To: An Old Marine
And only 6 lbs. That's pretty good for a 5 foot sword.
10 posted on
03/30/2005 1:12:45 PM PST by
AppyPappy
(If You're Not A Part Of The Solution, There's Good Money To Be Made In Prolonging The Problem.)
To: AppyPappy
Typo!
That MUST be 60 pounds.
14 posted on
03/30/2005 1:15:12 PM PST by
Oberon
(What does it take to make government shrink?)
To: AppyPappy
Maybe 6 pounds is what it costs to buy it.
19 posted on
03/30/2005 1:17:18 PM PST by
dead
(I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
To: AppyPappy
Same weight as one of these:
6 lb. solid cannon shot
31 posted on
03/30/2005 1:28:16 PM PST by
The_Victor
(Calvin: "Do tigers wear pajamas?", Hobbes: "Truth is we never take them off.")
To: AppyPappy; msdrby; Darksheare
And only 6 lbs. That's pretty good for a 5 foot sword.Aye. It is fairly thin, however. Mine is about 3 1/2 feet and weighs in at 7 pounds.
To: AppyPappy
And only 6 lbs. That's pretty good for a 5 foot sword. had the same thought. about what a modern loaded rifle weighs
To: AppyPappy
Actually, that's pretty heavy for a sword. Wallace must have been enormously strong.
109 posted on
03/31/2005 6:19:09 AM PST by
Little Ray
(I'm a reactionary, hirsute, gun-owning, knuckle dragging, Christian Neanderthal and proud of it!)
To: AppyPappy; All
Actually, six pounds is about right. Swords HAD to be light enough to carry and swing all day, and to be manueverable in a battle.
The monster 15-pound blades we so often see are truly "bearing swords"...carried usually by a lord or king in parades and such ceremonial functions for looks. A true, hard-bitten warrior most often chose a plain, light, but SHARP and STRONG weapon for real fighting.
Most medieval swords rarely topped 5 pounds. Most also measured about 30 inches in the blade, with two-handers and Claymores (like Wallace's) going over 40 inches of blade.
115 posted on
03/31/2005 6:44:04 AM PST by
Long Cut
(WPPFF Member.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson