Minimum length of fencible sword?
Dec 12, 2023 17:44:23 GMT
Post by glendon on Dec 12, 2023 17:44:23 GMT
Ahoy!
To all you actual sword fighters/martial artists out there:
What would you opine is the minimum length of a single-hand sword which can be used for defense--i.e., to parry and control other weapons--and yet be long enough to allow a reasonable chance of effectively wounding an opponent wielding a 36" weapon (axe, sword, pool cue)?
I understand there are several variable factors at play here; hilt protection, swing weight, armor, or shield (and especially, skill) can drastically alter the equation. To clarify:
I purchased a Hanwei baskethilt broadsword. She weighed 51.4 oz., was 39.5" in overall length, and had a POB of 4.75". Using LeMal's quick-and-dirty formula, this gave her a 6.18 "feel". Not very usable, at least not by me. I replaced the Santa hat liner with nice thick leather, and put in a larger grip. I cut her 1/2" in the forte to create a wider tang, and took the blade down to 29.25". But the grip/liner replacement mostly countered the weight lost from the blade: She's now 50.6 ounces, 35" long, and has a POB of 3.75, which is a "feel" of 5.42, which is more in line with historical ranges. However, the beastie's still heavy in my hands. Now, before I get jumped for being a stat junkie, I use those numbers as a guide, not a goal, and the sword is usable as is. But she ain't quick--potent, but not quick. With a shield it would be fine. But I would like it a bit faster, to be used standalone. ("Train harder!" I hear you cry.)
Historically, British cutlasses were around 29" long: they flirted with 26" once, but then went to 27" the next model and back to 29" and stayed there after that. Somewhere, somewhen, somebody in the Admiralty decided a 29" blade was a minimum for ship/shore-party utility, hence my choice. My refined question, to you who spar with and against various weapons, is this: How much more can I cut down the blade before the nimbleness gained is over-shadowed by the ultimate function lost--is a 26" straight blade, however protective and fast, able to be successful against an opponent swinging a 32" saber? How about a 34" backsword?
Thanks for all information shared.
To all you actual sword fighters/martial artists out there:
What would you opine is the minimum length of a single-hand sword which can be used for defense--i.e., to parry and control other weapons--and yet be long enough to allow a reasonable chance of effectively wounding an opponent wielding a 36" weapon (axe, sword, pool cue)?
I understand there are several variable factors at play here; hilt protection, swing weight, armor, or shield (and especially, skill) can drastically alter the equation. To clarify:
I purchased a Hanwei baskethilt broadsword. She weighed 51.4 oz., was 39.5" in overall length, and had a POB of 4.75". Using LeMal's quick-and-dirty formula, this gave her a 6.18 "feel". Not very usable, at least not by me. I replaced the Santa hat liner with nice thick leather, and put in a larger grip. I cut her 1/2" in the forte to create a wider tang, and took the blade down to 29.25". But the grip/liner replacement mostly countered the weight lost from the blade: She's now 50.6 ounces, 35" long, and has a POB of 3.75, which is a "feel" of 5.42, which is more in line with historical ranges. However, the beastie's still heavy in my hands. Now, before I get jumped for being a stat junkie, I use those numbers as a guide, not a goal, and the sword is usable as is. But she ain't quick--potent, but not quick. With a shield it would be fine. But I would like it a bit faster, to be used standalone. ("Train harder!" I hear you cry.)
Historically, British cutlasses were around 29" long: they flirted with 26" once, but then went to 27" the next model and back to 29" and stayed there after that. Somewhere, somewhen, somebody in the Admiralty decided a 29" blade was a minimum for ship/shore-party utility, hence my choice. My refined question, to you who spar with and against various weapons, is this: How much more can I cut down the blade before the nimbleness gained is over-shadowed by the ultimate function lost--is a 26" straight blade, however protective and fast, able to be successful against an opponent swinging a 32" saber? How about a 34" backsword?
Thanks for all information shared.