David and Goliath question, comment

[Atown]

Ok well, im preparing a bible study and i noticed somnething kinda kool. its believed that Goliath is over 9 feet tall, and for a balanced blade, in my mind it has to be something like the buster blade. and then you have david who later takes it from the temple, fleeing saul. so david was like.... uber-ness and muscular to wield such a blade, and not just a harp playing, Shepard boy. It may have just been my paradigm but i always though david was cool and all but not that masculine seeming, until the realization noted above.

question: how big would have Goliaths sword been?

 

[vibrokatana]

I think david fought with a dedicated shield bearer, so he could probably carry a fairly large blade as the sword didn't need to be used for defense. The knights used a large (heavy) sword and used momentum to batter aside attacks and take them on the armor (which made them well feared at the time).

The longsword is just under 5lb, but you would wear yourself out really fast swinging it.

 

[Durruck]

I wouldn't guess that it would be much longer than a sword designed for the average person. Most swords you see made for hand-to-hand combat are roughly 30-40 inches in length (2.5-3.5 ft) - designed for people roughly 66-76 inches tall (5.5 - 6.5 ft)

If Goliath really were 9' tall, he'd be approximately 50% taller than David. A sword adjusted in length would be 45-60" (4-5") for an average sword...which is still less than some of the larger broadswords and longswords carried by knights, as VK referenced.

Even assuming that it was a larger version of a broadsword (~6' in length, so 9' tall for Goliath's version), it would be difficult to manage, but still possible to move... just unlikely that David would actually wield Goliath's sword.

 

[Kidan]

I doubt it would be a broadsword, as that's a distinctly European weapon. It would probably be a shorter sword, as this would be a bronze-age weapon. More than likely, it's a stabbing sword, so it would look like one of the ones on the edges of this image. Yet, since he is the most important person in the Philistine army, it is possible he coudl have an Egyptian cutting sword (pictured middle). This does make a bit more sense, as David is reporting as having cut off Goliath's head.

 

[vibrokatana]

I doubt it would be a broadsword, as that's a distinctly European weapon. It would probably be a shorter sword, as this would be a bronze-age weapon. More than likely, it's a stabbing sword, so it would look like one of the ones on the edges of this image. Yet, since he is the most important person in the Philistine army, it is possible he coudl have an Egyptian cutting sword (pictured middle). This does make a bit more sense, as David is reporting as having cut off Goliath's head.

I wonder if israel adopted larger swords as david apparently fought with a dedicated shield bearer. Using a larger blade would make since then because they would be less open to attack due to the slower arc. Plus it could account for their by and large victories, where unshielded short blade warriors would likely be slaughtered.

 

[Glitch]

remember two things:

1. David killed a lion and bear by (a small paraphrased), taking the lamb out of their mouths, grabbing their hair, pulling them back, and striking them. If you think this kid is not strong, you try holding a lion back from attacking you just by grabbing its mien. that means his one arm as able to hold back the lion's head and shoulder strength.


2. David had 200 "mighty men". If you read all about David's mighty men, they were all BEASTS... like... really... one would kill 200 ish men, another killed a giant Egyptian with just a club (when the Egyptian had a spear). and another fell into a snowy pit, and killed a lion. that is beast. no think... would all these BEASTLY men follow a weeny of a man? no way, if you don't know guys, they are similar to wolves. Guys will fight to see who is the head of the pack. David had to be strong enough to show himself as a leader to all of his Mighty Men.