Wielding Fantasy Weapons

[Conners]

You've all seen the fantasy weapons throughout games and cartoons.

So, here's a question: If someone was incredibly strong, could they wield one of the typical overly huge weapons? Or, would there be some other problem, such as leverage?

If someone was very strong (but a normal size), would it be handy for them to use a very large weapon? Or should they just continue to use normal-sized weapons?

 

[Oskatat]

the strength needed to wield some weapons.... right now I'm thinking of a webcomic where one guy has a sword? well, something, 4x the size of a man. It's like a spearhaft, but instead of the point it has an 18ft blade. Even with incredible strength, superhuman, to swing it at any speed would be, well, impossible. You'd need to go to demigod or godlike status for that, like hercules. There is a reason why it's called fantasy


edit:

and why did you post this in HISTORICAL discussion?

 

[Conners]

Its a question related to how the fantasy weapons so common would behave in reality. I added the question of whether they'd be usable for a person of incredible (perhaps inhuman) levels of strength.

 

[Devercia]

I'd say no. Inertia is such a powerful force that even with the necessary strength to wield such a weapon, the efficiency of movement would decrease in ever diminishing returns. 

The second and larger issue is that when super stregnth is considered, weight is not. Even when the strength is there, a weapon as large as I have seen depicted would swing its wielder instead.

I am reminded of a scene in I-Robot wherein Will Smith, with his robotic are, punches a 6inch+  hole into a concrete highway without launching himself into the sky.

 

[Merlkir]

/thread.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNc7kHADtUw

 

[NikeBG]

In other words - giant swords are for giant people.

 

[Night Ninja]

How 'incredibly strong' are we talking?

Assuming peak human levels of strength, the short answer is that heavy fantasy weapons will likely be useless. They will take far longer to accelerate and take longer to achieve peak velocity.

The long answer is here: http://www.strengthandconditioningresearch.com/2012/07/13/the-biomechanical-principles-of-resistance-training/

When you increase the mass of the weapon, you hit a point with sharply diminishing returns (and a inversely proportionate penalty to maneuverability) very quickly and they won't necessarily do more damage when they hit the target. That added mass is fairly useful in the bind though. If you've ever tried to bind against a blunt with a feder, you'll know what I'm on about.

You can throw all this out of the window if we're talking superhuman levels of strength though.

 

[Conners]

For incredible strength, it can either be within human limits, or a fantastical level of strength. From what I've heard, it doesn't appear to matter how strong you are--wielding too big and heavy a weapon for your size and mass doesn't seem to work out in various ways.

 

[Bromden]

The problem with gigantic weapons are that (as said before) they are slow. It can be an effective executioners weapon, but if you miss with it in battle, you won't get a second chance, you will be killed, maimed, sliced and served with any smaller weapon before you could think about parrying or attacking again. A good example are battle axes, they are smaller and lighter than a woodcutter's axe, as trees usually don't fight back.

 

[Oskatat]

I'm also going with Devercia, who brings up points I didn't consider before. The traction of a person, on the ground, inertia and conservation of energy. Let's say it's a huge sword. Even if you get it to swing, to stop it swinging would likely spin you around your own axis - your feet can't get enough traction on the ground to compensate for the forces that your inhumanly strong muscles are creating. And if they do, I don't think just strong muscles would be enough to prevent your knees, ankles and hips to pop and tear all their bindings.

The problem with gigantic weapons are that (as said before) they are slow. It can be an effective executioners weapon, but if you miss with it in battle, you won't get a second chance, you will be killed, maimed, sliced and served with any smaller weapon before you could think about parrying or attacking again. A good example are battle axes, they are smaller and lighter than a woodcutter's axe, as trees usually don't fight back.

you're super strong, just kick him to the moon

 

[Night Ninja]

I get the impression that we're all asssuming muscular strength comes with a commensurate increase in connective tissue strength here.

 

[Archonsod]

When you increase the mass of the weapon, you hit a point with sharply diminishing returns

Depends on the weapon. Throwing a bus at someone does considerably less damage than throwing a planet at them.

 

[Kobrag]

Even if you could 'wield' the. Fighting with them would be a different matter.
Take one of the rediculousdouble bit axes. One swing, they dodge and then kill you.

 

[AWdeV]

I dunno. I bet you can get a few more swings in if you keep your distance.

 

[Kobrag]

We are talking the Uber fantasy styled bits here. Very large bits as thick as felling axe bits and even heavier due to the size.
Sothat would be difficult, as that much wieght and momentum would prevent you from recovering enough to strike after trying to scamper away from an enemy.

You'd still be dead though, weapons made  like that would leave you off balance so moving would probably weaken your limited ability to parry further, if not outright make you fall over.

 

[Conners]

To change the question a little: What is the biggest sword/weapon someone could realistically wield, if they had super-strength? I'm guessing something the shape of claymore, but longer (and maybe a bit broader?).

 

[Mad Vader]

Depends on how much he needs to overcompensate.

 

[Bromden]

To realistically wield and super-strength doesn't match to me.

If someone is very strong, he shouldn't go with a bigger weapon (well, maybe with somewhat bigger), because his bonus strength should add well to the effect of normal weapons, enhacing the cutting/piercing/blunt damage it does. A ridiculously big weapon would just bring him down to the others' level in a fight.

Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.

Depends on how much he needs to overcompensate.

That, gentlemen, is the real answer.

 

[kiarj]

Actually, that reformed question is pretty interesting.

A lot of cultures have had huge weapons turn up from time to time. German Zweihanders can be ****ing massive, as well as some examples of (I would guess Danish) axes having a broad face nearly two feet long and I remember seeing a gigantic chinese broadsword used in Bagua. Japanese smiths tested their skills by forging huge-ass Zanbato, but no litterature speak of these swords being used in battle.

I'd say huge cutting implement would be nearly useless once over-sized, due to weight repartition allowing for almost nothing but slow vertical cleaves. A blunt weapon could be useful as you could sweep it horizontally with some sort of speed, granting it some massive momentum. Then again, a blunty of that size would be even heavier than a similar-sized blade.

Again, I'm much more educated on Sino-Japanese weaponry, so the only analoguous weapon I can think of is the kanabo or the tetsubo, both of which are extremely unwieldy. I think I recall hearing about some kind of swiss pole-mace, but I couldn't say for sure. Knightly polehammers may be an example of big blunt trauma, but how big do you need those?

But again, it all depends on how "super" your super-strength is.

 

[Oskatat]

what some of those huge weapons lacked in wieldability, they might have made up in intimidation through sheer destructive capability.

I mean yes, if you dodge the first swing, it's a good chance to win, but you don't get second tries and there's a whole bataljon behind you preventing you from dodging. Is now a good time to panick?