Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2009 2:04:35 GMT
No, by “weapon of war” I mean a weapon designed to be used in combat – so this includes self-defense and dueling weapons
I agree, it will result in a deadly weapon, but any actual use of it as a weapon is incidental to its creation, which means that it is a sword in form only and not in purpose.
Keep in mind that I don’t discount fantasy swords as being able to serve as practical weapons, but I’m considering a sword on its primary use, purpose and inspiration to the owner in its classification as fantasy or non-fantasy sword. You won’t hear me say that fantasy blades are not weapons.
But katana is only the shape and form I give to it based on the description I have in mind. It is only my image of what a heron marked blade from the WoT series looks like. I’ve seen plenty of pictures that disagree with what my image of what one looks like is. The katana is not a fantasy sword, but a heron-marked blade inspired from Robert Jordan’s Wheel of Time is. It’s a matter of perception here, and what that heron mark is supposed to mean. If I buy a heron-marked sword, which is the sword of a blade master, does that make me a blade master? If so, of what style? That’s the fantasy of it.
I don’t know the Oakeshott typologies very well, and I used Anduril as an example because the models of it I’ve seen do look like they could plausibly come from history. Again, if I buy a sword called Anduril then I am ascribing a fantasy to it, however functional or historically plausible it is. That makes it fantasy to me.
This is picking at words here, but saying something is “historical” and something is “historically based” are two different things to me. You might mean the same thing when you say that, but to me it is different. For example, the KC Pompeii gladius is historically based, but from what I’ve heard there are too many inaccuracies to say it is historical. Because it is historically based, though, and because it is function and can serve the purpose of a sword as it is designed to be used, I do not consider it a fantasy sword.
My definition is pretty strict, and there is a big gray area in it that requires each sword to be looked at on its own, and perception of intangible things like the source for inspiration and reasons why it was purchased come into play.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2009 13:07:36 GMT
So in other words what a person considers fantasy is subjective to that person's opinion and is yet another thing that we are better off agreeing to disagree on. Many people would consider Bren's work to be fantasy and I would agree, but fantasy is not synonymous with impractical. I could quite happily cut my way through a tree with my Wraith if I wanted to, it is a fantasy weapon that is practical and has aspects of real world weapons. I don't think there is a concrete definition of fantasy that we can come up with that we will all agree on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2009 22:53:57 GMT
So in other words what a person considers fantasy is subjective to that person's opinion and is yet another thing that we are better off agreeing to disagree on. Many people would consider Bren's work to be fantasy and I would agree, but fantasy is not synonymous with impractical. I could quite happily cut my way through a tree with my Wraith if I wanted to, it is a fantasy weapon that is practical and has aspects of real world weapons. I don't think there is a concrete definition of fantasy that we can come up with that we will all agree on. I agree completely that we won't come to definitive resolution on what is a fantasy sword and what isn't, that's what makes the question so interesting, I think.  Agree with you completely that some fantasy swords can be practical and functional. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2009 0:21:42 GMT
My only idea of a "fantasy" sword is one of those oversized swords you see in anime and the Final Fantasy series.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2009 5:45:19 GMT
What about fable blades? They are all fantasy but they are neither oversized nor anime and I will vouch for them being beautiful and functional, waiting on my second one as we speak  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2009 23:56:57 GMT
I do not consider his swords specifically "fantasy"swords. He prefers to call them that, yet in my eyes they are unique custom swords. Even history lovers have fantasies. Their fantasy swords are simply "historically accurate" swords. Since Mr. Brendan's swords are real, and fantastic swords, I do not call them fantasy swords. The buster sword is my idea of a fantasy sword - a piece of junk. Really, a fantasy sword can be described as a sword from someone's fantasy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Oct 15, 2009 18:00:36 GMT
"Really, a fantasy sword can be described as a sword from someone's fantasy."
I think this just about sums it up. a fantasy sword is a sword designed out of some one's imagination. fantasy does not mean crap or bad or unuseable, even though some fantasy swords are certainly unuseable. Brendon's sword I would certainly call fantasy but they are certainly not crap.
I think we need to let go of the idea that fantasy = bad
lady vivamus, heron mark, andruil, sword of truth, sting, etc. are all fantasy swords regardless of whether they exist in live steel.
a sword based off a historical design, following the for and function of a known historical type faithfully is an historically inspired sword and can describe many of our favorite production swords both easter and western in origin.
A replica strives to make as exact a copy as possible of a single known sword. these are less common and tend to be pretty expensive.
a fantasy sword CAN fit into an Oakeshott type if that is how the sword was imagined by the creator of the fantasy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2009 19:05:47 GMT
Good points, Jonathan and Tom. Can't disagree with either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2009 5:53:44 GMT
I think Tom is right on the money here. His breakdown of different types of sword is exactly the way I look at things. I especially like the bit about "Fantasy does not mean crap or bad or unusable, even though some fantasy swords are certainly unusable....I think we need to let go of the idea that fantasy = bad."
Heck, if I had my way and the resources, I think most of my collection would be "fantasy" blades--high end custom swords that are beautiful and fully functional, based off of the creator's imagination or my own, but rooted in and reflecting historical plausibility. I'd certainly have my mitts on some Jake Powning, Odinblades, Fableblades and Christian Fletcher stuff. Top-of-the line works of art, no doubt, but certainly fantasy. Imagination made into reality.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2009 6:10:46 GMT
Fable blades are definitely worth it, so much so that my second one is on the way to me now, yes! Next on the list is one of the Odin blades.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Oct 17, 2009 14:39:32 GMT
I have had the honor of working on three of Brendon's blades and I can tell you they are marvelous.
|
|
|
|
Post by mythosequidae on Oct 17, 2009 16:31:50 GMT
So, is it safe to say that the sword makers of the past had no imagination? No person had a mind like Brendan until the past few years? Is it also safe to say that E. Oakeshott saw, handled, and was intimately aware of every single blade made since the beginning of time? He must have been Max the Mouse. If somebody finds a couple of Brendan's blades 1000 yrs. down the road, will they say "these are not historical, nobody made swords like this in the past". As far as the fuller on Anduril, are you saying that the past smiths could not possibly have ended the fuller wherever they chose to end it. Were there fuller patrols around back then? "Lock this guy up! His fuller is 2" longer than it should be".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2009 17:09:32 GMT
So, is it safe to say that the sword makers of the past had no imagination? I wouldn't say that. I think they were just as imaginative as anyone today. The thing is, I think they were more focused on practical solutions. For example, as armour developed and became more effective at protecting against existing swords the swordsmiths would have come up with a solution to defeat that innovation. Think of an analogy with guns, which serve as the primary weapon of modern armies. There are constant tweaks and modifications to guns to make them better weapons - more resilient and more powerful - able to shoot with less recoil and more force, lighter weight, more resilient. The same kind of innovations went into sword design while it was the primary weapon of the armies. I personally think that it takes not just a brilliant mind to make the innovations, but an imaginative one as well. No idea, I don't know Brendan's product enough to comment. Still new to all this.  Hehe, that would be cool if it were true. Though I haven't read anything by him, his work seems to be one of the cornerstones of our modern understanding of the European sword. There are probably numerous historical examples which don't fall into his typologies. Do we say they aren't historical? Hardly. Yes, they will definitely be archeological artifacts However, I think a more intriquing question might be if they asked if they were used as weapons and how they were used. I agree. I don't think they had the kind of standardization we have today, and we probably won't be as precise as future generations. If every historical sword came out as exact copies that would be something! As I understand things, the metal composition of the same style sword made by the same smith would vary. I don't think their measuring system was as accurate, either - as in a foot was not 12" but approximately 12", and a mile was not 5,280 feet but approximately the same distance with each measure. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2009 17:25:23 GMT
No, by “weapon of war” I mean a weapon designed to be used in combat – so this includes self-defense and dueling weapons That's what I thought, then. Not to get all cynical here, but I think the purpose of the sword has less to do with the intents of the creator and more to do with the intents of the wielder. Of course we all hope no sword made today should ever be used to kill or wound people. But as I see it, a sword is a tool made for cutting, and it doesn't actually care if its used on water bottles or human beings. Or, lets put it the other way around: I own an antique infantry saber that was actually made for military use. However, I don't intend to ever use it as a weapon if I can ever help it. To me, its purpose is to be a training tool. It seems strange to me that this sword of mine should be more of a weapon then any similar blade made today, just because it happens to be about a hundred and fifty years older and once belonged to an infantry officer. And it's not like I have to use it as a weapon just because it was made to serve that role. Fair enough. I don't quite follow you here. What do you mean by ascribing fantasy to the sword? That's interesting. Is there then a point where the sword becomes too inaccurate and falls into your definition of fantasy? So in other words what a person considers fantasy is subjective to that person's opinion and is yet another thing that we are better off agreeing to disagree on. Many people would consider Bren's work to be fantasy and I would agree, but fantasy is not synonymous with impractical. I could quite happily cut my way through a tree with my Wraith if I wanted to, it is a fantasy weapon that is practical and has aspects of real world weapons. I don't think there is a concrete definition of fantasy that we can come up with that we will all agree on. I don't think disagreement is a bad thing in itself, as long as we try to understand one another. What about fable blades? They are all fantasy but they are neither oversized nor anime and I will vouch for them being beautiful and functional, waiting on my second one as we speak I consider some of Brendan's blades to be fantasy swords and some to be what I think of as contemporary designs, and some are even a little bit of both. "Really, a fantasy sword can be described as a sword from someone's fantasy." I think this just about sums it up. a fantasy sword is a sword designed out of some one's imagination. fantasy does not mean crap or bad or unuseable, even though some fantasy swords are certainly unuseable. Brendon's sword I would certainly call fantasy but they are certainly not crap. I think we need to let go of the idea that fantasy = bad lady vivamus, heron mark, andruil, sword of truth, sting, etc. are all fantasy swords regardless of whether they exist in live steel. a sword based off a historical design, following the for and function of a known historical type faithfully is an historically inspired sword and can describe many of our favorite production swords both easter and western in origin. A replica strives to make as exact a copy as possible of a single known sword. these are less common and tend to be pretty expensive. a fantasy sword CAN fit into an Oakeshott type if that is how the sword was imagined by the creator of the fantasy. But is there a difference between a sword born in fantasy and a sword conceived as a original design? So, is it safe to say that the sword makers of the past had no imagination? No person had a mind like Brendan until the past few years? I think it is, at least, safe to say that they had a much more narrow sources of inspiration. Back then, popculture wasn't exactly a visual medium so the only thing they really had to go by was swords made by other people. They also had limitations set by and price: their swords couldn't be too complicated for practical reasons, whereas Brendan can make these funny looking spikes or hooks on his blades without necessarily having to think: "I wonder if this can get caught in stuff or get in the way when performing Lichtenauer?" And swords back then were crazy expensive so the first priority was to make a really good killing tool. Finally, swordsmithing was always a craft more then an artform - if you spent a couple of years learning how to make a really good longsword entirely by hand with medieval tools you probably wouldn't start trying out experimental designs any time soon. (At least not until you woke up one day and found that some bastard went and invented plate armor.) Problem is that we are talking about history here, as in the scientific study of humanity's past. Of course we can't possibly say whether or not a hypothetical sword existed until we find one. What Oakeshott did was to look at as many swords as he could find and categorize them. Because of that what we can do is say: we know these swords existed, we can see how they are related, and we can tell when they were made and for what purpose. What we can't do is say: this sword is historical because it might have existed. I mean, a blade like the one on Anduril might have existed on a historical sword, say a very rare XVI variation or something. I just haven't seen one, so I can't claim it did exist. And unless there is surviving evidence that it did, no one can make that claim. |
|
|
|
Post by mythosequidae on Oct 17, 2009 18:16:00 GMT
Very good. Humans also place great trust in past images. Etchings, woodcuts and paintings. Those images may have been fantastic interpretations by the artist. Take Durer. The blades and armour are extremely decorative. Far past basic functionality. Fantasy perhaps. Yet we give them full credit. They likely deserve it in Durer's case.
I think it would make a very comedic scene to see a blade being drawn at a dire moment, only to have the fancy curls hang up on garment. Cursing and swearing as the opponent cuts you down.
Most of the Samson creations are fantastic. There is not a lot of need to shape a blade that way. I certainly would not want to be struck by one though. I think that there were likely Samsons in the past though. I think historical is synonymous with existing artifact recreation today. Any other form is still a real killing sword.
For me fantasy is relative to fantasy novels and movies. Some like Rae (forgive me, I know they are not swords) even create story lines and images to relate to the blade, rather than blade to story. If there is no storyline, than I consider the blade to be an artistic interpretation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2009 3:06:07 GMT
To me a fantasy sword would be one created primarily as an artistic object with no actual basis in history. This does not mean that some historical swords were not artistic. There certainly were "ceremonial" swords made that were never meant to be used in combat. This also does not mean that a fantasy sword cannot be a functional sword. It's just not it's primary purpose.
|
|
