Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

☖ Forums → Discussion Forum → How much chuck would a cood f--
How much chuck would a cood f--
2005-01-07, 9:01 PM #1
Alright, the backstory behind this question:

My friend is into DnD, though not very majorly. So he asks me "How much of a penalty do you think dual longswords for a Ranger would be? -2/-2 or -2/-4?" Me, not knowing a damn thing about it, go "No idea" He then says "Well, it can't be that hard to dual wield them so I'll go with -2/-2...this incites a long and arduous argument over how much a longsword weighs. I'm just wondering what you all think. We're talking DnD time period which was, I think, 1300s? Maybe later. What does common sense or previous knowledge tell you?

If you KNOW, don't post, just vote.

BTW, don't ask about the title.
D E A T H
2005-01-07, 9:04 PM #2
Well, my brother's longsword (real, not the crap you can buy off TV) is probably between 20-30 pounds. I could be off though, I'm a very poor judge of weight.

But the penalty depends on the Ranger's ambidexterity feats. =P
2005-01-07, 9:07 PM #3
I assume they would be very heavy. I don't know what kind of "penalty" you could expect. You have to ask yourself this question:

Are we dealing with a David Prowse, or a Hayden Christensen?
>>untie shoes
2005-01-07, 9:17 PM #4
I knew I was way too high. From http://www.historicalweapons.com/swordsanddaggersterm.html

Quote:
Longsword - the Medieval hand-and-a-half sword, which forms the basis of most surviving Medieval fighting treatises. Longswords are the classic "hand and a half" or "war sword," of the 14th and 15th centuries. Between 4 - 4.5' long, and with an average weight of 3 - 4 lbs, the longsword was typically straight, double-edged, and with a simple cruciform hilt. It grew naturally out of the older, single-handed sword, as a means of combating heavier mail, and reinforced mail armour. References to longswords appears as early as the 1180s, but they do not seem to have been common until the late 13th century, and became the principle battlefield sword for the knightly class in the early 14th c.


Doesn't sound like a lot, but when you consider it's 4+ feet long, and trying to swing it around, it gets to feel a lot heavier than it really is. If you've ever swung a long sword, you know what I mean.

Take your average aluminum bat for example. Probably 30-36" or something, and about 20-24 oz. maybe. Even that gets to be hard to swing around with one hand after a little while.
2005-01-07, 9:22 PM #5
A.W.E.S.O.M-O says "17."
"We came, we saw, we conquered, we...woke up!"
2005-01-07, 9:24 PM #6
Trust me, I've already done my research on similar materials, so I know the actual weight (or at least can accurately estimate it) of your average Iron longsword.
D E A T H
2005-01-07, 9:26 PM #7
Oops, I read that as broadsword. Which I wouldn't doubt being a good 50 lbs out of iron.
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.
2005-01-07, 9:27 PM #8
Wouldn't a sword that weighed more than a few lbs be pretty much useless? I mean, you'd be unable to swing it.
Ma tana ka aha...
2005-01-07, 9:28 PM #9
Quote:
Originally posted by Temuera
Wouldn't a sword that weighed more than a few lbs be pretty much useless? I mean, you'd be unable to swing it.


You'd be VERY surprised.

Though of course today it's easy to make swords 3-5 pounds in weight.
D E A T H
2005-01-07, 9:28 PM #10
50 pounds? lol

The most massive, two-handed swords probably weren't more than 20-25 pounds (*edit* once again I was way wrong here, it's more like 8 pounds) when you think about it.

You can't forget about physics here, where holding such a long item far from the center of gravity makes it feel much heavier than it truly is.

More on the subject
2005-01-07, 9:55 PM #11
I thought swords were supposed to be balanced so that you WERE holding the center of gravity....
Warhead[97]
2005-01-07, 9:57 PM #12
Read Darth's Link - I'm surprised.
Ma tana ka aha...
2005-01-07, 9:59 PM #13
While it's closer to the hilt, the center of gravity isn't in the hilt itself. (these aren't lightsabers we're talking about here)
2005-01-07, 10:03 PM #14
I scanned this out of a book I have. Not exactly what you asked about but probably close enough. 15-16th century. 5-8 pound range. Roughly 5'-6' in length. The photo may be hard to read but just save and zoom in.

[http://webpages.charter.net/wookie06/images/1.jpg]

edit - wait a minute. If we might actually know, you only wanted us to vote? Damn, I screwed up again. Okay, just ignore the picture if you know, or don't know, and then guess when you vote. But if you don't know, then post it here. Oww, my head hurts!!!
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2005-01-07, 10:04 PM #15
I heard something about 2 swords in one hand...
America, home of the free gift with purchase.
2005-01-07, 10:07 PM #16
Quote:
Originally posted by BobTheMasher
I thought swords were supposed to be balanced so that you WERE holding the center of gravity....


When dealing with a sword there are actually two centers of gravity: yours and that of the sword. YOUR center of gravity is what Darth is talking about, and he's right. It can't weigh more then a few pounds (~10 for a two-handed sword) or else it's pretty useless for any sort of extended combat. A teacher I had once did the whole Medievel thing. He brought in his armor and weapons to class one day and we all got to hold them. His longsword didn't weigh more than 7 or 8 pounds, although it felt MUCH heaver when held correctly.

Reading Darth's link, I'm apparently a couple pounds too heavy on my two-handed sword weight and about two times too heavy on the weight of my teacher's longsword. Not too far off the mark, even compared to some of the experts that article talks about.
Little angel go away
Come again some other day
Devil has my ear today
I'll never hear a word you say
2005-01-07, 10:08 PM #17
The pivotal thing is--what kind of iron did they use? If I'm not mistaken, around 1400AD, steel was made, so if we're talking pre-steel era, it's going to be a lot heavier, regardless of physics.

Don't forget your average knight was bulky enough to carry around ~200 pounds of armor.
D E A T H
2005-01-07, 10:12 PM #18
Carbon steel (probably what was used) is only slightly less dense than pure iron...

Stainless steel is actually more dense than iron if I'm not mistaken.

And armor wasn't 200 pounds. A full suit of platemail was around 65 pounds last I remember reading. The weight of armor is also distributed throughout the entire body and doesn't "weigh" like a sword "weighs" (if that makes sense).
2005-01-07, 10:17 PM #19
Quote:
Originally posted by Dj Yoshi
We're talking DnD time period which was, I think, 1300s? Maybe later.


Ack. To suggest that DND took place at some point in earthly history is almost an insult to human culture. Everyone that lived during the 1300s is rolling in their graves.
I'm just a little boy.
2005-01-07, 10:19 PM #20
Quote:
Originally posted by Darth
Carbon steel (probably what was used) is only slightly less dense than pure iron...

Stainless steel is actually more dense than iron if I'm not mistaken.


The reason I ask is because when comparing iron rebar, a yard of quarter inch thick is about 15 pounds. When you say the blade's about an inch wide (depending) if it were steel, yeah, I could see 10-15 pounds. If it were iron, based on the weight of rebar (which is iron) I'm going to have to go with somewhere around 20-ish pounds, just for the blade, not the pommel and counterweight. Of course this is only a semi-educated guess, feel free to enlighten me.
D E A T H
2005-01-07, 10:22 PM #21
Quote:
Originally posted by Flirbnic
Ack. To suggest that DND took place at some point in earthly history is almost an insult to human culture. Everyone that lived during the 1300s is rolling in their graves.


It has a certain time period where the technology is BASED though, doesn't it? I could be wrong.
D E A T H
2005-01-07, 10:22 PM #22
Quote:
A 40-Pound Sword?

By C. Jarko

One of the most outrageous (and wildly incorrect) statements made about Medieval swords is that they were heavy and weighed as much as 40 pounds. While the fact that this statement even came once from a respected scholar and expert on Medieval warfare is surprising, it's not at all an uncommon claim. Let's take a look at just how large a sword would have to be to weigh that much or anywhere close to it.

Simple Science (with a little algebra thrown in): How do we know Medieval swords weren't 40 pounds (or for that matter, even 15 or 20 pounds)? The answer is density. Density is a way of expressing how much an object (of a certain size and of a given material) weighs. The size of the object is expressed in terms of its volume. Volume is the size of an object as measured by its length, width and thickness (or height) and is expressed in cubic inches. Written as a mathematical equation, it looks like this:

V = L x W x H.

One cubic inch is one inch long by one inch wide by one inch thick.

For the purpose of this discussion, we can use a simple three-dimensional rectangle to represent our sword. Let's pick a typical longsword with an overall length of 48 inches and a general width of 2 inches (the widest part of the blade). We'll get to the height later.

Swords were made of carbon steel, which has a known density of roughly 0.284 pounds per cubic inch (lbs/per cubic inch). If we know how much weight we have (in this case "40" pounds), we can figure out how many cubic inches the object would have:

40 pounds divided by 0.284 (the density of steel) = 140.85 cubic inches (the volume or "V" of a 40 pound sword).

Our sword is 48 inches long, 2 inches wide and "H" inches thick, thus: V = 48 x 2 x H. Using our volume of 140.85, we can solve for H for which we get:

140.85 = 48 x 2 x H

140.85 = 96 x H

H= 1.47 inches (140.85 divided by 96)

This means our steel sword is 48 inches long, 2 inches wide and 1.47 inches thick along its entire length. This would definitely be a blunt object and not a sharp cutting instrument like a sword.

Just for fun, let's see what we get when we say a sword (again 48 inches long and 2 inches wide) weighs 15 pounds or 10 pounds:

15 pounds divided by 0.284 (the density of steel) = 52.82 cubic inches (the volume "V" of a 15 pound sword).

Using our volume of 52.82, we can solve for H:

52.82 = 48 x 2 x H

52.82 = 96 x H

H = 0.55 inches (52.82 divided by 96)

That's over half an inch thick, still a blunt object. Let's try one more time for 10 pounds.

10 pounds divided by 0.284 (the density of steel) = 35.21 cubic inches (the volume "V" of a 15 pound sword).

Again, we can solve for H:

35.21 = 48 x 2 x H

35.21 = 96 x H

H = 0.37 inches

That's almost three eighths of an inch thick. If you look at three eighths of an inch on a ruler, you'll see we are now starting to get "sword-like" but we're still not there.

If we do the math using the thickness of a real sword (say an average 1/8th inch thick across a roughly 48" by 2" rectangle) it turns out such it weighs a reasonable 3.408 pounds. Which, when you take into account things like differential cross-section, distal taper, edge bevel and overall taper of the blade geometry, as well as the weight of the pommel and cross, then an average weight of 2.5 - 3.5 pounds works out just about right. So, the next time

When someone says "a longsword weighs 15 pounds", you can reply, "Oh, like this?" as you hand them 15 pounds of a half-inch thick steel slab four feet long and two inches wide. There's nothing like holding the truth in your hands. If there were really battle swords that actually weighed 40 pounds, or even just 15 or 20 pounds, then where are they? Why don't we have a single historical example as proof? It would be such an easy thing to prove. So, if you have a modern made sword which you bought and it weighs far more than the real life working versions of history, no matter what the manufacture claims, that sword is just not made correctly.

When we use the mathematical proof, we need to understand that there are variables which we aren't taking into account here, but this line of argument works well enough to debunk the more outrageous claims about sword weight. The next time you're arguing with someone who refuses to budge off their claim that swords were very heavy and unwieldy, you can tell them: "Hey, you do the math!"
2005-01-07, 10:56 PM #23
Quote:
Originally posted by Dj Yoshi
Don't forget your average knight was bulky enough to carry around ~200 pounds of armor.


That same teacher also brought in some of his armor (chestplate, helmet, and gloves I believe). We were all surprised how light it was. He said it weight around 55 pounds all together if I remember correctly. The chest plate had thick leather padding in it and when taken out the padding actually weighed as much as the armor itself.
Little angel go away
Come again some other day
Devil has my ear today
I'll never hear a word you say
2005-01-07, 11:01 PM #24
I stand corrected :)
D E A T H
2005-01-07, 11:11 PM #25
Quote:
Originally posted by Dj Yoshi
It has a certain time period where the technology is BASED though, doesn't it? I could be wrong.


It's quite obvious the developers of DND and the people who make the art have only a rudimentary knowledge of the middle ages and probably can't tell the difference between the early and late middle ages.

Since it has rapiers, you might assume it has 16th century weapon technology, if you want.
(Note how gunpowder weapons are only included as optional "renaissance weapons", even though they were being used at the same time as rapiers.)

(By the way - I'm not saying I hate DND. I enjoy the games, but I hate the setting, and it's absurd to think it reflects actual history.)
I'm just a little boy.
2005-01-07, 11:54 PM #26
I wasn't for sure, so hey, I was wrong either way.
D E A T H
2005-01-08, 12:12 AM #27
Quote:
Originally posted by Darth
You can't forget about physics here, where holding such a long item far from the center of gravity makes it feel much heavier than it truly is.

Ah true true.
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.
2005-01-08, 4:04 PM #28
Quote:
Originally posted by Darth
Well, my brother's longsword (real, not the crap you can buy off TV) is probably between 20-30 pounds. I could be off though, I'm a very poor judge of weight.

But the penalty depends on the Ranger's ambidexterity feats. =P


20-30 is what I was told, so i'm going with that

Laura
2005-01-08, 4:12 PM #29
Quote:
Originally posted by BoricuaDelight
20-30 is what I was told, so i'm going with that

Laura


Read the link that was posted on the subject, very enlightening. 20-30 pounds is incredibly heavy for something that will be held at arm's length and used with any sort of fluidity. Try using a 2x4 like a sword and see how impossible it is, and that's nowhere near 20 pounds.
Little angel go away
Come again some other day
Devil has my ear today
I'll never hear a word you say
2005-01-08, 4:14 PM #30
Heheh, the base penalty is really a whopping -6/-10 for normal classes. If the character has ambidexterity and two-weapon fighting, the penalty is -2/-4. If the offhand weapon is "light" in relation to the user, the penalty is reduced to -2/-2.
2005-01-08, 7:08 PM #31
3 or so pounds (less than 2 kilos).

And Great Swords weren't swung about like those ridiculous swords in Final Fantasy, either; the greater length was for greater reach, not greater power, and poking people with large swords or spears was effective for that.

I think it's a shame that the stereotype of the "ungainly Western sword" has come into being. Sure, it's ungainly compared to the rapiers used in modern fencing, but they were hardly heavy.

More stuff:

- Maces are fast weapons.

- Plate Mail barely restricts your movement and a fit 60 year old, lying down in plate mail, could stand up fairly easily.

- All other armour is effectively worthless against any weapon whatsoever. Leather armour has basically no use.

- Crossbows cut through all armour like a knife through butter. Crossbows are far superior to bows in every fashion imaginable.

- Shields were made of wood. A metal shield would be ungodly heavy.

Incidentally, this is part of why most RPGs piss me off...

Here's a kickass link about medieval weapons and RPGs:

http://mu.ranter.net/theory/weapons.html

Check out the other links there, too. There's some good stuff. "Food Basis" is especially good.

Quote:

Don't forget your average knight was bulky enough to carry around ~200 pounds of armor.


Full Plate weighed something like 65 pounds, and was effectively lighter than chain (30 pounds) because Plate's weight was distributed evenly but chain fell on the shoulders. You can do cartwheels in Plate Armour.

Quote:
When you say the blade's about an inch wide (depending) if it were steel, yeah, I could see 10-15 pounds. If it were iron, based on the weight of rebar (which is iron) I'm going to have to go with somewhere around 20-ish pounds, just for the blade, not the pommel and counterweight. Of course this is only a semi-educated guess, feel free to enlighten me.


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

The only swords that weighed even close to 15 pounds were ceremonial ones; IE, never designed to be used, ever, but to look impressive as one marched about in front of the King. Check out the red sidebar which proves (using maths) that the swords couldn't be all that heavy. Even if Iron is heavier than Steel, all that would have happened is that the swords would be smaller. A person simply could not fight with a 20 pound sword.

(I see on preview that I think Darth has linked to the same page)
2005-01-08, 7:23 PM #32
Didn't soldiers wear a light chainmail under the plate though?
D E A T H
2005-01-08, 8:25 PM #33
Quote:
Originally posted by Dj Yoshi
Didn't soldiers wear a light chainmail under the plate though?

I think plate was strong enough to withstand a slashing blow. Added chainmail layer wouldn't have brought extra piercing protection as spears/arrows would just tear through the chainmail. It would have been an added encumbrance. 65 pounds of plate mail coupled with 30 pounds of chain. Plate does distribute weight, chain doesn't. It basically hangs on your shoulders. If you're getting a spear thrusted into you, you're pretty much SOL.
Code to the left of him, code to the right of him, code in front of him compil'd and thundered. Programm'd at with shot and $SHELL. Boldly he typed and well. Into the jaws of C. Into the mouth of PERL. Debug'd the 0x258.
2005-01-08, 9:29 PM #34
Quote:
Originally posted by Darth
Take your average aluminum bat for example. Probably 30-36" or something, and about 20-24 oz. maybe. Even that gets to be hard to swing around with one hand after a little while.


It's all in the wrist and forearm. ;)
-Hell Raiser
2005-01-08, 9:52 PM #35
Armor's main purpose was to protect the person from glancing hits. You get thrusted with nearly any decent weapon and that plate mail of yours isn't going to do crap.

You'd have to wear inch-thick steel to protect yourself decently from weapons like that, and with that much steel, you'd be so encumbered (and very unflexible) that you might as well offer your head to your opponent.

Maces were also quite effective, their only problem was their lack of distance. You had to get closer with a mace to do any real damage, than you would with a sword.

And in terms of sword weight, another part that played in their weight was the hilts. They often were made to be much heavier than needed simply to offset the center of gravity problem. Additional weight in the hilt didn't encumber the user much, and made the sword much easier to weild.
2005-01-08, 10:05 PM #36
Plate mail is not the only effective armour.
Some thick chain mail over a padded suit would prevent a thrown spear from badly injuring you.
I'm just a little boy.

↑ Up to the top!