|
Post by StevenJ on Nov 9, 2012 7:48:54 GMT
Bruce with all due respect was that riveted mail or butted mail you cut through? Butted mail can be cut but I've never personally heard of anyone successfully cutting through riveted mail. If you got proof of cutting through riveted mail I'd love to see it. The sword is not a crow bar, i didn't say that and you are right it is a bit over 3 pounds as i stated I just think the point of balance should be 6 1/2 inches not 7 3/4 or so.
|
|
|
Post by Lukas MG (chenessfan) on Nov 9, 2012 8:14:57 GMT
Hi Bruce, appreciate your reply. However, I'm not wrong. I couldn't find your video but I don't need to see it to comment on this. It is in fact a widely accepted fact in the historical sword community that high quality riveted mail cannot be cut with swords. Countless tests have been made (here's one: www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=11131). So far, all the "mail cutting videos" I've come across featured cheap butted mail. I've never, ever, seen someone cut riveted mail with success. I'm sorry but all evidence suggests that the the tests you conducted were flawed in some way, probably due to using butted mail.
|
|
Luka
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,848
|
Post by Luka on Nov 9, 2012 10:44:45 GMT
It is possible Bruce cut riveted mail, but in conditions that aid the cut: hard, firm background instead of something with "give" to simulate a standing person in a fight...
|
|
|
Post by Bruce Brookhart on Nov 12, 2012 21:32:02 GMT
I FEEL IT IS NOT WORTH CONTINUING THIS. I GO BY HISTORY, NOT AN OPINION. CHEERS, BRUCE
|
|
|
Post by William Swiger on Nov 13, 2012 5:08:52 GMT
I do not think a reply of "It is not worth continuing this" is a proper course of action when trying to market new swords to a forum loaded with potential buyers. No disrespect intented to Mr. Brookhart or LA.
|
|
|
Post by aussie-rabbit on Nov 13, 2012 8:18:33 GMT
Hi Bruce, Could you turn off caps lock please, it is the equivalent to shouting and is hard to read, thanks
|
|
|
Post by Bruce Brookhart on Nov 13, 2012 21:53:39 GMT
HI, William you are right and I apologize to all.Also I did not intend to be yelling about any thing, I just was using caps. All I can say is to think about this, if riveted mail was as impervious to sword blows as you all seem to think, why was full plate Armour ever developed. I have done the research and was working with two respected historians. The information is out there, and I do know what I know. Also please keep in mind I am talking about the edge and balance of a fairly early sword.When it was in use riveted mail was not common, butted was,so really this is mote point.Also please note that riveted mail can be cut, which it can, but not easily was what I said. So back to what Steve was talking about the balance point, the sample I received was at 6.5 below the cross.However these are totally hand made swords, so they can very, as they are not turnout by machining and I can not speak for anything other than the sample I received. As a designer I am trying to turn out things that are proper to there time period. Best wishes to all, Bruce
|
|
|
Post by Gaufried on Nov 14, 2012 3:48:35 GMT
The design that Mr. Brookhart devised is similar to an Oakeshott Type XIIIa longsword. Based upon that blade morphology, it is fair to say that the Teutonic Sword replicates, among other things, an accurate point-of-balance for the type. Such swords were meant for very forceful hewing strikes, and did face maille armour (e.g. hauberks), plus even plate armour (e.g. great helms). Whatever arguments we may have, such do not detract from what Gen 2 and Mr. B are trying to evolve and achieve. That said, my regards to Mr. B for continuing to work in this field, with the result of producing reasonably priced and tough replica weaponry for martialists and medievalists. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by William Swiger on Nov 14, 2012 4:36:39 GMT
Bruce,
Thanks for posting again in this review thread. Appreciate your participation.
|
|
Luka
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,848
|
Post by Luka on Nov 14, 2012 13:07:11 GMT
Mr. Bruce, I have never seen any evidence of butted mail used in medieval Europe. And all experts whose work I read and who I consulted also didn't.
|
|
|
Post by Lukas MG (chenessfan) on Nov 14, 2012 15:20:15 GMT
Appreciate that you're commenting again. Seriously though man, you should take a good look at some articles on myarmour or other respected source. Butted mail... yeah. Sorry if this sounds rude but I can't help but think you consulted some Deadliest Warrior "experts", not respected historians :? I'm sure you're aware that the world is FULL of myths regarding mail, swords, etc. Many people believe what they see in Hollywood. Those who are more knowledgeable should try to get the right information out there to fight those unrealistic impressions. Now one of the worst things possible is a respected sword maker coming out and saying stuff that seems to solidify these myths (i.e. cutting mail with swords, BUTTED mail historically accurate for God's sake!!). So please, do your research!! Let me state again: There has been NO, absolutely NO solid and respected testing that showed mail being cut by swords on a regular basis in any combat situation. And regarding butted mail: here the matter is about as clear as it gets: There has NEVER been ANY evidence for butted mail being used in combat. Do yourself a favor and read this: www.myarmoury.com/feature_mail.htmlI'm gonna go ahead and quote something from that article that relate to this discussion: "Regarding mail's vulnerability to other weapons, it is generally acknowledged that sword cuts are largely ineffective against mail. Modern experiments indicate that it is extremely difficult to shear through mail with any sort of sword—especially if combined with padding" Oh and I'm not talking about opinions here btw. This is about facts and historical accuracy. And both say you're way off here.
|
|
|
Post by Bruce Brookhart on Nov 14, 2012 19:44:27 GMT
Hi, it seems that Mr.Chenessfan can not let go of the fact this is not about mail. He goes so far as to say butted mail was never in use and says I am not true full about who I have worked with.So good sir, by all means believe what you wish. I think the main problem is really a disconnect about timelines. The tests that are been spoken of are on mail that is being made now from modern materials that are far superior to any thing being produced in the 11th and 12th Centuries which this sword was compatible to. The mail was just not of the same quality. So none of this is truly relevant to what was done then and what may be true now. I will restrict any further comments to just this line of swords as much as possible so as not to go against what some think is the truth and the only truth regarding "now and then" and things that are on the club sites being the definitive truth. Cheers, Bruce
|
|
|
Post by dishan.25 on Nov 15, 2012 2:47:18 GMT
I'd like to get in on this butted maille debate.
Before I chose to make any comments I did a search for your cutting video, Mr. Brookhart, and did see that you did infact cut through maille.
One problem is that it is butted. I have personally been able to cut through butted maille with ease, and it can be done with practically any medieval era sword ( sharpened or not, heavy or light) It is also easy to cut when the maille is resting on wood with no padding underneath, much like in your video.
I have personally made my own pieces of maille armor (butted, which is far easier to maintain and construct). During the time I was heavily into making my own maille armor I did research on what maille was used during what periods and how they were assembled. Any site, book or documentary I read/watched has stated that butted maille is not historically accurate and that it is of modern construction (during the World War's I believe).
The fact that you think a sword can cut through maille and a heavy padded gambeson is amusing. You wouldn't be able to cut through maille (butted or riveted) and a heavy padded gambeson with a blow from a sword; unless, of course, you have it laying on a solid piece of wood with no give (even a 170lb. bow has a hard time punching through a gambeson, please watch "Going Medieval" with Mike Loades for a video on maille & gambeson vs longbow).
Now, if we're talking about hacking through maille and a gambeson repeatedly with a sword, then yes it is possible. If we're talking about the accuracy of butted, you're wrong.
You will be able to damage maille (split some rings), but you won't be able to cut through maille (historically accurate, RIVETED), a gambeson and break a bone in a single blow; but you will be able to break a bone, at least you got that part right.
Please, try going into a maille forum about how butted is historically accurate and was in use before riveted and the fact that it can be cut through with a sword while resting on solid wood with no padding or give that a human body would have; oh that's right, it isn't accurate.
Now, if you could show (upload an attachment, include a link) any proof you have that butted maille was in use before riveted maille was, that would be great. Or even say who your "experts" are would be nice.
Original Topic: The sword is a nice one. It'll probably be on my list for future purchases, well done.
|
|
|
Post by Lukas MG (chenessfan) on Nov 15, 2012 13:38:10 GMT
I don't know, to me it seems more like Mr. Bruce can't accept that he is so obviously wrong. Please, you brought up the mail thing, saying those swords and edges were meant to cut through mail and padding, you mentioned butted mail being historically accurate. I merely responded to those incorrect statements. And yes, I do say butted mail never was in use in combat! Go on, try and find serious evidence against that statement.
Regarding the tests being inaccurate because of better material... one thing: Mostly the swords were of worse steel and heat treatment than today as well, so that balances out. Not that smiths back then weren't capable of matching today's swords and armor, they were, they in fact surpassed them, just not on a regular basis. Most swords and armor was indeed of lower quality.
If you want to go on about the sword, fine. What should we talk about first? Lack of distal taper? Wrong (more like nonexistent) harmonic balance? As a result, the poor handling mentioned by the reviewer? Inaccurate leather wrap (risers over leather was mentioned already) Wrong blade geometry? Just look at that diamond cross section after the fuller... For someone "TRYING TO PUT OUT A LINE OF VERY HISTORICAL SWORDS", that's worth noting... Look, I'm not saying this sword doesn't have its place and deserves to me reviewed here. What bugs me is that you're selling something as "historically accurate" that is so far from actual history that it really isn't funny anymore. Call it a fully functional historically inspired beater and nobody could complain. I'm sure many people enjoy owning this sword as what it is and that's cool.
---------------------
Seriously though, I think this leads nowhere. We obviously disagree on pretty much everything regarding swords, their design and their use so I guess nothing good will come out of a continued discussion. This is a friendly forum and I sense this won't be very friendly if continued. So let's just call it a day, shall we?
|
|
|
Post by Bruce Brookhart on Nov 15, 2012 20:25:57 GMT
Yes, I agree,you have already been far from friendly already.I can only ask that you take a look at some mass grave evidence and try to broaden your out look on what definitively was or was not true about the past. Looking thru the fogged mirror of the present you can not recreate the past any more than you can reinvent it. And to the point of the sword that is quite the judgement for the first run of a sword being made overseas that I have no quality control of. Also it is a good sword for the price. Do you own one? Please post one more time so you can have the last word and point out what a fool I am so you will finally be happy. Bruce
|
|
Marc Kaden Ridgeway
Member
Retired Global Moderator
Awful lot of leaving and joining going on here for me .... And gosh I can't recall doing a bit of i
Posts: 8,778
|
Post by Marc Kaden Ridgeway on Nov 15, 2012 20:56:23 GMT
OK that's it. I've finally had enough of this from BOTH of you gentlemen.
I am going to have the last word.
Lukas.
You stand on the shoulders of giants. The knowledge you have today was so easily obtained by you because of the work done by predecessors. Much of the knowledge was refined in the last couple of decades by many scholars, including Peter Johnsson , Ewart Oakeshott, Tinker, Gus Trim, and many others that have worked to narrow the focus and distill history to the understanding we have today. All of those men also built upon the work of others (or in Ewarts case, his own.) Bruce is one of the men that helped glean some of the original information and bring it to the public.
He is due respect.
Bruce.
You are one of the founding fathers of the modern production sword world as we know it. Like you , I live in Georgia. I also had the pleasure of meeting Hank , though I never knew him like you or work close to him like you , I envy you that. Much was brought to light by guys like you , and Hank and Fulvio. We all owe you a debt of gratitude for that .
Please understand , that much of what we know about history and weapons has changed in the last decade (or two). Information gets refined , new information comes to light. Techniques improve . Knowledge broadens. New scholars dive in and advance the work of the old guard. Hell , Ewart himself revised alot of his own findings in his later works. Much of the stuff dug up by Hank, Fulvio , yourself and others has been subjected to 30 more years of study...
Both of you gentlemen are behaving horribly.
Lukas , you fail to show respect where respect is due. Bruce IS a giant . Much of the knowledge you gain so freely today is availiable because of early works by Bruce and his colleagues.
Bruce, you are acting like a man whose knowledge is beyond reproach and unquestionable. Like you have forgotten you are never too old to learn. If you are confident that you know what you know... let it go. You certainly put in the work to earn your respect. But if you care to learn more , check out some of the work that was derived from that long ago work by you gentlemen. Like all living disciplines , the study and understanding of antique arms and armor is always growing and evolving.
If either of you gentlemen post a word to each other in this thread , other than "sorry" I shall delete your posts and close the thread.
|
|
|
Post by StevenJ on Nov 16, 2012 0:19:47 GMT
Please don't close the thread Marc! I an going to post an update soon now that I got the sword back from J Sarge and he redid the scabbard for me. I'm just finishing up regrinding the blade and cross guard. I don't want want to have to open a new topic thanks :?
|
|
|
Post by Bruce Brookhart on Nov 16, 2012 20:01:09 GMT
Your point is well taken. Sorry to all. Yours, Bruce
|
|
Marc Kaden Ridgeway
Member
Retired Global Moderator
Awful lot of leaving and joining going on here for me .... And gosh I can't recall doing a bit of i
Posts: 8,778
|
Post by Marc Kaden Ridgeway on Nov 16, 2012 20:41:53 GMT
All under the bridge Mr. Brookhart. We are honored to have you amongst us !
|
|
|
Post by Lukas MG (chenessfan) on Nov 16, 2012 21:56:43 GMT
My apologies as well for missing the appropriate tone.
|
|