"'Tis but a scratch."
Posted on 03/30/2005 1:06:55 PM PST by dead
"'Tis but a scratch."
http://www.americanscottishfoundation.com/tartandayevents2005.htm
http://www.news24.com/News24/Entertainment/Abroad/0,,2-1225-1243_1682811,00.html
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050330-124516-2581r.htm
Hope that helps!
6 stone maybe ?
If you go further into that web site, it looks like Gibson copied the Robert the Bruce Sword instead.
My second thought was William Wallace was alleged to be around 6'5" and even if you factor in some exageration due to legendary status he had to be one big MOFO for his time. If you see the sword you can tell he would have to be very big and strong to wield it.
From an article on The Association for Renaissance Martial Arts ( www.thehaca.com)page:
http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html
"Identification - Definition of the Two-Handed Great Sword
To understand what we are discussing it is important to first have a working definition. The respected work, Swords and Hilt Weapons, offers this description of the weapon:
"The two-handed sword was a specialized and effective infantry weapon, and was recognized as such in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Although large, measuring 60-70 in/150-175 cm overall, it was not as hefty as it looked, weighing something of the order of 5-8 lbs/2.3-3.6 kg. In the hands of the Swiss and German infantrymen it was lethal, and its use was considered as special skill, often meriting extra pay. Fifteenth-century examples usually have an expanded cruciform hilt, sometimes with side rings on one or both sides of the quillon block. This was the form which remained dominant in Italy during the sixteenth century, but in Germany a more flamboyant form developed. Two-handed swords typically have a generous ricasso to allow the blade to be safely gripped below the quillons and thus wielded more effectively at close quarters. Triangular or pointed projections, known as flukes, were added at the base of the ricasso to defend the hand." (Coe et al, p. 48) "
Good article at the link I gave.
Yeah, I noticed that. It does have a cleaner, leaner look, IMHO.
I got a kilt from Sport Kilt and I'm wearing it to the offce on Tartan Day.
Maybe someday the Scots will be free of the Brits, like us.
Oberon is flat wrong.
Look at this:
http://albion-swords.com/swords/albion/squire/sword-squire-warsword.htm
47 inches.
3 pounds 10 ounces.
I got a kilt from Sport Kilt and I'm wearing it to the offce on Tartan Day.
Maybe someday the Scots will be free of the Brits, like us.
Sorry 'bout the double post. It's been awhile.
Aye. It is fairly thin, however. Mine is about 3 1/2 feet and weighs in at 7 pounds.
Whoa, 8 pounds? My single hand sword is less than 3.
Supposedly it's also balanced quite well.
I'd love to know how they did that.
"The 6-pound weapon will be returned to its home..."
Wouldn't a 5ft sword be closer to 26lbs than just 6lbs? At 5ft and only 6lbs I can't imagine it would survive very many two handed swipes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.