|
|
Post by Tinker Pearce on Oct 21, 2010 23:40:47 GMT
This week we discuss Things I Won't do, Hysterical Accuracy, The Goode Robyn Hoode, Blizzard wrecks a planet and much more!
|
|
|
|
Post by Vincent Dolan on Oct 21, 2010 23:44:39 GMT
Hysterical Accuracy... Hmm... I think we have some of that around here.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisperoni on Oct 22, 2010 1:03:24 GMT
sittin' down to a listen now...
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisperoni on Oct 22, 2010 1:38:55 GMT
Tinker,
How do you create your fullers? being that you said you have no mill?
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisperoni on Oct 22, 2010 1:53:46 GMT
Eques, I think you are very knowledgeable about what is historically proven but I don't think you're 'hysterical'  -at least never in anything i've read or you've written to me  |
|
|
|
Post by Cold Napalm on Oct 22, 2010 2:54:14 GMT
Well I'm one of those historical nut. And while I do agree that many swords are perfectly historically plausible, you can't call those historically accurate for a marketing scheme. Sonny's new line of VA basic line redesign isn't historically accurate as there is very little support for such design having existed at all, so he is calling those historically inspired. And that is perfectly fine and I applaud that. Historically accurate for those of us who really care is a pretty complex thing and is based on surviving examples and what is typical for an era. Is it plausible for a sword to have a cockhat pommel in the 14th centuray? Yes. Is it typical of surviving samples? No. I had a nice discussion about this with Nathan of MyArmoury and the chimera line. Those sword are all perfectly plausible...however they fail the accuracy test as there is one or more aspects of them that makes then a-typical for the time. I do realize that this board is less likely to care about such nuances of what region in what time uses what crossguards or pommels, but you have to realize that to claim historically accurate is to have a line to existing samples...otherwise it's not accurate, it's just plausible...and plausible includes a whole huge mess of stuff...hell anything from a pommel not being normally used in england at the time but in france to a fantasy sword all meets the plausible range. This of course at the highest level of scholarly pursuit of such aspect of this hobby. While I may get that nit picky in other forums, I do try and tone that down for here. However, not to pick on DSA...but this example comes to mind the most, take the DSA 100 year war sword. It has a blade geometry and hilt furniture that is by far out of date for even the early part of the 100 year war era. Is it plausible for such a sword to have been used? Yes. Is it typical? No. Is it accurate to call that sword a 100 year war era sword? No. Now lets take one of the fantasy swords that Brenno made. Is it plausible for such a sword to have been made and used in the middle ages? Yes. Is it typical of the samples we have? No. Is it accurate to call that sword historically accurate? No. I don't agree that just because a sword is historically plausible to have been made but has no samples to back up that claim, it is okay to claim it as historically accurate. Plausible yes. Inspires sure thing. Accurate...no.
I guess "historically accurate" is my "battle ready" . I really dislike the term getting used as a marketing ploy to sell swords.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tinker Pearce on Oct 22, 2010 6:38:54 GMT
Woah- touched a nerve there! The problem is that very often the folks claiming historical inaccuracy are often merely aping what a manufacturer told them about what was 'historically accurate' with more of an idea of becoming the ONE recognized authority and selling swords than in disseminating real information. Creating fan-boys isn't the same thing as spreading actual, reliable information. BEFORE we get our feathers ruffled I don't think that is the case with the gentlemen posting here.
Again- what I said was that historical accuracy was a spectrum, not a lightswitch. Some swords are more or less historically accurate- and sometimes which is which depends very much on what qualities matter to the individual making the judgement. NO company on the planet- let me repeat that, not one single company on earth- the entire earth- makes a medieval European sword that would satisfy a genuinely scholarly examination for 'historical correctness.' Seriously- no matter what their marketing says or what some internet pundit says. There are merely some that are more accurate and some that are less accurate. Some are more accurate in one respect, some in another. Some aren't historically accurate at all.
I respect genuine, honest study and good-faith attempts to recreate historical swords to the best of our ability. I do not respect intellectual dishonesty. Again- I am not, NOT accusing anyone posting here of this failing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cold Napalm on Oct 23, 2010 3:41:36 GMT
Well I suppose there should be a distinction that historically accurate when talking about modern sword refers to historically accurate design and not per say historically accurate methods. I mean you are correct, there is no production sword that will meet historically accurate methods after all. But there are production swords that do meet historically accurate design aspect. Ones that almost do it. Ones that kinda do it. And ones that really don't. So yeah it's a spectrum. And it also depends on what you bill the sword as. A 15th cent. longsword has more latitude then a 15th cent. English longsword for example. What gets me is that historically accurate is getting tossed around like battle ready...since most adverts mean historically plausible and not accurate when they use that term. Of course a sword SHOULD be historically plausible AND battle ready or it really is gonna fail as a sword. Even fantasy swords, as long as they are well made is historically plausible. I consider all of Brenno's works to be perfectly historically plausible for example. So to me, the term historically accurate as a advert term bugs the hell out of me unless they actually did the research to back that claim up. Kinda like battle ready makes you wanna turn over in your future grave  . |
|
|
|
Post by Tinker Pearce on Oct 23, 2010 4:39:39 GMT
Exactly my thoughts, Mr. Napalm! There will be more on this topic- count on it!
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisperoni on Oct 23, 2010 5:35:51 GMT
I think there are several ways to describe what we are talking about- I guess I'd distinguish between historically proven, accurate, and plausible. 'Course this stuff is just outta my own head- and what do I know?  proven- I see as meaning we have surviving example that a certain particular feature or methodology is being copied. While pieces of a modern sword can be proven historically, it'd be next to impossible for a modern sword to be entirely 'proven' accurate- overall the sword in question, it's parts in whole, how it's constructed etc., is more proven than plausible. As in a well made reproduction- lots of wiggle room on this definition I guess plausible- sword consists of at least parts that could have existed in history, but there is no evidence those parts existed in the configuration found in the modern sword. -does that make sense? |
|
.
