How long is a zweihander

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:. 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. 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:.

Using our volume of This means our steel sword is 48 inches long, 2 inches wide and 1. 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:. That's over half an inch thick, still a blunt object. Let's try one more time for 10 pounds.

Again, we can solve for H:. 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. 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.

So, the next time. When someone says "a longsword weighs 15 pounds", you can reply, "Oh, like this? 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!

An ordinary exercise bar available at most large sporting goods stores is an excellent way to demonstrate how real swords were not "heavy. Arms authority, David Edge, former head curator and current conservator of the famed Wallace Collection museum in London, similarly states for us: "I very recently had occasion to handle a couple of similar-sized hand-and-a-half 16th-century 'heading' swords in the [Wallace] Collection…one undoubtedly genuine A and one now thought to be a Victorian fake A , albeit not described as such in the [Wallace Collection] catalogue.

The two swords handled completely and dramatically differently…on checking their weights the genuine one weighed 3 lbs. Clearly making replica swords too heavy is not the sole prerogative of modern manufacturers…Victorian copyists appear sometimes to have fallen into the same trap! It is interesting to compare these weights with that of a double-handed fighting sword of similar date…for example, our Landsknecht double-hander A, the one with a wavy blade.

This a much larger sword all round still only weighs a mere 7 lbs. Processional two-handed swords are usually heavier, true, but rarely more than 10 lbs. The heaviest and most enormous sword in our entire Armoury only weighs 14 lbs and was probably ceremonial.

ARMA consultant Henrik Andersson of the Livrustkammaren , Swedish Royal Armoury of Stockholm, provides a table with the following measurements on two-handed and greatswords in the collection there. The author and his colleagues have handled several of these pieces:. Note that unlike ceremonial specimens, none of the fighting weapons exceeded 4 pounds and the heaviest ceremonial was less than The catlog of the famous arsenal in Graz, Austria, contains similar weights for its two-handed great sword specimens.

Historical fencing researcher and author, Grzegorz Zabinski, observes, "It can be assumed that the two-handed infantry swords were a culminating point of one of the directions of the evolution of swords, that aimed to increase their efficiency against plate by means of increasing their dimensions and weight, and, quite naturally, their impact. Two-Handed Infantry Sword with parrying-hooks.

Late 15th - early 16th century. Total length cm Blade's width at the shoulder 43 mm, at the parrying-hooks 36 mm, behind the parrying-hooks 50 mm, at the point 33 mm. Blade's thickness at the shoulder 11 mm. Early 16th century. Total length cm 62 inches , total weight 3. Blade's width at the shoulder 33 mm, width at the point 58 mm. Blade's thickness at the shoulder 9 mm. Two-Handed Infantry Sword with side-rings. Total length cm 64 inches , total weight 3.

Blade's width at the shoulder 53mm, at the point 30 mm. Blade's thickness at the shoulder 8 mm, at the point 2 mm. Two-Handed Infantry Swordwith parrying-hooks. Blade's width at the shoulder 47 mm, at the point 26 mm. Blade's thickness at the shoulder 7 mm, at the point 2 mm. The parrying-hooks: total length Two-Handed Infantry Sword. National Museum Wroclaw. Total length cm 58 inches , total weight 2 kg 4 pounds , blade length Blade's width at the shoulder 38 mm, at the point 33 mm.

Blade's thickness at the shoulder 10 mm, at the point 4 mm. National Museum Wroclaw, No. Consequently, it is not carried in a sheath, but across the shoulder like a halberd. By the second half of the 16th century, these swords had largely ceased to have a practical application, but they continued to see ceremonial or representative use well into the 17th century. Due to their size and weight — typically at least 1. Later examples had Parierhaken "parrying hooks" at the top of the ricasso as well as side rings on the hilt.

A sword did not necessarily have both features. However, the Swiss outlawed their use, while the Landsknecht kept using them until much later. Soldiers trained in the use of the sword were granted the title of Meister des langen Schwertes lit. Master of the Long Sword by the Marx brotherhood. It has a length of cm 84 in and a weight of about 6. Military Wiki Explore. Popular pages. Raaen, Jr.

Project maintenance. Register Don't have an account? Aleksei Sosnovski Joined: 04 Mar Posts: Posted: Sun 10 Apr, pm Post subject:. Here you go! Posted: Mon 11 Apr, am Post subject:. In particular, this sword is "Ceremonial Two-handed sword. Length: mm It's possible to get detailed measurements for late 16 century zweihander like on zornhau.

Posted: Tue 12 Apr, am Post subject:. Klingendicke means sword width, but what means "20 mm vor Ort - 5mm"? I suspect that in this case they wrote Klingendick as to mean "blade thickness" 20mm from the point, as opposed to blade width. The word dick works either way like that I soppose since it just means "fat" as far as I remember. Posted: Tue 12 Apr, pm Post subject:. Self-edited out for stupidity see below Last edited by Simon G.