Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2010 23:38:21 GMT
I'm about to buy a Great Sword and after doing some reading, I came up with these 2. The Atrim is $65 more expensive. Does this difference makes it the better sword? What are your opinions in buying which sword. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by Kilted Cossack on Jan 30, 2010 0:03:59 GMT
I don't know!
Actually, I think the two are quite different Oakshott types. The H/T GSOW is a Type XIIIa (I think) and the VA 304S . . . isn't! My impression is that the H/T GSOW is more of a pure, dedicated cutter than the VA 304S, and my mind says the 304S is more of a Talhoffer style fighting blade---civilian dueling and unarmored combat.
I may have just really shown my butt on this one, though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2010 0:21:13 GMT
I'll go out on the same limb and say that those are two very different sword types. Depends what you want. There is a fair amount of material around here on both. The Atrim compares more accurately to the HT long sword. Hope this helps. PS The GSOW is bigger and heavier, dedicated to powerful cuts. The long swords are more suitable for German and Italian styles of sword play, thrusting, cutting, binds,...roughly speaking. I am not that educated on typology,...
|
|
|
Post by ShooterMike on Jan 30, 2010 1:02:09 GMT
Those two are very different swords, apart from anything to do with Oakeshott types. The GSOW is... well... a Great Sword of War, or Great Sword.
The AT304S is really more of a hand-&-a-half sword. It can be used with a shield as a single hander (though just barely) and it's very fast when used in two hands.
So, if you are really wanting a true "great sword" or "great war sword", what the medieval Germans called a Grete Swerde then the GSOW is a nice choice.
|
|
|
Post by Kilted Cossack on Jan 30, 2010 1:41:50 GMT
Dang, Mike, there you go again, making sense!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2010 10:44:53 GMT
Thanks guys! The GSOW it will be.
|
|
|
Post by ShooterMike on Jan 30, 2010 15:48:28 GMT
Please be sure to post back on your impressions once you get a GSOW? I always like hearing what folks think about their first sword in a particular type. I have never handled a Hanwei Tinker GSOW. I think I need to do something about that...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2010 16:04:01 GMT
I think people misinterpret VA Practical Longsword. It's NOT weapon designed with either German or Italian longsword fencing in mind. It is XIIa, warsword like XIIIa but lighter, still made for war, not civilian using, but more useful for dealing with textile defenses and badly armored warriors which were numerous on the battlefield. And if made well it would be useful against mail to to transfer blunt force through it. All that if you consider it as a light warsword of 13th or first half of the 14th century when such swords would be made. Now, in modern times, of course you could use it for German or Italian longsword fencing. But it's not ideal for that because it is based on swords which were not intended for that. XIIa and XIIIa warswords were made in many different sizes and weights but they were all made for battlefield, but for different opponents to be met on the battlefield and users with different preferences.
|
|
|
Post by ShooterMike on Jan 30, 2010 16:31:09 GMT
Luka, I completely agree on your assertions with respect to more lightly built Type XIIa and XIII/XIIIa swords. We agree that the typing has nothing to do with how heavily or lightly the sword should be built. The typology mostly just addresses the blade profile and fuller configuration, and the general size of the grip. There are swords in both types that are big and heavy as well as those that are light and nimble. I would call all of them "war swords" meant for the battlefield. But I haven't considered the smaller and lighter ones as "Great Swords of War." I've always thought that term would have been more appropriate to the big two handers as represented by swords such as the H/T GSOW, Albion's Duke and Baron, ATrim's 1319 and a Makers Mark Flared Shoulder Type XIIIa, etc. Swords such as the Albion Count/Steward, VA 304S, etc. just seem too dainty and refined in handling to be called "Great Swords" of anything. I'm starting to think my impressions may be way off in this respect. Since the OP was asking for a "Great Sword" I pushed the answer that way. But is it likely that I am just confusing the "Great" part so as to give myself an incorrect picture of what these swords are/were? Help a brother out! I need to get this all sorted out in my head. I can't come to a settled conclusion...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2010 17:13:42 GMT
Mike, I'm gonna place an order at Marc from Wiwingti. I will post my impressions when I have it. Luka: hvala I'm into 13th century reenactment (i'm not going to use the sword for sword to sword fighting, so no worries here ), but it is important to have a sword which is suitable for this period. And since I'm a big 'knight' (1.95m and 110kg), I like a 'big' sword ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2010 17:37:35 GMT
Luka, I completely agree on your assertions with respect to more lightly built Type XIIa and XIII/XIIIa swords. We agree that the typing has nothing to do with how heavily or lightly the sword should be built. The typology mostly just addresses the blade profile and fuller configuration, and the general size of the grip. There are swords in both types that are big and heavy as well as those that are light and nimble. I would call all of them "war swords" meant for the battlefield. But I haven't considered the smaller and lighter ones as "Great Swords of War." I've always thought that term would have been more appropriate to the big two handers as represented by swords such as the H/T GSOW, Albion's Duke and Baron, ATrim's 1319 and a Makers Mark Flared Shoulder Type XIIIa, etc. Swords such as the Albion Count/Steward, VA 304S, etc. just seem too dainty and refined in handling to be called "Great Swords" of anything. I'm starting to think my impressions may be way off in this respect. Since the OP was asking for a "Great Sword" I pushed the answer that way. But is it likely that I am just confusing the "Great" part so as to give myself an incorrect picture of what these swords are/were? Help a brother out! I need to get this all sorted out in my head. I can't come to a settled conclusion... Basically all XIIa and XIIIa are "greatswords" because the only thing to compare them with in 13th and early 14th century were singlehanders. There was no "real" two handed swords like Landsknecht two handers in that time so anything bigger than singlehander was a "greatsword". I think I read somewhere that even big singlehanders like St. Maurice of Turin were maybe called greatswords. XIIa and XIIIa evolved of such long bladed singlehanders when smiths realized longer grips balance long blades nicely and as a bonus you can use them with both hands when dismounted. Their blades may have been big versions of Xa, XI, XII, or newer profiles like XIII. XIIa are really just big XII blades but under XIII and XIIIa fall many shapes, classic XIII shape and those that may be classified as Xa or XI if they weren't bigger than normal and with hand and a half grips. So greatswords were in their early beginnings just long bladed singlehanders that gave enough of impression to differentiate them from normal singlehanders, and later more or less similar swords but with hand and a half grips. I might be wrong but this is my conclusion from reading Oakeshott and some myarmoury threads dealing with evolution of XIIa and XIIIa warswords.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2010 17:39:15 GMT
Mike, I'm gonna place an order at Marc from Wiwingti. I will post my impressions when I have it. Luka: hvala I'm into 13th century reenactment (i'm not going to use the sword for sword to sword fighting, so no worries here ), but it is important to have a sword which is suitable for this period. And since I'm a big 'knight' (1.95m and 110kg), I like a 'big' sword ;D Nema na èemu.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2010 16:35:52 GMT
Here are the two swords side by side if this helps you make up you mind what you want. Attachments:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2010 16:56:43 GMT
Another view. Attachments:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2010 17:56:51 GMT
Thanks aceltone!! I will go for the Tinker
|
|
|
Post by Kilted Cossack on Feb 1, 2010 18:35:13 GMT
aceltone:
I really like the grip rewrap you did---that looks oodles better.
Luka:
Thanks for the clarification! I knew the VA and H/T GSOW were very different, but as I know next to nothing about longswords, I wasn't sure I could explain the difference (and I was right!).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2010 18:43:05 GMT
Thanks Kiltedcossack. But just so everybody knows the the Atrim 304s grip was Brian's fine work, the GSOW rewrap I did.
|
|