|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Sept 11, 2009 23:18:54 GMT
I know of several strikes that are serious heymakers that can be dealt with that part of the blade. in my SCA fighting I have stood toe to toe with guys and slugged it out with full sized swords. you won't get much in the way of good bottle cuts down there though. those cuts require a firmly resistant target. I have in the past attacked a tree with those sort of cuts and basically chopped it down. it sort of turnd the sword into a thin mace but it hits with plenty of force. I have driven big men to their knees with one of those to their collar bones or the sides of their heads.
I can't tell you if it is historically accurate but I CAN say it works if I can knock down a 250-300 pound man wearing armor while hitting him with a rattan stick I promis you if I hit him with steel he'll go down just as hard and stay down at least long enough for me to kill him with the pointy end.
when you look at all the hits and grabs and locks in the fechtbuchs that put you opponent on the ground so you can kill him I think I can say it is historically plausible at least.
but the mechanics are different than cutting and it might even work better with a blunt or dull axe-like edge.
I could do it well with my EMSHS I'm quite sure.
|
|
|
Post by shadowhowler on Sept 11, 2009 23:34:25 GMT
I actually do like the look of Tom's EMSHS's 1/3 unsharpened portion... as mentioned it aids in blocking with that part of the sword, also looks like having more 'meat' on the blade there helps with the overall distal taper of the sword towards the tip, creating a really stiff and light feeling blade. The cuts Tom mad on the mat in his vid show that sword gives him GREAT control.
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Sept 12, 2009 1:36:05 GMT
I decided to do a video to demonstrate the point I was talking about above and the toughness of the H/T EMSHS and relevance of having a blunt section.
|
|
|
Post by brotherbanzai on Sept 12, 2009 1:54:06 GMT
Yeah, there's no real point in sharpening the lower section of a long sword blade, your not going to be cutting anything down there. More meat in that area means more strength when setting aside and winding with it. Also helps keeps the sword stiff and the weight closer to the hand.
Also, just an FYI, many of the unarmored half-swording techniques are done by grabbing the blade past the first 1/3 where it is sharp. In addition there are techniques that involve grabbing your opponents (stationary) blade where it is sharp. When gripping a sword by the blade, a different grip is used than the way you grip the handle so you don't cut yourself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2009 3:23:23 GMT
War was war, whether in the streets or fields, so the idea of not having your first third to near half of your blade sharp came in practical I keep it a little in mind to the campaigner and gods know those medieval campaigns lasted. (This is just my opinion I got little to back it up).
1) Halfswording - Cut hand less. There was probably a bevel still but the edge probably wasnt more then a near windlass non sharpened. Swordsmen probably wore a thicker glove (or even lightly mailed) on their non dominant hand anyway (yeah no evidence but it makes sense historically and practically little effort for alot of piece of mind, even two handed the non dominant is lesser working had to a degree).
2) The Crushing and Grappling - your sword in melee's could be as dangerous to you as the enemy, get pressed on and your sword getting pressed back and into a soft squishy part of you was an element. I know thats where the longer crossguards came in handy protecting the hand from blows but also crushing up on an enemy shield.
3) Blocking, yeah shields, yeah they avoided edge on edge but sometimes you gotta and if you watch alot of swordplay, edges find other edges still so having a section you cared less about helped and most blocks were done on the strong and few strikes done there so worked out good both ways. Which leads to the next point
4) Maintenece - Medieval man was a busy guy, whether doing his day to day or working in an army he had heaps to do and it took time to do it in between sun rise and set, probably an additional reason pole arms were good little work needed. We all know how much time it can take to get a good edge back and they didnt have fancy grade stuff like us. So for the sword wielder who would need alot more time (or even time taken out of a squires day for his knight when he had other repairs and jobs to be done) having to sharpen less didnt hurt.
Thats just my view, knock it down or build it up how you like. A medieval smith might of had the sword sharp the whole way along fresh from the forge but if that sword saw multiple years of service the strong probably wasnt prioritised. Like a new car, you will change its wheels often but the need to change the wheel bearings and driveshaft wouldnt be often.
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Sept 12, 2009 3:29:36 GMT
a practical outlook on history! how refreshing!
I agree!
|
|
SlayerofDarkness
Member
Review Points: 65
"Always give everyone the benefit of the doubt."
Posts: 3,067
|
Post by SlayerofDarkness on Sept 12, 2009 4:00:53 GMT
That post deserves a karma, my friend. +1! -Slayer
|
|
Razor
Member
Review Points: 55
Today is tomorrow but not yet yesterday
Posts: 501
|
Post by Razor on Sept 12, 2009 6:36:20 GMT
Fortes are generally dull. They are two parts to a blade the forte which is strong and is best for defense and thats why it's best for a thicker edge because it meant to take blows. If the forte was sharp a swordman might run the risk of nicking or notching the blade and thus weakening the weapon.
Next is the foible which is weak and not good for defense but it is faster then the forte and it's best for attacks (cuts & thrusts).
Giacomo di Grassi wrote in his book "His True Art of Defence" Students should think of the sword as a moving in a circle their hands are the middle of the circle while the points of their swords represent the circle's circumference. The forte, which is closest to the hands, moves a lot slower than the point on the circumference.The forte is the best defense for a swordman because it is the slowest and strongest part of the blade.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2009 18:39:02 GMT
Hey guys, here are some pics. That's the blade after polishing and making ready for peening. Next to it the guard I made. The tang. I LOVE that fuller. Very nice. Pointy. The strong of the blade. And that's what it will look like when done. The pommel will be a bit different, more flat wheel and maybe without the cross but you get the idea. Grip will be a leather over cord wrap.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2009 18:44:55 GMT
Oh and by the way, the blade is blunt for the lenght of the fuller then it turns into a nice appleseed shape. I tell you it took years to get that edge. Only removing the slight secondary bevel took 2 hours and I blunted one file doing it. That steel is soo hard. Then polishing and removing the scratches took the rest of the day, about 4 hours. It was well worth it, though. The edge will barely start to cut papar now but cuts like crazy. I managed to cut a one inch dovel very cleanly with one strike. Couldn't have done better with my katana. The straight blade does however require a lot more draw movement than the katana.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2009 23:41:19 GMT
The blade looks nice. The entire length of the fuller was blunt?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2009 20:17:42 GMT
Yes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2009 22:48:47 GMT
That's interesting. I just got my Norman and while the blade closest to the hilt is blunt, it isn't that blunt. The blunt area is actually around 5 inches long, and it progressively becomes sharper.
|
|