-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Japanes Sword Additions and Corrections
- Thread starter Shadowrun Man
- Start date
Aaron2
Explorer
Quite a few historical weapon manuals exists*. I don't have any complete ones but I've seen selected images. Plus, any contemporaneous(sp) piece or artwork would do. The Japanese left thousands of samurai paintings and drawings. All you need is one to back up your claim.
I'm curious who made this seven pounder; Del Tin, Raven Armoury, Angus Trim, Zamorano, Museum Replica Ltd? Which historical sample was it based on?
Aaron
*For example, the Gunyoki has page after page of detailed drawings from the Muromachi period. That's my personal favorite period.
Last edited:
After reading that link, I simply had to go and do some searching of my own on the web to hunt down some information about my point. You see, the swords I have are authentic, and my numbers were guesses as I have never weighed them. (Can't just put 'em on my bathroom scale now can I?)
Anyway, it appears that we were both right to an extent. I learned something new today when I found out that swords have two weights, not just one. (Indeed I did need to study!) You see I have studied the arts of swordfighting and I have studied historical swords, but I have never studied the *science* of weaponry. Imagine my surprise that there is an "actual" weight AND what is called a "virtual" or "balanced" weight. The first is the weight as per, well, weight. The second is how heavy the weapons *feels* while it is being wielded. Seeing as my experience is hands-on and not scientific, I have been reporting the second weight!
I found a discussion somewhere where a professor had claimed some swords to be upwards of 25 pounds, and he got Hell for it. In an e-mail reply, this is what he had to say:
>I am not certain what I "said" during the broadcast. What I meant to say
>is that the weight of swords during a battle was different from their
>"weight", what the interpreters here call virtual weight or balanced weight,
>and that this is often 20-25 pounds. Simply weighing the sword is wrong, at
>least for battle weight considerations. Having recently suited up in armor
>and wielded a sword for just a short time I must agree with what is said by
>these experts. Beyond this I must protest your weights. Almost no sword of
>any size weighs only 3 pounds--I actually just checked this in the
>collection which surrounds me--with most large swords (2 hand and hand and a
>half weighing around 10 lbs (and these used for more than parade use). If I
>did get this wrong, or presented an easily misunderstood point on the
>broadcast, I apologize. That can happen, especially when asked questions in
>an unscripted interview and one which is then edited. I only wish I knew. I
>shall see the broadcast when I return to the US on Dec 15. Perhaps then an
>even more sincere apology will follow.
Anyway, as you can all see, there are not only disputes about actual weights, but two weights to begin with! I apologize for any confusion, as I have given the "virtual" or "balanced" weights. The longsword FEELS like 7 pounds in your hand, while it weights 2-5 pounds on a scale. Similarly, the katana weights 3-6 pounds but feels much MUCH lighter in the hand, which explains why the balance on these weapons is much better than conventional European weapons.
The reason I flipped out when I saw that link was because it reported rapiers in as heavier than longswords, which simply couldn't be the case! In fact it is true, the rapier simply feels a whole lot lighter in your hands. The longsword's weight is mostly in the blade. The rapier and katana both balance weight through the hilt, which increases balance. (That is the point I made about the longsword being slightly point-heavy, which means the weight is balanced too much on the blade itself.)
So it looks like we were both right. You were right about actual weight, mine are actual balanced weights. It does make me feel better, however, that a bonafide professor made the same mistake as I, heh. Nobody's perfect! Now I know about these two weights, though. That DOES, however, prove me right about the weights in the books being pretty close to reality, seeing as the books even state outright that not all encumbrance is weight, but rather how heavy it FEELS. This is why so many things weight so much more than actual real-world weight, because the books give the balanced weight.
That explains a whole lot, though.
Anyway, it appears that we were both right to an extent. I learned something new today when I found out that swords have two weights, not just one. (Indeed I did need to study!) You see I have studied the arts of swordfighting and I have studied historical swords, but I have never studied the *science* of weaponry. Imagine my surprise that there is an "actual" weight AND what is called a "virtual" or "balanced" weight. The first is the weight as per, well, weight. The second is how heavy the weapons *feels* while it is being wielded. Seeing as my experience is hands-on and not scientific, I have been reporting the second weight!
I found a discussion somewhere where a professor had claimed some swords to be upwards of 25 pounds, and he got Hell for it. In an e-mail reply, this is what he had to say:
>I am not certain what I "said" during the broadcast. What I meant to say
>is that the weight of swords during a battle was different from their
>"weight", what the interpreters here call virtual weight or balanced weight,
>and that this is often 20-25 pounds. Simply weighing the sword is wrong, at
>least for battle weight considerations. Having recently suited up in armor
>and wielded a sword for just a short time I must agree with what is said by
>these experts. Beyond this I must protest your weights. Almost no sword of
>any size weighs only 3 pounds--I actually just checked this in the
>collection which surrounds me--with most large swords (2 hand and hand and a
>half weighing around 10 lbs (and these used for more than parade use). If I
>did get this wrong, or presented an easily misunderstood point on the
>broadcast, I apologize. That can happen, especially when asked questions in
>an unscripted interview and one which is then edited. I only wish I knew. I
>shall see the broadcast when I return to the US on Dec 15. Perhaps then an
>even more sincere apology will follow.
Anyway, as you can all see, there are not only disputes about actual weights, but two weights to begin with! I apologize for any confusion, as I have given the "virtual" or "balanced" weights. The longsword FEELS like 7 pounds in your hand, while it weights 2-5 pounds on a scale. Similarly, the katana weights 3-6 pounds but feels much MUCH lighter in the hand, which explains why the balance on these weapons is much better than conventional European weapons.
The reason I flipped out when I saw that link was because it reported rapiers in as heavier than longswords, which simply couldn't be the case! In fact it is true, the rapier simply feels a whole lot lighter in your hands. The longsword's weight is mostly in the blade. The rapier and katana both balance weight through the hilt, which increases balance. (That is the point I made about the longsword being slightly point-heavy, which means the weight is balanced too much on the blade itself.)
So it looks like we were both right. You were right about actual weight, mine are actual balanced weights. It does make me feel better, however, that a bonafide professor made the same mistake as I, heh. Nobody's perfect! Now I know about these two weights, though. That DOES, however, prove me right about the weights in the books being pretty close to reality, seeing as the books even state outright that not all encumbrance is weight, but rather how heavy it FEELS. This is why so many things weight so much more than actual real-world weight, because the books give the balanced weight.
That explains a whole lot, though.
The difference in the "feel" of the European swrod and the katana have nothing to do with the quality of teh waepons balance as a general rule, though you may have some realy bad peices if you hadn't realised that a piece of steel drawn out over a length will seem to weigh more when extended in the hand than it actually does. The differnce stems from the points of balance. The katana is balanced more toward the hilt to allow for it to react lightly and keep with the style of "draw cutting" the weapons were used for. The European blade will be more "blade heavy" because the point of balance is further out on the blade allowing for a much more powerful blow than the katana. The European blade was made to shear through mail and light plates, then flesh and bone, taking limbs off in the process. The katana was not designed to hold up to such rigors and thus, could be balanced more lightly. The style of European fighting kept the blade in motion and used its momentum to allow for a smooth and graceful flow.
What you are precieving as finesse in the katana I will wager is a display of skill. A skilled user of any weapon can make it do seemingly impossable things. I would doubt that you have seen anyone with actual skill in European style combat, and not sport fencing, use a "long sword". It too would appear to allow for finesse type movements, but is again, skill. Yes, finesse is skill, but its application infers a light, deft touch with a great deal of sensitivity.
So, after seeing that you did not possess as much knowledge on the subject as you thought you did, be more cautious next time before you tell someone they should drop out of a conversation, or that they don't know what they are talking about. Often times, when we do that, we don't know ourselves, and like the precieved weight of your sword, see thing differently than what they really are.
What you are precieving as finesse in the katana I will wager is a display of skill. A skilled user of any weapon can make it do seemingly impossable things. I would doubt that you have seen anyone with actual skill in European style combat, and not sport fencing, use a "long sword". It too would appear to allow for finesse type movements, but is again, skill. Yes, finesse is skill, but its application infers a light, deft touch with a great deal of sensitivity.
So, after seeing that you did not possess as much knowledge on the subject as you thought you did, be more cautious next time before you tell someone they should drop out of a conversation, or that they don't know what they are talking about. Often times, when we do that, we don't know ourselves, and like the precieved weight of your sword, see thing differently than what they really are.
Kail said:
The opposition had even less. They're still saying that katanas are overrated, when in fact katana is one of the top two swords in the world (rapier is the other).
The person I told to leave the discussion was the one saying the katana is slow in one hand and no faster than any bastard sword in two. No matter the actual weights, that statement is totally false, as the katana is naturally faster than most other weapons (save for the rapier).
No, the opposition quoted a more accurate weight, which you did not believe, based on your "reception" as opposed to actual facts. Lines in question.
Other poster:"Most weapons that can be compared to the D&D "longsword" didn't break 3 pounds(although hand-and-a-half swords did) and a lot of the lighter ones were just a few ounces over 2 pounds."
to which your replied:
"You're the one who just lost all credibility thank you very much. Most of the numbers in the D&D books for weight are actually pretty close.
Hard time finding a battle-ready greatsword weighing 7 pounds? Damn skippy, considering the lightest would be around 10 pounds."
and
"Longswords weighing 2 pounds?! My BOOTS weigh 2 pounds, man. So do D&D books. No way does ANY sword over a foot weigh that little unless it's made out of aluminum or titanium (neither a good option of course). Steel is heavy, man. The katana weighs in at 3-6 pounds standard, and a longsword slightly more (although I so believe the 7 pounds one I have is on the heavy end)."
Both from the same post where you inform a poster they have lost credibility because their facts don't measure up to your preceptions.
And that you believe the katana to be a "faster" weapon is not much more than a matter of opinion. Have you seen a European sword weilded with any skill? I'm looking at a link to an Albion forged long sword, comign in at almost exactally 2.5lbs. A double edged balde, that does not need to be reversed in order to be put into play can be used on a back swing, thus gaining the advantage in that single thing. The actual time to exicute a cut, and at what range, would depend more on the skill level and physical strength of the user. The relative weights and lengths of the weapons would also come into play.
Granted, the European bastard swords are generally balanced more toward the point to deliever a more powerful blow, and this would cause some lows during the recovery phase of a strike, to insist that you could put a katana into play at the same range, with more speed, in one hand is a bit of a laugh. If your long sword "feels" like it weighs 7bls, you've still either got a baddly made sword, or need to practice with it a bit more. That aside, what makes you think that the rapier reacts faster? And why pick the katana and the rapier as the two best swords? They existed last, not because they were better, but because they suited the invornment they were in, which was heavily influenced by the society which formed that invironment. The first, xenophobic and closed off from the rest of the world, not evolving militarily for almost 400 years. Social preasures were very much toward keeping the old ways. The other, in a constantly changing invornment where a new weapon, the firearm, was changing the way of the battle field and armor had begun to fall by the wayside long since. It was a civilian weapon, not a military one, used for personal fights, and not the battle field, where larger, more robust weapons were still the norm for anyone "issued" a sword for combat purposes.
Other poster:"Most weapons that can be compared to the D&D "longsword" didn't break 3 pounds(although hand-and-a-half swords did) and a lot of the lighter ones were just a few ounces over 2 pounds."
to which your replied:
"You're the one who just lost all credibility thank you very much. Most of the numbers in the D&D books for weight are actually pretty close.
Hard time finding a battle-ready greatsword weighing 7 pounds? Damn skippy, considering the lightest would be around 10 pounds."
and
"Longswords weighing 2 pounds?! My BOOTS weigh 2 pounds, man. So do D&D books. No way does ANY sword over a foot weigh that little unless it's made out of aluminum or titanium (neither a good option of course). Steel is heavy, man. The katana weighs in at 3-6 pounds standard, and a longsword slightly more (although I so believe the 7 pounds one I have is on the heavy end)."
Both from the same post where you inform a poster they have lost credibility because their facts don't measure up to your preceptions.
And that you believe the katana to be a "faster" weapon is not much more than a matter of opinion. Have you seen a European sword weilded with any skill? I'm looking at a link to an Albion forged long sword, comign in at almost exactally 2.5lbs. A double edged balde, that does not need to be reversed in order to be put into play can be used on a back swing, thus gaining the advantage in that single thing. The actual time to exicute a cut, and at what range, would depend more on the skill level and physical strength of the user. The relative weights and lengths of the weapons would also come into play.
Granted, the European bastard swords are generally balanced more toward the point to deliever a more powerful blow, and this would cause some lows during the recovery phase of a strike, to insist that you could put a katana into play at the same range, with more speed, in one hand is a bit of a laugh. If your long sword "feels" like it weighs 7bls, you've still either got a baddly made sword, or need to practice with it a bit more. That aside, what makes you think that the rapier reacts faster? And why pick the katana and the rapier as the two best swords? They existed last, not because they were better, but because they suited the invornment they were in, which was heavily influenced by the society which formed that invironment. The first, xenophobic and closed off from the rest of the world, not evolving militarily for almost 400 years. Social preasures were very much toward keeping the old ways. The other, in a constantly changing invornment where a new weapon, the firearm, was changing the way of the battle field and armor had begun to fall by the wayside long since. It was a civilian weapon, not a military one, used for personal fights, and not the battle field, where larger, more robust weapons were still the norm for anyone "issued" a sword for combat purposes.
Planesdragon
First Post
Anubis said:
I feel like being pendatic, and pointing out that the rapier was a relatively modern invention that closely followed the advent of gunpowder. It's a light sword designed for light armor combat--but I don't think that it qualifies as "one of the top two sword [styles] in the world." Top three, maybe...
Naturally? How so? Heck, what are you talking about when you mean "faster"? Speed of a single strike? Number of strikes that can be done in a single minute? Average time to kill an opponent?
The rapier is _lighter_ than other European swords of similar length. Thus, it can be pulled back from a strike quicker. But, simple physics will tell you that, when measuring the raw maximum speed of a single blow from a sword, the heavier sword will reach the higher speed.
(nice quote about "percieved weight", btw. I wonder if the measure of said weight is the ammount of force necessary to hold the sword level, or the ammount of force necessary to move the sword after a blow.)
Imperialus
Explorer
Haveing actually held a number of european swords from the 12th and 13th century (I had a sweet ass summer job, what can I say) I'd have to agree with mmu1. They feel a little odd in the hand because the point of the weapon is closer to the tang giveing it an illusion of more weight but it was designed to be used in conjunction with a shield and armour as well makeing parrying less important than moveing your body to allow your armour to best deflect an incomeing blow.
Two edged weapons pounding on each other will do nothing but chip or snap the blades anyhow. Try it yourself. Go out buy a really expencive set of carbon steel cooking knives and smack the edges together a few times. It's an expencive way to prove my point but it should be easy to remember especially after your wife or mom comes home and finds out what you did to her 500 doller knife set
.
If we really want to get technical about things the best sword design for it's time period would be an English Civil War era cavelry saber. Armour had largely fallen into disuse apart from other cavelry and pikemen and we all know pikes beat a man on a horse any day of the week anyhow and it's a waste to pit two identically equiped units against each other so cavelry charges among musketteer units were frightfully disruptive. The Bayonnet hadn't been invented yet and matchlock muskets were a bitch to load so Cavelry of any sort could slap the poor musketteers around like the proverbial red headed step child. In pretty much every other instance in history a sword was used as a secondary weapon at best. Knights typically used maces or warhammers brain footsoldiers or unhorse their opponants at which point they would be killed by footmen with daggers or simply trampled by the battle. In fact there exsist almost as many manuals on how to fight with an axe, hammer or mace as there are swordfighting manuals. Swords were popular because they were
A: Very expencive.
B: Much nicer to look at then a peice of iron on a stick
C: They were really handy during a rout or when sacking a town when you were typically butchering unarmed and unarmoured pesants.
D: Last and perhaps most important. They resembled a Crucifix.
As for relative speeds. I can't speak too much for the Katana but if you look at European fencing manuals like the German 13th century Fechtbuch or the Italian 15th century Flos Duellatorum it quickly becomes obvious that you would have to be superhuman to pull off the different moves with a 7 lb sword. If for example you were reqired to withdraw your sword so the hilt was approximatly a foot or so behind your back (as illustrated here in the upper left) the weight of an 8 or 9 lb sword would be almost unbearable due to the angle of your wrist and the swords center of gravity due to your own.
Anyhow... I think I've babbled on enough here. I'll shut up now... Maby tommorow I'll actually post some of my ideas for sword stats...
Two edged weapons pounding on each other will do nothing but chip or snap the blades anyhow. Try it yourself. Go out buy a really expencive set of carbon steel cooking knives and smack the edges together a few times. It's an expencive way to prove my point but it should be easy to remember especially after your wife or mom comes home and finds out what you did to her 500 doller knife set
.If we really want to get technical about things the best sword design for it's time period would be an English Civil War era cavelry saber. Armour had largely fallen into disuse apart from other cavelry and pikemen and we all know pikes beat a man on a horse any day of the week anyhow and it's a waste to pit two identically equiped units against each other so cavelry charges among musketteer units were frightfully disruptive. The Bayonnet hadn't been invented yet and matchlock muskets were a bitch to load so Cavelry of any sort could slap the poor musketteers around like the proverbial red headed step child. In pretty much every other instance in history a sword was used as a secondary weapon at best. Knights typically used maces or warhammers brain footsoldiers or unhorse their opponants at which point they would be killed by footmen with daggers or simply trampled by the battle. In fact there exsist almost as many manuals on how to fight with an axe, hammer or mace as there are swordfighting manuals. Swords were popular because they were
A: Very expencive.
B: Much nicer to look at then a peice of iron on a stick
C: They were really handy during a rout or when sacking a town when you were typically butchering unarmed and unarmoured pesants.
D: Last and perhaps most important. They resembled a Crucifix.
As for relative speeds. I can't speak too much for the Katana but if you look at European fencing manuals like the German 13th century Fechtbuch or the Italian 15th century Flos Duellatorum it quickly becomes obvious that you would have to be superhuman to pull off the different moves with a 7 lb sword. If for example you were reqired to withdraw your sword so the hilt was approximatly a foot or so behind your back (as illustrated here in the upper left) the weight of an 8 or 9 lb sword would be almost unbearable due to the angle of your wrist and the swords center of gravity due to your own.
Anyhow... I think I've babbled on enough here. I'll shut up now... Maby tommorow I'll actually post some of my ideas for sword stats...
Aaron2
Explorer
Does this mysterious professor have a name?
Ok, now I have a question, if a 3 pound sword "feels" like a 7 pound sword, what the heck does a 7 pound sword "feel" like?
This is just asinine. A three pound sword, by definition, has to feel like a three pound sword. That's what it is!
So a Katana is balanced "better". Better for what? Slaughtering peasants?
The fact of the matter is that european swordmakers had complete control of the point of balance on the swords they made by altering the size and shape of the pommel. They were balanced that way for a reason, not because they didn't figure out a "better" way of doing it.
Aaron
Last edited:
Planesdragon
First Post
Weight, not Mass.
Not quite. A 5 kg sword is a 5 kg sword--but a 3 lbs sword can vary in weight, depending on angle, gravity, and momentum.
The force to hold a blade-balanced sword level would be just a bit more than the force required to hold the sword off the ground. Since the center of gravity isn't allowed to hang below the fulcrum of your hand, it requires more energy (i.e., is heavier) to keep it level.
FWIW, you could probably measure this by affixing a sword to a fulcrum, and binding a weight to the natural balance point of your grip. (Maybe construcing a false grip the width of a swordsman's grasp, and affixing the weihgt to the far end from the fulcrum would work.) The weight you need to add to get the sword level would be the "balance weight," and could be added to the "weight" of the sword to get a rough "use weight."
And, to despeatly try and bring this back on-topic... does anyone else think that all discussion about the weights in the PH could be solved by a simple "weights include encumberance, not just actual weight."
Makes me almost yearn for 1e's "Gold piece equivalent" system.
Aaron2 said:
Not quite. A 5 kg sword is a 5 kg sword--but a 3 lbs sword can vary in weight, depending on angle, gravity, and momentum.
The force to hold a blade-balanced sword level would be just a bit more than the force required to hold the sword off the ground. Since the center of gravity isn't allowed to hang below the fulcrum of your hand, it requires more energy (i.e., is heavier) to keep it level.
FWIW, you could probably measure this by affixing a sword to a fulcrum, and binding a weight to the natural balance point of your grip. (Maybe construcing a false grip the width of a swordsman's grasp, and affixing the weihgt to the far end from the fulcrum would work.) The weight you need to add to get the sword level would be the "balance weight," and could be added to the "weight" of the sword to get a rough "use weight."
And, to despeatly try and bring this back on-topic... does anyone else think that all discussion about the weights in the PH could be solved by a simple "weights include encumberance, not just actual weight."
Makes me almost yearn for 1e's "Gold piece equivalent" system.
