric: it was a period that accepted a totally different level and type of physical training.

[@edi9892]

I know a martial arts teacher that in all seriousness believes that there were Chinese swords of up to 25kg! I told him that we could make a reproduction of 5kg that would probably cut a horse in two halves, so why bother adding another 20kg? His reply: to bash armour! (me internally: sigh) EDIT: I blame it on Guts/Berserk.

[@dynamicworlds1]

You...may want to seek another teacher if yours is unable to approach things with any connection to reality/physics.

[@bluemountain4181]

Lol attach a 25kg dumbbell on the end of a short stick and ask him to swing it around. That being said when I was a kid I heard (and to an extent believed, being an open minded kid) that swords were heavy and fairly blunt due to the limitations of metalworking in the medieval era and so the main method of defeating a man in armour was to just beat them with it repeatedly and rely on blunt force trauma. Fortunately I wised up...

[@edi9892]

He actually uses a wooden sword with a weight disk added to the point, which gives you some really tough work-out. Still, it's quite a stretch to a 25kg sword...

[@GonzoTehGreat]

They used chi to wield them :-)

[@phungvietanhao]

There are Dai Daos that weight up to 25 kg and other more usable ones are around 10-15 kg but none are used as combat weapon (common mistake of many people study East Asian martial art). In real life, they are either used as ceremonial weapons or muscle training tool or are used in court martial art championship/exam (normally, the 10-15 kg ones). Users/participants must be able to wield it (dance with it?) in 5/10/15 steps (depend on stages of contest). Those champions are very rare, though.

[@calamusgladiofortior2814]

Just a guess on why late medieval European swords are heavier than most: they would used against heavily-armoured foes much of the time.

[@horvathbenedek3596]

One thing that people don't often know when seeing a hollow ground sword like the one in the video - this quality in steel wasn't available back then. And let me tell you, as someone who's made the mistake of creating a sword out of steel with sub-optimal carbon levels just as a means of practicing - if you want the blade to be sturdy, you have to leave some material on it. Using say, 1045 steel, and creating a flat grind is like asking your sword to be chipped.

[@ondrejh571]

All swords are heavy! Just as all feathers are heavy: they are about 1 gram heavy.

[@dukesedan9859]

grams are a measurement of mass, not weight.

[@WickedNPC]

Duke Sedan. The metric system measures both mass and weight.

[@ondrejh571]

I had no idea that even this is an area for battles with words .. thanks.

[@WickedNPC]

Ondřej H Everything is if you are nitpicky enough. :) I have come to the conclusion that "it depends" is the correct answer to everything.

[@ondrejh571]

Frida Bergholtz Yeah, I actually looked that up yesterday, but I wasn't any wiser...

[@bronkobrumby776]

The Castillon swords are a good example, when they were used in the battle of Castillon, they can be titled as war swords. Well my brother and i have two excellent replicas based on the Castillion types for fencing. Both swords are around 1736g , but with a proper technique as fast as any other sword, and the mass is your friend, depending on the situation. As i participates at the Rosssfecht Symposium 2017 hosted by Arne Koets, it became clear that a heavier sword helps you on horseback, to absorb all that energy created by the higher speed an mass of rider and horse, specialy when getting in binding with an other rider. It's a question of good training and a proper technique to be efficient with such a type of sword. But i love my Castillion and don't want an other XV century single handed fencing sword anymore, also the luxury of getting a sword made on measurement for me, in dimensions, anatomy and hilt.

[@Ms.Whiskertoria]

Hey Matt, couldn't the extra weight of some of the swords in the barrel be attributed to the corrosion from 600+ years in a barrel in a river.

[@appa609]

I'd note that oxidation is an additive process. I don't know how much rust is on the sword, but if there's a significant fraction by volume, it'd add a bit of weight.

[@joslevin9093]

Could you please make a video on the Arkansas toothpick. I've just added one to my collection and would love to know the history. Thanks Matt.

[@steveknopf857]

Could be that later swords were lighter because the steel got better. Same strength with less steel.

[@JimGiant]

I saw one person on KZbin with a ton of thumbs up arguing that daggers having faster attack speed than swords in games is wrong because in reality swords are all so light that they don't slow your arm/hand down at all.

[@KnightlyNerd]

People are suggesting that the sword might be relatively heavy because it was overbuilt for longevity, like a modern soldier's kit. Is it also not possible that it might have been built the way it is simply to perform well in the cut? Sounds to me like it could amputate an unarmoured / fabric armoured limb with ease.

[@KnightlyNerd]

Here's a really cool example; skd-online-collection.skd.museum/Details/Index/289063 This one weighs 1817g, with a really nice Milanese blade and a Moroccan style grip. This is obviously not a poor man's sword, but it's even heavier than Matt's example. This looks like a monstrous cutter to me (that hooked grip style no doubt encourages a powerful cast blow).

[@TheHaighus]

Crikey, that thing is a beast! It is a pallasch though, so a backsword with a single edge. They were also designed primarily to be used from horseback, hence the curved handle. Therefore whoever is wielding that monster doesn't have to walk round with it all day, they will likely be sitting on a horse. That may be part of why it is so heavy.

[@wilowhisp]

The second you held up that Albion mercenary I paused the video and began placing my order from Albion.

[@richardr826]

Matt, another reason I witnessed first hand is: cheap cast stainless steel swords! These are probably another reason why swords are generally considered heavier than they actually were. My friends first three swords were of this kind, and the very first one of them had a one handed hilt, but weighted about 3.5 KG! Also look at the Lord of the Rings official swords, from united cuttlery (420 stainless steel... yea...), take a look at Anduril or Narsil. I forgot which one, (supposedly its similar but I think the weight differs even though its supposed to be the same sword just reforged), however, I held one in hand, and its weight was about twice as heavy as a long sword of similar size that I own, If I recall right,it was something just under 3 KG!

[@louisjolliet3369]

People nowadays are obsessed with authenticity and categories. I don't think actual medieval people who had to use these sword cared the least about these things, hence why some smiths made them 1.2Kg and other smiths 1.8Kg. Probably also taking into consideration some preferences, both of the smith and sometimes of the man who purchased the sword. It's not like there was one single European or kingdom manufacture that mass-produced swords according to very precise specifications for 200 years. Just look at the differences in British and France sabres in the 19th century. I am sure that it was much more diverse for arming / 2-handed swords in medieval times.

[@michaeldickson2106]

How did you get the basket hilt on the wall. Ive looked into that and came up with nothing. Asking coz I do not have a way to display my own basket hilt

[@danielflynn9141]

Matt, I had a debate in a sword forum recently about the weight and proportions of the swords made by Peter Lyon for The Lord of the Rings films. It was the view of many people that his swords, like most "fantasy" swords, are too heavy. Boromir's sword, which is quite similar to that short arming sword you're holding here, was identified as an example. According to Weta Workshop, Boromir's sword weighs in at 3.9 pounds. For a stout arming sword like that, what's the problem with the weight? Its point of balance is one inch from the hilt! That's rather well balanced, isn't it?

[@dynamicworlds1]

Keep in mind that the point of balance, whereever it is, still needs to be moved, and that it's location alone doesn't tell you anything about the rotational inertia around said point. A dumbbell has its point of balance actually _in_ your hand, but if you're trying to move it around quick, a 33%-100% increase in its weight is going to change that.

[@bluemountain4181]

When I look on the Weta Workshop website it says the mass is 2.5kg (5.5lbs). But it has the same dimensions and mass listed for both Boromir's sword and the Witch-King of Angmar's so maybe it's not exact.

[@wowo666]

I think so too. With the point of balance so close to the hilt the difference isn't too noticeable. In fact, the added weight could be seen as a good thing since it would give more authority to a cut.

[@christopherknorr2895]

Balance close to the hilt might not be desirable if you fight with a sword and shield (which IIRC Boromir carries a round shield. Don't remember if he ever pulls it out.)

[@mpsmith47304]

AS always, there are pluses and minuses. You might get more energy into the cut, but you'll need to put a lot more in to recver the sword from a swing as well.

[@abzhz101handle9]

Were those swords rusted? Because I've heard that rust can significantly increase the mass (and thus weight) of something that was once steel/iron. Or was the 1660 grams what they calculated it to be before the rust set in if it happened?

[@AnthusFrostwolf]

How did they even made hollow pommels back there?

[@scholagladiatoria]

A ring with two plates brazed to each face.

[@fsmoura]

3D printing in orbital microgravity

[@kaia9154]

Do you actually keep a list over all the topics you say you'll cover in later videos? :P

[@ZenithArt07]

Do you think the weight has to do with how they were made and the limitations on tools and techniques? Historically they could not grind the blades to thin them out the same way we can, nor could they accurately measure length or weight. Possible video topic???

[@Doc-Holliday1851]

People, including "experts" are also under the impression that all swords should be balanced at the hilt.

[@brianmead7556]

Mat did a vid on this lol. Said balance is depending on purpose and context.

[@colleptic]

Could these examples be slightly, and I stress slightly heavier, due to the fact they are diamond blades with no fullers? Possibly built for the battle field; as swords with the diamond like blades are typically much more robust?

[@swietoslaw]

Two questions. What is weight of basket hilt sword without basket? how much basket is heavier then cross guard? And second if this sword were in some random barrels for so long time does the environment could change their weight? (in both directions)

[@matusfekete6503]

What a beast, one thousand six hundred and sixty grams... WOW! Two-handed feders we use for training are lighter (just over sixteen hundred grams), and have more than meter long "blades".

[@favkisnexerade]

I own some 1.4 kg 90 cm blade sword and it's actually pretty hard to swing lol. I mean it's really nible, it doesn't leef like any other item I handled but still it creates quite a tension on wrist, more so because I don't know anything on how to handle sword but I can see why after swing you want to end in some guard but move sword with it's own weights, something like that. I mean, even if I try to swing and stop it mid air, it still goes and can hurt wrist quite a lot. I have low strength though, can only make 16 pushups in 1 go.

[@ryuukake]

Does material blacksmith skill make some difference to the lightest possible weight. I imagine there are some swords of similar shape and length that are just made better. I'm going to go out out on a limb and hypothesize that lesser quality blades were a common thing for infantry to given.

[@cerdic6867]

So can you please expand on this in the context of the conversation regarding the effectiveness of later swords compared to medieval ones?

[@IndraKatiK]

Hi, i have a question i've been wondering about: Can you actually reverse-bash someone that's protecting himself with a shield? (Like, with enough power or technique actually push the shield to his head and stun him) How hard or how practical would that be? What type of shields will be easier to counter or overwhelm? Is there a treatise about it or other shield-countering techniques in general? Thank you

[@efffvss]

I don't know, seems to me the 'why' is worth exploring in more detail. You say yourself at about 1:20-30 that Medieval arming swords were 'generally' in the 900-1200g range (an idea supported by the blades sold by Albion, usually brought up as producing a good/authentic product). So why is this one batch of blades so much heavier than the apparent norm? Is that one example even representative of the entire haul? That example arming sword is substantially heavier than the Albion Castellan, which they claim to be a hand and a half blade derived from the Castillion find, which comes in at only 1320g. Are Albion wrong, despite their reputation for authenticity? What's going on here?

[@petrairene]

Could the medieval swords be a bit heavier than for example napoleonic era swords because the material the smiths had to work with was lower quality, so having a bit more material made the swords less likely to fail due to material impurities? And the better the steel got the more refined the blades could be made without endangering the function?

[@Wien1938]

Would the sword weight be due to design? Perhaps if they were intended for thrusting attacks?

[@jameswisegarver3120]

Would the weight of the swords change due to rust, corrosion, and the like from being under water for so long?

[@connorjaneu3021]

How a sword handles really comes down to balance, not weight. Despite these swords sometimes being a bit heavier, point of balance can negate the effects of extra weight. No matter what end of the spectrum we’re talking about, these were effective weapons, just as effective as anything else in the world at the time.

[@lunacorvus3585]

What about those earlier tip heavy Viking era sword?How heavy they are?

[@algomez8563]

One of my first swords was a hanwei tinker single hand sword and a windlass hungarian saber. I remember when first handling them how unwielding both felt. This are considered ok entry swords with adecuate weights and points of balance. Now I am from a third world country having done manual work during my adolescence using machetes, shovels and mattocks. After a year practicing with them my forearms got used to them and felt better, trying then a new valiant armory sword it felt far better and nimble in the hand.

[@xiezicong]

Ooh! This video is gonna be easy to share. :]

[@LionofCaliban]

This makes me wonder the reasoning behind such weight ranges and what practical purpose it serves. The more metal, the more mass, weight it has. They mightn't be 'light' but that doesn't mean they're comparable, next to items from outside their period. So thinking on this whole weight thing and why you'd make a sword 'heavy', you could leave material in the blade to make it more durable. After all, if you want a longer blade, you need that mass to do something with it. Even with a fairly narrow edge. You could also change the balance point, extra weight in the cross guard, quillons, the pommel, that could bring the point of balance down closer to the hand. I'm also going to wonder if there's not a reason to do this for blade profile as well. A good sword for half-swording would have some notable different properties to a good sword for cutting, profile, taper, etc etc. So perhaps, on a level not that different from above, you make the blade more durable, to make it a better thrusting weapon. Yes, it comes to a fine point, especially for later period weapons against full plate harness, armour, but it also has the mass in the point, in the front third to penetrate reliably through dense fabric, even mail. That can take a bit of force and with F=MA, well, it would seem to help. Don't suppose I could talk any of you guys into funding a not so little experimental archaeology project or five?

[@JimGiant]

I prefer lbs for weight of a whole sword, grams for weight of components and kg for oversized fantasy weapons. For length I prefer inches for everything except blade thickness. Is that weird?

[@aryafeydakin]

Oakeshott's typology is not everything. I believe that heavy one handed Castillon sword is a type of sword called "flamberge". It is a purposely overweight sword. It is just designed to deliver blows, especially thrusts, that could throw off balance another knight with just kinetic energy, and also distort plate and mail armor. There was no chance of going right through another knight armor with any sort of sword. On the other hand, it certainly can cut down in half light armored foes. Some one handed swords from the river Dordogne find are flamberges (1600 grams range), but some are not (1200 grams range). Ogier the Dane had a flamberge named Curtain (from "courte", meaning "short") that weighted 2400 grams blade alone. The blade was 91 cm long and 7 cm wide at the hilt and 4 cm wide near the point. Heavier than that the weighted sword would be called "braquemard" or "plombée", probably you would train at the stake with these one to learn to fight with the first. Curtain, Joyeuse (approx 1600 grams), Durandal, all these were flamberges, heavy one handed "short" swords. Unfortunately the word "flamberge" also ended up designating two handed swords with a wavy blade.

[@hschan5976]

A friend of mine bought a blunt katana from Regenyei (yes of all smiths he chose Regenyei) and it turns out to be surprisingly heavy. It weights around 1.6kg at around 85cm blade length, with 12-13cm PoB due to no pommel. Not sure how representative of the historical pieces it is.

[@frankharr9466]

have you concidered maybe measuring swords in ounces? Maybe ounces and drams? For instance, 1,660 g could be 58.6 oz or 58 oz. 9 dr. or even just 937 dr., just like 75.4 cm isn't 2.47 ft. but rather 29.7 in. By the way, 1,600 g is, in fact, 3.53 lb., but 56.4 oz. is better. Could some of the weight be rust?

[@douglasyoung927]

These swords from the river appear to be degraded to some degree. Is the weight given an estimate of what it would have been or it's current wieght as it is, andd how much mass do these swords actually lose as they rust.

[@jacobpahl972]

They were probably a little heavier because of all he abuse they have to deal with like armored opponent. And things like that or at lest for the “average grunt” ( so to speaks )

[@toddellner5283]

Very interesting and informative video as usual. By comparison teghas weigh in at about 1800 grams. As one-handed Indian swords go the tegha is considered an absolute beast of a weapon. Not that much heavier and considered a specialist's weapon.

[@nealsterling8151]

As a complete noob, i wonder where that surplus weight comes from? (compared to modern replicas) Is the material they used back then heavier maybe? (possibly more unwanted elements in the steel than modern steel has?)

[@zachbowman296]

So, how did this affect penetration?

[@lindaliljecrona4404]

It is also from a time when armour was reaching it's peak. earlier and later soldiers had less armour so less mass might be needed for your sword? The French had begun using cannons.

[@projectilequestion]

Adding weight doesn't really improve armour penetration though. Adding density to the weapon- that is making the weight area smaller, more local and more compact and maybe shorter. That would help amour With 8th-9th century swords, the weight is good for wrapping around the enemy's shield, and striking them from behind.

[@MarcRitzMD]

I think it is now time for this hobby to become more mathematical/statistical. I would looove to see a graph that illustrates the average sword weights of different regions/epochs based on lots of surveyed data

[@mpsmith47304]

Do you have a copy of The Sword - Form and Thought? Check it out, if you like to mix math and swords.

[@robertmatetich2898]

To what extent does the weight of a medieval sword reflect the strength or size of the owner? We're some swords made for armories, that is for issue to mercenaries or other low level soldiers? And we're other swords custom built to match the strength and skill of a rich knight?

[@10upstudios]

Do brits use pounds more often than grams? For some reason this is news to me...

[@Observer31]

But what about oxidation? That would add somewhat to the weight of the sword... I would need to know the % of the metal rusted to get a value

[@LarryGarfieldCrell]

Aren't those swords heavily rusted? That would increase the weight, no? (Same amount of iron, but with lots of oxygen added.) Would that skew the weight of historical finds?

[@philbyrd5561]

does it matter if the sword is supposed to be used with shield... as in hatchet motion vs dueling motions

[@remaint3282]

Perhaps it's better to say latter-period swords are really light, while older swords are just normal? 'Heavy' implies a sense of ill-suitedness for a purpose, but it's the probable case that the older weapons are pretty near ideal for their purpose. While more swords are made in latter periods, that's only the case due to larger populations existing at latter periods, so I do not think that comparing older generations of swords to the whole of swords is fair. Personally, I was quite surprised to know that swords were commonly 900 grams as opposed to 1200(at least, this is what I gather from how you speak of sabres). I found 1200 perfectly manageable, and expected 900 to be on the side of 'compromising to the point of missing something'

[@dking6021]

Whats a facebook?

[@exploatores]

I don´t know, maybe a page for selfies :)

[@corazzinatanner498]

Alright, I posted this over at Shad's channel, who wants to see a graphic novel or film with the premise of the Magnificent Seven (medieval themed) with the cast being Matt, Shad, Lindybiege, Metatron, Skall, Knight Erryant, and Knight Squire

[@Raz.C]

What's facebook?

[@tsmspace]

so, I've been running around thinking a dummy sword I made was a LOT heavier than it was. after years of thinking it must be 30 lbs, I weighed it,,, and it's only 15.,... for the record, I can literally barely lift the sword, and can not swing it. 15 lbs would take a big person to swing it properly, like I can swing anything you can buy. (I"m pretty small, and not strong for my size). ... I am personally shocked by just how heavy 15 lbs is. (when in the shape of a sword)

[@AlanH450]

One point, which i would think which would make all medieval swords on average more heavy, is metalurgy. modern steels are a world apart from those used several hundred years ago, and if you wanted to make a weapon stronger or more reliable one of the best ways is to add more mass. i.e over-engineer it. if there is a defect or inclusion in the metal having more material around it would hopefully mitigate the chances of it bending/warping/snapping. im no expert by any description but this is how i understand it.

[@Dhomazhir]

Anyone making a replica of the heavy sword in question?

[@-MCMLXXII-]

I would suppose that the biggest difference between medieval and modern swords weight-wise comes down mostly to improved metallurgy and superior crafting techniques.

[@joshhill5932]

I'd agree that better metal is one big reason for lighter swords. A simple carbon steel made today is vastly superior to anything from the 15th century. We also have much better control over heat treating and tempering. All that allows for a thinner blade that is stronger and can hold a better edge.

[@matthewzito6130]

I'd imagine there must be a reason for the slightly greater weight. Perhaps a thicker, stiffer blade is better at penetrating some forms of armor (gambeson, mail, etc.). PS) Is it my imagination, or do swords with tapered, wedge-shaped blades feel much lighter than swords with parallel-edged blades.

[@mpsmith47304]

Check out all the video on the dynamic properties of swords. By "feel lighter," I think you mean the sword is more nimble. It isn't just mass and center of mass that matters.... pivot points really matter too.

[@MilesTraveler]

We basically went from... Swords are heavy to swords are feathers. Gambeson underused to Gambeson can stop nukes. Sword is the ultimate weapon to spears were made by God to win all fights. Armor went from immobile and heavy to might as well wear armorduring Olympic sprinting. We went from sword and shield are for tanks to "lol who uses longsword? Need buckler!"

[@Ichithix]

But why?

[@joegillian314]

1660 grams is around 3.5 lbs, and 75 cm is about 2 1/2 ft. I have a sword of similar size and weight and it is indeed quite heavy (although it's supposedly a bastard sword).

[@johnfisk811]

Perhaps the heaviness of medieval swords is like the draw weight of medieval longbows. There few today who can draw a period weight longbow but in the day men were trained up to be able to do so. Maybe these swords were for professional soldiers trained up to have the strength to wield these weights as easily as most of us today can wield the lighter ones?.

[@Bonzulac]

I asked Matt what time it was. By the time he was done with his answer, it was, I think, about twenty minutes later, but I didn't ask.

[@ArthurHerbst]

Dont have facebook...to answer your question.^^

[@Duzzies-101]

Most antique medieval swords are corroded enough to lose significant weight. So you can look at the weights of the originals then add some.

[@fsmoura]

ye, i always add 60% for good measure

[@EattinThurs61]

Probably the heavy swords where of one type and lighter swords of an other type, like a gun is 22 , 38 or 45 in caliber.. When fighting foes in armor heavier swords with only the tip sharpened for thrusts and the rest of the blade for bashing armor.

[@harrykouwen1426]

Don't forget the amount of steel rusted away from those swords, no leather and wood on the grip, so instead of 1660 more likely in new state 1900 grams.

[@KevinSterns]

The question is, how heavy were european medieval swords as a percentage of their wielder's weight?