PDA

View Full Version : What was the average weight of the katana?



Aristobulus
11th December 2005, 02:01
Hey I was wondering what the average weight of a katana? Thanks for the info.

louroberto
11th December 2005, 02:23
around 800 - 900 grams

Charles Mahan
11th December 2005, 03:22
I'm afraid that's rather like asking for the average weight of a longsword.

I'd say anywhere from 800 grams to 1500 grams was fairly common, varying by region, length of the blade, personal and stylistic preference, time period, day of the month, season of the year, etc...

Scott Irey
11th December 2005, 03:23
There really is no "average weight" for katana, they come in so many lengths, widths and thicknesses. A good "range" for historical katana is 900 to 1400 grams. In my experience historical katana tend to be heavier on average than the modern pieces (Japanese and non-Japanese made both).

Regards,

Aristobulus
11th December 2005, 10:01
Thanks What is a gram in pounds?

I had heard that each Ryu or tradition had its own specific specifications. I wanted a average to compare to the average medieval sword, which weighed an average of 2 to 3.5 pounds. depending on its lenght. They were wery light, strong , and well balanced. Which most people dont realize. They had swords in the 16th century that were 6 feet long and weighed on average 5.5 pounds.

Thanks alot for the info.

jest
11th December 2005, 11:54
Thanks What is a gram in pounds?

I had heard that each Ryu or tradition had its own specific specifications. I wanted a average to compare to the average medieval sword, which weighed an average of 2 to 3.5 pounds. depending on its lenght. They were wery light, strong , and well balanced. Which most people dont realize. They had swords in the 16th century that were 6 feet long and weighed on average 5.5 pounds.

Thanks alot for the info.

2.21 pounds is 1000 grams = 1 kg

Ok4mi
12th December 2005, 00:01
Thanks What is a gram in pounds?

I had heard that each Ryu or tradition had its own specific specifications. I wanted a average to compare to the average medieval sword, which weighed an average of 2 to 3.5 pounds. depending on its lenght. They were wery light, strong , and well balanced. Which most people dont realize. They had swords in the 16th century that were 6 feet long and weighed on average 5.5 pounds.

Thanks alot for the info.

Not trying to be offensive but...you're reseaching european medieval swords and you don't know metric weights!?

Ken-Hawaii
12th December 2005, 01:40
Calling most medieval swords "light" depends in large part on just how big YOU are. If you're Schwarzenneger's size, Ray, then pretty much any blade would appear to be light.

But as a long-time European fencer, I've fenced with about 20 different types & styles of blades, few of which I would term light (I'm 5'10" & around 190 this time of year). Compared to a modern fencing foil or epee, a rapier is about 2-2.5X as heavy, for example. And comparing, say, a Claymore to a katana, there is a considerable difference in mass & inertia, to say the least.

I'm rather more curious as to why you're making this comparison in the first place. There are surely more different types of blade use than comparing medieval to Japanese, but I'd be hard-pressed to think of of one off-hand.

Now comparing mead to sake might be an interesting comparison!

Brian Pettett
12th December 2005, 14:56
Not trying to be offensive but...you're reseaching european medieval swords and you don't know metric weights!?

They had the metric system in the 16th century? hehe..

Ken-Hawaii
12th December 2005, 18:56
Good question, Brian. According to my engineering texts, the metric system first arrived in 1670, but wasn't really adopted anywhere until about a century later, in 1790, by (of all people) the French.

So, no, they didn't have the metric system in the 16th century. But whatever they did use still can be equated to our wonderfully-outdated Babylonian-Egyptian-Roman system of measurement that Ray is researching.

twayman
13th December 2005, 00:51
Now comparing mead to sake might be an interesting comparison!

A good mead! Now... there is no comparison! :)

Aristobulus
13th December 2005, 02:20
a 32 to 42 inch sword in the middle ages would be on average 2.5 to3.5 pounds. Unless it was a ceremonial sword in which case the weight didnt matter as long as it could be carried.


thanks for the conversion

Aristobulus
13th December 2005, 07:51
Good question, Brian. According to my engineering texts, the metric system first arrived in 1670, but wasn't really adopted anywhere until about a century later, in 1790, by (of all people) the French.

So, no, they didn't have the metric system in the 16th century. But whatever they did use still can be equated to our wonderfully-outdated Babylonian-Egyptian-Roman system of measurement that Ray is researching.


the swords I was looking at were mostly from the 12th to the 16th century. It seems that any weapon used in one hand weighed no more than 3 pounds, maces , axes, flails, etc... swords used with one hand ran under 3 pounds.

you know until about 1360 the English made wine that was as good as the French wines (the French passed laws to keep English wine from being imported) the little ice age is responsible for our love of brews and spirits.

Hoo ray beer!!!!

Chidokan
13th December 2005, 22:28
ah, yet another twist on what's the perfect sword..lovely, we can argue for weeks.... :)
My dream sword from santa will be ultra light weight so I can swing it so fast its a blur, so sharp it will cut through anything stuck in front of it, never rusts or goes blunt, and is so strong it can block a charging rhino. Oh, and it needs to endow me with some skill to use it.... :D

Aristobulus
14th December 2005, 00:44
No one said there is a perfect sword. There is no such thing. Right tool for the right job. The argument would be based on opinions. Which is a neverending arguement. Thats not my purpose. I just wanted to know the general weight of a Katana. Yes to compare to others . But not to judge which one was better. That answer (if it is answerable) is subject to alot of variables.

It doesnt really matter if there is a perfect sword. There is possibly a perfect sword in your opinion. The katana in the hands of a master is a beautiful thing. I wish you well in your studies.

Rain
14th December 2005, 20:54
Miyamoto Musashi wrote about this point in the Wind Scroll of the Book of Five Rings. Whether a sword its really long or really short its not really the point. The sword its more of a dueling weapon than a battlefield or a concealed weapon. Its right lenght depends on its user. In my experience, a good way to measure a sword for its user its by swinging it with your arm extended over your big toe while standing straight. The right sword should swing close to your toe but it shouldnt touch it.
The same applies on the matter of weight. The perfect weight of your sword depends on your body. Your sword should become one with you, speed its not an issue here. If I may quote Miyamoto Musashi one more:

"In martial arts, speed its not the true Way. As far as speed is concearned, the question of fast or slow in anything derives from failure to harmonize with the rhythm".

The point its to use a sword thats comfortable, and once you have practiced long enough and have gotten used to the balance of the sword you learn the "light" and "comfortable" its not the same.
As for the original question, I practice with a 900g sword, but thats what I believe its right for my constitution. I have to agree that anything between 800g and 1500g would be the ideal weight for most people. But I have to say that I am not familiar with swords over 1200g.

Aristobulus
14th December 2005, 23:47
[QUOTE=Rain]"In martial arts, speed its not the true Way. As far as speed is concearned, the question of fast or slow in anything derives from failure to harmonize with the rhythm".

Well said and true.