Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2009 21:43:54 GMT
I hope I just didn't expose myself as a noob With all of the Oakshott types, and me being very new to the Euro sword scene, I was wondering what other sword types my Tinker GSOW fell into. One guy at work actually looked at it, and said "Now that's a Bastard sword" I think he is wrong about that, but he has been around Euro medieval swords longer than I. He has seen my Hanwei Bastard sword, which seems too long to be a Bastard sword, I would think it was more like a longsword myself, but I may be wrong there. To add to my confusion, when the Tinker GSOW was in prototype stage, they were referring to it as a type XIIIa, and when I ordered it, it was just a type XIII. the blade looked a little different too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2009 22:08:46 GMT
Well, a bastard sword would be one that could be effectively wielded in either one or two hands...and I believe the GSoW is a little too heavy for the average person to use one-handed. It is a XIIIa, as the handle is longer than the XIII (which is for single- handed use). The terms broadsword and longsword are fairly general and can refer to many different Oakeshott typologies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2009 22:10:04 GMT
GSOW is definitely a XIIIa with that long grip. Bastard sword and longsword are terms more often used for later, end of 14th, 15th and 16th century swords. 13th and 14th century XIIa and XIIIa swords should be called greatswords (not to confuse with the 16th century landsknecht twohanders) as that was their name in the period they were used. They were more or less just bigger versions of normal swords, still mostly used one handed from a horse. Long grip was there more for balancing the broad and heavy blade than for the other hand. Later, in the age of plate, bastards are swords best fit for one handed use but with long enough grip to support the sword with at least a part of the other hand. Longswords are more of a two handed weapons, but you should still be able to use them with one hand only. Bastard sword is more modern term, at least in the meaning I gave here, in 15th century you would probably call swords just swords, maybe longswords or twohanders (dedicated two handers like landsknecht two handers).
|
|
|
Post by brotherbanzai on Sept 29, 2009 1:04:00 GMT
"Bastard sword" is a more recent name for a hand-and-a-half sword. You can fit one hand on the grip and the other on the grip and pommel. Bastard because it is part single handed and part two handed sword. If you can fit two hands completely on the grip, it's a two handed sword. You might also call it a long sword, but long swords are generally lighter/more slender/more taper than a great sword (gsow). Broad sword is also a more recent term that wasn't originally applied to the type of sword it often describes today, which would be a cruciform sword. Also, opinions vary.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2009 1:08:09 GMT
Would you consider the VA longsword a greatsword or a longsword? I'm thinking it is a lightweight greatsword.
|
|
SlayerofDarkness
Member
Review Points: 65
"Always give everyone the benefit of the doubt."
Posts: 3,067
|
Post by SlayerofDarkness on Sept 29, 2009 1:32:27 GMT
Some have said that the VA 304S (longsword) barely qualifies as a longsword, and it more suited for the title of 'hand and a half', or bastard sword. I definitely would not call it a great sword of any type, but that's just me.
I am far from an expert, but it seems to me that a greatsword would have to be longer and more powerful than the light and fast AT/VA304S.
-Slayer
|
|
|
Post by Brendan Olszowy on Sept 29, 2009 1:43:00 GMT
Great Sword, or War sword is a term often given to the type XIIIa in particular (typology reference). The Hanwei GSOW is a classic XIIIa, and as such it's quite applicable to call it that. But yeah it'd be a bastard to wield single handed methinks I believe the term Broadsword is widely misunderstood as well. Popular usage is to usually apply the term to any of the type X through to XIII. Cos they have the broadest type of blades. However I understand the term broadsword was bandied around the renaissance period, and used to contrast the contemporaries of the rapier. Rapiers were so popular in civilian use that a sword which was not of the rapier type was referred to as a 'broadsword' in contrast, while such broadswords may have had narrower blades than your type X-XIIIs. Often the term is often historically applied to the scottish basket hilted swords, which don't necessarily have the broadest of blades.
|
|
|
Post by Eaglehawk on Sept 29, 2009 2:26:41 GMT
Also, if you look at one of the reviews of the VA 304s, the reviewer calls it a longsword that is almost a bastard sword.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2009 2:37:50 GMT
The XIII is a bastard sword of the type. XIIIa is a two hander and the XIIIb is the one hander. Yes there is a XIIIb...and yes it is pretty much non existent in the production market.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2009 4:35:44 GMT
Well using names outside of typologies can be a real bastard when dealing with swords that had the single handed use of arming men with a decent if not great sword of war .... fare. So many swords like many believe were made to personal tastes derived from the applications these men were likely encounter so its hard to pin down their descriptions into a short or long sword typeologies with universal meaning, but typologies can be better overall in determining somethings origin and use ............ saves one messer'ing the whole thing up anyway ......... ..................... rapier ! .........
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2009 7:27:04 GMT
The VA 304S is definitely not a longsword.
A bastard sword is called a bastard sword because it is not legitimately a longsword or a single hander. Also we have difficulty with these terms because these terms have categories in themselves.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2009 7:51:23 GMT
Actually all bastard swords are longswords...but not all longswords are bastard swords. And depending on when your talking about, even arming swords can be longswords. That is why there can be so much confusion when talking about western swords.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2009 8:51:41 GMT
then thers the viking longsword
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2009 8:53:27 GMT
Not to mention certain rapier types
|
|
SlayerofDarkness
Member
Review Points: 65
"Always give everyone the benefit of the doubt."
Posts: 3,067
|
Post by SlayerofDarkness on Sept 29, 2009 13:26:48 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2009 13:37:26 GMT
Arming sword classified as a longsword? Never heard that one before, arming swords by definition are short bladed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2009 15:50:30 GMT
He might not have meant arming sword in the sense that we know it. I thought the unspoken classification for longswords were that the blade was at least 34" in length and overall length would not be less than 45". Or is that just MY take on it? Probably the latter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2009 17:17:40 GMT
Celtic La Tene swords were called longswords at the time because they were much longer than contemporary Roman or Greek swords. That kind of situation expands into the Dark Ages...
|
|
|
Post by kidcasanova on Sept 29, 2009 21:08:46 GMT
Like Cold said, it depends on WHEN you're talking about. We call all single-handers "arming swords" NOW, but when the type XI started gaining widespread use, it would have been referred to as a longsword since it's blade is commonly 35" or more. Long didn't have a specific quantifier, it was just longer than what they used. Now that the age of the sword is over, we can classify them much better, though there is still confusion since what is a two-hander to me might be a bastard sword to another, or even a three-hander to Slayer or Musical.
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Sept 29, 2009 21:22:25 GMT
Terms like "long" and "broad" are definitely subjective and depend greatly on what people understood a sword to be. as I under stand it, in history most swords were classified as "sword" the medieval and Ancient minds did not seem to have quite as strong a desire to classify and define things so rigidly as does the modern mind. perspective is key here I think. we talked earlier how "broad" swords would be anything not a rapier in general size and shape. during that time period a medieval arming sword would likely have been called a broad sword.
the same seems to be true for the term "long sword" up to a point.
I could have an AT303 arming sword on a table next to some sort of short sword and a medieval (or indeed a modern) person could very likely step up, point to the 303, and ask if they may handle the "long sword". they'd be perfectly right to call it that even though it isn't a long sword. today, I could realistically correct them and explain that the 303 is an "arming sword" and a "long sword" would be something else but I'm pretty sure medieval people, even sword smiths didn't make a big fuss about the terminology.
maybe I'm wrong but I don't think we need to be overly concerned with the classification of "longsword" vs. "arming sword" vs. "bastard sword" unless we are talking about swords from a particular time period where they were called that specifically.
it would be pretty funny to go back in a time machine and try to talk to some medieval person about swords using Oakeshott's Typology
|
|