Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2008 23:10:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by guthbrandr on Mar 7, 2008 23:28:36 GMT
Looks like you could do some damage on the battlefield with that badboy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2008 0:58:41 GMT
definitely if it comes sharp consider it bought
they look vicious and i wanted to get a spear but...a halberd would be sick
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Mar 8, 2008 1:01:46 GMT
Sorry, what about Sid? ( ![;)](//storage.forums.net/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) ) It's made by windlass so it's obviously not wallhanger crap. It' personally be conserned at how well the head is attatched, but at worst case you can go make/buy a better shaft.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2008 1:49:12 GMT
For being deadly, yeah. For being decently accurate, yeah. The name is completely off though. That has earlier 14th century all over it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2008 2:52:30 GMT
It's a long handled lochaber or the ancestor of the lochaber axe. I don't know anything about this particular lochaber but they were very fast and very deadly with the ability to cut and thrust.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2008 3:20:31 GMT
i know some of us are very concerned about historically accurate (ramm)
but im not really i was just wondering if you think its decent quality and the price tag isn't so bad either and i also found out its not sharpened
but lucky i can do that
so good deal or no?
|
|
|
Post by jjshade on Mar 11, 2008 16:43:55 GMT
It's hard to be historically accurate when no one knows what Viking halberds looked like... As far as I know, there are only vague references to them in Viking sagas and no actual pieces have ever been found.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2008 17:03:56 GMT
It's not a viking halberd. As Oswyn said, it looks like it belongs right in the beginning of the 14th century. Since it has a rear socket instead of a central socket, I'd be inclined to place it earlier in the 14th century, since they seemed to be the norm for earlier polearms.
Other then the name, it doesn't look half bad.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Mar 11, 2008 19:12:36 GMT
For being deadly, yeah. For being decently accurate, yeah. The name is completely off though. That has earlier 14th century all over it. Where do you draw that conclusion? Not that I disagree at all, I'm just not at all experienced with medieval polearms other than some basic minimums.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2008 7:39:36 GMT
I think the inspiration for that piece came from the description of their being a viking polearm called a "maille piercer". Could be mistaken, but that overgrown windlass lochaber axe needs another reinforcing ring joined to that shaft before I'd swing it at anything more than once.
|
|