I can't believe people are still discussing this. 1st page alone has enough sources to convince anyone that swords weren't as heavy as people think. And the counter argument is that "I have a sword that weighs 10 kilos" or a movie had a sword that weighs 10 kilos?

Combine these two for a second.. can a sword be made that weighs 10-15 kilos? Absolutely. And there were swords like that made.. for ceremonial purporses. But as so many links have shown, the medieval swords were light. I mean, even without the link, it's really the reasonable thing. Fighting is a very tiring activity. Fight with bare hands, and you'll still get tired very fast. Now imagine fighting with something that weighs 10 kilos. No one would want this. For a knight, add the weight of the armor and you really don't want a too heavy weapon. Only logical reason to go for very heavy weight would be for a mace/polearm style weapon used against armor.

I think it's very important to note that Encumbrance is not a weight figure, but a derived figure from weight and size. A bigger sword is harder to carry, this really should have been driven home by making equipped items have much less encumbrance.

Why not, a can of soda weighs more.

If you're referencing what I think you are: great song! If not, disregard this message.

They're my brother...

As for weight no most weapons were not designed to be heavy.
Even swinging a small pillow you're arms will get tired, now add in constant combat lasting X hours in adverse weather ( rain, snow, mid day in summer even ).
Then add in others trying to repeatedly bash in your head, and cut off bits of your body, and lots of other factors means only a simpleton wants a weapon that's too heavy.

Some weapons get round the the lack of punch a lighter blade may give, by rebalancing the weight, and shaping the blade to deliver extra power with the blow.
However these were specialised tools, designed for certain troops, mostly mounted ones.

I′m more to say European swords where kinda hybrid between thrust and slash.

Plus face it, slashing looks much more dynamic and "cool" then thrusting, and Skyrim being a game needs good, dynamic combat.

Yeah, swords are light.

Thing I am concerned about is kinda close, but different. In Oblivion swords were MUCH lighter than comparable axes-maces. Which is wrong. Axes and maces are not particularily heavier than swords in general. There is no point to use anything but swords in Obilvion, except for, well, RP stuff / personal artistic preference / et cetera.

I know that in Skyrim weapons will be quite a bit different due to perks, but if Average McSword will weigh 10 units of weight, and Average McMace will weigh 15 units of weight, while providing comparable damage, well, it would make no sense to specialize in maces. Sure, armor crushing stuff, yeah, perks, cool savage looks, all that stuff. It still will svck.

I, for example, would be happy to play as a Spellaxe, but if axe will be way heavier than sword, then I'll just say "meh, my Breton is too weak to carry this unnaturaly heavy piece of wood with kinda small metal head attached, he would be better to use lighter weapon completely made from metal". And when I'll play some Nord warrior for kicks, I'll cover him in Heavy Armor from start and then will compare Two-Handed Fantasy Sledgehammer aka Warhammer, weight 60, and a Claymore, weight 30. Then I'll say "meh, I still need some encumbrance for loot".

Weapons are light. In general.

About these oversized swords someone states to own. I have a two-handed sword, made of steel, tested in training combat. Unsharpened, of course. It weighs 3,4 kg. It is not very large, about 150 cm maybe. I can imagine that larger swords, close to 180 or even more than that, can reach weight up to 4 kg, even 4,5, while still being battle-ready. Maybe, though I am not sure of that, 5 kg.

Several years ago I was in theatre, behind the curtains — friends worked there. Among other things, play requisite included a giant two-handed "sword". It just stands there, at the back of the scene, looking good and large enough to be noticed by people from back rows. Nobody ever uses this prop for anything resembling a fight. It weighs 12 kg. I tried to swing it. Yes, it is possible, but just once. Inertia is too great, it is impossible to fight with this thing. If I had a dagger (or was unarmed) and my enemy tried to attack me with weapon this heavy, I'd just evaded his terrible blow and charged ahead into close combat, where his "sword" is useless.



Not exactly true. Sure, european straight swords are better suited for thrusting than, say, japanese curved swords, but they are definitely were made for slashing (or chopping, which is more accurate). Just check out Oakeshott's classification — you will see how sword changed from viking-style choppa to rapier-looking swords. This transition went on for a several centuries.

More than that, there were swords designed only to thrust: estocks and rapiers. They either had no cutting edge (former) or were too thin and light to deliver a good chop (some of the latter).

Emphasis on thrust was necessary due to advances in armorsmithing. Then it just became a habit, even after armor became obsolete because of firearms advances. Though curved cutting swords were used on European battlefields up at least 1920-s, and Japanese used their curved cutting swords in WW2.

The op's figures seem accurate, I can't really speak for European swords but I have a katana style sword.
I don't know the exact weight but it's very light, a small child could swing it with ease.

just to play devils advocate

have you ever been hit with a stick?

we had the cane when i was in school, you got the choice of which one you'd get the small one opr the big one. like morons we alwys chose the small one.

it moves faster and inflicts damage on a thin area. the thin cane would break the skin and sting. the bigger cane would leave more bruising and generally deaden muscles

so neither of the arguments being expressed are strictly true. the weapons of yesetryear were designed for purposes. most would have been small for many uses, faster swing, easier to control cheaper to make. but if you needed to BREAK stuff the heavier stuff has the mass. weapons weren't just for hand to hand. breaking a horses legs, would have been trivial with a larger mace. the heavy wepaons wouldn't have been fast but would have been very effective with stronger well trained users.

secondly

oblivion weapons don't look anything like the examples listed thus far do they. at no point is someone swing a 3 foot long claw hammer. the war hammers in tes look like steel cinderblocks on the end of a metal pole. try and convince me that doen't weight alot more than 3 pounds. even if it's a thin skin over a hard wood former it's going to be like swinging a log on the end of a stick

Let's consider the actual energy transfer. In normal cases, the pivot point would be the shoulder if the swinger is stationary. Therefore, there would be more mass distributed along a longer distance meaning a higher moment of inertia giving more energy. Add to that translational kinetic energy should he be moving. Of course, there would be energy loss due friction which would go to deformation, sound and heat. For the sake of simplicity, assume the sword would be swinging on it's own with the pivot point at the pommel and the sword would be swinging at a uniform speed. The sword has a length of d, handle included, a mass of 4 lbs, which is equivalent to about 1.8 kg. Again, for the sake of simplicity, assume the sword has the shape of a rod.

m = 1.8 kg

The moment of inertia would be J = m*d²/3

What's the velocity of the sword? According to http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/12/special_megamovie_myths.html in their "Cutting Swords In Half" episode, they had modern equivalents to ancient katanas and achieved a velocity at impact at about 48 mph, which is a about 21.5 m/s. Assuming their sword had the length of d and the point of impact was at the so called "sweet spot", that velocity was measured at d₁ ≈ 2d/3 from the pommel.
Then the angular velocity can be calculated from the relation v = ωr.

ω = v/d₁ = v/(2d/3) = (3/2)(v/d)

The rotational kinetic energy can then be calculated as E_r = ?*J*ω² = ?*(m*d²/3)*((3/2)(v/d))² = 3mv²/8 = (3 * 1.8 kg * (21.5 m/s)²)/8 = 312.01... J ≈ 310 J
Remember this is a very simplified ideal case with 100% energy efficiency. In reality, there would most likely much more energy involved due to translational kinetic energy and a larger moment of inertia.

That energy is sufficient to cutting through soft targets, like say human skin, but you'll need a good technique just as Deutshland said. Most of the energy will go through a very sharp, narrow area, creating a large amount of pressure. To get maximum damage (actually, damage efficiency), you'll either want to stab for maximum pressure and go for stunning the enemy or one-hit kill, or slice for maximum damaged area but still be able to swiftly attack again. Chopping is only good for when you know you'll come through the other end, like when you hit straight on the sweet spot as most of the energy is transferred directly with minimal post-rotational effect. This means you'll lose the velocity and, like chopping wood, will either get stuck or must swiftly remove the blade. That will create an opening for the enemy to hit you, as you'll leave yourself open to an attack.

And according to your own source:
"At a weight of nearly eight pounds the sword is certainly no lightweight. In fact, the Atlantean's weight puts it far outside the parameters for a functional sword of this size. The sword does have a rather nice static balance, but once it is set into motion its weight becomes a hindrance."

Just saying...

You are right. The line just seemed appropiate.

No critisizm. Just gonna say: nice work with the research :read: .

THANK YOU. I was wondering why no one had said this yet, but encumbrance, as it's literal definition, is NOT weight. It takes into account how difficult it would be to store it alongside other objects, how annoying it would be to carry, and any number of other factors. In this sense, moving from a sword that could be worn at the hip, yet still make it difficult to walk or run easily, to an ax that sits in your pack yet has a two foot haft would be kind of a pain to store.

It's not about total weight, it's about weight distribution and momentum. I've practiced with my fair share of swords, I'm not the strongest guy in the planet by any means but very few of them were that heavy, the momentum of a swing is what adds power to it.

As someone who does workout and generally has to deal with big cumbersome tools on the job AND who owns a few medieval weapons I can say the OP is correct with his weights. I think the problem with warhammers is people get this idea of a chunk of conrete on a stick... like the stuff you see in most fantasy games, but it's really not. Warhammers had a design very similar to a 16 oz claw hammer just with a much longer (generally a lightweight and durable) wooden handle.

Any melee weapon claims that exceed 30 lbs or more is just ridiculous. To those people I implore you find someone who owns or to purchase a claymore or warhammer (any weapon generally assumed to be heavy) swing it a few times (it'll be very easy to swing I promise) and then try swinging a 30-45 lb barbell with no weight added.

To those people saying some weapons were made heavy intentionally. Weight is not a desirable trait in a weapon. There are heavier weapons because of thier sheer size or their functionality required a higher density weapon (mass density, not weight density). These attributes often come with a heavier weight so the craftsman just had to trade off extra length or density for more weight.

@TorrentYix-Willoh:
The manual clearly states (on page 11) "An item's weight"...

Yeah, OP may be right about his weights, or not. Doesn't really matter. You can't just put realistic weights onto items and call it a day, in a fantasy game driven by attributes and levels. It would break gameplay and tables. In game design you prefer presenting integers rather than fractions to the player. It's equally ridiculous that each item adds defense value 1 per increase in material quality, ending up with ridiculous defenses on a daedric set.

I wonder how many here are able to see "beyond their great idea" and forsee problems that arise from it...

Old school rpg did encumbrance best. They used inventories with x amount of slots. A sword, depending on it's size would use 2 to 4 slots.

Problem is that its just as unrealistic, it work nice for weapon and armor, get stupid with rings and crash totally with alchemy ingredients. Yes you can let items stack but it don't make much more sense.

To anyone who has been doing research on the subject lately, after reading this thread whenever i think of warhammer, i think of http://www.a2armory.com/images/weapons/warhammer.jpg
and,
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.realmcollections.com/images/pl/Other_Weapons_German_War_Hammer_M600366_1753.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.atomicthinktank.com/viewtopic.php%3Fp%3D569949&usg=__WUwGojMMYPMcxhU68C2WyGXS6to=&h=494&w=312&sz=12&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=JNxU76bYpHFzmM:&tbnh=161&tbnw=98&ei=SM9fTf-tLom-sAO3mqzOCA&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmedieval%2Bwarhammer%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1024%26bih%3D673%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=130&vpy=272&dur=372&hovh=283&hovw=178&tx=85&ty=135&oei=SM9fTf-tLom-sAO3mqzOCA&page=1&ndsp=17&ved=1t:429,r:6,s:0
would i be correct in doing so? and it's starting to sound like warhammer=hammer that is used in war time.
not warhammer=sledge hammer that is made for war/
those two hammers i showed do look like something that weights in at 2-3 pounds.

Actually, encumbrance wasn't always abitrary. Daggerfall used Kilograms:


http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Daggerfall:Weapons


Then again, you could always claim a TES kilo weighs less.

Well, it's a good thing that bethesda was basing their decision solely on the widespread misconception of the weight of weapons among their user base. :facepalm:

@turns-the-page~someone posted earlier in the thread that in fallout 3 (and maybe new vegas) weight was treated in pounds, then someone else posted saying it doesn't count because it's not oblivion/cross game,/whatever, would that apply to an earlier TES game?
also found this
"Two-Handed Infantry Sword with parrying-hooks. National Museum Wroclaw, No. IX-784. Early 16th century. Total length 164 cm (64 inches), total weight 2 kg (4 pounds), blade length 146.8 cm, hilt length 45.8 cm, crosspiece length 39.4 cm. Blade's width at the shoulder 35 mm. Blade's thickness 10 mm at the shoulder, 2.5 mm at the point. The pommel's height (base included) 5.4 cm, base's height 5 mm, pommel's diameter 5.4 cm."

sorry to sound thick but I'd always assummed that encumberance meant how awkward something was to carry, which would mean that it wasnt just linked to weight. unless I'm completely wrong
Edit: by the time i finished writing this someone had all ready made the same point

Encumbrance is in made up units.

TES characters are evidently far stronger than humans in many ways.