No. Battlesword in that meaning would more likely have been called "stridssvärd" or "krigssvärd".
Battle only has one meaning, "slag" has a whole bunch of meanings depending on context.
While i cant guarantee the originating meaning, all information i have points towards meaning a sword for delivering extra forceful attacks, the ability to strike through armour. In battle or not.
If there is an equal swordtype that in English is named battlesword, well thats fine then but that still doesnt mean that the translation would be correct. Aside from that, the only thing i could find called a "battlesword" was some Scottish sword which was more like a slightly large broadsword.
Even the historically known schools teaching the use of the longsword all includes onehanded use in their repertoire.
And if you check up on "greatsword", a more normal definition is that it´s an ~oversized arming sword or longsword...
Or, what´s usually referred to as a twohanded sword or sometimes using the term zweihänder, which essentially means the same.
Which is a VERY different thing from a longsword. With total lengths 30-80cm longer than longswords.
It´s not for nothing that a 2 handed grip on a longsword commonly means having one hand on the pommel, because it often doesn´t have enough room on the grip for both hands.
Great sword (not really a 13th century weapon - the big infantry hackmonster role was filled by guys with daneaxes and the like)
I'd avoid the term long sword because there is too much confusion both with the D&D baggage and the breadth of the twohander continuum one could be referring to.
3rd one, well the zweihänder comes later(very probably at least, it´s always hard to say for sure, its known to exist from the 14th century onwards at least, but with just a century in between, i would totally not rule it out from the standard gameera), the "slagsvärd" in my link however is from at least 12th century, might very well exist earlier still.
So, something that works as #3 did exist.
The type probably came around much later(14-15th century), but to avoid naming confusion, it´s probably better used than longsword indeed.
Exactly, all the rules are trying to do is give us stats for: small sword, bigger-sword, really-big-sword.
Precisly, what a "bigger-sword" looks like is not really relevant. There are cosmetic differences between various sorts of "bigger-sword" that make no difference at the scale of the game mechanics.
"Short sword", "long sword", and "great sword" are really just used as generic terms for classes of weapon rather than meant to be a specific description of the weapon.
That is not all the rules are trying to do. There are descriptions in the rules - the by the book short sword is described as 28 inches and under, ie. such weapons as big woodsmen's knives, gladii and dirks. The next sword size up is clearly in it's description the classic straight bladed knightly sword ie. the arming sword but they call it the longsword which is wrong and they give it the best combat stats of all one handed weapons which is also wrong.
Now the name doesn't really matter although it is frustrating in a line with generally very high standards of research but the the overpowered stat line has actual gameplay effects.
Whereas, in reality, the arming sword was an important status symbol, a versatile self defense weapon with enough reach to use mounted and could be worn on the hip leaving the hands free BUT if one was expecting a battle against armed and armoured opposition one would prefer to start out with lance/spear/axe/mace in the right hand and the sword in it's scabbard.
The problem beingthat in the books as written, "longsword" is used for an arming sword, and no-one uses shortswords. This means that in effect there are not three classes of swords: there are two, in the books as written, and the basic one is misnamed and removes the slot for the first of the larger than average swords.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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)
