History Analysis / BFS

27th Mar '17 3:26:06 PM TheBigBopper
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Real, practical two-handed blades such as the German ''Zweihander'' and Scottish Claymore weighed around 5-7 pounds, compared to about 2.5 pounds for a one-handed arming sword and 3.5 pounds for their smaller two-handed cousin the longsword. Such swords would have a very long grip, which allowed greater control over the blade than a shorter hilt; where a one-handed blade's weight was held steady by the hand and wrist, the longer hilt of these swords turned it into an arm motion and created leverage through the distance between the hands. Such greatswords were not used just for sheer power, but for a combination of cutting power, reach, leverage, defensive radius, intimidation, and versatility. The large dimensions and inertia of big two-handed swords made it difficult to take full advantage of their capabilities without [[DifficultButAwesome considerable stamina and skill]], which is why the Doppelsoldner who wielder the ''Zweihander'' in German mercenary armies earned double pay for their expertise.

to:

Real, practical two-handed blades from Europe such as the German ''Zweihander'' and Scottish Claymore weighed around 5-7 pounds, compared pounds. Compare this to about 2.5 pounds for a one-handed arming sword sword, and 3.5 pounds for their smaller a longsword that could be worn at one's side. The two-handed cousin the longsword. Such swords would have sword had a very long grip, which allowed greater control over the blade than a shorter hilt; where a one-handed blade's weight was held steady by the hand and wrist, the longer hilt of these swords turned it into an arm motion and created leverage through the distance between the hands. Such greatswords were not used just for sheer power, but for a combination of cutting power, reach, leverage, defensive radius, intimidation, and versatility. The large dimensions and inertia of big two-handed swords made it difficult to take full advantage of their capabilities without [[DifficultButAwesome considerable stamina and skill]], which is why the Doppelsoldner who wielder the ''Zweihander'' in German mercenary armies earned double pay for their expertise.
27th Mar '17 3:21:04 PM TheBigBopper
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Real, practical two-handed blades such as the German ''Zweihander'' and Scottish Claymore weighed around 5-7 pounds, compared to 2-3 pounds for a one-handed arming sword. Such swords would have a very long grip, which allowed greater control over the blade than a shorter hilt; where a one-handed blade's weight was held steady by the hand and wrist, the longer hilt of these swords turned it into an arm motion and created leverage through the distance between the hands. Such greatswords were not used just for sheer power, but for a combination of cutting power, reach, leverage, defensive radius, intimidation, and versatility. The large dimensions and inertia of big two-handed swords made it difficult to take full advantage of their capabilities without [[DifficultButAwesome considerable stamina and skill]], which is why the Doppelsoldner who wielder the ''Zweihander'' in German mercenary armies earned double pay for their expertise.

to:

Real, practical two-handed blades such as the German ''Zweihander'' and Scottish Claymore weighed around 5-7 pounds, compared to 2-3 about 2.5 pounds for a one-handed arming sword.sword and 3.5 pounds for their smaller two-handed cousin the longsword. Such swords would have a very long grip, which allowed greater control over the blade than a shorter hilt; where a one-handed blade's weight was held steady by the hand and wrist, the longer hilt of these swords turned it into an arm motion and created leverage through the distance between the hands. Such greatswords were not used just for sheer power, but for a combination of cutting power, reach, leverage, defensive radius, intimidation, and versatility. The large dimensions and inertia of big two-handed swords made it difficult to take full advantage of their capabilities without [[DifficultButAwesome considerable stamina and skill]], which is why the Doppelsoldner who wielder the ''Zweihander'' in German mercenary armies earned double pay for their expertise.
27th Mar '17 3:19:00 PM TheBigBopper
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Giant swords are impractical in the real world because of the SquareCubeLaw, which guarantees that a sword that gets too heavy will be slow and cumbersome no matter how strong its wielder is for a human. The sword has to be a relatively small percentage of its wielder's body weight in order for their muscle power to accelerate and control it at high speed. Even a person who can lift a 200 pound barbell over their head would struggle to use a 20 pound sword effectively, simply because it is a lot harder to swing a weight around your body at arms' length than it is to slowly raise it straight up and down over your center of gravity. Eight pounds is pretty much the upper limit for what even a six-foot long greatsword can weigh before it becomes too unwieldly. Even so, actually wielding a giant sword such as [[VideoGame/FinalFantasyVII Cloud's Buster Sword]] would require not only SuperStrength, but also a whole set of RequiredSecondaryPowers. An object that large has tremendous inertia, meaning that it is extremely difficult to get it moving from a resting position, and just as hard to stop it or change direction after it gets going. In order to actually exert on the weapon the minimum force needed to accelerate it to the speed of a sword swing, you would have to be able to push off of the ground without your feet slipping out from under you, and then the sword would try to yank you forward along with it when it got up to speed. For that you would either have to personally weigh several times as much as a normal human or artificially increase your personal gravity, stability, and traction using sci-fi technology or magic. Once you were able to swing it and keep your footing, you would also need SuperToughness in order for your bones, muscles, and joints to withstand forces that would normally rip a person's arms off.

Many examples of the BFS that were made in real life are simply not meant for combat. An executioner's sword is designed to chop through a restrained person's neck in one swing so that defense and agility need not be considerations in the design, which is why they were made with long grips for leverage but relatively short, forward-balanced blades that usually did not even have a proper point. At least these were usually within the typical parameters for a fighting sword; Ceremonial swords had hardly any constraints on their weight and dimesions, such as Henry V's bearing sword in the Tower of London which was far too big and heavy to use as a weapon because it only needed to look impressive as it was carried in front of his procession. You could say that this latter category subverts an important part of the trope, because unlike the fictional BFS which is made because there's someone who can wield it effectively, smiths of old were under no illusions that their giant ceremonial swords were useful to anyone as practical weapons.

Realistic, practical two-handed blades such as the German ''Zweihander'' and Scottish Claymore weighed around 5-7 pounds, just over twice as much a one-handed arming sword. Such swords would have a very long grip, which allowed greater control over the blade than a shorter hilt; where a one-handed blade's weight was held steady by the hand and wrist, the longer hilt of these swords turned it into an arm motion and created leverage through the distance between the hands. Such greatswords were not used just for sheer power, but for a combination of cutting power, reach, leverage, defensive radius, intimidation, and versatility. The large dimensions and inertia of big two-handed swords made it difficult to take full advantage of their capabilities without [[DifficultButAwesome considerable stamina and skill]], which is why the Doppelsoldner who wielder the ''Zweihander'' in German mercenary armies earned double pay for their expertise.

to:

Giant swords are impractical in the real world because of the SquareCubeLaw, which guarantees that a sword that gets too heavy will be slow and cumbersome no matter how strong its wielder is for a human.is. The sword has to be a relatively small percentage of its wielder's body weight in order for their muscle power to accelerate and control it at high speed. Even a person who can lift a 200 pound barbell over their head would struggle to use a 20 15 pound sword effectively, simply because it is a lot exponentially harder to swing a weight around your body at more than arms' length than it is to slowly raise it straight up and down over your center of gravity. Eight pounds is pretty much the upper limit for what even a six-foot long greatsword can weigh before it becomes too unwieldly. Even so, What's more, actually wielding a giant sword such as [[VideoGame/FinalFantasyVII Cloud's Buster Sword]] would require not only SuperStrength, but also a whole set of RequiredSecondaryPowers. An object that large has tremendous inertia, meaning that it is extremely difficult to get it moving from a resting position, and just as hard to stop it or change direction after it gets going. In order to actually exert on the weapon the minimum force needed to accelerate it to the speed of a sword swing, you would have to be able to push off of the ground without your feet slipping out from under you, and then the sword would try to yank you forward along with it when it got up to speed. For that you would either have to personally weigh several times as much as a normal human or artificially increase your personal gravity, stability, and traction using sci-fi technology or magic. Once you were able to swing it and keep your footing, you would also need SuperToughness in order for your bones, muscles, and joints to withstand forces that would normally rip a person's arms off.

Many examples of the BFS that were made in real life are simply not meant for combat. An Early Modern European executioner's sword is was designed to chop through a restrained person's neck in one swing so swing, meaning that defense and agility need not be considerations in the design, which is why were of no importance. Therefore they were made with long grips for leverage but leverage, while their blades were relatively short, forward-balanced blades that usually did not even have forward-balanced, and often without a proper point. At Since they had a practical function, at least these were usually within the typical outer parameters for a fighting sword; Ceremonial sword. In contrast, ceremonial swords had hardly any constraints on their weight and dimesions, such as dimesions. For example, King Henry V's V of England's bearing sword in the Tower of London which was far exaggeratedly large in order to impressive as someone carried it in front of his procession, and the fact that it was too big and heavy to for pracical use as a weapon because it only needed to look impressive as it was carried in front of his procession.didn't matter. You could say that this latter category subverts an important part of the trope, because unlike the fictional BFS which is made because there's someone who can wield it effectively, smiths of old were under no illusions that their giant ceremonial swords were useful to anyone as practical weapons.

Realistic, Real, practical two-handed blades such as the German ''Zweihander'' and Scottish Claymore weighed around 5-7 pounds, just over twice as much compared to 2-3 pounds for a one-handed arming sword. Such swords would have a very long grip, which allowed greater control over the blade than a shorter hilt; where a one-handed blade's weight was held steady by the hand and wrist, the longer hilt of these swords turned it into an arm motion and created leverage through the distance between the hands. Such greatswords were not used just for sheer power, but for a combination of cutting power, reach, leverage, defensive radius, intimidation, and versatility. The large dimensions and inertia of big two-handed swords made it difficult to take full advantage of their capabilities without [[DifficultButAwesome considerable stamina and skill]], which is why the Doppelsoldner who wielder the ''Zweihander'' in German mercenary armies earned double pay for their expertise.
16th Oct '16 4:27:43 PM TheBigBopper
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Sheer weight or mass is not by itself a good thing; you need to make the sword just heavy enough in the right places to do the job intended, without getting to the point where the mass is just slowing you down and robbing your strike of energy. Generally you can make a blade big in one or two dimensions, but not in all three dimensions at once. Some swords such as the Chinese ''dadao'' or Philippine ''panabas'' have very short, very broad blades and long two-handed grips in order to get a lot of chopping power like a meat cleaver at the cost of short reach and having a not-very-servicable point. Medieval cutting-focused greatswords would often have a long blade that was broad along its entire length (in other words, little profile taper) so it would have both reach and cutting power as well as a broad point that would do pretty well against unarmored or mailed opponents, but had an aggressive distal taper, meaning that the blade was thick near the guard but got progressively thinner towards the tip, keeping it from getting too heavy towards the point but making it less suited for penetrating hard targets or slipping through the gaps of plate armor with a thrust. And then there's the rapier or estoc, which sacrifices most of its cutting ability for agility, reach, and penetration: The blade is very long (for reach), has a thick spine along the entire length (for stiffness), an accute point (for penetration), and a narrow profile (also to help penetration, and to reduce the weight). There is also more mass in the guard relative to the blade, pushing the center of balance closr to the hand, which makes it easy to manipulate the tip. However, this makes for a far-back center of percussion which reduces the range at which you can make effective cuts, and the thick edge section combined with the light blade reduces cutting power. Each of these swords, despite their differences in handling, are basically agile and maneuverable weapons because they make compromises. When it comes to length, breadth, and thickness, you can pick any two but have to sacrifice the third if you want it to be a handy weapon. What the BFS does is expand in all three dimensions at once, to the point where the overall weight and balance would become unmanageable.

to:

Sheer weight or mass is not by itself a good thing; you need to make the sword just heavy enough in the right places to do the job intended, without getting to the point where the mass is just slowing you down and robbing your strike of energy. Generally you can make a blade big in one or two dimensions, but not in all three dimensions at once. Some swords such as the Chinese ''dadao'' or Philippine ''panabas'' have very short, very broad blades and long two-handed grips in order to get a lot of chopping power like a meat cleaver at the cost of short reach and having a not-very-servicable point. Medieval cutting-focused greatswords would often have a long blade that was broad along its entire length (in other words, little profile taper) so it would have both reach and cutting power as well as a broad point that would do pretty well against unarmored or mailed opponents, but had an aggressive distal taper, meaning that the blade was thick near the guard but got progressively thinner towards the tip, keeping it from getting too heavy towards the point but making it less suited for penetrating hard targets or slipping through the gaps of plate armor with a thrust. And then there's the rapier or estoc, which sacrifices most of its cutting ability for agility, point control, reach, and penetration: The blade is very long (for reach), has a thick spine along the entire length (for stiffness), an accute point (for penetration), and a narrow profile (also to help penetration, and to reduce the weight). There is also more mass in the guard relative to the blade, pushing the center of balance closr to the hand, which makes it easy to manipulate the tip. However, this makes for a far-back center of percussion which reduces the range at which you can make effective cuts, and the thick edge section combined with the light blade reduces cutting power. Each of these swords, despite their differences in handling, are basically agile and maneuverable weapons because they make compromises. When it comes to length, breadth, and thickness, you can pick any two but have to sacrifice the third if you want it to be a handy weapon. What the BFS does is expand in all three dimensions at once, to the point where the overall weight and balance would become unmanageable.
16th Oct '16 4:19:25 PM TheBigBopper
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Sheer weight or mass is not by itself a good thing; you need to make the sword just heavy enough in the right places to do the job intended, without getting to the point where the mass is just slowing you down and robbing your strike of energy. Generally you can made a blade big in one or two dimensions, but not in all three dimensions. Some swords such as the Chinese ''dadao'' or Philippine ''panabas'' have very short, very broad blades and long two-handed grips in order to get a lot of chopping power like a meat cleaver at the cost of short reach and having a not-very-servicable point. Medieval cutting-focused greatswords would often have a long blade that was broad along its entire length (in other words, little profile taper) so it would have both reach and cutting power as well as a broad point that would do pretty well against unarmored or mailed opponents, but had an aggressive distal taper, meaning that the blade was thick near the guard but got progressively thinner towards the tip, keeping it from getting too heavy towards the point but making it less suited for penetrating hard targets or slipping through the gaps of plate armor with a thrust. And then there's the rapier or estoc, which sacrifices most of its cutting ability for agility, reach, and penetration: The blade is very long (for reach), has a thick spine along the entire length (for stiffness), an accute point (for penetration), and a narrow profile (also to help penetration, and to reduce the weight). There is also more mass in the guard relative to the blade, pushing the center of balance closr to the hand, which makes it easy to manipulate the tip. However, this makes for a far-back center of percussion which reduces the range at which you can make effective cuts, and the thick edge section combined with the light blade reduces cutting power. Each of these swords, despite their differences in handling, are basically agile and maneuverable weapons because they make compromises. When it comes to length, breadth, and thickness, you can pick any two but have to sacrifice the third if you want it to be a handy weapon. What the BFS does is expand in all three dimensions at once, to the point where the overall weight and balance would become unmanageable.

to:

Sheer weight or mass is not by itself a good thing; you need to make the sword just heavy enough in the right places to do the job intended, without getting to the point where the mass is just slowing you down and robbing your strike of energy. Generally you can made make a blade big in one or two dimensions, but not in all three dimensions.dimensions at once. Some swords such as the Chinese ''dadao'' or Philippine ''panabas'' have very short, very broad blades and long two-handed grips in order to get a lot of chopping power like a meat cleaver at the cost of short reach and having a not-very-servicable point. Medieval cutting-focused greatswords would often have a long blade that was broad along its entire length (in other words, little profile taper) so it would have both reach and cutting power as well as a broad point that would do pretty well against unarmored or mailed opponents, but had an aggressive distal taper, meaning that the blade was thick near the guard but got progressively thinner towards the tip, keeping it from getting too heavy towards the point but making it less suited for penetrating hard targets or slipping through the gaps of plate armor with a thrust. And then there's the rapier or estoc, which sacrifices most of its cutting ability for agility, reach, and penetration: The blade is very long (for reach), has a thick spine along the entire length (for stiffness), an accute point (for penetration), and a narrow profile (also to help penetration, and to reduce the weight). There is also more mass in the guard relative to the blade, pushing the center of balance closr to the hand, which makes it easy to manipulate the tip. However, this makes for a far-back center of percussion which reduces the range at which you can make effective cuts, and the thick edge section combined with the light blade reduces cutting power. Each of these swords, despite their differences in handling, are basically agile and maneuverable weapons because they make compromises. When it comes to length, breadth, and thickness, you can pick any two but have to sacrifice the third if you want it to be a handy weapon. What the BFS does is expand in all three dimensions at once, to the point where the overall weight and balance would become unmanageable.
16th Oct '16 11:27:57 AM Monolaf317
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Realistic, practical two-handed blades such as the German ''Zweihander'' and Scottish Claymore weighed around 5-7 pounds, just over twice as much a one-handed arming sword. Such swords would have a very long grip, which allowed greater control over the blade than a shorter hilt; where a one-handed blade's weight was held steady by the hand and wrist, the longer hilt of these swords turned it into an arm motion and created leverage through the distance between the hands. Such greatswords were not used just for sheer power, but for a combination of cutting power, reach, leverage, defensive radius, intimidation, and versatility. The large dimensions and inertia of big two-handed swords made it difficult to take full advantage of their capabilities without [[DifficultButAwesome considerable stamina and skill]], which is why the Doppelsoldner who wielder the ''Zweihander'' in German mercenary armies earned double pay for their expertise.

to:

Realistic, practical two-handed blades such as the German ''Zweihander'' and Scottish Claymore weighed around 5-7 pounds, just over twice as much a one-handed arming sword. Such swords would have a very long grip, which allowed greater control over the blade than a shorter hilt; where a one-handed blade's weight was held steady by the hand and wrist, the longer hilt of these swords turned it into an arm motion and created leverage through the distance between the hands. Such greatswords were not used just for sheer power, but for a combination of cutting power, reach, leverage, defensive radius, intimidation, and versatility. The large dimensions and inertia of big two-handed swords made it difficult to take full advantage of their capabilities without [[DifficultButAwesome considerable stamina and skill]], which is why the Doppelsoldner who wielder the ''Zweihander'' in German mercenary armies earned double pay for their expertise.expertise.
----
28th Sep '16 1:29:34 AM TheBigBopper
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Sheer weight or mass is not by itself a good thing; you need to make the sword just heavy enough in the right places to do the job intended, without getting to the point where the mass is just slowing you down and robbing your strike of energy. Generally you can made a blade big in one or two dimensions, but not in all three dimensions. Some swords such as the Chinese ''dadao'' or Philippine ''panabas'' have very short, very broad blades and long two-handed grips in order to get a lot of chopping power like a meat cleaver at the cost of short reach and having a not-very-servicable point. Medieval cutting-focused greatswords would often have a long blade that was broad along its entire length (in other words, little profile taper) so it would have both reach and cutting power as well as a broad point that would do pretty well against unarmored or mailed opponents, but had an aggressive distal taper, meaning that the blade was thick near the guard but got progressively thinner towards the tip, keeping it from getting too heavy towards the point but making it less suited for penetrating hard targets or slipping through the gaps of plate armor with a thrust. And then there's the rapier or estoc, which sacrifices most of its cutting ability for agility, reach, and penetration: The blade is very long (for reach), has a thick spine along the entire length (for stiffness), an accute point (for penetration), and a narrow profile (also to help penetration, and to reduce the weight). There is also more mass in the guard relative to the blade, pushing the center of balance closr to the hand, which makes it easy to manipulate the tip. However, this makes for a far-back center of percussion which reduces the range at which you can make effective cuts, and the thick edge section combined with the light blade reduces cutting power. Each of these swords, despite their differences in handling, are basically agile and maneuverable weapons because they make some compromises. Length, breadth, and thickness: pick two out of three. What the BFS does is expand in all three dimensions at once, to the point where the overall weight and balance would become unmanageable.

to:

Sheer weight or mass is not by itself a good thing; you need to make the sword just heavy enough in the right places to do the job intended, without getting to the point where the mass is just slowing you down and robbing your strike of energy. Generally you can made a blade big in one or two dimensions, but not in all three dimensions. Some swords such as the Chinese ''dadao'' or Philippine ''panabas'' have very short, very broad blades and long two-handed grips in order to get a lot of chopping power like a meat cleaver at the cost of short reach and having a not-very-servicable point. Medieval cutting-focused greatswords would often have a long blade that was broad along its entire length (in other words, little profile taper) so it would have both reach and cutting power as well as a broad point that would do pretty well against unarmored or mailed opponents, but had an aggressive distal taper, meaning that the blade was thick near the guard but got progressively thinner towards the tip, keeping it from getting too heavy towards the point but making it less suited for penetrating hard targets or slipping through the gaps of plate armor with a thrust. And then there's the rapier or estoc, which sacrifices most of its cutting ability for agility, reach, and penetration: The blade is very long (for reach), has a thick spine along the entire length (for stiffness), an accute point (for penetration), and a narrow profile (also to help penetration, and to reduce the weight). There is also more mass in the guard relative to the blade, pushing the center of balance closr to the hand, which makes it easy to manipulate the tip. However, this makes for a far-back center of percussion which reduces the range at which you can make effective cuts, and the thick edge section combined with the light blade reduces cutting power. Each of these swords, despite their differences in handling, are basically agile and maneuverable weapons because they make some compromises. Length, When it comes to length, breadth, and thickness: thickness, you can pick any two out of three.but have to sacrifice the third if you want it to be a handy weapon. What the BFS does is expand in all three dimensions at once, to the point where the overall weight and balance would become unmanageable.
28th Sep '16 1:24:58 AM TheBigBopper
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Sheer weight or mass is not by itself a good thing; you need to make the sword just heavy enough in the right places to do the job intended, without getting to the point where the mass is just slowing you down and robbing your strike of energy. Generally you can made a blade big in one or two dimensions, but not in all three dimensions. Some swords such as the Chinese ''dadao'' or Philippine ''panabas'' have very short, very broad blades and long two-handed grips in order to get a lot of chopping power like a meat cleaver at the cost of short reach and having a not-very-servicable point. Medieval cutting-focused greatswords would often have a long blade that was broad along its entire length (in other words, little profile taper) so it would have both reach and cutting power as well as a broad point that would do pretty well against unarmored or mailed opponents, but had an aggressive distal taper, meaning that the blade was thick near the guard but got progressively thinner towards the tip, keeping it from getting too heavy towards the point but making it less suited for penetrating hard targets or slipping through the gaps of plate armor with a thrust. And then there's the rapier or estoc, which sacrifices most of its cutting ability for agility, reach, and penetration: The blade is very long (for reach), has a thick spine along the entire length (for stiffness), an accute point (for penetration), and a narrow profile (also to help penetration, and to reduce the weight). There is also more mass in the guard relative to the blade, pushing the center of balance closr to the hand, which makes it easy to manipulate the tip. However, this makes for a far-back center of percussion which reduces the range at which you can make effective cuts, and the thick edge section combined with the light blade reduces cutting power. Length, breadth, and thickness: pick two out of three. What the BFS does is expand in all three dimensions at once, to the point where the overall weight and balance would become unmanageable.

to:

Sheer weight or mass is not by itself a good thing; you need to make the sword just heavy enough in the right places to do the job intended, without getting to the point where the mass is just slowing you down and robbing your strike of energy. Generally you can made a blade big in one or two dimensions, but not in all three dimensions. Some swords such as the Chinese ''dadao'' or Philippine ''panabas'' have very short, very broad blades and long two-handed grips in order to get a lot of chopping power like a meat cleaver at the cost of short reach and having a not-very-servicable point. Medieval cutting-focused greatswords would often have a long blade that was broad along its entire length (in other words, little profile taper) so it would have both reach and cutting power as well as a broad point that would do pretty well against unarmored or mailed opponents, but had an aggressive distal taper, meaning that the blade was thick near the guard but got progressively thinner towards the tip, keeping it from getting too heavy towards the point but making it less suited for penetrating hard targets or slipping through the gaps of plate armor with a thrust. And then there's the rapier or estoc, which sacrifices most of its cutting ability for agility, reach, and penetration: The blade is very long (for reach), has a thick spine along the entire length (for stiffness), an accute point (for penetration), and a narrow profile (also to help penetration, and to reduce the weight). There is also more mass in the guard relative to the blade, pushing the center of balance closr to the hand, which makes it easy to manipulate the tip. However, this makes for a far-back center of percussion which reduces the range at which you can make effective cuts, and the thick edge section combined with the light blade reduces cutting power. Each of these swords, despite their differences in handling, are basically agile and maneuverable weapons because they make some compromises. Length, breadth, and thickness: pick two out of three. What the BFS does is expand in all three dimensions at once, to the point where the overall weight and balance would become unmanageable.
28th Sep '16 1:22:47 AM TheBigBopper
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Sheer weight or mass is not by itself a good thing; you need to make the sword just heavy enough in the right places to do the job intended, without getting to the point where the mass is just slowing you down and robbing your strike of energy. Generally you can made a blade big in one or two dimensions, but not in all three dimensions. Some swords such as the Chinese ''dadao'' or Philippine ''panabas'' have very short, very broad blades and long two-handed grips in order to get a lot of chopping power like a meat cleaver at the cost of short reach and having a not-very-servicable point. Medieval cutting-focused greatswords would often have a long blade that was broad along its entire length (in other words, little profile taper), but had an aggressive distal taper, meaning that the blade was thick near the guard but got progressively thinner towards the tip, keeping it from getting too heavy towards the point but making it less suited for penetrating hard targets or slipping through the gaps of armor with a thrust. And then there's the rapier or estoc, which sacrifices most of its cutting ability for agility, reach, and penetration: The blade is very long (for reach), has a thick spine along the entire length (for stiffness), an accute point (for penetration), and a narrow profile (also to help penetration, and to reduce the weight). There is also more mass in the guard relative to the blade, pushing the center of balance closr to the hand, which makes it easy to manipulate the tip. However, this makes for a far-back center of percussion which reduces the range at which you can make effective cuts, and the thick edge section combined with the light blade reduces cutting power. Length, breadth, and thickness: pick two out of three. What the BFS does is expand in all three dimensions at once, to the point where the overall weight and balance would become unmanageable.

to:

Sheer weight or mass is not by itself a good thing; you need to make the sword just heavy enough in the right places to do the job intended, without getting to the point where the mass is just slowing you down and robbing your strike of energy. Generally you can made a blade big in one or two dimensions, but not in all three dimensions. Some swords such as the Chinese ''dadao'' or Philippine ''panabas'' have very short, very broad blades and long two-handed grips in order to get a lot of chopping power like a meat cleaver at the cost of short reach and having a not-very-servicable point. Medieval cutting-focused greatswords would often have a long blade that was broad along its entire length (in other words, little profile taper), taper) so it would have both reach and cutting power as well as a broad point that would do pretty well against unarmored or mailed opponents, but had an aggressive distal taper, meaning that the blade was thick near the guard but got progressively thinner towards the tip, keeping it from getting too heavy towards the point but making it less suited for penetrating hard targets or slipping through the gaps of plate armor with a thrust. And then there's the rapier or estoc, which sacrifices most of its cutting ability for agility, reach, and penetration: The blade is very long (for reach), has a thick spine along the entire length (for stiffness), an accute point (for penetration), and a narrow profile (also to help penetration, and to reduce the weight). There is also more mass in the guard relative to the blade, pushing the center of balance closr to the hand, which makes it easy to manipulate the tip. However, this makes for a far-back center of percussion which reduces the range at which you can make effective cuts, and the thick edge section combined with the light blade reduces cutting power. Length, breadth, and thickness: pick two out of three. What the BFS does is expand in all three dimensions at once, to the point where the overall weight and balance would become unmanageable.
28th Sep '16 1:18:34 AM TheBigBopper
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Sheer weight or mass is not by itself a good thing; you need to make the sword just heavy enough in the right places to do the job intended, without getting to the point where the mass is just slowing you down and robbing your strike of energy. Generally you can made a blade big in one or two dimensions, but not in all three dimensions. Some swords such as the Chinese ''dadao'' or Philippine ''panabas'' have very short, very broad blades and long two-handed grips in order to get a lot of chopping power like a meat cleaver at the cost of reach and having a not-very-servicable point. Medieval cutting-focused greatswords would often have a long blade that was broad along its entire length (in other words, little profile taper), but had an aggressive distal taper, meaning that the blade was thick near the guard but got progressively thinner towards the tip, keeping it from getting too heavy towards the point but making it less suited for penetrating hard targets or slipping through the gaps of armor with a thrust. And then there's the rapier or estoc, which sacrifices most of its cutting ability for agility, reach, and penetration: The blade is very long (for reach), has a thick spine along the entire length (for stiffness), an accute point (for penetration), and a narrow profile (also to help penetration, and to reduce the weight). There is also more mass in the guard relative to the blade, pushing the center of balance closr to the hand, which makes it easy to manipulate the tip. However, this makes for a far-back center of percussion which reduces the range at which you can make effective cuts, and the thick edge section combined with the light blade reduces cutting power. Length, breadth, and thickness: pick two out of three. What the BFS does is expand in all three dimensions at once, to the point where the overall weight and balance would become unmanageable.

to:

Sheer weight or mass is not by itself a good thing; you need to make the sword just heavy enough in the right places to do the job intended, without getting to the point where the mass is just slowing you down and robbing your strike of energy. Generally you can made a blade big in one or two dimensions, but not in all three dimensions. Some swords such as the Chinese ''dadao'' or Philippine ''panabas'' have very short, very broad blades and long two-handed grips in order to get a lot of chopping power like a meat cleaver at the cost of short reach and having a not-very-servicable point. Medieval cutting-focused greatswords would often have a long blade that was broad along its entire length (in other words, little profile taper), but had an aggressive distal taper, meaning that the blade was thick near the guard but got progressively thinner towards the tip, keeping it from getting too heavy towards the point but making it less suited for penetrating hard targets or slipping through the gaps of armor with a thrust. And then there's the rapier or estoc, which sacrifices most of its cutting ability for agility, reach, and penetration: The blade is very long (for reach), has a thick spine along the entire length (for stiffness), an accute point (for penetration), and a narrow profile (also to help penetration, and to reduce the weight). There is also more mass in the guard relative to the blade, pushing the center of balance closr to the hand, which makes it easy to manipulate the tip. However, this makes for a far-back center of percussion which reduces the range at which you can make effective cuts, and the thick edge section combined with the light blade reduces cutting power. Length, breadth, and thickness: pick two out of three. What the BFS does is expand in all three dimensions at once, to the point where the overall weight and balance would become unmanageable.
This list shows the last 10 events of 26. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Analysis.BFS