There are some rare early examples of one and a half swords which suits to the ArM age and this baby in the middle might be similar by the rules:
I would get some history buff to write a half page about the challenges around naming swords and call them
"Small Sword"
"Medium Sword"
"Large Sword"
Or maybe I'd even reduce it further and call them "One handed sword" and "Two handed Sword" with a note that high quality (or custom made) swords can be made sort of in between and be used with the stats of either depending on how you use it. And of course give those multi use swords triple cost.
That would let those players interested in sword history chose their own sword, but still leave the abstraction level on par with most other weapons in the game. And it would remove a lot of bickering around tables. The naming of swords and the differences in their use is actually one of the few issues I have had players get upset about (at a Con, no less) in AM.
The two uses of the sword would use different skills, of course.
On a related issue I'd probably ditch most of the weapons anyway and simply have a few big classes of weapons with the same stats. Using Small, Big and Ranged weapons with each having Defensive, Balanced and Offensive (Maybe Fast&weak, Balanced, Slow&Strong for ranged) categories, and place a list of what historical weapons fits in each group. Min/Maxing the weapons table never seemed to fit well with Ars for me.
Aren't weapon those little iron toys which turns in dust when a magus multi cast a pilum of fire on the enemy group?
I think that a better reading is that there are indeed three classes of "sword" in the rules, and to recognise that the written descriptions of those classes may contain some historical simplifications/inaccuracies.
If this really bothers a troupe, then it seems much easier to "house-rule" the written description to be something different, rather than fiddle about with the game mechanics.
Your 13th century knight character wielding a sword, is rampaging through the magic realm, trying to slay a Greek Titan. Is precisely what a 21st century historian would call the class of sword, really an unsurmountable 'realism' problem?
Whilst I'm not likely to be this irreverant I think Exar is spot on.
In a game that is meant to be about the Magi with companions/grogs as the supporting cast. Whilst the topic of discussion is certainly valid, swords are overpowered and lances are crap. If this is impacting your game then perhaps their is two much focus on the supporting cast and not enough on the main actors.
I disagree - Companions are over half the game (especially as Magi are likely to be studying away, its possible that Companions get played in adventures more than Magi).
The reason I started the topic was due to planning this game session in which they were hunting a forest drake. As the Magi didnt have the penetration to breach the drakes Might, I was looking a what weapons might make a dent in its hide and was surprised to find that a Knights Lance isnt the way to kill a dragon.
SJE
My advise would be to get rid of the weapons table and go with a simplified version of it. The "attack - balanced - defence" weapon in each category (wuth identical damage for all weapons of each category) sounded good to me. We have 2 recreationists IMS, and they think that the writers of the weapon stats smoked pot before writing those numbers down since they look more like a hodge podge of random numbers than pseudo-realistic. Literal expression. I defer to them in these areas
Cheers,
Xavi
Just to be clear..... Let's see if we are talking about aproximately the same thing 
Short sword/arming sword/normal knight sword (one handed sword)
youtube.com/watch?v=uiQUUlOw ... re=related
In this case it is said to be a viking sword (I read a review it said it is dubious to call it that), but it is a sword with a single hand grip and a fairly long blade, that is what we want here
Blade Length: 30 1/4"
Weight: 37.1 oz.
Longsword / hand and a half
youtube.com/watch?v=uH1go9im ... re=related
Blade Length: 33 1/2"
Weight: 49 oz.
youtube.com/watch?v=-SOz9WTpo_U
The second example might be out of period (?), but the idea is that the pommel allows both one handed and 2 handed use. It would be difficult to wield using a shield, but can be done
Great Sword
youtube.com/watch?v=_hfLZozBVpM
Totally out of period. but awesome none the less :mrgreen:
Blade Length: 39 7/8"
Weight: 109.5 oz.
The guys do not look so good, but the swords would fit the descriptions, I guess
Would you consider these swords fine examples of each type?
I´m no expert but, those seem similar. Except im going with the "slagsvärd" type for the twohander as it´s in period, while the zweihänder you link totally isnt(although i wouldnt rule it out if someone wanted to be a pioneer with it).
I dont know if those have made them simply based on "-take a high quality piece of steel and shape it into a sword" or if they actually made it properly(unlikely to say the least). The former means you have a good bit of metal that is swordshaped, the latter means you have a potentially very good sword.
Based on my guess that these are modern standardised replicas, i would say "no".
Industrial precision is good for many things, but not for making excellent swords.
I was refering to size and shape, not the "sword-ness" of the items.
Xavi
Well, exact shape and size doesnt really matter as to wether they should be called "fine examples"...
While "sword-ness" as you put it, very much is(like if the metal structure/hardening is "correct"(what is correct of course differs somewhat depending on how the sword is meant to be used, but for example if the back of a sword has identical hardening as the edge, then its totally not good quality, even if it might still be ok) in all parts of the weapon).
I usually just go with the simple solution of looking at a Roman Gladius as the model for a short sword.
The vid though, says they´re using "messer´s" but i thought those had smaller and especially somewhat curved blades?
Those in the vid looks(well its a bit hard to see clearly but still...) more like somewhat thin falchions?
(not that it matters much as in this context, either or the ones in the vids would probably be "short swords" anyway, just a matter of curiousity)
We should really classify swords based on usage.
You need a sword that is used for formation fighting, generally shorter and used for stabbing.
Then you have a 1-handed sword used for open combat styles.
Then you add your 2-handed sword used for your brute force beat-em down style of combat.
Irrespective of name you can fit almost all swords in one of those 3 categories.
Since this thread started I've actually had a look at the weapon table and I've decided it's garbage. Makes me glad that my chronicle has grogs (and combat in general) relegated to descriptive only.
I think that's basically what the combat chart provides for in the short, long, and great swords. Although in the game combat styles/usage has been generalized out of existence for the most part. The longsword is better all around but the difference is a small enough that stats, skill, and luck are going to matter far more then what sword your using.
The chart is a little odd and their are a few stats that I disagree with but I'm not sure it's totally wrong. As a simplification designed to give players some choices (based on most peoples perceptions) without bogging down the game I think it works. As a serious simulation of melee weapons and medieval combat it's lacking, but I've never found any RPG that gets it right IMOHO.
Furthermore I've hung out with various "serious" reenactors and martial artists as well as dabbling in such things my self. In my experience I've never found any two groups that agree very much with each other on the sort of fine details represented in the chart. There is a lot of bias based on training styles, engagement rules, available information, personal preference, and the general alpha maleness inherent in such hobbies. Of course I also just binge watched the first two seasons of Deadliest Warrior.
Edit: Based on the original question I think allowing the use of the horses strength as well as a few bonuses for charging attacks would make lances more "realistic" without really bogging down the game.
Given the system, luck will beat down all the other considerations most of the time unless you overspecialize.
Cheers,
Xavi
Yup.
Maybe add Riding skill to damage? 
I found Savage World system is useful. They don't give bonuses for attack and defense but use an armor piercing stat. I think is is a better way.
Yes and No.
Of Luck, Equipment, Stats, and Skill, luck is the most important, but I think though that if you have a good advantage in two of the other three that would equal out to generally better rolls. If a combatant is better armed in better shape and better equipped his opponent would need much better luck to win. That being said crits and botches end fights. So even if you are an experienced knight, in peak condition and fully equipped with plate armor a sickly peasant with pitchfork might still punch your ticket if he gets lucky.
To me that is a design feature rather then a flaw.
Messers a german long knives. Tallhoffer is a 14th Century source of fighting and it has messer fighting as things which are long sharp spikes.
A
My solution on the matter is a simple one: use the Str bonus for the mount instead of the rider when using a lance from horseback.
-Eirik