Highly Recommended: an English Site on Early Swords

[kisak]

There's some weights for swords, shields, and armour listed here as well: http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/cariadoc...n_weights.html
There's some bits there about SCA rule peculiarities, but I never ad any problems ignoring those.

Originally Posted by cornelistromp

http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html

There's one thing about that essay which has always struck me as odd. First there is a list of swords, with weights, from the Royal Armoury in Stockholm, the heaviest one which isn't labelled as ceremonial being LRK 16662 at 4630 gram (10.2 lbs). Immediately following this we find the statement:

"Note that unlike ceremonial specimens, none of the fighting weapons exceeded 4 pounds and the heaviest ceremonial was less than 11."

There seems to be a direct contradiction between the evidence presented and the conclusion drawn there. I can't see anything in the essay where it is suggested that the authors thinks the Royal Armoury's idea of what is a fighting and what is a ceremonial weapon should be doubted either, except of course for this mismatch in the weights.

I've also double-checked with White Arms of the Royal Armoury, and the weight and lack of "ceremonial" in the description for LRK 16662 is there as well, so it doesn't seem like a typo.

Quite odd, IMO.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Allegedly, this was a TEN pound weight mounted
on a rod that would slide to the end of the blade as the sword was swung to add force to its cut.

Even if made form lead, that would still be nearly a half litre of volume in the weight. Should look nice on the sword in the illustration on the first page linked in this topic...