History Analysis / BFS

Many examples of the BFS that were made in real life are simply not meant for combat. An Early Modern European executioner's sword was designed to chop through a restrained person's neck in one swing, meaning that defense and agility were of no importance. Therefore they were made with long grips for leverage, while their blades were relatively short, forward-balanced, and often without a point. Since they had a practical function, at least these were usually within the outer parameters for a fighting sword. In contrast, ceremonial swords had hardly any constraints on their weight and dimesions. For example, King Henry V of England's bearing sword in the Tower of London was exaggeratedly large in order to look impressive from a distance as someone carried it in front of his procession, and the fact that it was too big and heavy for pracical use 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.

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. The sword has to be a relatively small percentage of its wielder's body weight--and indeed a pretty small weight in absolute terms--in order for human muscle power to accelerate and control it at high speed. Even a world-class powerlifter would struggle to use a 15 pound sword for fencing at normal speed, simply because it is exponentially harder to swing a substantial weight around your body at more than arm's length than it is to curl or bench press the same weight close to the body in a straight trajectory, and whatever you can do with it will be much slower in comparison. Eight pounds is about the upper limit for what even a six-foot long greatsword can weigh before it becomes too unwieldly for fencing at speed. What's more, wielding a ''truly'' 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 as you step forward, and then the sword would try to yank you forward along with it as soon as it gathers some speed. In order to do this with control you would either have to 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 rip a person's arms off. Even if you had all these powers for controlling a BFS through a proper swing, a swordfight is not won--much less survived--by relying on one great swing to fell your opponent. You have to consider how long it takes to recover from a missed swing, transition between different guards or stances, and defend against relentless attacks coming from various directions. At best a superman using a giant sword would be rather sluggish and vulnerable to anything nimble enough to avoid his blows, and unless his super strength also came with unlimited stamina, he would quickly become exhausted. It is far more efficient to give a strong person a weapon only slightly heavier than average, so that they can handle it more effortlessly and nimbly.

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. The sword has to be a relatively small percentage of its wielder's body weight--and indeed a pretty small weight in absolute terms--in order for their muscle power to accelerate and control it at high speed. Even a world-class powerlifter would struggle to use a 15 pound sword for fencing at normal speed, simply because it is exponentially harder to swing a substantial weight around your body at more than arm's length than it is to curl or bench press the same weight close to the body in a straight trajectory, and whatever you can do with it will be much slower in comparison. Eight pounds is about the upper limit for what even a six-foot long greatsword can weigh before it becomes too unwieldly for fencing at speed. What's more, wielding a ''truly'' 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 as you step forward, and then the sword would try to yank you forward along with it as soon as it gathers some speed. In order to do this with control you would either have to 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 rip a person's arms off. Even if you had all these powers for controlling a BFS through a proper swing, a swordfight is not won--much less survived--by relying on one great swing to fell your opponent. You have to consider how long it takes to recover from a missed swing, transition between different guards or stances, and defend against relentless attacks coming from various directions. At best a superman using a giant sword would be rather sluggish and vulnerable to anything nimble enough to avoid his blows, and unless his super strength also came with unlimited stamina, he would quickly become exhausted. It is far more efficient to give a strong person a weapon only slightly heavier than average, so that they can handle it more effortlessly and nimbly.

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. 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 15 pound sword effectively, simply because it is 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. 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 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 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 was designed to chop through a restrained person's neck in one swing, meaning that defense and agility were of no importance. Therefore they were made with long grips for leverage, while their blades were relatively short, forward-balanced, and often without a point. Since they had a practical function, at least these were usually within the outer parameters for a fighting sword. In contrast, ceremonial swords had hardly any constraints on their weight and dimesions. For example, King Henry V of England's bearing sword in the Tower of London was 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 for pracical use 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.

Real, practical two-handed blades from Europe such as the German ''Zweihander'' and Scottish Claymore weighed around 5-7 pounds. Compare this to about 2.5 pounds for a one-handed arming sword, and 3.5 pounds for a longsword that could be worn at one's side. The two-handed 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Realistic 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.

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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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.

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 sliding, and you would also have to prevent the resulting momentum from yanking you off your feet. 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.

Giant swords are impractical in the real world because of the SquareCubedLaw, 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 sliding, and you would also have to prevent the resulting momentum from yanking you off your feet. 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.

Giant swords are impractical in the real world because of insurmountable laws of physics and biomechanics. The most obvious problem is that a ridiculously huge sword would be ridiculously heavy. However, 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 sliding, and you would also have to prevent the resulting momentum from yanking you off your feet. 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.

Even if for the sake of argument all of these powers existed, there is simply no utility in having an excessively heavy sword past a certain point of diminishing returns. Regardless of a wielder's strength, an exaggerated weapon would still have ponderously slow handling compared to a lighter one. After a certain minimum you can get more force transmitted to the target by increasing the sword's velocity than increasing its weight would anyway, which is why for the most part this trope is pure RuleOfCool. See [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6QSu1EolCI here]] for the full analysis by ''WebVideo/{{Skallagrim}}''.

Realistic 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. 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.

Realistic 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 handle, 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. 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.

Realistic 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 handle, which allowed greater control over the blade than a shorter handle, where a one-handed blade's weight was held steady by the hand and wrist, the longer handle of these swords turned it into an arm motion. 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 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.

Even if for the sake of argument all of these powers existed, there is simply no utility in having an excessively heavy sword past a certain point of diminishing returns. Regardless of a wielder's strength, an exaggerated weapon would still have ponderously slow handling compared to a lighter one. After a certain minimum you can get more force transmitted to the target by increasing the sword's velocity than increasing its weight would anyway, which is why for the most part this trope is pure RuleOfCool. See [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6QSu1EolCI here]] for the full analysis by ''WebVideo/{{Skallagrim}}''.

Giant swords are impractical in the real world because of insurmountable laws of physics and biomechanics. The most obvious problem is that a ridiculously huge sword would be ridiculously heavy. However, 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 sliding, and you would also have to prevent the resulting momentum from yanking you off your feet. 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. Even if for the sake of argument all of these powers existed, there is simply no utility in having an excessively heavy sword past a certain point of diminishing returns. Regardless of a wielder's strength, an exaggerated weapon would still have ponderously slow handling compared to a lighter one. After a certain minimum you can get more force transmitted to the target by increasing the sword's velocity than increasing its weight would anyway, which is why for the most part this trope is pure RuleOfCool. See [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6QSu1EolCI here]] for the full analysis by ''WebVideo/{{Skallagrim}}''.

Giant swords are impractical in the real world because of insurmountable laws of physics and biomechanics. The most obvious problem is that a ridiculously huge sword would be ridiculously heavy. However, 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 sliding, and you would also have to prevent the resulting momentum from yanking you off your feet. 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. 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. Even if for the sake of argument all of these powers existed, there is simply no utility in having an excessively heavy sword past a certain point of diminishing returns. Regardless of a wielder's strength, an exaggerated weapon would still have ponderously slow handling compared to a lighter one. After a certain minimum you can get more force transmitted to the target by increasing the sword's velocity than increasing its weight would anyway, which is why for the most part this trope is pure RuleOfCool. See [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6QSu1EolCI here]] for the full analysis by ''WebVideo/{{Skallagrim}}''.

Giant swords are impractical in the real world because of insurmountable laws of physics and biomechanics. The most obvious problem is that a ridiculously huge sword would be ridiculously heavy. However, 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 sliding, and you would also have to prevent the resulting momentum from yanking you off your feet. For that you would either have to personally weigh several times as much as a normal human or wear artificial high-gravity boots with zero-friction soles. 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. Even if for the sake of argument all of these powers existed, there is simply no utility in having an excessively heavy sword past a certain point of diminishing returns. Regardless of a wielder's strength, an exaggerated weapon would still have ponderously slow handling compared to a lighter one. After a certain minimum you can get more force transmitted to the target by increasing the sword's velocity than increasing its weight would anyway, which is why for the most part this trope is pure RuleOfCool. See [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6QSu1EolCI here]] for the full analysis by ''WebVideo/{{Skallagrim}}''.