Is the Warhammer a D&D Invention?

[Dannyalcatraz]

Most likely you're describing the Kanabo.

Yep!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

As for that Oni, I saw that same show on Spike TV. a lot of fun, but give me a break, many things were way way off especially that thing. The claim that that weapon (a very common type found all over the world including Europe) was 15 let alone 30 lbs which they guy claimed right before they tried it out on that equally silly fake 1" thick iron-banded shield mounted on an inflexible steel bar... I don't know if you noticed the little studs flying off the 'oni' in the slow-mo shot that was pretty amusing. The real historical weapon probably weighed 6-8 lbs at the very most, probably more like half that.
G.

I did see the studs flying off the Kanabo, obviously not well made.

But given the dimensions of the thing, 10lbs-15lbs is probably not too far off. My bokken is about 2lbs, and its only about 3' long and 1 1/2" thick at its biggest.

It was tapered solid hardwood, somewhere around 5'6" long, with at least a couple of pounds of iron on it. At the top, the weapon seemed to be about 4"-5" across. That is a LOT of mass.

(I will grant you, though, the idiot who said it felt like it was 30 lbs had NO clue.)

 

[Galloglaich]

My only familiarity is with claymores (and I've seen an estoc, but that's a corner-case sword used for taking knights off horseback). So my knowledge of handed sword weights is a little skewed (I assumed anything lighter would be a bastard sword/hand and a half sword).

Interesting ceremonials would be heavier than battle weapons. You'd think a heavier weapon would be better for resisting wear and tear and a ceremonial lighter because its not cleaving through armor and flesh. Eh, you learn something new...

It's useful to realize that in real life a weapon has to be relatively quick to actually use in a fight. It's worth noting that the same principle applies not just to swords, but also other weapons like Axes. Axes used for combat were much lighter than those used to fell trees.

There were no historical battle axes even close to this one, pretty as it is.

A real one is more like this. Weighed around 2-3 pounds.

Thing is they are pretty lethal for all that...

G.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yeah- even a Double bitted 2 handed axe was no more than 5lbs with blades a bit wider than an adult male's hand at the widest...and those spikes on the "fantasy axe" would gut the wielder before he landed a blow!

 

[Galloglaich]

I did see the studs flying off the Kanabo, obviously not well made.

But given the dimensions of the thing, 10lbs-15lbs is probably not too far off. My bokken is about 2lbs, and its only about 3' long and 1 1/2" thick at its biggest.

It was tapered solid hardwood, somewhere around 5'6" long, with at least a couple of pounds of iron on it. At the top, the weapon seemed to be about 4"-5" across. That is a LOT of mass.

(I will grant you, though, the idiot who said it felt like it was 30 lbs had NO clue.)

Yeah but we don't have any reason to believe that obviously badly made replica they had was any more realistic than the 1" thick iron-banded Viking shield (real Viking shields average about 3/8" thick and rarely had any metal other than the boss)

I'm basing my estimate on other similar weapons which occur around the world, for example the weapon in the center of this photo:

...which is from a Swiss Armory and probably dates from the 16th Century, was sold at auction a few years ago, reported at just over 2 kilograms. it's probably made of ash, not exactly balsawood but not a true hardwood either, rather it's ideal for weapon hafts since it's flexible and strong, which is why they have been using it to make spears and bows since the Neolithic.

Same for the similar Flemish Godendag

...a formidable enough weapon, but not even in the ballpark of 10 lbs let alone 15, more like about 4 or 5 lbs from the several surviving examples (it is an estimate since they only have the iron heads but that does give the diameter and they know the length from various records).

You are right of course that a solid hardwood weapon that long might weigh considerably more, but why make something that bulky or heavy? Hardwood is brittle. It would be more likely to break. The Maori, Fijians etc. had numerous weapons made of hardwoods, the heavier ones tended to be very small, like this waihaka

Which is short enough to be unlikely to break. This thing will crush skulls like chalk.


the long ones (like this taiha)

were relatively light (but plenty hard and heavy enough to kill with either a thrust from the pointy end or a strike from the fat end, which is the whole idea) And probably made of more flexible wood, though I'm not sure about that.

Also if it really is hardwood like the kind used in these Maori weapons the metal studs are kind of superfluous.

Bottom line, I still hold to the idea that a weapon which weighed 15 lbs is simply too heavy to use in a hand-to-hand fight, no matter how strong you are. Maybe someone else knows a lot about Japanese weapons could give us more concrete information on this.

G.