Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2009 1:22:21 GMT
Just to clarify some points on the Templar swords historical accuracy Clyde and I pulled out the book "Record of the Medieval Sword" by Ewart Oakeshott (right in front of me as I type this). On page 104 Type XIIIA. 9 (this version also made by Arms and Armor) the pommel type is 1.1 and the crossguard style 1 dates from c. 1200 - 1250 or 1100 - 1150 more likely is nearly identical to the 12th century. The original is hanging in the Museum and Art Gallery in Glasgow. Showing that the 12th century by Legacy Arms/Gen 2 is not only historically feasible, but based on an actual sword as can be seen by the picture in Oakeshott's book. Therefore, one would conclude that this is a historically accurate sword and a style of sword that could have been used during the crusades. The original blade is 35 inches in length and the Gen 2 blade is 34.6 inches. You will also note the slightly long handle for a single hand sword, which would allow for a mail clad hand to grip securely with out interference of the guard/pommel. I have not read enough of Oakshott, but isn't the fuller supposed to be going only 1/2 way through it? I guess there are some exceptions, because it says "usually." Thanks for posting this though Jason, cause I would have thought it to be a type XIIa. +1 to you for that
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Dec 19, 2009 2:01:41 GMT
Just to clarify some points on the Templar swords historical accuracy Clyde and I pulled out the book "Record of the Medieval Sword" by Ewart Oakeshott (right in front of me as I type this). On page 104 Type XIIIA. 9 (this version also made by Arms and Armor) the pommel type is 1.1 and the crossguard style 1 dates from c. 1200 - 1250 or 1100 - 1150 more likely is nearly identical to the 12th century. The original is hanging in the Museum and Art Gallery in Glasgow. Showing that the 12th century by Legacy Arms/Gen 2 is not only historically feasible, but based on an actual sword as can be seen by the picture in Oakeshott's book. Therefore, one would conclude that this is a historically accurate sword and a style of sword that could have been used during the crusades. The original blade is 35 inches in length and the Gen 2 blade is 34.6 inches. You will also note the slightly long handle for a single hand sword, which would allow for a mail clad hand to grip securely with out interference of the guard/pommel. BOOYA! slam dunk for Jason! all of us "it isn't historicaly plausible" nay-sayers can eat our words, have some humble pie and sit down! thank you Jason! +1 for the research.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2009 3:38:07 GMT
George300, would you mind edit/updating your review to show the sword as a type XIIIa or linking it to Jason's post?
Despite all the arguments about a review holding a reviewer's opinion alone, I do feel the onus is upon all of us to make sure our reviews are factual and updated so that they may serve as a resource for others.
And good luck with the Pre-Law thing. You've got the mettle for it. My Opa used to say "Some folks is so ornery they can't be nothing but a trial lawyer or a mother-in-law." (My mother-in-law proves it true!) ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2009 19:31:06 GMT
Just to clarify some points on the Templar swords historical accuracy Clyde and I pulled out the book "Record of the Medieval Sword" by Ewart Oakeshott (right in front of me as I type this). On page 104 Type XIIIA. 9 (this version also made by Arms and Armor) the pommel type is 1.1 and the crossguard style 1 dates from c. 1200 - 1250 or 1100 - 1150 more likely is nearly identical to the 12th century. The original is hanging in the Museum and Art Gallery in Glasgow. Showing that the 12th century by Legacy Arms/Gen 2 is not only historically feasible, but based on an actual sword as can be seen by the picture in Oakeshott's book. Therefore, one would conclude that this is a historically accurate sword and a style of sword that could have been used during the crusades. The original blade is 35 inches in length and the Gen 2 blade is 34.6 inches. You will also note the slightly long handle for a single hand sword, which would allow for a mail clad hand to grip securely with out interference of the guard/pommel. Yeah, that's the one I posted picture of earlier. But it's XIIIa. 11 on page 105. XIIIa. 9 from the page 104 has type 2 cross guard and 36" long blade. Also octagonal pommel. Gen2 is based on that sword but some differences are obvious. Smaller pommel, diamond section from the fuller to the tip, ferulles on the grip, more massive cross guard, more pointy tip... So it is historically based but the mistakes make it historically inspired or if you want historically plausible sword rather than historically correct sword. A bit of educated discussion doesn't hurt as long as we are civil about it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2009 20:13:35 GMT
Educated discussion is good, and as such I have a question to present to everyone. What do you believe is the likeliest scenario of swords evolving to combat increasing Armour advancement? First is the scenario of the old design being completely discarded and a new one being designed where you have a drastic change from a type XIII to a type XIV. The second scenario would be to take existing designs and evolve them to a point where the design can no longer be improved for your intended purposes. So with this you come up with a new design but you take the elements that worked and design your new object around this.
I personally would have to go with option two, this just seems the most logical and is the way how most things advance. As such we could conclude that the diamond cross section of such a sword would be a precursor to the later sword types, a work in progress if you will.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2009 21:17:20 GMT
Types XIII and XIV were actually both popular during the same time. Germans had preference for great cutting swords of types XIIa, XIII and XIIIa and French preferred types XII and XIV. This is generalization and of course both used all types, but the difference was noted during that time. French called XIIa and XIIIa "great German swords". At the battle of Benevento German knights of Manfred of Sicily used XIIIa and XIIa swords and had coats of plates, and were very efficient against French knights with smaller pointier types, probably XIV and maybe XII, until French knights started to stab under the German's arm pits when they lifted their arms to swing their heavier swords. The French won the battle. So it seems both types of swords were useful against mail, but types XIV and XII were of no use against coats of plates and French had to find a place covered by mail only to use their swords effectively. Type XIV isn't exactly completely new design, it's old lenticular geometry but with more acute tip which is new. They still don't have reinforced points and mid rib on the tip is only rarely noticeable and very slight. Than you have type XVI and XVIa which is the same thing but with a reinforced tip. Type XV is the first completely new design (new for middle ages anyway). Types XV and XVII which were the most thrust efficient types were popular only during the early plate armor period (1350-1400 approximately). Why? Because when plate armor was perfected around the middle of the 15th century and there was too few places on knights body to thrust at, people realized sword is just not the best tool for the job and started using maces, war hammers and pole axes. Sword design changed again and now you have type XVIII as most popular because it's a great allround sword. It doesn't thrust as well as type XV or XVII but it still thrust well and it cuts well which types XV and XVII doesn't do really well. They can cut, but not that good... So why bother with swords against armor when impact weapons do the job excellently? So sword became an allround weapon. It cuts well against lightly armored opponents and if you really have to, it can thrust. And at the very end of 15th and in the 16th century you have again more specialized cutting swords because your need to thrust is going to be rarer and rarer need as armor was very perfected and very expensive but still can't save you against a bullet most of times and very few people have it. So you see a revival of type XIIIa blades. P.S. Maybe moderators should move my post and post before mine to a new "weapon vs armor" thread?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2009 0:25:39 GMT
George300, would you mind edit/updating your review to show the sword as a type XIIIa or linking it to Jason's post? Despite all the arguments about a review holding a reviewer's opinion alone, I do feel the onus is upon all of us to make sure our reviews are factual and updated so that they may serve as a resource for others. And good luck with the Pre-Law thing. You've got the mettle for it. My Opa used to say "Some folks is so ornery they can't be nothing but a trial lawyer or a mother-in-law." (My mother-in-law proves it true!) ;D updated to include Jason's post for historical accuracy. I do agree it's the responsibility of everyone to look at the review and change what should be changed (a.k.a what Jason did), BUT I don't agree that people should talk about the ratings of the sword, especially if they don't own the sword in question... and so ends my catechism (I'm sorry, that Henry IV reference had to be made...)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2009 0:46:26 GMT
BUT I don't agree that people should talk about the ratings of the sword, especially if they don't own the sword in question... and so ends my catechism I totally and completely disagree with this statement George. The entire point of this forum is to discuss. If you want to share your thoughts and feelings in a review then you are open to people agreeing and disagreeing with you. You have no right to say that no one is allowed to disagree with anything you post. Anyone has a right to post any rating they want and anyone has the right to question those ratings. The thing to keep in mind is to keep such exchanges polite and respectful. Everyone has an opinion and it counts. No need to get all worked up and angry over such things. You don't want people disagreeing with you, don't post at all.
|
|
|
Post by shadowhowler on Dec 20, 2009 1:15:07 GMT
Not to mention that fact that we don't USE the ratings anymore because it is too easy for things to become confusing with them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2009 12:56:08 GMT
BUT I don't agree that people should talk about the ratings of the sword, especially if they don't own the sword in question... and so ends my catechism I totally and completely disagree with this statement George. The entire point of this forum is to discuss. If you want to share your thoughts and feelings in a review then you are open to people agreeing and disagreeing with you. You have no right to say that no one is allowed to disagree with anything you post. Anyone has a right to post any rating they want and anyone has the right to question those ratings. The thing to keep in mind is to keep such exchanges polite and respectful. Everyone has an opinion and it counts. No need to get all worked up and angry over such things. You don't want people disagreeing with you, don't post at all. you are right, I meant to say, that one should not say "you should change this rating" or "you should change that rating," especially if they do not own the sword... as I have said before, I don't mind discussion, in fact, I welcome it, but with the limit of acknowledging people's opinions and respecting them, whether one agrees with them or not... And now I understand why, those are never to be used again...
|
|
|
Post by shadowhowler on Dec 20, 2009 17:49:57 GMT
And now I understand why, those are never to be used again... Yup... arguments such as this one are exactly why the Number Rattings system was dumped in favor of the Pro's and Con's system. The numbers tend to take something that is a high degree of subjective personal opinion and mold it into something with an objective numaric value... while the pro/con system allows you to express your opinion without trying to assign hard math to it. MUCH better way for an individual reviewer to express their impressions of a sword IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2009 18:15:04 GMT
And now I understand why, those are never to be used again... Yup... arguments such as this one are exactly why the Number Rattings system was dumped in favor of the Pro's and Con's system. The numbers tend to take something that is a high degree of subjective personal opinion and mold it into something with an objective numaric value... while the pro/con system allows you to express your opinion without trying to assign hard math to it. MUCH better way for an individual reviewer to express their impressions of a sword IMO. definitely agree...
|
|