Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Galethorn" data-source="post: 2138975" data-attributes="member: 7888">It's actually well agreed-upon by sword historians that the 'Wallace sword' is much more likely to be the 'Wallace blade' with a more recent hilt, probably from the 15th or 16th century.On a side note, the D&D weapon weights include scabbards, belts, and other carrything stuff that goes along with a weapon...and scabbards usually had a fairly bulky wooden core (under the leather and metal parts), so it isn't too unreasonable to assume that a bastard sword has ~2-2.5 pounds worth of belt and scabbard, or that a longsword has ~1-1.5 pounds of belt and scabbard with it. Greatswords, though, more often had little more than a leather sheath and a baldric to carry it on your back between fights, and those things wouldn't reasonably weigh the two or more pounds they'd have to make up for, when you consider that 5-6 pounds was average for a greatsword, and D&D says that the whole sword-and-kit weighs 8 pounds.Anyway, it should also be noted that Wallace's sword is actually longer than what people called a 'greatsword' back then, putting it in the 'zweihander' or 'two-handed sword' category, which is what D&D calls a Greatsword. An actual greatsword was usually just an extra-big bastard sword, which was beefed up to better survive contact with armor. The Wallace sword is more along the lines of what you use to counter pike formations or cavalry.</blockquote>