Why longswords have 0.225 lethality?

[abou]

Wow SlickNica, biased much? Honestly, I don't know why you're even here considering your incessant complaining of the mod. I'm sorry that we try to provide a more balanced insight into the Hellenistic world. But hey, maybe we just don't know what we're talking about and perhaps should just give up.

Siegfriedr, we do actually have a significant difference in length for the swords. In Lang's article "Study of the Metallography of Some Roman Swords" published in Britannia, she states that the Celtic La Tene III blades averaged 620 mm and one example being 855 mm. Much earlier La Tene I blades were about 535 mm and tapered. Compare this to the gladius, which has some big extremes: 367 - 590 mm. However, from tests it has been determined that practical lengths for the Roman infantry would be about 380 - 430 mm. Longer examples than this stated range may have survived, but appear to be over represented due to their use as officer swords or as votive offerings much in the way that overly fancy cavalry helmets seem to be so common as finds in rivers.

So what does this mean? Well, 20+ cm is indeed quite a difference in length as well as weight. Do a little physics using radial acceleration and you get quite a difference in force. And if the sword connects with it's "sweet spot" against a helmet, not only will it have a greater chance of overcoming the armor, but it will have a greater chance at a kill. I hope that helps.