Home  Items For Sale  Custom Orders   Swords   Knives and Daggers  Scottish Dirks   Archives  The Pit Fighter  Folders   Guide to Use   
    'The Medieval Sword in the Modern World'   Limited Editions  FORUM  Contact Articles  Links
*NEW* CAS/Hanwei 'Tinker Pearce Production Swords!

Balance and 'Harmonic' or ‘Dynamic’ Balance

Balance is often thought of as locating the sword's Center of Gravity (COG) correctly.  What determines what is correct can get really complicated.  Medieval swords balance the way they do because they have to balance that way to work correctly.  An improperly balanced sword will transmit shock into the hilt where you grip the handle.  Not only can this make the sword unpleasant to use; it can actually split the handle or damage the join of the tang and blade or tang and pommel.  In one extreme case I saw a handle actually burst apart in the users hand when a heavy blow was struck.  Ideally you should feel no shock where the sword is gripped (under the index finger and thumb for a one-hand sword, or under the middle and ring fingers for a hand-and-a-half or two-handed sword) when striking a target, even if the blow lands wrong.  We call this 'Harmonic Balance' or 'Dynamic Balance.'

I first became aware of this many years ago when I started making swords.  Some swords that I made felt 'right' and others didn't, but I could never put my finger on the difference.  One day Chuck Sweet (Steelwolf Swords) picked up one of the swords that felt 'right' and said, "Great! It's Harmonically Balanced!" I replied, "Of course it is... er... What?"  He explained that this could be determined by checking for the sword's 'sweet spots' by grasping the sword by the handle with the blade pointing up then striking the side of the pommel.  On the blade there is a spot that the blade doesn't move while the tip and center of the blade vibrate side to side.  This is the ideal striking point, as more energy is transmitted to the target than into shaking the sword.*  Many sword enthusiasts know this as the 'sweet spot' or Center of Percussion (COP.) In  physics this point of minimal vibration is known as a Node while the point of maximum vibration is said to be a Trough.  On a full-length sword (30-34 inches of blade) this Node is usually located 19-22 inches from the guard, but this can vary depending on the blades shape.  A sword has two Nodes, one at either end.  The Node at the other end should be located where the handle is gripped as stated above.  If the sword is balanced arbitrarily with an overly heavy pommel, this can shift this node to place the gripping point in a Trough, which at best will make the sword unpleasant to use.  It will also detract from cutting ability, as the sword will waste energy shaking your arm that should be transmitted to the target.
A Swedish sword-maker, Peter Johnsson, went looking for this in antiques and found it was present in most of the swords he examined.  He went on to study this matter in great detail, and included information on this in his book 'Svante Nilsson svard ett forsok rekonsruktion' and regularly posts on this topic in sword forums on the Internet.  Unfortunately this fine book hasn't been much use to the English speaking world- it is written in Swedish and at the time of this writing has not been translated into English.
The importance of Dynamic or Harmonic balance cannot be underestimated- even if everything else is right, I would be hard pressed to call a sword 'good' if this quality is absent.



*There is some quite justifiable controversy over whether or not this is in fact the ideal striking point.  Practical experience has altered my opinion since this was written.  Theoretically the tip of the sword has more energy than the COP.  It is moving fast (being farther from the center of rotation) and energy increases at the square of the velocity.  A well made sword will cut very well with the tip (actually the last several inches towards the tip) and when test cutting I usually use the tip rather than the COP these days.  The tip has more energy, the COP is theoretically capable of delivering the available energy with greater efficiency.  The Tip cut does keep you farther from your opponent however and certainly this would sometimes be an issue in a real fight.  Certainly there is room here for debate as to which method is superior.  I suspect the answer is 'whichever works better against a given target in the given circumstances.

Controversy Schmontroversy!

Since I introduced this concept to the internet on Swordforum.com in 1998 there has been much argument and controversy over this simple principle. It has been called 'New-Age Mumbo-Jumbo,' 'Marketing Hype' and 'Magic.' It is none of these things- it is an observable, demonstrable and repeatable physical phenomonen that is now widely documented in both the historical record and by modern observation and study- including (unofficial) study by physists working at JPL.
 
Somewhere around winter of 2000 Gus Trim started making swords and was a passionate exponent of 'Harmonic Balance' and used this term to market his swords.  Another fellow- John Clements (founder of HACA, now ARMA-) was a highly influential character in the sword and European Historic Martial Arts community.  John and Gus developed some kind of beef with each other and John proceeded to use his forum and his contacts and influence to deride the entire concept of 'Harmonic Balance.'  This went on for years despite the fact that the principle is simple, easily demonstrated and historically supported.  Then John reversed his position and admitted that while this quality does appear in many surving historic swords it was not achieved deliberately.  The argument now seems to be that our ancient ancestors (who were every bit as intelligent and capable as we are and actually used swords in life-or-death confrontations) did not produce this effect deliberately and that it was 'merely' the unintended by-product of making a good sword and that they never gave it a second thought.

I think that this is partially correct from a user's stand-point- HB is invisible to the user unless it is absent.  Since swords that lack HB shock the hand when a blow is struck it must have been pretty obvious to them! I doubt that they thought to themselves, "Wow!  This sword isn't Harmonically Balanced!"  They might well have thought the equivelant of, "Wow! This sword sucks!  I want a different sword!"  More germain to the discussion at hand is the question, "Did sword makers strive to produce this quality?"  The only answer that we can arrive at based on the evidence is that they knew that a sword that stung the hand when a blow was struck wasn't right.  Given that most period swords (from almost anywhere in the world) that were intended for fighting are, by modern definition, Harmonically Balanced they must have been aware of this phenomonen to some extent.

For the modern maker or user it's irrelevant what the ancient makers thought about this quality- they produced Harmonically Balanced swords routinely and we should strive to produce this quality in our work because it makes a better sword and it's 'historically correct.'  We need to be mindfull of it because it is quite possible to create a sword with the correct weight, balance and appearance that isn't Harmonically Balanced and no matter how good looking, finely finished and ornate such a sword may be it's not a good sword from a users perspective.