# How long is a Greatsword?



## Jovah (Aug 14, 2003)

Please no sexual innuendo.     

Is a Greatsword 4 ft long? 5 ft?

How long would a Gsword be bumped up one increment?
Large Greatsword.

Thanks for support


----------



## hong (Aug 14, 2003)

Jovah said:
			
		

> *Please no sexual innuendo.     *








> *Is a Greatsword 4 ft long? 5 ft?*




A blade anywhere from 4 feet up, I'd say.



> *How long would a Gsword be bumped up one increment?
> Large Greatsword.
> *




Double the length. Each size category is twice as big in each dimension as the next smallest one.


----------



## Aaron L (Aug 14, 2003)

I'd say 5 feet and up, but 4 feet could work too, though you'd be in the territory of bastard swords then.


----------



## diaglo (Aug 14, 2003)

bigger than a bread box. smaller than an elephant.


----------



## Wicht (Aug 14, 2003)

5 to 6 feet has always been the size I have pictured and described in games.


----------



## Cybern (Aug 14, 2003)

In a LARP I've been I've seen a 10' long one.  

Guess the guy had a size problem


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Aug 14, 2003)

Looking over various sword websites, the longest blade length I can find is for a Zweihander with a blade length of about 48" and an overall length of 65".  Most Claymores I've seen online are about 39-40", with regular one handed swords being 29"-32".

I'd say that the size increase would be proportional - a large greatsword could be anywhere from 25% larger to 100% larger, depending on if the creature it's made for is at the low end of "large" or the high end.  Divide that 48" blade by a 6' tall man and you get 8" of blade per foot of height.  Add about 3" per foot of height for the grip, and you should be in the ballpark.


----------



## Tabarnak Smokeblower (Aug 14, 2003)

Anyone remember Braveheart's Claymore? Didn't that thing measure about 6' long (overall)?

TS


----------



## Dax Doomslayer (Aug 14, 2003)

Actually, if you look at PHB on p. 120, a greatsword appears to be 6' long in total with a 5' blade and a 1' hilt.  Hope this helps!


----------



## Wombat (Aug 14, 2003)

Depends on time, place, style of usage, size of carrier, etc.

Blade could be anything from about 4' to about 7'.

Claymore.  Zweihander.  Greatsword.  Hosts of other names.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Aug 14, 2003)

I remember from the Seven Samauri the one character wielded a massive sword.  I was at least 6 feet long and that is what I think of when I think 'greatsword'.

Of course it is Japanese so they may make bigger swords than your typical European setting (also weren't the Japanese very much in advance in metallurgy and weapon making than comparable Western societies?)


----------



## Krieg (Aug 14, 2003)

Historically a functional "greatsword" (_not_ a bearing sword) would realistically be around 5' long overall. 

Of course that doesn't necessarily have to hold true for a fantasy setting.



			
				Holy Bovine said:
			
		

> * (also weren't the Japanese very much in advance in metallurgy and weapon making than comparable Western societies?) *




No.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 14, 2003)

Greatsword would be 4'-6' blade, 3'-4' is bastard sword, 2.5-3' longsword, 1.5-2.5' shortsword.  Under 18" blade is dagger, typical D&D dagger probably 12".  1e had knives, smaller than daggers - maybe 6" blade.

Add 12" for 2-h hilt or 6" for one-hand sword hilt.  So the biggest (usable) greatsword would be 7', a typical greatsword is 5' with hilt.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 14, 2003)

Krieg said:
			
		

> *
> No. *




At times the Japanese certainly were more advanced in metallurgy than Europe - 13th century Japanese swords in museums look pristine, European ones are lumps of rust.  By the 16th century European swordmaking had caught up, though. 
The making of a samurai blade was an extremely lengthy and complex process, although European swords were also time-consuming to make, Japanese swords were more 'advanced' in that European armour was much better, plate was too advanced to be cut by a blade, so European swords needed basically to be heavy - to bash armour - rather than have the fantastic cutting edge of the samurai sword.


----------



## Krieg (Aug 14, 2003)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> At times the Japanese certainly were more advanced in metallurgy than Europe - 13th century Japanese swords in museums look pristine, European ones are lumps of rust.  By the 16th century European swordmaking had caught up, though.
> The making of a samurai blade was an extremely lengthy and complex process, although European swords were also time-consuming to make, Japanese swords were more 'advanced' in that European armour was much better, plate was too advanced to be cut by a blade, so European swords needed basically to be heavy - to bash armour - rather than have the fantastic cutting edge of the samurai sword. *




*sigh* I really don't want to do this again. 

European swords aren't heavy "bashers".

Katana aren't uber-sharp.

The "lengthy and complex" manufacturing process is a result of poor raw materials. 

European swords in museums are "lumps of rust" because they sat in the ground or underwater for 1K years.


----------



## Aaron L (Aug 14, 2003)

Japanese swords were considered near sacred objects and were treated as such.  After they were done being used they were kept in shrines and similiar settings. 

European swords were considered tools and were treated as such.  When they were done being used they were melted down, lost, or discarded.


----------



## Imperialus (Aug 14, 2003)

Keep in mind that a Zwihander (probably the biggest sword designed) is not a typical greatsword.  It was designed for a very specific purpose and most of the added length was because about a foot of the blade was designed to be grasped allowing more leverage.  The actual cutting blade length was no longer than 5' to 5'6" with a total length of around 7 feet.

Also (picking nits here) a claymore is not nessesarally two handed... All it really is, is a scottish term for sword.  I've seen claymores from the 17th and 18th century that resemble any other saber of the time period.

As for Japanese swords being kept in better shape like Aaron said due to the scarcity of iron in Japan swords were often passed down from father to son for generations.  European swords were often buried with their owners.  It was the armour and horses that cost a mint.  In either case both swords were carbon steel.  You put a katana underground for even 20 or 30 years it'll rust just as much as a longsword.


----------



## Davelozzi (Aug 14, 2003)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *Greatsword would be 4'-6' blade, 3'-4' is bastard sword, 2.5-3' longsword, 1.5-2.5' shortsword.  Under 18" blade is dagger, typical D&D dagger probably 12".  1e had knives, smaller than daggers - maybe 6" blade. *




Unless the character wielding it is small.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 15, 2003)

Krieg said:
			
		

> *
> 
> *sigh* I really don't want to do this again.
> 
> ...




Pardon my scepticism.  *All* 13th century blades sat in the ground for 800 years whereas none of the 16th century ones (some 15th from Mediterranean) did?  And European battle swords for use vs plate armour certainly are heavy bashers.


----------



## jasper (Aug 15, 2003)

Ewart Oakshotte, Edge, Pallock, Osprey Press military series.
Some authors and series to look up.


----------



## Imperialus (Aug 15, 2003)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *And European battle swords for use vs plate armour certainly are heavy bashers. *




*twich* *twich*... Ok... I've handled peices of the Wallace Colletion.  Includeing a 14th century bastard sword which was sharp enough to shave with dispelling your "rusted hunk of iron" myth.  Now I'm not an overly built guy.  I'm 6'0 and tip the scales at between 150 and 160 lbs depending on if my mom sends me a care package or not but I could hold it quite comferterably in 1 hand.  I've also held a WWII era Katana which has an almost identical weight.  I'd estimate them both to be between 9 and 10 lbs.

European swords were not typically used to "bash" other knights.  They had lances, maces, warhammers, flails, and bill hooks for that.  Also the fatalities in knight vs knight combat were typically quite low.  The only times they really fought were in small skermishes when two scouting parties or members of a vanguard met usually several days before a major battle and they'd only try and drive the other party off rather than kill them to a man.  Normally a knight just spent his time in battle mowing down pesants.  No swords appart from a very specific few like the Flambarge were ever designed to deal with armour.

You can also just look at it this way.  The Japanese didn't make exceptional swords, they just made crappy armour.


----------



## Staffan (Aug 15, 2003)

diaglo said:
			
		

> *bigger than a bread box. smaller than an elephant. *



"Is it bigger than a breadbox?"
"No. Four left."
"So it's smaller than a breadbox?"
"Heh heh! No, only three."
"Harmony... is it a sodding breadbox?"
"Yes! Oh my god. Someone's Blondy Bear is a Twenty Questions genius!"
 - Spike and Harmony playing twenty questions.


----------



## Tiefling (Aug 15, 2003)

Four feet and up, from what I understand. The biggest sword I've ever seen (okay, seen pictures of) is a Landesknecht flamberge. It had an overall length of 6 feet and 2 inches. It was a modern piece though, I'm not sure if the medieval equivalents were as large.


----------



## Aaron L (Aug 15, 2003)

Landsknecht swords like that were used for cutting down pikes and horses, and got real big.


----------



## Valiantheart (Aug 15, 2003)

I wonder what Gatts swords from Berserk would quailfy as (other than BS).  Its at least 7 feet long and a good foot wide.

Also, I too have held a real bastard sword and it isnt a bashing weapon.  It was actually very nimble.


----------



## Staffan (Aug 16, 2003)

Valiantheart said:
			
		

> *I wonder what Gatts swords from Berserk would quailfy as (other than BS).  Its at least 7 feet long and a good foot wide. *



A daiklaive. You need to play Exalted to use one


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Aug 16, 2003)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Pardon my scepticism.  *All* 13th century blades sat in the ground for 800 years whereas none of the 16th century ones (some 15th from Mediterranean) did?  And European battle swords for use vs plate armour certainly are heavy bashers. *





Japanese swords and European swords were designed for completely different intents and built with much different materials.

The folding technique used to create Japanese swords was not done to create super weapons. It was done because Japanese iron ore was so poor. Every time the blade was foled more of the impurities were forged out of the blade.

European blades made from superior material had no use for such a forging technique.


----------



## Krieg (Aug 16, 2003)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Pardon my scepticism.  *All* 13th century blades sat in the ground for 800 years whereas none of the 16th century ones (some 15th from Mediterranean) did? . *




All? No of course not. But the ones that are rusted lumps generally did. Visit the aforementioned Wallace collection in England or the NY Metropolitan Museum of Art, both have extensive displays of pre 13th century european swords that are still battleworthy. 

It's also probably important to point out that the majority of the Japanese Swords are 16th century & later.



> * And European battle swords for use vs plate armour certainly are heavy bashers*




The only Europeans swords ever designed specifically to defeat plate were narrow bladed piercing weapons. The Estoc/Tuck etc.

The knight's sword of war was generally ineffective against plate.
Thus the anti-armor weapons of choice were the lance, hammer, pick, mace, axe & polearm (as has been mentioned elsewhere in the thread).



			
				Imperialus said:
			
		

> * I'd estimate them both to be between 9 and 10 lbs.*




Your estimation seems very high (for both swords). A good rule of thumb for swords (of just about any type) is about 1lb per foot of blade. 



> *You can also just look at it this way.  The Japanese didn't make exceptional swords, they just made crappy armour. *




To be fair the Japanese did very well with the materials they had available, they just didn't have large enough iron reserves to produce large amounts of all-steel armour.



			
				DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> Japanese swords and European swords were designed for completely different intents and built with much different materials.
> ...




Early europeans swordsmiths were faced with very similar obstacles, which is why pattern welded blades are some prevelant early on. 

It wasn't until after about 1000 AD or so when reliable methods of producing large amounts of homogeneous steel became available that pattern welding was replaced with blades forged from a single piece of steel.


----------



## Camarath (Aug 16, 2003)

Valiantheart said:
			
		

> *I wonder what Gatts swords from Berserk would quailfy as (other than BS).  Its at least 7 feet long and a good foot wide.*



 If you want a D&D equivalent weapon you might look at the Fullblade (A&EG exotic weapon 2d8 (1d12 in S&F) 19-20/x2 23lb). It is suppose to be 18 inches longer than a greatsword. For greater damage you could make it Heavy Fullblade in that case it would deal 4d6 damage (using Heavy Weapon's damage increase table). Heavy Weapon is from Magic of Faerun, it increases the weapon's damage by one step, doubles the weapon's weight, and requires Exotic Weapon Proficiency to use the weapon with out penalty.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 16, 2003)

Imperialus said:
			
		

> *
> 
> European swords were not typically used to "bash" other knights.  They had lances, maces, warhammers, flails, and bill hooks for that.  Also the fatalities in knight vs knight combat were typically quite low.  The only times they really fought were in small skermishes when two scouting parties or members of a vanguard met usually several days before a major battle and they'd only try and drive the other party off rather than kill them to a man.  Normally a knight just spent his time in battle mowing down pesants.  No swords appart from a very specific few like the Flambarge were ever designed to deal with armour.
> 
> You can also just look at it this way.  The Japanese didn't make exceptional swords, they just made crappy armour. *




That's more reasonable.  Medieval greatswords (pretty well the only swords used on the battlefield in the later middle ages)  _were_ designed to deal with armour though, but more by crushing it than slicing through it.  I agree that longswords were not effective battlefield weapons in the latter middle ages and were more a personal defense weapon like a pistol, where a greatsword was an assault rifle.


----------



## Imperialus (Aug 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Krieg_*Your estimation seems very high (for both swords). A good rule of thumb for swords (of just about any type) is about 1lb per foot of blade. *




You're most cirtanly right.  I never weighed either of the swords, it was an estimate I came to by simply holding them when I was 16 years old or so, I expect they felt heavier than they actually were.


----------



## Cedric (Aug 16, 2003)

Heh, the better question (as a few people here have hit upon) is how much would the Greatsword weigh?

Many of you may think that I am nuts, but a well made Two Handed Sword is not that heavy. (historically there is no such thing as a "Greatsword", just double edged swords obviously designed to be used with Two Hands).

Six pounds is about the MAXIMUM weight for a Two Handed Sword designed to actually be used in combat...and then, at 6 pounds I would say it was poorly made or designed for a specific purpose. 

A more reasonable weight for a Two Handed sword around 56" in total length would be 3.5 - 4.5 pounds, with some variation up and down for blade width, thickness, fullers and the like. 

Cedric


----------



## Imperialus (Aug 16, 2003)

Cedric: once again though, a Flambarge would be an excption to the rule.  They were rediculously heavy swords, but then again they were only designed to be swung once or twice to cut the pikes pointed at you or remove the legs of some unfortunate horse at which point you would fall back on your Katshbalger (sp?) to do the actual fighting with.


----------



## Cedric (Aug 16, 2003)

I would very much consider a Flamberge to be a weapon designed for a special purpose...but even then. 

The flamberge seen here is 63" in total length with a 46" long blade, and it only clocks in at 6 lbs, 4oz. 







Granted, some are going to be larger or smaller then this one. But regardless of this, I classify these as special purpose weapons, not daily use weapons. 

Cedric


----------



## FluidDragon (Aug 16, 2003)

Cedric said:
			
		

> *Heh, the better question (as a few people here have hit upon) is how much would the Greatsword weigh?
> 
> Many of you may think that I am nuts, but a well made Two Handed Sword is not that heavy. (historically there is no such thing as a "Greatsword", just double edged swords obviously designed to be used with Two Hands).
> 
> ...




Cedric is ABSOLUTELY correct. Don't be fooled by the weapon discriptions and weights in D&D and video games. This is a sore point with anyone who actualy studied ancient weapons. They simply didn't do *any* research on the subject, and in regards to D&D the weights of the weapons are totally off. Most weapons in the phb are listed at two or three times the actual weight. If you want to find out how much a particular type of weapon weighs then check out Museum Replicas. This is good easy site to get an APPROXIMATION of how much such an item would be. You would be surprised how light most weapons are.

You want the weapon as light as it possibly can be, as you are swinging it constantly. Even if you are very strong a weapon that is too heavy will tire you. Most weapons were effective becasue of their *geometry* not because they were heavy. Swords cut because of the shape of the blade bevel which is sharpend in a similar manner to an axe *NOT* like a razor or even a knife. They were not razor sharp, and did not need to be. If you really want to learn more go to Sword Forum. Excelletn site and they can recomend many books on the subject.


----------



## Goobermunch (Aug 16, 2003)

FluidDragon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Cedric is ABSOLUTELY correct. Don't be fooled by the weapon discriptions and weights in D&D and video games. This is a sore point with anyone who actualy studied ancient weapons. They simply didn't do any research on the subject, and in regards to D&D the weights of the weapons are totally off. Most weapons in the phb are listed at two or three times the actual weight. If you want to find out how much a particular type of weapon weighs then check out Museum Replicas. This is good easy site to get an APPROXIMATION of how much such an item would be. You would be surprised how light most weapons are.
> 
> You want the weapon as light as it possibly can be, as you are swinging it constantly. Even if you are very strong a weapon that is too heavy will tire you. Most weapons were effective becasue of their geometry not because they were heavy. Swords cut because of the shape of the blade bevel which is sharpend in a similar manner to an axe NOT like a razor or even a knife. They were not razor sharp, and did not need to be. If you really want to learn more go to Sword Forum. Excelletn site and they can recomend many books on the subject. *




Actually, I remember when 3.0e came out.  We had a long conversation about your very comment on these boards.  Here's the thing.  In 3.0, they increased the weight of the weapons to represent how unweildy they would be.

I'm not talking about how difficult they'd be to use, but rather how difficult they'd be to carry.  Imagine walking around packing a greatsword, a long spear, and a warhammer, without a squire or a mount.  Even if you'd strapped the weapons to your body, they'd make it difficult to pick your way through thick brush or a narrow passageway.

Hell, I remember wandering through Blarney Castle in Cork with a small daypack on my back.  Getting through some of the narrower staircases required moving it to the front.

That's why the weights are so off.  They're abstract representations of how encumbering a weapon is.

--G

PS.  Every axe I've ever used for cutting wood (and I did that through high school) has been razor sharp, maybe you were referring to mauls?


----------



## Staffan (Aug 16, 2003)

Goobermunch said:
			
		

> *PS.  Every axe I've ever used for cutting wood (and I did that through high school) has been razor sharp, maybe you were referring to mauls? *



Axes I've used have generally been sharp, but not *razor* sharp. I mean, I wouldn't have wanted to shave with them.


----------



## Goobermunch (Aug 16, 2003)

Staffan said:
			
		

> *
> Axes I've used have generally been sharp, but not razor sharp. I mean, I wouldn't have wanted to shave with them. *




Your axes have been dull then.  It was actually a fairly common practice in the logging camps in the early 1900s for lumberjacks to shave eachother with their axes.  For more info, check out "A Closer Shave: Man's Daily Search for Perfection," by Wallace G. Pinfold.

[/hijack]

--G


----------



## FluidDragon (Aug 16, 2003)

I was refering to edge geometry when I talked about axes and razor blades. You can sharpen nearly any blade to shave with if you know what you are doing. If an axe has a flat blade geometry it will dull sooner and the edge will not be as strong. If it has a slight bevel to it then it will retain its edge longer and will be stronger and less prone to chipping, cracking or breaking. 

I don't have the 3.5 PHB yet but in the 3.0 it simply stated that this is how much the item weighs. I HOPED they said some place that this figure was relative encumbrance but it did not. Just a pet peeve of mine.


----------

