Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2009 5:35:56 GMT
Mainly I'm looking for something I can swing around and slice and hack down bottles, melons, random arms, whatever I can find Some thrusting would be great too. But anyway, I don't know what is good. I really like the looks and strength of the Darksword Knight Sword, but I hear it's too heavy. I want something that is gonna be decently rugged. I figure, I can customize the scabbard and grip if I think it looks like poo ya know..
|
|
|
Post by kidcasanova on Oct 31, 2009 6:01:07 GMT
This thread will more than likely answer any question you could ever have, since Jonathan asked quite a few. /index.cgi?board=euromedieval&action=display&thread=10777
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2009 15:18:33 GMT
What he said. It took me forever to read all that stuff... 32 PAGES!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2009 15:51:13 GMT
This made me laugh. I am proud that my ignorance could possibly assist others in their own quests for swords. If you read that entire thread you will learn a lot. If you want an arming sword, you might consider the Hanwei Tinker line Early Medieval Single Handed Sword, the Norman, or the Viking. I own a Norman, and it seems very durable while not overly heavy. Just make sure that you read my thread, lol.
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Oct 31, 2009 16:01:11 GMT
good arming sword is easy. you have several choices depending on what look/style you want.
1. Valiant Armory Practical Arming sword AT303 = this is the generic knightly sword. not a lot of frills but buy it from Valiant Armory and you get leather work in whatever color you want and customization options too. great sword, handles great cuts great all right out of the box and the leather work will be much better than anything else in our price range.
2. Hanwei Tinker Early Medieval Single Handed Sword (EMSHS) = great knightly sword has better blade shape and geometry than the 303, but the hilt and grip are not nearly as good won't come as sharp as 303, leather work is decent but not like AT303. so why would you get this one over a 303? it's really going to be a personal choice but for me I lke the blade shape and the crossguard shape better. it may or may not handle quicker than the 303. but the EMSHS has great blade shape and is super tough. I think the EMSHS has the best geometry and handling in our price range (but I bet the new AT303s are close to it)
3. Hanwei Tinker Norman sword = if you are into early period like first crusade or Norman invasion of England. people report that it can come pretty dull, the pommel can be painful if you don't swing it right (I've got a video that discusses how to do it right). it's a very nice sword and a better representation of the Type Xa than anything in our price range. as with all hanwei tinker swords the grip can be very thin and the scabbard so-so
4. Hanwei Tinker Viking sword. = good representation of type X sword. if you are into vikings this is what you want. as with all the Hanwei Tinker line it's scabbard and hilt leather work are decent but not as good as Valiant's and again the pommel might get in the way if you swing it wrong.
those 4 are the top performing arming sword in our price range. I know I had some negative comments about some of them but you need to realize that it's all relative and these are all good swords.
beyond our price range going up you have Valiant Armory Bristol (it is shorter than most arming swords but a real beauty) anything by Angus Trim (if you want to spend about $500)
if I were to be looking to buy an arming sword in our price range right now and I didn't already have one I would buy the Valiant Armory AT303 or if I had a little bit more money I would talk to Sonny at the Valiant Armory Custom Sword Shop and get him to touch up a Hanwei Tinker EMSHS with better leather, a slightly thicker grip and touch up to the finish on the blade (to mae it shinier) and hilt parts (to make them less shiny). I think that would cost about $400 (the whole sword + extra work) but it would be worth the extra $150-ish
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2009 7:30:48 GMT
I almost got the Darksword Knight once upon a time, but went with the Windlass Type XIV instead and I'm glad I did. That's certainly something to add to your list if you can find it, but it's been discontinued so that isn't very likely.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2009 6:05:03 GMT
It would be worth checking around to see if anyone has any of the Windlass type XIV left in stock. Great sword! Arms of Valor still has it listed on their site last I checked.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2009 13:55:41 GMT
The Windlass type XIV is very popular. I have a DSA Knight's sword that I really like. While it is heavier than some of the others, it is not that heavy. I keep one edge sharp for cutting and the other edge less sharp for the tire pell. DSA had a 50% off sale going, see if this one is included. If you have to pay full price I'd look at the AT303 or the EMSHS.
hope this helps, K
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2009 14:07:54 GMT
I'd go with the VA-AT303S but that's because I have one and it is a solid singlehand sword. Mine is a little forward-balanced but it doesn't bother me...does make it a little slow on the recovery, but I understand that this is no longer a problem for those that brought it to light initially.
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Nov 2, 2009 14:27:00 GMT
Ebon, just HOW forward balanced are wee talking? it should be about 5 to 6 inches from the cross for POB since it IS a cut oriented sword. is yours maybe an oddball or is it maybe a first generation? my first gen 303 had a POB of like 6.25" maybe even 6.5" from the guard and it was a fine sword, but yeah, heavy-ish. I have been modfiying and improving that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2009 15:05:19 GMT
Mine is one of the first-gens that got sent back to Gus to be custom tuned/reground into the correct blade shape; thin handle, smallish pommel...my POB's about 6.25-6.5" out. Like I said, it doesn't bother ME per se, but someone with less wrist and arm strength may notice a bit of wear after a few swings.
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Nov 2, 2009 15:30:20 GMT
yeah I have the same one and mine balances about the same. the new ones are a LOT lighter and better balanced but ours are still good.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2009 15:31:40 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2009 16:09:03 GMT
Tom, I have no complaints- although being that it is supposed to be a Type XII, it handles like a Type X- which is fine by me as I love the Type X and Xa blades.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2009 21:15:02 GMT
We should also keep in mind that according to Mr. Oakeshott, type XII swords were not necessarily different in handling than type X swords, they simply had a different blade geometry.
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Nov 2, 2009 23:37:19 GMT
I don't know about that last Jonathan, certainly XII's were still primariliy cut oriented but to say it handles the same as a type X sounds way wrong. if you read this: "Sometime during the high Middle Ages a subtle evolutionary change began to occur in sword design. It was realized that the older designs dedicated to the cut could be improved. The blade began to exhibit a noticeable taper in its profile as well as a shortening of its fuller. These changes resulted in significant improvements in several areas. While this new design was still dedicated to the cut, the blade's increased taper also gave it a much more serviceable point. The shortening of the fuller also aided in maintaining the right distribution of mass needed for decisive cutting as well as effective point control during the thrust. The end result was a sword as capable in the cut as its predecessors, yet was also far superior in the thrust. "
it seems to me that the type XII is being recognized as handling pretty differently.
I tend to think of the first generation of AT303 as more like a type XI with a short fuller.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2009 23:45:10 GMT
I interpret that as a very slight change in handling, if any. It sounds like they just made the point stouter, because on myarmoury it says that the swords cut almost just as well as the previous type X swords. Although many of the type XII swords were certainly more thrust oriented than others, I don't think that they have to handle much differently than the type X swords. Oakeshott categorization is fairly broad. But yes, I think that you are right Tom. I was just saying that the different handling probably is not a requirement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2009 0:32:24 GMT
There could be both small and rather drastic differences between different type XII and X swords. For St. Maurice of Turin Oakeshott was undecided if it should be XII or X but put it in XII, maybe even more because of the probable dating of the sword than handling. But St. Maurice is quite a special and unusual sword.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2009 0:38:00 GMT
There are several norse swords from the "viking" age that have what Oakeshott labeled XII blades with viking fittings, so nothing is set in stone when it comes to categorization. Oakeshott frequently moved swords from one category to the next during his lifetime.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2009 0:58:28 GMT
There are several norse swords from the "viking" age that have what Oakeshott labeled XII blades with viking fittings, so nothing is set in stone when it comes to categorization. Oakeshott frequently moved swords from one category to the next during his lifetime. I think this brings up a point I've wanted to make for some time. Oakeshott's typology is just that: a typology. I think sometimes we rely on it so much that in doing so we reify it. This can be a dangerous path to tread. Sorry, didn't want to derail the thread
|
|