Talk:Katzbalger

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / Early Modern Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)

Also, i've read and seen it demostrated, that a katzbalger is a shorter sword then most other arming swords, with the express purpose of having a faster draw time. The hope was that two pikeman would lock, drop their pikes and draw arming swords. The katzbalger would draw faster and thrust before his opponent had drawn.

Instead of expanding the article, I've shortened it a little: Katzbalger also means "Suitable for the fight". That's unfortunately just not true. The etymology of the word is a matter of dispute, but not the fact that it is a noun, not an adjective. Sorry for that...! Trigaranus 15:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- Being shorter has nothing to do with draw time. You're barely gonna lose fractions of seconds on drawing a 75cm sword compared to a 90cm. It's shorter because it's meant for close fighting only, while longer arming swords are meant for medium-close, therefore having longer reach.

-- Katzbalger is mainly a cutting sword, not a thrusting one. The point is very round, being unsuitable for thrusting, while the blade is very flat and broad - qualities for a cutting sword.

-- All guards protect the hand, and not only in the case of the opponent's blade sliding down. I'll remove the "sliding down" part because it's both unnecessary and restrictive.

-- The weight is wrong. They are 0.8 to 1.5kg, with most being 1.2kg. No one handed sword weighs 2kg, specially the short, fullered, flat-bladed ones.

-- Both sources cited are dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.65.101.93 (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-- This thread http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=22729 shows a few examples of Katzbalgers, and most have 80cm of length. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.65.101.93 (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-- "Mostly a cutting sword, the rounded tips on many examples are ill-suited to thrusting, while the flat, broad blades are specialized for cutting. As with other similar cutting-centric arming swords, it can still be used for thrusting, though it's only likely to do damage to unarmored targets." As somebody who does HEMA, I can tell you that this is all mostly a false generalization. What kind of armor? In what manner in circumstance? In no universe will any kind of blade of any description simply thrust through a sheet of steel. That's not how this works. Maybe in the palm of the gauntlets. Maybe through links of mail. Maybe through a seam. Maybe I wrestle you to the ground and yank your helmet off. Then I can hurt you. But saying that it's especially bad at penetrating armor is meaningless. Chock this up to a citation needed. --35.129.7.136 (talk) 09:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Blah[reply]

meaning

Katzbalger (a.f.a.i.k.) was a derogative name for noblemen (i.e. Ritter), who fought as often as they could (from "balgen" - to fight with tooth and nails without rules). It came about - being published that is - in the early 16th century, when ostentative fights between men was more and more banned from towns and other public places and this method of earning revenue had to be changed to bestiarii-like fights between armoured swordsmen and beasts (like leopards or similar). The weapon itself was not forbidden to be shown or carried openly, so it became a way to show off extra-martial readiness for bouts, challenges, odd wagers, quarrels. The first explanation "by the skin of a cat" is just nonsense (purer Unsinn), one might delete that.--85.178.239.133 (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]