How long is a Greatsword?

[Imperialus]

And European battle swords for use vs plate armour certainly are heavy bashers.

*twich* *twich*... Ok... I've handled peices of the Wallace Colletion. Includeing a 14th century bastard sword which was sharp enough to shave with dispelling your "rusted hunk of iron" myth. Now I'm not an overly built guy. I'm 6'0 and tip the scales at between 150 and 160 lbs depending on if my mom sends me a care package or not but I could hold it quite comferterably in 1 hand. I've also held a WWII era Katana which has an almost identical weight. I'd estimate them both to be between 9 and 10 lbs.

European swords were not typically used to "bash" other knights. They had lances, maces, warhammers, flails, and bill hooks for that. Also the fatalities in knight vs knight combat were typically quite low. The only times they really fought were in small skermishes when two scouting parties or members of a vanguard met usually several days before a major battle and they'd only try and drive the other party off rather than kill them to a man. Normally a knight just spent his time in battle mowing down pesants. No swords appart from a very specific few like the Flambarge were ever designed to deal with armour.

You can also just look at it this way. The Japanese didn't make exceptional swords, they just made crappy armour.

 

[Staffan]

bigger than a bread box. smaller than an elephant.

"Is it bigger than a breadbox?"
"No. Four left."
"So it's smaller than a breadbox?"
"Heh heh! No, only three."
"Harmony... is it a sodding breadbox?"
"Yes! Oh my god. Someone's Blondy Bear is a Twenty Questions genius!"
- Spike and Harmony playing twenty questions.

 

[Tiefling]

Four feet and up, from what I understand. The biggest sword I've ever seen (okay, seen pictures of) is a Landesknecht flamberge. It had an overall length of 6 feet and 2 inches. It was a modern piece though, I'm not sure if the medieval equivalents were as large.

 

[Aaron L]

Landsknecht swords like that were used for cutting down pikes and horses, and got real big.

 

[Valiantheart]

I wonder what Gatts swords from Berserk would quailfy as (other than BS). Its at least 7 feet long and a good foot wide.

Also, I too have held a real bastard sword and it isnt a bashing weapon. It was actually very nimble.

 

[Staffan]

I wonder what Gatts swords from Berserk would quailfy as (other than BS). Its at least 7 feet long and a good foot wide.

A daiklaive. You need to play Exalted to use one

 

[JacktheRabbit]

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.

Japanese swords and European swords were designed for completely different intents and built with much different materials.

The folding technique used to create Japanese swords was not done to create super weapons. It was done because Japanese iron ore was so poor. Every time the blade was foled more of the impurities were forged out of the blade.

European blades made from superior material had no use for such a forging technique.

 

[Krieg]

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? .

All? No of course not. But the ones that are rusted lumps generally did. Visit the aforementioned Wallace collection in England or the NY Metropolitan Museum of Art, both have extensive displays of pre 13th century european swords that are still battleworthy.

It's also probably important to point out that the majority of the Japanese Swords are 16th century & later.

And European battle swords for use vs plate armour certainly are heavy bashers

The only Europeans swords ever designed specifically to defeat plate were narrow bladed piercing weapons. The Estoc/Tuck etc.

The knight's sword of war was generally ineffective against plate.
Thus the anti-armor weapons of choice were the lance, hammer, pick, mace, axe & polearm (as has been mentioned elsewhere in the thread).

I'd estimate them both to be between 9 and 10 lbs.

Your estimation seems very high (for both swords). A good rule of thumb for swords (of just about any type) is about 1lb per foot of blade.

You can also just look at it this way. The Japanese didn't make exceptional swords, they just made crappy armour.

To be fair the Japanese did very well with the materials they had available, they just didn't have large enough iron reserves to produce large amounts of all-steel armour.

Japanese swords and European swords were designed for completely different intents and built with much different materials.

The folding technique used to create Japanese swords was not done to create super weapons. It was done because Japanese iron ore was so poor. Every time the blade was foled more of the impurities were forged out of the blade.

European blades made from superior material had no use for such a forging technique.

Early europeans swordsmiths were faced with very similar obstacles, which is why pattern welded blades are some prevelant early on.

It wasn't until after about 1000 AD or so when reliable methods of producing large amounts of homogeneous steel became available that pattern welding was replaced with blades forged from a single piece of steel.

 

[Camarath]

I wonder what Gatts swords from Berserk would quailfy as (other than BS). Its at least 7 feet long and a good foot wide.

If you want a D&D equivalent weapon you might look at the Fullblade (A&EG exotic weapon 2d8 (1d12 in S&F) 19-20/x2 23lb). It is suppose to be 18 inches longer than a greatsword. For greater damage you could make it Heavy Fullblade in that case it would deal 4d6 damage (using Heavy Weapon's damage increase table). Heavy Weapon is from Magic of Faerun, it increases the weapon's damage by one step, doubles the weapon's weight, and requires Exotic Weapon Proficiency to use the weapon with out penalty.

 

[S'mon]

European swords were not typically used to "bash" other knights. They had lances, maces, warhammers, flails, and bill hooks for that. Also the fatalities in knight vs knight combat were typically quite low. The only times they really fought were in small skermishes when two scouting parties or members of a vanguard met usually several days before a major battle and they'd only try and drive the other party off rather than kill them to a man. Normally a knight just spent his time in battle mowing down pesants. No swords appart from a very specific few like the Flambarge were ever designed to deal with armour.

You can also just look at it this way. The Japanese didn't make exceptional swords, they just made crappy armour.

That's more reasonable. Medieval greatswords (pretty well the only swords used on the battlefield in the later middle ages) _were_ designed to deal with armour though, but more by crushing it than slicing through it. I agree that longswords were not effective battlefield weapons in the latter middle ages and were more a personal defense weapon like a pistol, where a greatsword was an assault rifle.