Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2009 14:34:36 GMT
I pretty much agree with everything you said. But still, one quarter of attacks is quite a bit. Every forth attack is a thrust. That seems realistic to me aswell. I just don't like the general opinion that vikings didn't use thrusts and that a round tip can't thrust effectively. Oh, and you're right, there are many, many leafblade types. I actually handled only a few but one of them was an original. I didn't like it at all. It had a PoB at about 7'' and there was NO way you could use that one for thrusting. But it was indeed shorter than most viking swords. Yeah, I guess even Warzecha needs to be challanged from time to time. We'll do it I just think he would never use unhistorical swords for testing so I'm sure those swords he used were good ones.
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Sept 2, 2009 15:14:15 GMT
I would love the chance to handle an original. I bet the techniques they used with those bronze swords was pretty different than anything that has survived since they had to take into acount the relative softness of their metal (not that they has iron to compare it to but that broze is a very different material).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2009 15:45:20 GMT
You might think so. Well, I guess slashing was always slashing and thrusting always thrusting. Those basics rule every martial art. So they applied to bronze age warriors aswell. Yeah, bronze is pretty soft but their swords only hit flesh and other bronze so maybe they didn't have to use different techniques. I really don't know. I just know that the original I had the chance to handle felt really akward.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2009 21:40:23 GMT
Look at this 10th century viking sword and read the Pierce's text. Very interesting and unusual.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2009 21:44:15 GMT
That's a unique looking norse sword.
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Sept 2, 2009 22:38:02 GMT
that tang looks huge like it could be for a two hander. the blade could be described as a type XII except for the fuller length. that's a cool sword
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2009 23:40:05 GMT
The grip is 10.3cm. It looks bigger because of the weird angle of the photo. Overall it is 93, blade 78.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2009 7:21:47 GMT
Ahhh, there you have a sword from a viking that apparently disliked forward balanced cutting sword. So he got a sword with a very different balance that could be used easily for thrusting I reckon. Great find, Luka!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2009 10:11:15 GMT
Ian Pierce's Swords of the Viking Age is a great book with a lot of interesting sword photos and some very good texts. I recommend it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2009 15:01:24 GMT
My money is that sword was wielded by someone who either didn't like or couldn't use (in either case didn't use at all) an axe. So he needed something to pierce chainmail.
Looks like that sword will accomplish it quite handily.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2009 2:58:52 GMT
Actually it's a myth that iron supplanted bronze because of superiority of the material. Steel is harder than bronze by a bit, a difference that really magnifies with longer swords, but quality steel was millennia in the making after the Iron Age started. The iron that was contemporaneous was at best only comparable in edge taking and holding, and actually inferior in many instances. I actually have a bronze short sword that is quite nice and cuts very well.
So why did iron take over? Simple. Cost. Copper and tin are really rare by comparison, and those cultures that had to pay homage to those with a monopoly on them realized that the ubiquity of iron ores put them back on an even playing field. (In many of these cases wood for charcoal could be a limiting factor, but you have to have a hot enough fire to melt bronze anyway.) In fact many historians have identified a yet-unexplained tin shortage in the second millennia BC as being the real impetus behind iron taking over.
Anyway, since iron and bronze weapons of that time were comparable, and you'd be surprised at how well short bronze weapons both cut and hold up even compared to short weapons of steel, it's unlikely any difference in fighting technique occur because of it.
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Sept 4, 2009 3:42:58 GMT
Lemal, I had heard that before about lack of tin being a reason for the iron age before but had forgot it/thought it didn't aply to swords but now I think about it you would be right. after all the iron they started out with wouldn't have been very good iron.
+1 good point!
|
|