• Drusas@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    8 days ago

    This makes sense because it looks like, in every case, the German with the heavier sword is holding it in a way that requires less muscle exertion.

    Edit: Or a position which better spreads out the exertion because there is more of it.

    • Maalus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 days ago

      There’s barely any difference in weight. Also, even the huge “zweihanders”, claymores and such weren’t that heavy. Like 2kgs max. People make a big deal out of the weight, despite the fact that you were expected to be slashing the air with it for a very long time - standing in a doorway for instance. What the difference is - is the existence of the crossguard. German / italian longsword uses them extensively. Katanas almost don’t have it.

      The interesting thing is polearms though. Japanese naginata masters adore the halberd for instance. You can use most of the techniques you already know, plus the added utility of hooking someone’s leg, and the spike at the end.

      • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        8 days ago

        Iirc the weight is less important than the distribution, longer swords are more front heavy so it can help to have leverage.

    • azuth@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 days ago

      I think most of the differences are to either take advantage (make it cover more incoming strikes) or accommodate (keep it from poking you in the head) the cross guard.