How long is a Greatsword?

[Holy Bovine]

I remember from the Seven Samauri the one character wielded a massive sword. I was at least 6 feet long and that is what I think of when I think 'greatsword'.

Of course it is Japanese so they may make bigger swords than your typical European setting (also weren't the Japanese very much in advance in metallurgy and weapon making than comparable Western societies?)

 

[Krieg]

Historically a functional "greatsword" (not a bearing sword) would realistically be around 5' long overall.

Of course that doesn't necessarily have to hold true for a fantasy setting.

(also weren't the Japanese very much in advance in metallurgy and weapon making than comparable Western societies?)

No.

 

[S'mon]

Greatsword would be 4'-6' blade, 3'-4' is bastard sword, 2.5-3' longsword, 1.5-2.5' shortsword. Under 18" blade is dagger, typical D&D dagger probably 12". 1e had knives, smaller than daggers - maybe 6" blade.

Add 12" for 2-h hilt or 6" for one-hand sword hilt. So the biggest (usable) greatsword would be 7', a typical greatsword is 5' with hilt.

 

[S'mon]

No.

At times the Japanese certainly were more advanced in metallurgy than Europe - 13th century Japanese swords in museums look pristine, European ones are lumps of rust. By the 16th century European swordmaking had caught up, though.
The making of a samurai blade was an extremely lengthy and complex process, although European swords were also time-consuming to make, Japanese swords were more 'advanced' in that European armour was much better, plate was too advanced to be cut by a blade, so European swords needed basically to be heavy - to bash armour - rather than have the fantastic cutting edge of the samurai sword.

 

[Krieg]

At times the Japanese certainly were more advanced in metallurgy than Europe - 13th century Japanese swords in museums look pristine, European ones are lumps of rust. By the 16th century European swordmaking had caught up, though.
The making of a samurai blade was an extremely lengthy and complex process, although European swords were also time-consuming to make, Japanese swords were more 'advanced' in that European armour was much better, plate was too advanced to be cut by a blade, so European swords needed basically to be heavy - to bash armour - rather than have the fantastic cutting edge of the samurai sword.

*sigh* I really don't want to do this again.

European swords aren't heavy "bashers".

Katana aren't uber-sharp.

The "lengthy and complex" manufacturing process is a result of poor raw materials.

European swords in museums are "lumps of rust" because they sat in the ground or underwater for 1K years.

 

[Aaron L]

Japanese swords were considered near sacred objects and were treated as such. After they were done being used they were kept in shrines and similiar settings.

European swords were considered tools and were treated as such. When they were done being used they were melted down, lost, or discarded.

 

[Imperialus]

Keep in mind that a Zwihander (probably the biggest sword designed) is not a typical greatsword. It was designed for a very specific purpose and most of the added length was because about a foot of the blade was designed to be grasped allowing more leverage. The actual cutting blade length was no longer than 5' to 5'6" with a total length of around 7 feet.

Also (picking nits here) a claymore is not nessesarally two handed... All it really is, is a scottish term for sword. I've seen claymores from the 17th and 18th century that resemble any other saber of the time period.

As for Japanese swords being kept in better shape like Aaron said due to the scarcity of iron in Japan swords were often passed down from father to son for generations. European swords were often buried with their owners. It was the armour and horses that cost a mint. In either case both swords were carbon steel. You put a katana underground for even 20 or 30 years it'll rust just as much as a longsword.

 

[Davelozzi]

Greatsword would be 4'-6' blade, 3'-4' is bastard sword, 2.5-3' longsword, 1.5-2.5' shortsword. Under 18" blade is dagger, typical D&D dagger probably 12". 1e had knives, smaller than daggers - maybe 6" blade.

Unless the character wielding it is small.

 

[S'mon]

*sigh* I really don't want to do this again.

European swords aren't heavy "bashers".

Katana aren't uber-sharp.

The "lengthy and complex" manufacturing process is a result of poor raw materials.

European swords in museums are "lumps of rust" because they sat in the ground or underwater for 1K years.

Pardon my scepticism. *All* 13th century blades sat in the ground for 800 years whereas none of the 16th century ones (some 15th from Mediterranean) did? And European battle swords for use vs plate armour certainly are heavy bashers.

 

[jasper]

Ewart Oakshotte, Edge, Pallock, Osprey Press military series.
Some authors and series to look up.