Length of a sword

[Gil-Galad]

In your opinoion, how long should a sword be?

[Orc]

Depends on the stlye of the sword and what you want to do with it.

A good two hander should be pretty big, probably in the neighborhood of 4.5 - 5 feet in overall length.

I like my one handed swords to be long enought to touch the ground if I'm holding it by the hilt (point down) with my arm along my side an leg, which is probably in the neighborhood of 36 - 40 inches overall lenght. Rapiers I like a bit longer, probably about 40-45 inches overall.

Hand and a half swords a bit longer still, probably in the neighborhood of 4 feet

[Fatty]

I have seen some swords in the Tower of London which are very long. As tall as a man nearly. What are they two handed? How would you use one in cobat without killing your allies?

[Gil-Galad]

Dontfight near your allies. The best weapon for fighting in an army is a pike, but thats off topic.

[Pil]

A sword would probably be different for each person...depends how strong and agile you are and what sort of build you have. But what do i know?! How does Orc know a whole load bout swords?

PS. in a shop in cardiff you could buy an official 'Narsil' LOTR sword...only it was £250, not good! verymad

[Gil-Galad]

lol a a lot but i doubt you will find much better. Swords are expensive, or at least hand made ones. there are sevral sites in the links page with official swords, or so i think

[Fatty]

Yes they are pricey especailly in Uk, they tend to charge the same as they do in dollars in US.

[Gil-Galad]

You get what you pay for.

[Pil]

I suppose...if they're well made. Most swords nowadays come with crappy little hooks on the back to make them easier to hang on the wall!!!! Wot an insult!!!! I would like to see a sword that doesn't cost an arm and a leg (pun!:)) and would actually be useful to fight with! verymad

[Gil-Galad]

nice pun lol

[Beregond]

Yeah, it really depends what kind of sword it is.

[A! Elbereth]

To fight with eh? Pil.... what are you planning!:p :batty:

[Gil-Galad]

I often wonder that too...

[Pil]

Well my children...i am actually trying to convince my more gullible friends to take part in a mock battle on the field (it soooo won't end up being a mock battle...anyone i hate had better stear clear of moi!!! HAHAHAHA! :evil: ) Wot u think guys? We should all have a joint battle all over the world simultaneously. How cool!!! Who want's to be on my side? (THE PERVY HOBBIT FANCIER'S CLUB!) veryhappy

[Gil-Galad]

A strange idea...

[PrinceImrahil]

In my opinion, you should just use a sword length that feels comfortable to you.

And to Fatty's thought about killing your allies, if you think about how battles went back then, you couldn't help but kill your allies. It was just a giant crowd of people swinging weapons, trying to stay alive and killing whatever was in their way.

[Orc]

Originally posted by Fatty
I have seen some swords in the Tower of London which are very long. As tall as a man nearly. What are they two handed? How would you use one in cobat without killing your allies?

A lot of the more decorative two handers that survive today were more onramental than practical, designed to make an impression. Two good examples are the swords in both the Scottish and English "Honors". (At least I think that's what the collection of royal crown, sword, septer etc. are called.) Great for knighting someone, not so great for battle.

As I understand it, the two handers were used in conjunction with pikemen. The men wielding the two handers stayed behind the lines to protect the exposed flanks and rear of the pikemen as well as to attack other pikemen. The two handers would be used to cut the heads off the pikes of apposing forces.

[Orc]

Originally posted by Pil
How does Orc know a whole load bout swords?

I don't consider myself an expert by any means, and hope that no one here takes anything I have to say as anything more than my opinion. Basically here's a quick 'resume':

I've been a sabre fencer for about the last 12 years, and im my younger competative days I managed to earn a "D" rating.

I've leared some other sword fighting stlyes through my fencing club including: hand and a half, rapier and dagger as well as sword and shield fighting.

I've read just about everything I can find on swords as they have always held my facination.

I'm an amatuer blacksmith whit aspirations of one day making my own swords and knives.

In the process of all of the above activities, I have a acquired a reasonable amount of knowledge on the subject, though do not consider myself an expert. If you are interested in talking to true experts I reccomend Sword Forum International. (http://swordforum.com/)

[Catz]

Mmmm the sword was really designed as a personal weapon...often in battles its main use was almost as a standard, a rallying point, and as a psychological weapon, along the lines of "our swords are bigger than your swords,pfbbt ":grin: if you get my drift......
sides....particularly in the middle ages, only the nobles had swords...the rabble fought with whatever...usually pikes/spears or some variation on the theme, didnt they?

[Pil]

He he! They wouldn't get very far with them now would they?!

RABBLE... I like that word! ;)

[Gil-Galad]

Originally posted by PrinceImrahil
In my opinion, you should just use a sword length that feels comfortable to you.

And to Fatty's thought about killing your allies, if you think about how battles went back then, you couldn't help but kill your allies. It was just a giant crowd of people swinging weapons, trying to stay alive and killing whatever was in their way.

I dont agree!

Look into the roman legions. They fought battles in orderly lines and with extreme discipline.

[Orc]

I agree with you Gil. While you might wack a comrad once in a great while, any fighting in a tight formation such as a shield line (like the romans used) or pikemen would be trained to fight together and would probably not accidently harm their allies

[Gil-Galad]

Thank you orcy.

[PrinceImrahil]

In tight formation...
What happens when the enemy breaks through your pike line or shield wall and the "orderly lines" are now a bunch of islands surrounded by tidal waves of enemy troops.

[Gil-Galad]

You go into foursomes and such. fight back to back with your allies in semi circles. That way you still have order and you can fight with your allies. Order is key in a battle.

[PrinceImrahil]

It is very easy for fear to overcome a man when his life is on the line. If it were me, I'd kill everything in my path until I got back to my house (If it wasn't destroyed by the war already).

Remember how we started this conversation Gil. It was about how hard it was to swing a long sword without hurting allies. If you fought in foursomes, back to back, It'd be quite hard not to kill an ally.

[Gil-Galad]

In a battle you figth with a pike, not a sword. And these are well trained soldiers, not leavys

[Catz]

well yeah....if youre talking Roman battle tactics they were very well disciplined, drilled in exactly what to do if their formation was broken, and taught to regroup as a priority....professional soldiers...maybe too disciplined, since their style of fighting worked well against opposing armies, but had more trouble against guerilla tactics, such as used by the Scythians....quick hit and run attacks on horseback, with mounted archers......but in close quarters fighting the sword was of limited use, especially for infantry....pikes or spears...or perhaps the gladius, or a similar short sword would have been the weapon of choice....
:catz:

[Gil-Galad]

Very nice, catz!

[A! Elbereth]

Pervy hobbit fanciers against ...Pervy elf fanciers????

[Bonos-Girl]

no, we can't have that-i wouldn't know which side to fight on, i'll have to be on pils side anyways coz i don't want to have to fight against her really.

[Pil]

FINE!!!! OK THEN!!!!! verymad

Aaaaaaaanyway! I think that the elven style of fighting looked pretty organised to me. I mean, the bit in FOTR at the beginning, when the Orcs advance and the elves smash them in the head with their shields one by one, smash, smash, smash, smash!? Ask anyone i have seen LOTR with andthey'll tell u that i always embarrass myself by acting it out in my chair whilst watching it! :embarras:

So....it looks quite well planned really! :knight: :elfqueen:

[Algamesh]

I own several blades ... daggers & swords both. Personally, I like the feel of a "Hand and a Half" sword. It's got some weight behind it but I find that I'm able to move it fairly quickly. A claymore or a true two-hander is out of the question. You've got the opportunity for one solid blow ... the recovery time is terrible. I suppose a very large person could possibly wield it better (I'm 6'2" and 200 pounds though).

I have the Glamdring sword ... it's a "Hand and a Half" sword and I love it. The blade is about 36" long with the hilt adding another 10 inches or so I guess.

[Pil]

I WISH i had the money to buy the swords too!!! verymad

[Winyaél Greenleaf]

I'd say the length of a sword ought to depend on the height and build of the person using it.
For example, while Sting isn't really a sword, it suits Bilbo and Frodo very well and they can just utilise it the way an ordinary sword can be utilized.
No matter how long or impressive a sword is, if it can't cater to the needs of the user, it won't be of much use.

[Gil Galad]

actually (just on teh size thing) Brian Boru , an Irish king (died at the battle of clontarf, 1014, when he broke the viking power in Ireland), apparently had a 6foot sword which he used in battle, but he was an absolutly huge man.

i think a broad sword should be about the lenght of your leg
and a short sword, used as a back up weapon for phalanx and spearmen, shud have a blade about the lenght of lower arm

[Nilion Elentano]

Well reading through, I can see that perhaps you are all considering a standard scenario, but I would say that it depends on your stamina, and your ability to handle a specific type of weapon, there's people whose proficiency is good enough with short sword, and they can take contenders out using weapons twice as long as theirs, it is really a matter of what you are proficient with, and your ability to read the fighter you have in front of you.
Cheers

[Huor Falassion]

The length of the sword, as stated many times already, depends on the size of the wielder, preference, and also I believe the situation. Short swords are great weapons for close combat espceially when accompanied with a buckler or shield. Also, short swords were usually used as the secondary weapon of an archer or a pikeman. Boromir carries a slightly modified short sword as it is quite a wide blade and slightly longer than most short swords, but he is able to make quick and agile cuts and ocassionly thrusts. I believe this is probably oneof the better selections when choosing sword length, but without shield, the short sword is a very weak line of defense. Hand and a Half swords, such as Strider's Ranger Sword are a great combo of parrying enemy blades and making powerful cuts and thrusts, but are slightly slower than the short sword.

[TrueSwordsman]

Brian Boru's Sword was 66 inches with a 40 inch blade. It was considered a 4 handed sword. The original was stolen in the 1800's, but they still have accounts of the size, style, and length.

Not only size, but what you and your enemy are wearing will also determine what sword you choose to fight with.

[Nilion Elentano]

Originally posted by Huor Falassion
The length of the sword, as stated many times already, depends on the size of the wielder, preference, and also I believe the situation. Short swords are great weapons for close combat espceially when accompanied with a buckler or shield. Also, short swords were usually used as the secondary weapon of an archer or a pikeman. Boromir carries a slightly modified short sword as it is quite a wide blade and slightly longer than most short swords, but he is able to make quick and agile cuts and ocassionly thrusts. I believe this is probably oneof the better selections when choosing sword length, but without shield, the short sword is a very weak line of defense. Hand and a Half swords, such as Strider's Ranger Sword are a great combo of parrying enemy blades and making powerful cuts and thrusts, but are slightly slower than the short sword.

I agree with most of what you have said :thumbs: Perhaps one only point that is decissive is the weight of the sword you are using.
There are hand and half swords, and hand and a half swords, one major point many collectors don't understand is that simplicity in the sword is rewarded with speed when you use it, adornments that to some might seem necessary only add unnecessary weight and encumbrance, and in a cramped situation NEVER an engagement lasts the way we see in the movies, they are very fast, a lot of crippling involved, and not much planning in between blows, so a balance of strenght-lenght-speed is utterly basic.
When you try the Uruk scimitar it is lighter in comparisson with Strider's sword, but it's shorter, most deffinately given the advantage of speed, the Uruk scimitar would win over the Strider's sword, but then again all this is depending on skill, and lucky and well placed blows:thumbs:

[TrueSwordsman]

The Uruk Scimitar would have a tough time with reach. To equal swordsmen one with the Scimitar and one with Strider's Sword and I would bet money on Strider's Sword.

[Nilion Elentano]

Originally posted by TrueSwordsman
The Uruk Scimitar would have a tough time with reach. To equal swordsmen one with the Scimitar and one with Strider's Sword and I would bet money on Strider's Sword.

Agreed TS, the reach is the problem, but deffinately on a battle situation the rules of engagement are not even by chance similar to fencing.
Fencing-wise Strider's sword does the job
Battle-wise The Uruk scimitar without question.:naughty: :thumbs:

[TrueSwordsman]

In a battle reach still has an advantage. Remember the combatant with the scimitar still has to cover the distance to use it. Even with a crush of bodies pushing men forward and causing close conditions, length combined with quickness will win. I have a prime historic example, the Battle of Flodden Hill between England and Scotland. The Scottish held the hill and the English were attacking from the base. Thinking the advantage in gravity would win the day King James of Scotland and his men charged down the hill. They were using nine foot spears. The gravity carried them to close for the spears so they drew sword. The English soldiers were armed with 6 foot bills (type of long axe). The Scots were to close for long spears and to far away for swords. Even with the advantage of charging down the hill they were hacked down and when King James fell the battle was lost.

[Nilion Elentano]

Of course it does, and there again length can be a dodgy thing, too long in the wrong situation and you stand no chance, too short and the same happens.

Another advantage of the Uruk Scimitar? its edges give it the chance to becoem a more powerful bludgeoning weapon than a normal hand and a half sword, and still it's lighter than Strider's sword.
Once more it's not a matter of turning a sword or weapon into a Victorinox tool by having all features, but the more it can do the better your chances.

[TrueSwordsman]

Agree on the wicked spike point! That will go through armour like a bec de corban.

[Beleriel]

Why is the Uruk Scimitar lighter, if it actually looks bigger than Aragorn's sword?:(

[TrueSwordsman]

It is much shorter and has a blance point closer to the hilt, which makes it easier to swing. I still think anyone fighting with Aragorn's Sword would have the upper hand against someone with the Uruk Scimitar.

[Thorin]

The largest sword I've seen is a scottish lowlander sword.

http://www.medieval-weaponry.co.uk/acatalog/index.html?http%3A//www.medieval-weaponry.co.uk/acatalog/Lowlander_Sword.html&CatalogBody

48" blade, 69" overall.

It makes a claymore look small.

[Radagast]

How do you judge if a blade is Perfectly balanced?

[TrueSwordsman]

I had a fencing master once tell me that 4 inches off the hilt is the perfect balance point. Over the years I have seen it range from one inch to 11 inches from the hilt, and would have to say that each sword has its own purpose. If it is to hack through armor than you want some weight in the blade. It it is to be quick than you want it closer to the hilt.

[Radagast]

Okay!... Thanks!

[Orc]

Originally posted by Radagast
How do you judge if a blade is Perfectly balanced?

For me it is a matter of 'feel' than any specific dimention - i.e. point of ballance. Typically I'm most comfortable with blades that have a center of ballance about 2 to 6 inches from the hilt. Every swordsman/woman has their own preferences, and what may be ideal for one person does not necessarily transfer to another person. The best way to judge a sword's ballance is by handling it. Does it feel sluggish, overly heavy, to light or more like an extention of you arm? The more swords you get the opportunity to handle, the better feel you get for what works for you. Being able to compare swords at the same time (such as at a vendor or shop) is a great place to learn to get a feel for judging the ballance of swords. It is also amazing how easy it is to change the ballance of a sword without doing much to it. A friend recently purchased a hand-and-a-half sword that had a reasonable, yet tip heavy feel to it. We simply added a 3/16 in thick washer between the grip and pummle and the ballance improved dramatically.

[TrueSwordsman]

Orc, glad to hear your point of view, which I agree with. I also noticed that your comfort ballance point 2 - 6 inches has my fencing master's findings right in the center at 4 inches.

It is amazing how you can make a 5 pound sword feel like a 2 pound sword by changing the balance point.

[Telumehtar]

'length of a sword'?!?!? don't you think that could be considered a bit suggestive? LOL, just kiddin. but really....
i knew a guy who took fencing, but he was (honestly, not exaggerating here) a midget and had to use a really little sword...it was so cute to see him jab at people's stomachs!
~Telu :flamer:

[Aerandir]

ive actually seen swords that are like 6' 2"

-Aera

[Telumehtar]

whoa....where Aerandir?
~Telu :flamer:

[Aerandir]

a couple catalogs, a mall around my area also had one, their called Flamberges i think
this one (http://armsofvalour.com/miva/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=AOVL&Product_Code=1164&Category_Code=WSC) is like 5' 3" but somewhere around my favorites, theres a big 6' 2" or 6' 1" id have to look tho. but yeah, its huge

-Aera:ring:

[Telumehtar]

that's awesome! that's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay longer than i am tall....freaky! (yup, i'm a shortie here.)
~Telu :flamer:

[Elfdaughter]

I like my swords to be quite short. I think the perfect length is the length of your arm. Any longer and I find them unwieldy.

[Aerandir]

Originally posted by Thorin
The largest sword I've seen is a scottish lowlander sword.

http://www.medieval-weaponry.co.uk/acatalog/index.html?http%3A//www.medieval-weaponry.co.uk/acatalog/Lowlander_Sword.html&CatalogBody

48" blade, 69" overall.

It makes a claymore look small.

whoa, I've actually seen that sword in real life!

[azimaith]

Originally posted by Fatty
I have seen some swords in the Tower of London which are very long. As tall as a man nearly. What are they two handed? How would you use one in cobat without killing your allies?

Ah, if they were in the realm of 5-6 feet you have just seen a true two hander of the renaissance. These things were big, they had 16-18 inch grips and weighed a massive amount for a sword, up to 6 pounds. These often were too large to even defend with which lead to the addition of parrihaiken or parrying hooks, small flanges protruding from the blades sides. Anyhow, they would usually be held in a tail or lower guard. (tail guard is directly behind you with the end pointed slightly out, lower is in front of you but at a 45 degree angle downward, also called the iron door guard.) They would be used at the front of a group of men moving into a pike hedge, by using the ultra long blades they could reach the pike tips well out of thrurst range and lop them off. When they got in close enough they would usually switch to a smaller weapon. If you want some pictures you could look up the Association for the Renaissance Martial Arts which is a great group focusing on historical western swordsmanship.

[azimaith]

Originally posted by Pil
I suppose...if they're well made. Most swords nowadays come with crappy little hooks on the back to make them easier to hang on the wall!!!! Wot an insult!!!! I would like to see a sword that doesn't cost an arm and a leg (pun!:)) and would actually be useful to fight with! verymad
Try Sword Forum International's Museum store, they sell historically accurate swords that are functional and well priced. Don't expect anything under 200 though.

[azimaith]

Originally posted by TrueSwordsman
The Uruk Scimitar would have a tough time with reach. To equal swordsmen one with the Scimitar and one with Strider's Sword and I would bet money on Strider's Sword.

Actually what the Uruk Hai were weilding appeared to be Falchions. FYI: A falchion was a sword of western European descent that resembled a modern day Machete. A thickned spine and single edlge aided in providing a strong cut and many forms were large enough to be weilded two handed. They didn't do too well against armor however and eventually dissapeared behind the revolution of cut and thrust swords, arming swords, and backswords.