Swords: Broad or Dainty

[pengolodh_sc]

No: HPFGUIDX 45689

--- In HPforGrownups, "Grey Wolf" wrote:
> First, I should place the situation. We're around the year 1000,
> more or less (not even Binns know for sure, but it gives a
> figure to work with). Now, this is the very start of middle
> ages. Barbarism rules almost all Europe (except for Iberian
> peninsula, but I'm not going into that), and most of what the
> romans had advanced has been forgotten -except, presumably,
> the art of war. Smiths aren't really all that advanced; it is
> interesting that swords got bigger as time passed: in ancient
> times, swords were short, not those impresive bastard, broad 
> and double grip swords we always picture middle ages knights in.

[snip]

> Which means that at the time of Godric no-one had thought of
> those sort of swords yet. The sort of sword you'd get is the
> one you'd expect a roman to use: a short, broad bladed, iron or
> steel sword. 

[snip]

You're forgetting the Vikings - they had fairly longs swords (Viking 
longswords have been found in archeological digs in Norway), and 
certainly considerably longer swords than the Roman /gladius/.  
http://www.vikingsword.com/ indicates that blade-length of the 
typical Viking-swords were typically just under a yard, and they grew 
longer into the Norman age.  These were one-handed swords, since 
warriors in thsoe days ad a tendency to carry shields as well.  

> For one thing, it's the sort of sword a 12-year-old could
> find heavy, but still use with certain degree of aptitude: I
> have real broadswords in my house, and I know that when I was
> 12 I had difficulty to lift them, so that trying to wave it
> around meant that I orbited around the sword almost more than
> the sword orbited around me.

A charm to lighten the sword might perhaps be the thing?

> To cut this short, I think that historical evidence, as well as 
> inter-textual evidence, would suggest a sensible roman or
> roman-esque sword (maybe somewhat improved from the basic design), 
but not the sort of sword you'd expect from Ivanhoe or Wallace - 
those came around later. 

Actually, I believe Ivanhoe would have stuck to a singlehanded sword -
 as far as I recall that novel is set in a time when shields were 
still common among knights, meaning that swords had to be amde easily 
wieldable by one hand.  

> A short sword (maybe coated in magic? after seing an enchated
> car, a magic sword sholdn't raise any blisters) that a skinny
> and small 12 year-old could use. As I say, I might have gotten
> the timing wrong (meaning that longswords already existed at
> the time), but I still believe -now that I have actually
> thought rationally through it- that a short sword would make
> more sense.

I do not.  I think that swords much shorter than a yard or so, were 
rather uncommon at the time around 1000AD - my bet lays with a 
standard one-hand sword of roughly one yard length.  

Best regards
Christian Stubø