>>730039>>729454>Ballance is not that serious issue with purely two-handed design.Somewhere you picked-up the idea that I am talking about all kind of swords not needing any balance. What I do argue that ballance is not that important for blades designed to be used primarly with both hands, especialy those with primarly military applications (fighting agains pike and infantry).
And guess what? Ballance on swords has been changing over time, and it also varies in accordance to primary use of a weapon.
Want examples?
A hand-and-a-half 15th century sword from Higgins Armoury Collection #75
Overall Length 123.2 cm, Weight 1548 g, Point of Balance (forward from the guard) 19 cm
That's pretty blade-heavy IMHO, but sword is very light for its size.
Two-handed English mid 15th c., Wallace collection
Overall lenght unknown, Length of blade 117 cm, Weight 2.892 kg, Balance point: 13.9 cm, forward of the guard
Much heavier in comparision to previous blade, so it would not need to be so blade heavy to be effective. Still, it's kind of forward-ballanced.
Longsword from Germany or Switzerland, c. 1525 - c. 1550, Wallace Collection
Length: 133.5 cm, blade length: 103.2 cm, Weight: 1.91 kg, Balance point: 10.8 cm, forward of the guard
Roughtly comparable size to earlier examples, but balance is much diferent. It's the most guard-balanced of the three, but middle in mass. I'd say this is because full armour in that peroid is not so prevalent, due firearms and what not. You simply would not need a blade-heavy weapon to hurt lightly armoured combatants.
