If that’s a Sword then who ever carried it must have been a midget. It looks more like a dagger.
People were smaller back then. Except for the Giants, of course.
I remember going to the Cleve. museum and looking at the armor there. It's a great collection and I am always amazed that the suits of armor are so small.
What is also strange, the two-handed swords and hand-and-a-half swords are very long. How could small people wield such huge weapons?
Halberds were also very long and they looked heavy, too.
I think the word ‘sword’ is a misnomer. It is clearly a dirk or a ‘short’ sword similar to a wakizashi type blade sometimes worn by women of stature in feudal japan.
“If that’s a Sword then who ever carried it must have been a midget. “
If you want an interesting reality check and confirmation that we are living in a golden age, go to any museum displaying uniforms and armor. The military uniforms worn by most of the soldiers as recently as the American Civil War look like they would fit a child. Those people, were, on average, tiny by comparison with today. Look also at Spanish plate armor from previous centuries. They average anywhere from four foot something to five foot five.
Exactly.
Since the piece was displayed in a case, it has to have some sort of documentation. Find the date of the display case, then look through the church’s records from that time.