I do love when you demonstrate the moves you can do with swords. I'm sure they're considered basics, but for a newbie like me they look quite cool. Great video again. As a former history student I find your videos very interesting and well documented. Cheers!
After watching a number of these videos and videos like scholagladiatoria, it seems to me that the best swordsmen are those that have a somewhat varied skill set with swords and are able to choose and effectively utilize different swords and techniques based on what the situation demands.
I'm not into HEMA myself, but I'm watching a lot of videos on it in order to write proper swordfighting scenes in my books. It's a very interesting topic!
For me the most obvious reason is the nature of medieval warfare. Unless you have very expensive plate armour, you would be very vunerable to missile fire if you are not carrying a shield.
Jonathan Stummer Good point. I just want to point out that while customized full plate armor was indeed very expensive, the munition grade stuff was very affordable for the common soldier/mercenary by the Late Middle Ages. www.arador.com/armour/landsknecht-pikeman-armour/ And a lot of medieval soldiers that didn't wear much armor carried two handed polearms anyway, like the Swiss halberdier and Flemish militiamen, so they could deal with the rich guys that do. Fighting a guy wearing full plate armor with a sword and buckler is very challenging to say the least, you have very few attack that could threaten him.
Jonathan Stummer A lot of the swordsmanship that I and others study isn't really meant for the battlefield (though it can certainly be applied in that situation). It's more for civilian self-defense. On the battlefield yeah you'd definitely want a shield a lot of the time, unless you were an archer or a pikeman, etc, but you can't carry a shield around with you while your traveling because it's just too cumbersome.
Roman Gogueshvili well it depends on the time period and the character. me personally am pretty neutral when it comes to religion i just enjoy history in general. I can find myself enjoying story's of Charlemagne the great and Ólafur tryggvason just as much as i enjoy Egils saga or grettis saga for an example.
Good point. Just, it frustrates the fuck out of me to see people that are alt-historying non-batized Scandinavia. They think this is a universal cure for any national problem. Also, personally have no problem with neo-paganists, unless they pretend to be the hosts of ancient faith while barely knowing anything about the Old Norse culture. Which almost always the case!Óðinn
One reason might be is that it's not your primary weapon - you might prefer a spear with your shield. Rather than carry around a longsword, you could lighten your carrying load whilst you're marching and camping, making you less worn out by the time you reach battle. If you've got a short sword you're not carrying that extra weight, but you still have a side arm in case you lose your spear, or axe, or mace, or whatever else you were using.
Knights had squires who carried their weapons for them when not in battle. Also a longsword only weights approximately 1.5 kg. (3.3 lbs) so walking around with it isn't going to tire you (sitting down to a table with it might be a little problematic)
Frost Blast Not every person in a battle was a knight. In fact, very few were. The vast majority of participants didn't have squires and so had to carry their own equipment. You're also forgetting that there was very little actual fighting in comparison to the walking around. It doesn't matter how much or little something weighs when you're spending weeks on end carrying it - as well as all of your other gear. The more you're carrying the faster you get worn out - the less effective you are in combat. This may surprise you, but trucks, chinooks and humvees are actually relatively new inventions.
Frost Blast I honestly think, for several reasons, that longswords and two handed swords were placed, like a rifle, in their scabbard, on your shoulder, it would make traveling with them easier and the draw could be comparable quick compared to the awkward to impossible hollywood across the back back carry.
Lars Egner He is saying that a one-handed sword is easier to carry. and in previous videos he talk about how swords were not "main battlefield" weapons. Vehementi If you are comparing a long-sword to no sword then sure, no sword is lighter. but if you are talking about carrying a one-handed sword. then. you only have the weight deference between the two. so to put it in numbers: The Ringeck is (1.5 kg) and the Poitiers is (1.19 kilos). as you can see, it's not that much. and if can't carry the added weight. then you probably should not be fighting anyway. sources: www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/nextgen/sword-medieval-ringeck-xva.htm www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/nextgen/sword-medieval-poitiers-xv.htm
wish i could afford them :( i got a cold steel maa italian longsword and love it though, im a complete newb so it';s just fun having a "real" sword and something to work out with. 17 years of boxing i hope will benefit me when coming to learn the footwork as well as stamina! ;) Aesthetically and personally i love longswords but I can see your points here. Because of my size the lognsword looks like a one-handed sword comapred to some people i spar with yet they can put a whoopin on me good with either/or hehe... I wish i had the ability to make a choice on which kinds i trained with but for now ill have to just work with what i have until i start going to the local groups here regularly. Many of them have albion or darksteel (darksword?) armory and cold steel with albion being the highet-regarded.
Joe Cannabyte - I used to fight with friends in Belegarth (boffering with foam swords and more fighting than larping). I know it’s relatively different. One of the guys would instruct a newbie who could box (or punch) to apply that technique to foam sword strikes. It worked out relatively well. I don’t know if the same could be applied to real swords with any effectiveness. We used to have quite the smashing good time.
Another alternate grip for 2 hands on a 1-handed weapon is to grip your own forearm. This works particularly well on a backhand strike, where you can really power through on a swing. (I've been nailed a few times with this one while sparring with the senior instructors at my school.) While not something permanent to do, it does seem to work pretty well as a temporary assist on a few shots. You can see a more elaborate version of doing this with some Escrima/Arnis styles, where they tend to slap their own forearms a lot. It's a bit of an affectation, but the underlying principle is that they're using their off-hand as a sort of brake to assist in stopping the follow-through of the strike, and to re-direct it back, or else they're adding a bit of power to the initial throw. The disadvantage being that your off-hand is out floating around in front of you, and can be picked off by your opponent. Also, all the power of the strike still has to go through your lead-hand wrist, so it's not as effective as having a longer grip. Also, it doesn't really work all that well for thrusting - just swings.
Great video as always Matt. I think it depends not only on whether you have a shield, but, what the area you're in is like. Shorter swords are better in close quarters. Yes a long sword can be used, but, with even a buckler the one hander has something of an advantage up close and personal. Weilding a long sword outdoors is great, trying to use it in a low ceiling building of the period (such as a tavern or such) Our ancestors used lower ceilings because it made the building easier to heat in winter. It also made it more difficult to...settle accounts indoors. (not the super rich of course, they liked their drafty great halls and such)
one more point on length of the hilt, there are medieval illustrations showing 1 handed swords with slightly longer hilts that were also used in both hands from time to time, even despite having overall 1 hander characteristics.
A good video, as always! I would really like it if you could make a video concerning the messer! Periods, the categorization of the different names(which seems impossible), and the different models. Also the laws around them. I've been told that guilds had a monopoly on swords and that is where the messer comes from, I've also been told that it's from the law against longswords, prices on double edged being higher, all sorts of different rumors are flying around. It'd be very nice to clear things up! =)
You are very good and helpful I loved those video I am thinking about buying a sword but it is hard to chose but after watching this video I think I will get a one handed sword
I would think longswords would be better mounted. In the same way that the light cav. 1796 can be more blade heavy than an infantry version, a one handed grip on a longsword will give you more reach and power than a one handed sword would, and the maneuverability would be less of an issue on horseback.
hey matt, i really love your sword handling (not only in this video, generally.) can you make a few videos just with a few sword hadling drills/cuts/ thrusts from different angles?
I once watched a guy try to tilt a bokken for an ukenagashi and almost break his own wrist in the process. I had to lecture him about personal safety, common sense and how the hand does not move that way afterwards.
Final thought - although it's more of a re-iteration of what scholagladitoria said in the video - unless you've trained with having a large pommel, there's a non-trivial chance that you'll whack yourself with it if you use it 1-handed. This chance increases exponentially if you try to do something with your off-hand, such as trying to grapple or pass/redirect a strike. yes, you can use it to pass/hook - but you can do that just as easily with a 1-inch pommel. It actually gets a bit harder to do with anything longer, as moving a pommel of that size in close quarters is a bit difficult. I found this out, much to my chagrin, when practicing double-stick drills, and on occasion would gouge the pommel of my stick into the back of my off-side hand. And that was with just a 1/2 inch pommel - if you extended it out to a fist-length or more, it was pretty much guaranteed that you'd slam it right into the side of your forearm at least once every couple of minutes, until you got used to them. That being said, having a large pommel is something of a nice defensive measure, as it ends up acting like a 3rd quillion, and will on occasion catch an upward strike that would otherwise tag your lead forearm. Also, it makes it easier to "pummel" (ie, to strike with the pommel in close quarters), as you've now got more range there.
I have a custom longsword somewhat bassed off of a Svante-Nillson sword, and it sure is pain to carry around. The handle along with the pommel is around 30cms long and it stick out like crazy :)
Sir George Silver in Paradoxes of Defense after describing the "right and just" length of a one handed sword says: "The perfect length of your two handed sword is, the blade to be the length of the blade of your single sword." I would not suggest reading his works if you are Italian or like rapiers.
I remember seeing a depiction of a scandinavian warrior using a viking era sword "two-handed" by gripping his right wrist with his left hand while striking, and i also remember someone saying that's probably what's being described in the icelandic saga. I apologise for not being able to cite sources, that was a long time ago.
Usability or status 👍. I've actually learned with my jian it can be held with two hands or even two swords in the same hand. I'm only practicing for dexterity and show, but I can swap from side by side to a two ended weapon with one hand and spin them like a big staff or back to side by side again with one hand. It's visually impressive even if impractical for battle. It maybe good for a sci-fi film 🤣 Anyway I've tried three ok so next I'm thinking of trying to wield "four" swords ! Still got both ears so far !
I'd imagine a knight who's mounted and using a lance as his main weapon would take the one handed sword for convenience if it's his backup weapon. Whereas someone who knows they're going to be using their sword as their main weapon might opt for the longsword for better each and leverage with two hands.
I happen to have a very cheap replica of Charlemagne sword but no shield nor horse so next time I take it off the wall for a little play I'll try and grab it two hands as you showed they did use to and see if it works better.
I've mostly handled two handed swords for most of my collecting years, so I've become more accustom to using two hands. Nothing against one handed swords, I just like the leverage (though it does take a lot of practice and getting used to, admitting I can still use some)
A point about katanas - from what I recall of reading about their historical use, one of the ways you could determine who the sword was made for was to look at the size of the handle. If it was short, it was probably a courtier's blade: worn mostly as a badge of office, and was optimized for comfort when wearing. If the hilt was long, it was likely the blade of a soldier, or at least made for use against an opponent - but would be a serious hassle to wear for 12 hours while sitting and waiting for the emperor to finish his tea ceremony.
I think you mean "size of the blade" not handle. Shorter katana were often worn by wealthy merchants and other individuals as a badge of rank. Proper bushi were the only ones allowed to wear full length daito. To be honest though, the full length daito weren't that cumbersome to wear even while sitting on you butt all day waiting for the emperor's tea ceremony. :P
JZBai, again, from what I recall, they were actually talking about the handle itself - in context, it was about banging your elbow on the hilt if it was too long. That being said: this is the interweb. As I can't recall exactly where I read it, it would very well have been at Crazy Frank's House of Things My Squirrel Told Me.
This actually explains why the katana/tachi is so short for a sword with a two-handed grip: the original samurai were mounted archers and their swords could easily be used in one hand while mounted while also having the leverage of a two-handed sword unmounted. One thing I would disagree with on Matt is that the longer handle gets in the way of carry and one-handed use. Katanas have a similar grip length to that of a longsword and I've worn my katana for hours on end during practice without it getting in the way of typical daily functions, Also, the long grip doesn't get in the way at all when I practice one-handed cuts often seen in iai and the few kata in the style I practice that feature using katana and wakizashi together.
The Tachi and Nodachi used in 14th century became long. Especially Nodachi bacame that long, that Samurai can't draw them by their own. Due to the lenght they needed to be carried on the back and be drawn by another person for the wielder (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%8Cdachi#mediaviewer/File:Hiyoshimaru_meets_Koroku_on_Yahagibashi,_showing_nodachi_or_odachi.jpg and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%8Cdachi#mediaviewer/File:Samurai_wearing_a_nodachi_%28field_sword%29.png). Katana started as Kodachi and were shorter swords (~70 cm) wich could be drawn by the wielder. The Katana took over because the shorter blade didn't disturb movent as much and could be drawn quicker. Thats why we ended up with about ~65cm blade lenght instead of Tachi with 85 cm up to over 1m blade length or 1,4-1,5 m of the nodachi. And that shorter swords are better for the mobility of the hole army. (Remember: basicly everyone on a japanease battlefield has carried a sword as secondary weapon) Some katana-variations were refered as katate uchi (katate: one hand ; uchi: strike) For civil use samurai were forbidden to own and to carry too large swords somewere in the 17th century. During this time many blades were cut down to katana-length.
Other thought on why you wouldn't want to wield a 1-haned weapon with 2 hands: it shortens up the reach of the weapon. Basically, the full reach of your weapon is determined by where your back-hand grips the hilt. If you grip the hilt in the same location as your lead-hand (or even above it), then you've shorted up the reach of your weapon by up to a foot or more (depending on how long your stance is.) The only way to avoid this is to stand completely square to your target - which means you've sacrificed a great deal of mobility, and you've made yourself something of a target due to your wide profile. However - if you've got a long (2-handed) hilt, you can start floating your rear foot back more; the longer the hilt, the longer your stance can be without sacrificing range. Of course, if your stance is too long you'll end up standing sideways to your opponent - which is basically what fencing does. But if you've got a good-sized hilt that's specifically designed for 2 hands, you can stand pretty long without sacrificing reach.
I wonder if maybe a common reason for using the two-handed grip on a shorter blade (or using a proper one-hander with two hands) was to fight in confined spaces. You do have slightly better control that way, which is important, say, indoors or in the gateway of a castle you're storming or some such. Also, since putting both hands on the hilt tends to draw your elbows in closer and shorten your reach relative to the length of the blade, you'd be much less likely to, for instance, swing wide and bury your blade in a wooden beam, thus risking being blind-sided by your enemy while you pulled it free. Just a thought.
If you use a 2H-Sword with one hand, you get Agi and Str handicaps if your skill points for 1H-Sword isn’t high enough for your current Str. Also 1H-Swords are cheaper, so it gives you more budget for skins.
love your videos! I have a question regarding this video. Would one handed swords have made more sense in an urban combat situation? I'd imagine if someone were to be storming a castle or raiding a village, more weapon would get in the way of the environment.
It would be cool to see you do another video from the other perspective. Give some examples of times where longswords may be preferable to one-handed swords
MegaHasmat Reach is one obvious thing that favors the longsword and was also mentioned in the video. If you're not going to carry a shield or some such around anyway, you will have 2 hands to use your sword with and you might want to have that extra reach. Also it's bigger and so looks more badass. Maybe it can cut a bit more powerfully (through armor) too because of that?
hyhhy You can also beat through someone's guard with a longsword easier then you can with a one handed sword. Again reach is a huge advantage, and you have a better defense.
To go along with the economy thing: I think it's not just the one-handed sword that's cheaper (it's really not that much less metal), but with the really expensive armor that you'd need to buy to protect yourself using a longsword, whereas with a one-handed sword, you can get away with wearing less armor if you use a shield.
Would it be possible to put up a video of you cutting or sparring with a longsword in conjunction with a shield or buckler? It might be nice to have some footage for comparison.
I fight with small (9") buckler and large buckler (14"); I've tried to learn drills with both longsword and smallsword with each. I think it's worthwhile to learn what to do if you must discard either shield.
What type of pommel do you consider to be the most convenient if you want to use your one-handed sword with two hands? I have the Albion The Knight and I don't find it to be comfortable with that Oakeshott Type J wheel pommel. I guess The Poitiers with its type I pommel is better suited?
Hi Matt! Why do you think roman legionaries are depicted using a sword as their main weapon? It seems to me that a spear would be more effective as a main battlefield weapon, at least in theory.
Keep in mind that roman legionaries also had pila/heavy throwing spears which they would toss at their opponents before engaging in close combat. Plus they had an extremely large shield/scutum that they could protect themselves with during engagements with the sword.
There is also a slight but noticeable difference in range between using a sword one handed and using the same sword with two hands - the second hand will hold you back slightly because you are not using the blade in an entirely straight line with the shoulder - so it's not always a good idea to go for two-handed weapons anyhow.
Agreed, it's why I'm not a fan of the katana. It is a two handed weapon but have about the same blade length as most medieval one handed swords, you end up losing quite a bit of range. On the other hand, european longswords used in two hands are considerable longer than their one handed counterparts so they make up for it.
When you talk about using two hands for a one-handed sword, you reminded me of an interesting technique used by a friend of mine who did Escrima. In some strikes he would use his free hand to grab his own sword wielding wrist and help pull to apply more force. What do you think about that technique?
A one-handed sword is better in my book because it gives you more options or it makes life more easy. On-handed sword are good with shields, spears / long staffs, bow and on horseback. The longsword is a great and awesome weapon but it is a pain in ass sometimes.
On horseback, usually you have only one chance to kill/wound a person before your horse carries you away. Longswords have more reach than one-handed swords so wouldn't they be preferable to one-handed swords in this case? You aren't going to swing it around much anyway, only once per engagement.
Lances have even longer grips and they were the main weapons on horseback. And you can grip the sword using the lower part of the hilt, which gives you even more reach and elliminates the long hilt problem (altough holding it further away from the point of balance might increase the chance of losing the weapon). Btw that thing with the hilt is just an inconvenience and as Matt explained it, you can get used to it.
I don't suppose it really matters; if you're going to hold the sword out in front of you, in the Hussar fashion, the smaller reach is going to be more than compensated by the speed at which the horse moves towards your opponent, unless of course your opponent is carrying a pike or other long polearm, in which case it is fairly pointless trying to outreach them anyway. If you are going to swing the sword around during the charge though, a one-handed sword most definitely is a better idea, simply because it's lighter and more nimble.
+1 on this comment. I was thinking the same thing. As we have seen in Matt's other videos the sabers designed for cavalry are longer than the foot sabers, heavier, and, one would assume, less nimble. Seems pretty unlikely that it took until the age of reason for people to figure that out. My impression (which is just my ill informed opinion) is that the longsword was specifically meant to be used one-handed while on horseback, and in two hands while on foot. If you are using the speed of the horse to provide the velocity of the strike then you don't care that much about nimbleness - just reach. You don't want to be waving your sword around wildly anyway lest you cut your horse's ears off (or worse). Hmmmm, maybe this explains somewhat the shortness of the impact weapons such as the mace or hammer.
You forgot the balance, the center of gravity(sorry google Translator) of a Longsword is farer away from the parry than the center of a single-hand-sword. This makes the left hand and its weight and additional force on theLongswordhilt even more important.
A very good video, and it brings up a good question: If two swordsmen of equal skill faced each other, one wielding his sword in one hand with a shield, the other wielding his sword in two hands, who would have the advantage?
PRESS AND HOLD LB OR L1 BUTTON to guard with your shield, then PRESS THE RB OR R1 to light attacks with your one handed sword, PRESS RT OR R2 to heavy attacks and trusts
Fantastic video. Several points were mentioned that I hadn't ever considered... especially something as obvious as cost. I asked this question on facebook so I apologize for asking it twice. Can "master cuts" be performed with one hand? I have only ever seen two handed examples.
hi Matt, I've been watching your videos for a while now, and i wonted to ask if you have in mind making videos for the Falchion\ Messer types of swords? Having just started with HEMA i would like to hear your point of view abbout them. Thanks.
Size the sword around would be a big thing while wearing it. Especially if you were already carrying a spear and shield as your primary weapon. Do you really need a massive 2 handed sword clanking around getting in the way. If you are a noble and that was your only weapon then the extra length was great.
How does the hand and a half sword fit into this ? from what I understand it's a longsword with a quater of the handle missing, would that help for one handed use or was it done for a different reason all together ?
One very minor point, when you were talking about horsemanship (4:15) it is entirely possible to control a horse with just your legs. Not that I'm disagreeing, I wouldn't want to try using a two handed sword on horseback either but my point is that you wouldn't necessarily need one hand on the reigns.
True - any sort of mounted bowman would have to release the reins to fire his bow. I suspect that precise horsemanship such as using a lance or fighting in a melee would require rein control. Certainly, there's nothing to stop a horse from bolting if you don't have the reins. Maybe someone with more horsemanship experience can chime in.
if you join the group 'horsy HEMA' on fb im pretty sure you would be able to find people who can describe it much better, i only have a limited ability in regards to describing in english..
Another point I think about when I read some historical accounts is the fact that in the battlefield horses very often go crazy and unpredictable when reins were cut off.
I know you've mentioned left-handedness in your videos, both in modern competition and in history. But were there ever any provisions in training for fighting with the non-dominant hand (such as in the event of an injury)? Or was this never really considered an efficient use of training time?
Whats the advantage of holding the same short grip with both hands (as you showed us at last)? I have seen it also at indian martial arts, but it makes absolutly no sense to me.
Surely there are two separate reasons to hold a sword with both hands. The simpler reason is for power or strength, whether in attack or parry. The other reason will only apply with the longer grip: a longer grip means that you can hold your front hand still and use it as a fulcrum while you redirect the point with your back hand (or vice versa) meaning that you can redirect the point very quickly, rather than having to swing it as you would with a single handed weapon. Although the longsword precludes the use of a shield, its extra length and weight make it a powerful defence in its own right. I think our view of how swords were used is still coloured too much by bad Hollywood fight scenes. Matt's videos (and others) help to show that fighting with a sword was a much more sophisticated and nuanced set of skills than we used to assume. A longsword had some of the properties of a large sword, a short spear and a short but strong quarterstaff, plus all the hooking and grappling techniques that were not "instead" of sword fighting, but a fundamental part of it.
HI I do have to agree that one handed sword are the better choice for combination with sword and shield or any combination with another weapon. This is off this topic but do you know if the Guan Dao ever was used on horseback or not. I also watched your video on Dual wielding and was wondering what your view of using a broadsword or short sword along with a tomahawk.
Actually hooking index finger of the second hand by the pommel of one handed viking era sword, gives your blows incredible force and even greater control over the sword. Those pommels are not circle-shaped, so it's easier to grab them effectively. And philosophical raptor question: Is the short longsword just a sword? :D
If you consistently need to use the sword in two hands, for whatever reason, but primarily one handed, could you not just make the hilt a bit longer? The longsword seems like it has plenty of room for both hands, what would it be like if you had just barely enough room for both, maybe pinky around the pommel?
I would have to wonder about about just how incovenient the long sword is. I've seen, forgive me for not providing sources at the moment, which have definite..... straps, an area for the sword to be carried, sheathed, close to the rider and in what I believe is a pretty reasonable, easy draw if you needed to fit on horseback. I've also got some sources which would suggest that warhorses were trained to be directed with the knees, rather than the reins. Certainly you could fight one handed from horse back, but it's not the only way possible. How else would jousting have been done if you needed one hand for the reins? Certainly there's a difference using a one handed, shorter weapon. There's something to be said for them when fighting with a shield. I don't think it takes anything away from the long sword, which so happens to my preference. So, take the above with a little bias.
There is a German saying: "The best tool is barely adequate for the job". I guess that also applies to swords. If your job requires a one-handed sword, getting a two handed sword is a handicap.
This is the opposite of what you said before: that the longer (as with the rapier, which is also heavier) weapon is faster and nimbler, the same hand motion creates a faster tip motion, the shorter blade is slower because you have to move your feet and that is always very much slower than moving your hand, and so on.
David Blue The rapier has a very nimble tip because its point of balance is close to the hand and it has relatively less mass in the blade (and more in the hilt). The longsword in contrast has a much more substantial blade and the point of balance is further from the hand. It also has a higher total weight in general.
Rapier is heavy, but its the balance of the sword that effects it the most. Rapier has all the wight close to the handle, meaning you can move the blade-section of the rapier very fast with less movement in the hand. However a Longsword, since it can be use both 1 and 2 hand, has the balance point further away from the handle, roughly 3 inchs from the guard. While this allows you to do some nice pivoting strikes and all, the problem of a long sword being heavier as a whole weapon means that its slower, and you have to use bigger movements in your hand to get the momentum needed to do a good strike. 1 Handed sword however, which has similar balance point to a long-sword, being shorter and lighter, can do this much faster, meaning you can do the same movement in your hand faster.
Longshore hilts make archery very combersome this is why you would see most longbowmen in medieval artwork wearing the arming sword on their hip rather than a long sword
can you reccomend a generic equivalent to the albion ringneck, or a less expensive sword with very close to the same quality as the albion and almost the same quality. thank you, 👍✔
I have a one handed sward, long blade... 36” Excálibur... 2” wide top, 1” bottom... what do I have? Thank you. ....and where would I find a sheath for it? What type?
I actually used to have a beast of a one handed sword with a Xa blade, that bieng the two handed sword with nearly no taper of any kind, it would be short for a longsword, 36" blade but overall with a one handed hilt where you can't really grip the pommel (2 1/4" wide disc I found it possible bit uncomfortable) and weighing 3.5lbs with a 6" PoB that thing hit like a truck but good luck keeping that up for too long
that one actually broke so as per the warrantee I got the latest update of it, much nicer sword little less than 3lbs with a managable 4.5" PoB and a 32.5" blade, much nicer than that beast I had originally
This right here when explaining the problems of large or significant HILT size in moving or grappling IS WHY THE SHARP LIGHT SABER HILT POINTS on the SW 7 move fantasy blade is ridiculous but then I hated Darth Maul's two end blades basically two long swords taped into a staff not a two spear ended staff.
