History Analysis / BFS

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.
28th Sep '16 1:18:04 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. 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 good at thrusting against hard targets. And there's the rapier or estoc, which sacrifices cutting ability for thrusting by having a very long blade (for reach) with a thick spine along the entire length (for stiffness), but a narrow breadth from guard to tip which doesn't put much meat behind the edge at the center of precussion. Length, breadth, and thickness: pick two. 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 reach. 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 good at thrusting against suited for penetrating hard targets. 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 thrusting by having a agility, reach, and penetration: The blade is very long blade (for reach) with reach), has a thick spine along the entire length (for stiffness), but an accute point (for penetration), and a narrow breadth from profile (also to help penetration, and to reduce the weight). There is also more mass in the guard relative to tip which doesn't put much meat behind the edge at blade, pushing the center of precussion. 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.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 1:03:41 AM TheBigBopper
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Many a example of a real-life BFS are simply not meant for combat, from executioner's swords meant simply to cleave a man's head from his shoulders, neck and all, in one swing, and thus were made much heavier than was practical for use in combat, to those ceremonial in purpose, serving only to look impressive.

Realistic, practical two-handed blades, best exemplified by the German ''Zweihander'' and Scottish Claymore, weighed around 5-7 pounds, just over twice that of a one-handed arming sword, with a very long hilt, 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 for sheer power (even if they had plenty enough power), but for their versatility......it's hard to challenge the combination of maneuverability, leverage, reach, agility, and versatility such blades had, and just as [[DifficultButAwesome nearly as difficult to put it to good use]], hence the great deal of fencing styles based on the Longsword relative to all other weapons.

to:

Many a example examples of a real-life the BFS that were made in real life are simply not meant for combat, from combat. An executioner's swords meant simply sword is designed to cleave chop through a man's head from his shoulders, restrained person's neck and all, in one swing, swing so that defense and thus agility need not be considerations in the design, which is why they were made much heavier than 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 practical for far too big and heavy to use as a weapon because it only needed to look impressive as it was carried in combat, to those 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 in purpose, serving only swords were useful to look impressive.

anyone as practical weapons.

Realistic, practical two-handed blades, best exemplified by blades such as the German ''Zweihander'' and Scottish Claymore, Claymore weighed around 5-7 pounds, just over twice that of as much a one-handed arming sword, with sword. Such swords would have a very long hilt, grip, which allowed greater control over the blade than a shorter hilt, 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 (even if they had plenty enough power), power, but for their versatility......it's hard to challenge the a combination of maneuverability, cutting power, reach, leverage, reach, agility, defensive radius, intimidation, and versatility such blades had, versatility. The large dimensions and just as inertia of big two-handed swords made it difficult to take full advantage of their capabilities without [[DifficultButAwesome nearly as difficult to put it to good use]], hence considerable stamina and skill]], which is why the great deal of fencing styles based on Doppelsoldner who wielder the Longsword relative to all other weapons.''Zweihander'' in German mercenary armies earned double pay for their expertise.
27th Sep '16 1:45:26 PM DarthWalrus
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. Medieval cutting-focused ''grete swerdes'' 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 good at thrusting against hard targets. And there's the rapier or estoc, which sacrifices cutting ability for thrusting by having a very long blade (for reach) with a thick spine along the entire length (for stiffness), but a narrow breadth from guard to tip which doesn't put much meat behind the edge at the center of precussion. Length, breadth, and thickness: pick two. 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 reach. Medieval cutting-focused ''grete swerdes'' 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 good at thrusting against hard targets. And there's the rapier or estoc, which sacrifices cutting ability for thrusting by having a very long blade (for reach) with a thick spine along the entire length (for stiffness), but a narrow breadth from guard to tip which doesn't put much meat behind the edge at the center of precussion. Length, breadth, and thickness: pick two. 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 23. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Analysis.BFS