Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: Oberon
That MUST be 60 pounds.

A sword of 16 pounds would be more likely.

28 posted on 03/30/2005 1:25:35 PM PST by MJemison
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: Oberon

6 stone maybe ?


43 posted on 03/30/2005 1:50:35 PM PST by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: Oberon

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) "


46 posted on 03/30/2005 1:55:37 PM PST by antiantiamericans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: Oberon
You got to be joking. Fill a 5 gal bucket with water and add two more gallons (7 gal. of water total or 60 lbs) and try swinging it around your head. Even William Wallace (who had lightning bolts come out his ass: see the movie) could not do that in the heat of battle.
47 posted on 03/30/2005 1:56:25 PM PST by fish hawk (I am only one, but I am not the only one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: Oberon
60 lbs. Wouldn't that be like swinging Calista Flockhart around? (Alley McBeal)
51 posted on 03/30/2005 2:04:12 PM PST by fish hawk (I am only one, but I am not the only one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: Oberon
That MUST be 60 pounds.

Either a typo or it is Titanium. :)

92 posted on 03/31/2005 3:50:17 AM PST by The_Media_never_lie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: Oberon

http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm

Found this.


179 posted on 04/12/2005 10:52:52 AM PDT by fishtank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: Oberon

Most people would be surprised at the lightness of a well-made sword.

I like guns, but a sword is the spirit of a warrior.


187 posted on 04/13/2005 7:17:14 AM PDT by ZULU (Fear the government which fears your guns. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson