|
Post by Bigred on Dec 17, 2011 18:00:18 GMT
So, the average longsword these days is about 45 inches. Occasionally you can find a longer one, say 50 inches. These are all based on historical examples, which is fair. An a-historical longsword is about as attractive to me as Nick Nolte on a bender. Albion, Del Tin, Windlass, Hanwei, Gen2, every respected manufacturer at high price point and low makes their swords based on historical examples, if not copies of antiques. There seems to me to be a bit of a fly in the proverbial soup... weren't people 600 years ago smaller than us now? So... ummm... what does that mean? The historical swords that we covet so dearly are properly sized... for out miniature ancestors. historical-academy.co.uk/blog/20 ... longsword/ Up above I found a great article commenting on this. He even goes so far as to calculate the height to sword length proportions of drawings found in historical manuals such as Talhoffer and Meyer, as well as 10 other Western martial art manuscripts. Now, I know I know, there is a decent chance that those drawings were just rough scribbles, and not properly proportioned. But that doesn't discount the multiple accounts, in different manuscripts, of how to find a longsword properly sized for you. George Silver said that a longsword suited to a mans height, when resting the blade on the ground, should fit into his armpit. Now, in the article mentioned above, AlexBourdas listed the proportions taken from the drawings in 12 different manuscripts for total sword length to height (TSLtH), and total blade length to height (TBLtH). I averaged them together and came up with a TSLtH of 0.81583, meaning to get a longsword of perfect length (according to the article) you would take your total height in inches and multiply it by 0.81583. The TBLtH is 0.60923. I'm a pretty tall guy, and naturally I was curious as to what the perfect sized sword for me would be. I punched in the numbers and according to this article, keep in mind this is based on a pretty sophisticated interpretation of historical manuals, a longsword of a proper length for me would have an overall length of 60 inches and a blade length of 44 inches. WOAH! That is right up there with some of the largest two handers on the market! But I had to double check. I grabbed my measuring tape, tucked the tip under the side of my foot and stretched it to my armpit. 59.5 inches. And so there you have it. My kit is from the mid 13th century, but I may still be ordering a Windlass English Two Handed sword. I'll have to replace the fittings mind you, but it'll be a labour of love! Well let me know what you think, and make sure to post your "perfect" overall sword length and blade length!
|
|
|
Post by Svadilfari on Dec 17, 2011 20:40:50 GMT
A most interesting article. I've not had a chance to fully read and digest the articles..but I'm sure this post will draw a LOT of comments
|
|
SeanF
Member
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by SeanF on Dec 17, 2011 21:20:01 GMT
You might want to post this at a forum with a little more expertise, like SwordForum or the HEMA Alliance. I love stuff like this and find it fascinating, but can't really offer you any feedback for or against.
|
|
|
Post by u02rjs4 on Dec 17, 2011 22:06:30 GMT
I can't remember where i read this but it said a civilian longsword was your typical 35-40" approx and a sword for battle was the armpit size you mentioned. I have know evidence so please correct me if this is bs. We have a show called Qi over here which is a comedy/factual tit bits show. It commented that nutrition and genetics are the biggest factor in human height. For example people in the middle ages after the black death had access to surplus food and had lots of protein and were bigger than someone living in 19th century London with a very lacking diet. I'm just making the point that the users of longswords were probably smaller than our average but maybe not as much as you would imagine.
|
|
Luka
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,848
|
Post by Luka on Dec 17, 2011 22:50:53 GMT
If your kit is 13th century, you need a big XIIa or XIIIa, Windlass English Two Handed Sword is from about 1450.
|
|
|
Post by nddave on Dec 17, 2011 23:04:53 GMT
I'm short 5'8", so most of the 40"-45" swords are good for me. here's my sword length after doing your measurement theory: 55.5".
I've always followed the japanese method, where a swords blade length should match your arm length from finger tips to shoulder. which is on me 27". medieval swords handle differently, so a few extra inches doesn't bother me when using them. personaly I prefer a shorter sword rather than a long one.
I find my h/t bastard length to be perfect for me at 42", even if its clearly more than a foot smaller than what's suggested by the theory.
|
|
|
Post by Elheru Aran on Dec 17, 2011 23:28:02 GMT
I'm not sure you're reading the article correctly... on most men nowadays that's going to result in some very long swords in the 48"-55" range. Historically, yes, men were smaller overall, but the difference was much less than you might think when it comes to the Middle Ages and the modern era; as observed, men were actually shorter in the 19th century than in the Middle Ages. I'd comment more, but I don't have the time right now... I'll get back to it though!
|
|
|
Post by u02rjs4 on Dec 17, 2011 23:38:26 GMT
I forgot to mention a lot of people report longer windlass swords to be quite floppy and made from thin stock with poor distal taper. Koa lists The English two handed sword as having a 44" blade and i dread to think how wobbly the blade is. Does anyone own one? Have they stopped producing such floppy swords?
|
|
SeanF
Member
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by SeanF on Dec 17, 2011 23:40:30 GMT
That just involved Windlass using an inappropriate amount of distal taper on their swords, it doesn't have anything to do with what is a proper sword length.
|
|
|
Post by 14thforsaken on Dec 18, 2011 0:01:51 GMT
Using those formulas, I would need a longsword with a total length of 61.18725" and blade length of 45.699". Based on that, I imagine it would be quite heavy in order to be thick enough to taper properly and not be floppy.
|
|
|
Post by u02rjs4 on Dec 18, 2011 0:12:01 GMT
SeanF , Bigred mentioned buying the English two handed sword which is longer than most replica's, so could be what he is looking for. It being Sword buyers guide i would assume its relevant to discuss pro and cons of that sword. So it is very relevant to the topic!
|
|
|
Post by Bigred on Dec 18, 2011 0:37:13 GMT
I don't imagine this would be news to most of the guys at HEMA or MyArmoury (Swordforum mostly deals with asian/oriental swords), I mean Peter Johnsson, the PhD that designs swords for Albion, kicks around there quite a bit. lol I would be too afraid of making some minute mistake to post an information article there. No, I'm an SBG guy all the way. Oh, and Luka, although XII and XIII types and subtypes were by far the most common in the 13th century, XVIII were starting to make a debut. Although in no way would a sword with a 44 inch long blade be something you'd see from the 13th century (with a few rare exceptions), I still plan on throwing on some period fittings and disguising that fact a bit ;-)
|
|
|
Post by Bigred on Dec 18, 2011 0:51:45 GMT
Elheru Aran, I assure you I've read the article pretty thoroughly. But you bring up a very valid point... In the last 2000 years, the smallest people on record were from the 19th century, due to malnutrition from the "white bread" fad. My friend and I were talking about the very same thing just the other day... And I really can't explain it. I mean historically, people HAD to be smaller, right? I am 6 for 3 inches and 250 pounds, and I know that if I grew up eating oatmeal and cottage cheese with a bit of haggis once a month I sure wouldn't be as big as I am. But how much smaller remains a mystery to me. It could be anywhere between 2 and 10 inches, depending on social class and area. I'm mostly just voicing my thoughts here, I really don't have any expertise in this area. I do know that in some areas it is pretty common to find burial sites containing people 6 foot 8 and taller, dating anywhere from 2000 to 20,000 years ago. It'd be nice if someone more educated could lend us a helping hand... too bad we don't have any heavy hitters like Peter Johnsson or Mike Pearce to help us out here! Anyway, I look forward to hearing back from you Elheru Aran :-)
|
|
|
Post by Lonely Wolf Forge on Dec 18, 2011 0:55:54 GMT
i like my swords huge. 40 inch blade for me.
|
|
|
Post by Bigred on Dec 18, 2011 1:01:37 GMT
Oh, and thanks for the heads up about the Windlass Two Hander! If it's lack of distal taper that is the real issue, I'm sure I can tackle that, I'm pretty crafty. But there is always the odd Windlass blade whos design is flawed right from the get-go... But that being said, I am really cheap. lol I mean ridiculously cheap I'd rather experiment with a few $100 leftovers than effectively produce one $500 embarrassment! That being said, if anyone has and old Windlass Two Hander or Sword of Pavia kicking around that they're tired of, or even just the blades, make sure to PM me!
|
|
|
Post by Ceebs on Dec 18, 2011 1:35:53 GMT
Do you know where that quote can be found? I'm looking at Paradoxes Of Defence right now and the quote I have for Silver on his sword of "perfect length" is:
that length being:
|
|
|
Post by Bigred on Dec 18, 2011 1:40:39 GMT
Oops! I'm sorry, my mistake. It was Phillipo di Vadi that said that, not George Silver. *blush*
|
|
Razor
Senior Forumite
Posts: 1,883
|
Post by Razor on Dec 18, 2011 3:32:04 GMT
People sizes fluctuated back then has much has they do now, they were short, tall and some where in between. And thats why Silver says "lenth of your sword, to be made according to your own stature." To add more on Ceebs post on Silver, here is the drawing that Silver is talking about. And this is what he said about the two hand sword(long sword ment something different to him than what it means to us now a days). George Silver "Paradoxes of Defence" The perfect lenth of your two hand sword is, the blade to be the lenth of the blade of your single sword.www.bing.com/images/search?q=par ... ORM=IDFRIR To the English the long sword didn't just mean a hand and a half, it ment it was longer than a short sword and it didn't matter if it was two or one handed sword. To Silver a longsword was a sword of above perfect length. I read some where, I don't remember where about a longsword for the German style. With the tip down on the ground and the croos guard should be around your navel.
|
|
|
Post by Ceebs on Dec 18, 2011 6:43:01 GMT
No worries mate. An interesting comparison nonetheless!
|
|
|
Post by Vincent Dolan on Dec 18, 2011 7:06:31 GMT
Hey, Ceebs, any chance you can translate that into plain English? 'Cause that made no sense to me.
|
|