I shouldn't think so. Let's start with the blade: the center of mass of the lightened blade is still in the same place. While the decrease in mass of the blade also decreases its rotational inertia: this is desired, because we control the blade with one hand now.
The Claymore already had a pommel. Shortening the grip towards the lightened blade requires adapting that pommel, but not towards making it heavier. It should have been proportionately lightened, if we hadn't shortened the grip. Shortening it and thus reducing its leverage requires a somewhat less lightened pommel partially balanced by a more lightened grip.
Certainly the resulting Schiavona will cause less damage than the heavier Claymore. The center of mass of the Schiavona with its adapted hilt will move somewhat towards the hilt - which is where it needs to be for a long one-handed sword whose hilt does not allow two-handed leverage. A two-handed Claymore parries slower but against more powerful strikes than the resulting Schiavona. That is also as it should be - especially as one-handed thrusting swords with long blades can be used to replace many parries very effectively with fast counter-thrusts. Anyway, the blade of this particular Schiavona is still as stiff and resistant as that of the previous Claymore, and wouldn't break easily in a parry.
I only said that lightening such blades can be very useful. As many magi have trouble with horses, a cavalry sword as a talisman might not be to their liking, though.
I'll explain it more mathematically. Again, I'm working with average values since that's the best we have an having to estimate similar shapes. I'm also comparing it to the schiavona goal. We start with a 110 cm claymore blade just over 2 kg in mass. We use magic to lighten the blade, making every bit of it roughly 55% the mass it had been so the new mass is just over 1 kg. The center of mass of the blade stays in exactly the same place as it had been. The blade is about 18% longer than the 1kg+ schiavona's blade, putting the center of mass about 8% further up the blade, or about 7.5 cm further from the guard. That 8% can be a much bigger impact on the rotational inertia. If we're talking around the guard, that's nearly a 40% increase in the rotational inertia. Now, your surely doing bigger swings with a schiavona than with newer, even lighter cut-and-thrust swords. Even with modern ones, the point of rotation is further down somewhere between the wrist and the elbow. So for percentages we can probably estimate that 7.5 cm as 5% or so and the rotational inertia change more in the vicinity of 25%. Still, as you can see, that's a very big fractional change in the rotational inertia, meaning it will handle very differently.
You really have two choices here:
Make the claymore blade even lighter than the schiavona blade so that the hilt doesn't have to be that much heavier than the proper schiavona hilt. Then it will feel about as heavy to hold in one hand as a schiavona and about as maneuverable, though it won't handle parries as well and won't hit as hard as a properly balanced schiavona.
Keep the weight of the blade to match the schiavona's and add a lot of weight to the hilt. This will make it feel much heavier to hold in one hand than a proper schiavona. It will also not be nearly so maneuverable. But it will handle parries as well and hit as hard as a schiavona.
Either way, you can manage to match some factors while falling behind in others compared to the schiavona.
That's just miscommunication between us. I was saying a heavier grip than the proper schiavona's grip, not heavier than the claymore's. I'm trying to compare everything to how well it will behave as a proper schiavona. Sorry if I wasn't clear there.
I was comparing your sword to the schiavona, not the claymore. You can see above for the why. You're sword will either parry more slowly against equally powerful strikes compared to the schiavona, or it will parry equally quickly against less powerful strikes than the schiavona.
Yes, I agree that this blade will be more resilient than the normal schiavona's blade. It won't parry as well, but it will be less likely to break.
Actually, you started with "Once you start considering to use a talisman in combat..." when you gave the advice of making a sword as light as a feather or as light as you like it. If you now realize the statement is untenable and want to shy away from it, fine.
Who says that? Both Claymores and Schiavone come in many different lengths and weights. And Claymores are made to order already 1220. If I wish a 93.2 cm Schiavona blade to come out of my lightening the blade, I start by ordering a 93.2 cm Claymore blade. If I wish a 110 cm Schiavona blade to come out, I start by ordering a 110 cm Claymore blade. Both sizes of Claymore blades are possible, and so are both sizes of Schiavona blades.
The apprentice of TLatL p.60f box Rotgier de Gerberoy of House Tremere might cherish one: of course with fitting hilt and made to measure, not by mismatched google look-ups.
Your premise was that the schiavona blade is much lighter (just over 1 kg compared to just over 2 kg). The reason for the majority of this is the significantly differ in size, which I showed above, and length is a significant part of that. So, based on your presentation of masses, you started with that premise and are now deciding to change it. Who said it? You did, apparently without realizing it.
Tell you what. Start with something somewhat consistent instead of switching back and forth, and I can rework the math and physics estimates for what you want.
The reason is, that the Claymore blade is made lighter by magic. Don't you recall? After lightening the Claymore blade has still the same length as it had before, OK?
Anyway, the magus making a Claymore blade lighter will of of course choose the length of the Claymore blade, thereby getting the length of the Schiavona blade he desires, not the one you would impose on him.
You didn't seriously just say that, did you??? You gave a mass for a 93 cm schiavona blade. You gave a mass for a claymore blade significantly longer than that. I explained that the majority of the mass difference in the real world is due to size difference. You're saying I'm wrong about the mass in the real world, that the real-world claymore is made lighter by magic. What???
And since you used the mass for a much longer claymore blade than schiavona blade, I did the calculations for the much longer claymore blade. So I left it the same length. If you want to start with a shorter claymore blade, then do so. You're the one who started with the longer one.
To add to this, I simplified things as I was just making some estimates. Another fairly important reason the schiavona is easier to hold in one hand because its center of mass is closer to the guard is because of the shape of the blade. Claymore blades maintain their width fairly well for most the length of the blade, while schiavona blades taper noticeably through most of their length. This lets you build a longer blade with a center of mass closer to the guard.
I shouldn't have to mention, that real blades of one type and purpose vary in size and weight, and that the wikipedia measures are just examples. I gave links to the pages, but certainly didn't request the example measures there to be adhered to:
Of course the magus pondering an enchanted sword will have made the Claymore blade he starts with to measure: so the Schiavona blade resulting after the magical lightening will have the length he desires.
There are many different Schiavone: this one - again from the wikipedia - has a blade that tapers no more than that of a typical Claymore. After all, a Schiavona was also used for cutting.
Then why did you start with blades of significantly different lengths and claim they were close enough? If you want the blades to start at the same length, say that and be honest about the mass difference.
Tapering doesn't stop cutting, and as I pointed out, there is a difference between the cutting of a cut-and-thrust sword and the sort of chopping that happens with large swords. And, yes, that sword does taper significantly. Forgetting the tip and so looking at the spot just on the hilt's side of the clip near the tip, if we measure we see the blade is roughly 70% as wide as it was when it started. Now if we look at claymores, such as this historical one, we can measure and see the blade is over 95% as wide as when it started the same fractional distance along the blade. (By the way, this blade is closer to the length you want, but unfortunately it's still a good bit longer than the 93 cm schiavona blade and this one doesn't have the blade's weight listed separately from the hilt. So it really doesn't have the info we need.) Why is this important? As I mentioned, smiths did not make blades of the same length noticeably lighter by making steel lighter. Most of it comes from two things. 1) Make the steel stronger and you can make it more slender without risking it breaking more easily. 2) Change the shape, such as tapering the blade as in the photo you provided. Such tapering also moves the center of mass closer to the hilt compared to where it would be with a more uniform width blade.
I suggest to magically lighten a blade so it fits another purpose - which a not magicked 13th century blade could never fit. This trivially implies, that the starting blade is of the same size as the resulting blade.
The starting blade must be achievable with 13th century blade technology: so I pick the Claymore blade as an example for that technology and proceed from there. It would obviously be made to order for the purpose - so can be a shorter one with maybe a few unusual features. Its lightening reduces the mass, so that with an appropriate hilt and pommel the resulting blade becomes a cut-and-thrust cavalry sword - with a very resilient blade.
You used the mass of a 93 cm schiavona blade and the mass of a significantly longer claymore blade. As I said, you may not have meant to, but you did.
You might want to re-read the very site you linked for claymore blades, where it says they start showing up two centuries after the standard game start time.
So they should fit reasonably well for an argument on the forum. They were shorter than later Claymores, likely due to restrictions from blade technology.
No, I read that. You referenced using a longer claymore blade and making it lighter, and since you didn't want to change other properties that was without making it shorter. I worked out the math/physics on that.
And, as for the rest of that comment: making the blade lighter without changing the properties of the blade, blade smiths most certainly did not do so for centuries before coming out with the schiavone. Your statement represents a total misunderstanding of what was done. They worked for centuries to change the properties of the blade to make it lighter. In the real world you don't make it lighter without changing the properties. I was trying to just let that slide, though.
Then we can drop it to roughly one century after games start. Odd that the page states circa 1400 and 15th century several times and yet gives a time of by 1300 or so through reference.
