Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2010 22:12:29 GMT
A beautiful sword! I like that Henry V style, it looks awesome. I understand your choice in not cutting with it, but I would like to see what it can do. I imagine it to be an excellent cutter! If you don't mind me asking, how much did you pay for it?
Very good review!
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Apr 24, 2010 22:33:55 GMT
I remember seing this on the site and not having the money to get it. lucky for you I didn't have the money because if I had it would have been mine. anytime you seriously want to sell her shoot me a PM. I love this sword and I think it would be a perfect pair with my MHAT XII.
thanks for the review, it is good to know she found a good home where she will be cared for.
I respect you not wanting to scratch her up cutting or whatever your reasons but I'd sure cut with her if she were mine. this sword must just beg to cut.
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Apr 25, 2010 0:32:16 GMT
I didn't seriously expect you to take it. I talked to Gus today and it turns out you do indeed have a one of a kind sword there. Gus may some day make another if it is requested but as of right now there are no plans for it. the reason it was a one off is the weight. a lot of people get turned off by a single hander that hits so close to three pounds.
any way thanks for the look at your pretty
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2010 2:39:17 GMT
A very unique piece, that is. I've always thought of Type XIVs as short swords, that is, swords with blades less than 30 inches long, so that one is pretty unusual. I'm guessing that all of that extra weight comes from its size; there's a more standard-sized XIV on Christian Fletcher's site that's only 2 lbs 3 oz.
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Apr 25, 2010 3:38:53 GMT
Gus says a lot of the weight of this one sits in the shoulders of the blade. it is wide and thick. I have a type XII that was one of Gus' 1429 swords that Shooter Mike took down from a hand and a half to a single handed XII. My Mhat XII is heavy also at 2 pounds 13~ish ounces but moves like a muh lighter sword so I know what you mean there; Gus does amazing things with steel. he knows how to distribute the weight so even a heavier sword like this moves well. there were heavier swords from back in the day too but they just aren't so popular now.
|
|
Dom T.
Member
Success, depress, ambition. Progress, regress, recognition.
Posts: 766
|
Post by Dom T. on Apr 25, 2010 3:44:29 GMT
A very unique piece, that is. I've always thought of Type XIVs as short swords, that is, swords with blades less than 30 inches long, so that one is pretty unusual. I'm guessing that all of that extra weight comes from its size; there's a more standard-sized XIV on Christian Fletcher's site that's only 2 lbs 3 oz. Yeeaaap, but I wish they had a cheaper Legacy Line one. That one's a Maker's Mark and pretty expensive
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2010 7:13:18 GMT
Actually, viking swords weren't heavy beaters at all, they were light, with a forward PoB but still rather fast. Of course there were many different types of swords and every viking would pick one to suit him but we really need to forget the image of a bearded berserkr swinging a huge sword like mad with no evident technique. Vikings were very good fighters and didn't rely on brute strength. There are many complex attacks with sword and shield, it's not just hacking and swinging.
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Apr 25, 2010 8:32:49 GMT
while you are right about that CF I don't think that's what Wolf was getting at. some swords from the old days were quite heavy. in Records, the XIV.6 sword is noted as weighing in at 2.2 KG which is darn close to 5 pounds and it is a sinlge hander with a grip under 4" long. tell me that sword ain't heavy! it would seem some vikings liked to bash with great power. I'm quite sure they were highly skilled warriors too, but sometimes good old direct brute force at speed is the best way to handle an enemy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2010 12:07:15 GMT
Sure you're right, brute force was used by vikings. What I meant is that you can't say: viking= brute fighting style. There were medieval knights who used big, heavy swords (think Zweihänder) in this way of fighting and there were guys before the vikings that used heavy smashing weapons. Relying on brute force is a way of fighting used since the first human picked up a club. It has nothing to do with vikings but with big and strong guys using their strength in a fight. These guys might be vikings but they might also be medieval kings or roman auxiliary troops. Not the time period or nation results in this fighting style but the warrior himself, not matter if viking or not. I just can't stand a phrase like "vikings weren't big on finesse" or "they just hacked like berserkrs". No, no NO!! It's the single viking that might fight like that or the single roman or whatever but NEVER a nation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2010 14:41:09 GMT
Personally, I wouldn't be too quick to make overarching generalizations about how peoples such as the Vikings fought, seeing as we don't have textual or pictorial records of their combat styles as we do with later, medieval-era fighters. However, from what I've seen of their weapons I'd be inclined to agree with much of what chenessfan says; it seems like their swords were designed to perform powerful cuts and tip slices on the lightly armoured warriors of that period but still be quick and handy enough to maneuver around a large shield. I would guess that especially large and heavy swords such as the one Gray Wolf mentioned would either be used by especially large and strong warriors or as ceremonial, non-combat pieces. That original Type XIV from Oakeshott's book that had a 32 inch blade may also have been similar. These are just my pet theories, of course.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2010 19:39:38 GMT
Wambo; Thanks for your kind remarks. I can understand how you might see a passing resemblance to a Henry V, but a Henry V is a type XVIII with no fuller and a raised spine with hollow ground blade. Also the Henry V's blade is 5" shorter. As in my Generation 2 Henry V sword below: Thanks for the comparasion! I admit my knowledge of the blade types is very lacking. Your type XIV is so beautiful! The Heavy Type XIV sword was designed by Angus Trim as a practical cutter, so I have no doubts as to its cutting ability. and it's very sharp. as far as price, I will tell you that it is in the general range of an Albion Squire Line sword. Jim
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2010 22:16:08 GMT
Jim, very nice sword, I don't really like type XIV swords but such bigger specimens might grow on me... P.S. Regarding vikings, most of their swords are light but as you say, types C and D are often very heavy at about 4lb and they are not necessarily a smith's mistakes or ceremonial pieces, some warriors obviously thought that when they can't use agilty much in the shieldwall anyway they might as well use as great force as possible and fight with heavy swords... Even other types sometimes have very far out PoBs, some even about 20cm down the blade so they would feel very heavy even if real weight is not great...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2010 23:19:57 GMT
Matt; you have a valid point concerning historical records however let's not forget the Norse sagas.....they are reliable enough that historians use them as reference. They are not myths, rather a verbal record of deeds much like the American Indians. The heavy type C and D "Viking" swords were definitely not ceremonial but used in combat according to the experts on the subject such as Jan Petersen. The reason that the average American or English speaking person doesn't know as much about this type of sword is that almost no academic literature on the subject has been translated into English. One notable exception being "Swords of the Viking Age" by Ian Peirce. Another good reference source would be "The Archaeology of Weapons" By Ewart Oakeshott. As far as the XIV.1 in "Records of the Medieval Sword" it is larger and heavier than many of the type excavated thus far, which is not many, but others of the size do exist and, like my "Heavy type XIV" they are very well balanced and would be easy to wield in battle. Jim I'm aware of the sagas, but what I meant was that it's not possible to reconstruct entire martial arts from them as it is with the medieval fechtbücher and the like. The sagas do give us some hints about specific techniques and quirks relating to individual combat in the Viking age, but I think these bits and pieces are too sparse to recreate a full-fledged combat system. I'm also aware of the Petersen typology and the Type C and D swords can indeed be quite large and heavy compared to other types, but I wasn't suggesting that they were all merely ceremonial, and I apologize if I came across that way. Petersen says the Type H is the most common type of sword during the Viking Age, so Cs and Ds could indeed be intended for stronger warriors or used during a period when heavier swords were more popular for whatever reason. In any case I didn't mean to say that there was no such thing as a combat-intended single handed sword that weighs over 3 pounds or so, just that they don't seem to be as common as the lighter ones.
|
|
|
Post by YlliwCir on Apr 26, 2010 6:52:08 GMT
Very nice Atrim, Jim. Thanks for showing it to us.
|
|