|
Post by rammstein on Dec 10, 2007 0:28:35 GMT
If I've seemed rather blunt today, it's because something has been on my mind, and really making me consider things. I'm not entirely sure if any one else here has realized it, but it seems so obvious once it finally clicked in my head.
Imagine this situation:
It's 1330 ad. 3 scotsmen have been pinned down by english arrows and are using bodies and wooden shields to protect them from the onslaught. As there isn't much to do, these three scotsmen start talking about their weapons and armour.
Scotsman #1 - Hey, Jamie, I here you've got a new sword! Lets see it then! Scotsman #2 - Aw, it's nothing much, just one of those sub $300 windlasses. It's my first sword. I'm through with spears! Scotsman #3 - that's a pity mate, you should've saved up for an albion...those are good swords. I own three of them back in my hovel, but I brought my gus trim with me today.
At this moment an arrow comes between a gap in the defenses and kills scotsman #3.
Ok, amusing anecdote aside - consider just how mortal you are in combat. You can buy the best gear (albion) or the worst gear (windlass, although obviously it's not that bad) and you're still just as mortal. Having a high quality sword won't make you any more likely to survive an arrow to the neck than a depeeka.
My second point here is the mention of "brand names." Doesn't it seem a little absurd (even if it is necessary) that we're comparing things like "Dude, windlass is SOOO much better than gen2" when such marketting schemes didn't exist (or certainly weren't as prevelent) in the middle ages? We may be too caught up in the brand and not in the sword!
Nothing new that I'm trying to bring up, just some things to ponder.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2007 0:35:07 GMT
Good point. I'm one of those people vehemently opposed to big brand names and brand name elitism. Having recently completed a course in marketing at school though I understand why it exists and there's little we can do to stop it. This forum isn't so bad though since it focuses on swords that are affordable and worth every penny.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2007 0:35:56 GMT
I agree. A sword is a sword. While others cetainly have better qualities, as long as I have a sturdy, sharp piece of steel in my hand at the beggining of a battle, I wouldnt be too worried. It all depends on the application and need.
And honestly, a clansman in 1330 would likely be tickled pink by a windlass. Most swords back then would be unevenly tempered swords of unidentafiable quality. (Though, this would improve with the ability of the blacksmith)
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Dec 10, 2007 0:37:46 GMT
Depends. Munitions grade gear was of shockingly decent quality.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2007 0:41:06 GMT
Depends. Munitions grade gear was of shockingly decent quality. True, but I would say not to the quality of a modern sword. Its relative to what you would consider "decent quality" for that time period. If you expect historical swords to be lightsabers that had a mythical quality, it is easy to be dissapointed. However, medievel weapons were certainly better than, say, a wallhanger. And yes, a conservative just used relativity to pose a point ![;)](//storage.forums.net/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Dec 10, 2007 0:44:59 GMT
They certainly wouldn't have had the consitency, but the quality would have been VERY high, at least in this time period. However, I know very little of medieval scotland, but I believe that the wealth of scotland was quite a bit less than the main countries of europe.
I believe what you are considering to be inferior quality would have been some of the much earlier swords (circa 900?). By this period, swords would have been pretty good at worst and shockingly impressive at best. There are some swords that seem very poor, ewart oakeshott mentioned a few of them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2007 0:50:11 GMT
Well, it depends on what you call good quality.
But all in all, I agree with your premise. A scottish warrior in the medievel period has bigger things on his mind during a battle than the "percieved quality" of his sword. Back then, a sword was a sword. Some might have been toyotas and others ferraris, but all in all, your just getting from point A to point B.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Dec 10, 2007 0:52:02 GMT
That wasn't a point I had thought of. Still this situation brings up MANY points, so karma for that.
edit: You'll have to wait for that karma ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2007 0:55:41 GMT
lol well thats what I thought you were saying... Iys something I had thought of before and I thought thats the point you were trying to make.
Ahh well. Perhpas we will see this thread explode into debate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2007 1:04:26 GMT
It also depends on the station of the individual back then.
3 scottish clansmans, unless they were nobles, would probably have had swords of relatively equal quality. Plain, unadorned, weapons of war. They also wouldn't have given a crap if one was better then another, because in the lower levels of society, a sword was merely a weapon of war, while nobles would have also seen them as status symbols, ("My sword was handcrafted by (insert important sounding Italian name) in Italy.) They would have placed emphasis on makers and prestige of different blades and decorative techniques.
The common fighting man on the other hand, wouldn't care if his sword was made in Genoa or by the village blacksmith, as long as is was well balanced and tempered, and could kill something without being structurally compromised.
At least that's how I think. When you covered in blood and filth, deafened by screams of the dying, you want something that will kill that MF coming at you, finely wrought or not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2007 2:41:44 GMT
Most swords would have managed to lsat quite a bit. You really dont see the truly high centers of industry until abou the mid to late 1300's, before that most of what was produced was local to the country. There are references of different Hauberks de Joure (Hauberks of Jousting) from different areas having different quality of metal working (referring to mid 12th to 13th century armours). The covered in blood and filth reminds me of a joke I heard though...
How does a Norman store his saex? In the nearest Saxon. Replace when it starts to rot...
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Dec 10, 2007 2:56:57 GMT
So....
does that mean a frenchman stores his broadsword in the nearest broad?
;D
|
|
|
Post by ShooterMike on Dec 10, 2007 2:59:03 GMT
Just a point to ponder...
Since the concept of "brand names" is a relatively modern contrivance, the previous conversation wouldn't be likely, nor even it's concept. The point being, that historic warriors would see swords as individuals ... see the swords as individuals that is. Each sword would have it's own handling characteristics. One sword that would do certain basic maneuvers faster and more controllably than another sword, would be deemed superior. And if it was durable and maintained a keen edge it would be deemed most desirable
That conversation would be more like, "It's a sword made by the local blacksmith. It's kind slow on recovery and it's hard to reverse snap-cut with, but he made it for not much money...which is all I had. So if we ever come to blows with those English arses I'll just concentrate on some simple brute cutting and leave the fancy work to #3 here."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2007 3:24:18 GMT
Wasnt really basing the joke on the fact that saex sounds like saxon. Just the rivalry. Kind of like a "Crusader scabbard"...aka. infidel.
Though yours was kind of funny as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2007 4:35:24 GMT
Saxons had seaxs too. Specifically the broken back seax. That's where they got their name from.
As for Ramm's original topic, back then, I think many (I won't say most) swords back then would have been the equivalent of an Albion. Maybe not in perfect craftsmanship, but they all certainly would have been handmade, which is why Albions are so expensive today. Back then labour was cheap (and I mean really cheap.) and the material was expensive.
Now the handcrafted labour is expensive (and I mean really expensive!) and the material is cheap. Albion even has to use stock removal to keep their prices reasonable!
So, back then even you average sword would have probably been quite well crafted.
Just some thoughts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2007 4:54:06 GMT
There is a lot of "luck" in combat, and the best equipment in the world will not fully protect you from that.
Just look at sparing matches. It takes quite a big gap in skill for one opponent to consistently defeat the other each and every time. It's quite frequent that one will be clearly better than the other... but 1 out of 5, one out of 10, the lesser swordsman will land a telling blow first.
So in a "real fight" the winer might not be the best, just the luckiest.
Now go from "a fight" to "war" and add things like arrows and disease (or worse, artillery and land mines) and yeah, luck plays a pretty darn big role!
Ancalagon
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2007 23:33:03 GMT
If you were a duke perhaps, you might have an imported sword from a famous craftsman of Milan. People living in towns after the 1300's might also have had access through trade to some of the products of some well known reputable craftsmen. Prior to the 1300's a lord might have to choose from among two or three master-blacksmiths in his area. Lessor knights and sergeants would have less options. Collecting booty off the battle field was also a common way to resupply your armory and you never know what quality you would get.
If you are a person who is rich enough to have options, you most likely road into a battle on a horse. You always keep backup weapons on your horse.
I think we have a hard time understanding medieval attitudes towards swords because we regard swords as works of art rather then tools. I think men at arms had the same regard for their swords in the 13th century as we would have for a training blunt today. My blunts have nicks and scratches up and down the blade, some rust spots, the wood handles are all scratched up, blades are bent too. All I care is that I can practice and win competitions with them. When they break, I'll replace them.
I probably do not relate to the duke who wants the best quality at any price. I would best relate to the poor knight who wants decent quality at a good price. Enough to get me through the next few battles were I might collect some spoils and get a replacement sword.
|
|