|
Post by Kilted Cossack on Jan 25, 2010 23:17:47 GMT
Another simple question. (No, I honestly don't think it's a plea for attention, but you never know.)
What SBG-esque, or SBG-appropriate, sword would you choose as best representing a good quality (albeit plain) sword suitable for carry by a European man-at-arms departing for the first Crusade?
For our purposes, SBG-esque or SBG-appropriate should mean a) sub-$300 (or thereabouts); b) battle (or bottle) ready; c) close enough in appearance that none of the other men-at-arms would laugh at you; and d) close enough in feel that you wouldn't feel overly dorkish.
If you want to, you can "bust the price ceiling" somewhat, but you'll need to justify doing so. (For example, the Valiant Signature line seems to run $50-100 over the SBG limit, but you get a nice scabbard and belt/baldric with it.)
Thanks in advance, guys.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2010 23:20:21 GMT
I've never handled any of these swords, but I would say either the VA practical single hander, the upcoming VA crusader, or the Hanwei Tinker norman would all probably be pretty good. Personally, I'd really love to get myself a crusader.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2010 23:31:40 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2010 1:53:57 GMT
The windlass Classic Midieval is right there for the first, and not a bad price, I just got mine, but will let every one know my opinion on it when I do my revuie of it...Sanmarc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2010 1:57:56 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2010 3:07:48 GMT
Without a doubt, the H/T Norman...
It was pretty much standard at the time, and others mentioned are too far outside of design, historical accuracy, and/or time frame to have not stood out.
In 1095, the H/T Norman would have appeared right at home...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2010 3:20:53 GMT
Ahhh, I was thinking 1100's as to the classic, but dont forget the First crusades were from Sweden to Finland Russia!!!
|
|
|
Post by Kilted Cossack on Jan 26, 2010 3:39:07 GMT
Thanks, gentlemen. When I sat down and scratched my head over this question, the easy and obvious answer seemed to be either the VA 303S or the H/T Norman (or possibly the EMSHS). All the reviews I've read on the H/T Norman and EMSHS have implied: superb blade profiling, moderate sharpness, superb blade temper, plain to blah furniture and fittings. I had a suspicion that the VA303S might be a little late---1100s to me sounds like a pure Type X and, although I'm no "Oakshottist" I figured the 303 had too much profile taper to represent that type. (Plus, well, I've already got the 303, so it couldn't count, right?)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2010 8:10:24 GMT
One of the problems with the VA practical lines would be explaining the hex nut on the bottom of the pommel. But, if you were into time traveling and brought one of tho's back to show off, I'd imagine that we'd be seeing "Historically accurate hex nut pommels" =D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2010 16:23:01 GMT
Without a doubt, the H/T Norman... It was pretty much standard at the time, and others mentioned are too far outside of design, historical accuracy, and/or time frame to have not stood out. In 1095, the H/T Norman would have appeared right at home... I'm not sure if you refer to DTs or VAs when you say that others are to far from time frame but with Del Tins one shouldn't believe their dating much. For all swords I posted I could find at least one sword from the Records of the Medieval Sword that look like them and would be dated to the end of 11th or early 12th century. Even the St. Maurice of Turin is dated by Oakeshott to 13th century because of the blade that tapers more like XII and the fuller is a bit too short for a X. Del Tin version has Xa blade and would be more likely from about 1100.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2010 2:13:38 GMT
VA Practical is typical for a bit later period since it has a XII blade. Same with the upcoming Crusader. Both would be great for third crusade and later though. Ah, I thought that type XII swords were older than that, I guess my knowledge of sword history is a little rusty. (My puns aren't all that great either.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2010 2:32:19 GMT
Without a doubt, the H/T Norman... It was pretty much standard at the time, and others mentioned are too far outside of design, historical accuracy, and/or time frame to have not stood out. In 1095, the H/T Norman would have appeared right at home... I'm not sure if you refer to DTs or VAs when you say that others are to far from time frame but with Del Tins one shouldn't believe their dating much. For all swords I posted I could find at least one sword from the Records of the Medieval Sword that look like them and would be dated to the end of 11th or early 12th century. Even the St. Maurice of Turin is dated by Oakeshott to 13th century because of the blade that tapers more like XII and the fuller is a bit too short for a X. Del Tin version has Xa blade and would be more likely from about 1100. I was referring to the VA products for the most part, but also the Windlass Classic Type X which bears a somewhat out of place cross for late 1090s. The Del Tins I did not consider because they are not in the SBG price range by a long shot, putting them outside the scope of the OPs post.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2010 3:09:31 GMT
I conncure on the cross guard, but it is close over all....SanMarc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2010 12:11:03 GMT
VA Practical is typical for a bit later period since it has a XII blade. Same with the upcoming Crusader. Both would be great for third crusade and later though. Ah, I thought that type XII swords were older than that, I guess my knowledge of sword history is a little rusty. (My puns aren't all that great either.) There are some earlier examples, but they are rare.
|
|