Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2007 2:03:52 GMT
Look again at the longsword in slow-mo - the right hand side of the deer indicates that the side we can't see is already cut open (i.e. to clean it) and it is at the ribe cage level with not much tissue to cut through. The messer strike is much closer the pelvis and it looks like there is much more tissue (probably bone too) to cut through. I don't think these are adequate comparison tests.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff K. ( Jak) on Dec 21, 2007 2:08:15 GMT
Ramm, yeah you're right it did go right through...just not enough extension
actually the messer hangs up in the last few inches but again...poor technique..not enough strength maybe?.., im sure it would go right through if swung like the first
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2007 3:22:15 GMT
Look again at the longsword in slow-mo - the right hand side of the deer indicates that the side we can't see is already cut open (i.e. to clean it) and it is at the ribe cage level with not much tissue to cut through. The messer strike is much closer the pelvis and it looks like there is much more tissue (probably bone too) to cut through. I don't think these are adequate comparison tests. We noted the same thing. All those organs - especially the gut - would definitely make the cut harder than it was.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2007 6:11:07 GMT
If you look around 1:25... doesn't it seem like the deer has a "pre-cut" in it? ![???](//storage.forums.net/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) I actually saw that the first time I looked at the vid but I was not planning to say anything. I just didn't think I could make a convincing enough case. But now since other people see it too, I will agree with them. That is what I suspect too. I also agree that the messer cut was at a thicker part of the carcase and that the the longsword strike was done is such a way that you would never fight in. You guys did an excellent job of analyzing this vid. I am glad Rammstine posted it and karma to him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2007 14:37:23 GMT
Umm, actually it was me.
s'okay.. ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2007 18:55:48 GMT
three more comments:
First, that gross mesner cut, even if it didn't go all the way through, would still be a killing blow on someone.
Second, the deer is skinned. The skin can make a difference.
Lastly, to get back on topic, people have been using single edged sword for well, over a thousand years. There has to be a reason for it. I'm not sure we can talk about "superfluous" cutting power. If your target is wearing leather, padded or chain armor, extra cutting power would make the difference between a bad bruise and a real cut.
Ancalagon
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2007 19:44:24 GMT
Umm, actually it was me. s'okay.. ;D Sorry dude, that was dumb of me. Your up one on karma.
|
|
|
Post by ShooterMike on Dec 21, 2007 20:47:16 GMT
I have a few single-edged swords that match other double-edged swords I have with respect to wieght, length and handling. The single edged versions are always much more rigid. So they thrust harder without flexing and they cut better because the edge geometry tapers back to the spine instead of the center of the sword.
The difference in cutting is not that great. However, they just handle "differently." I like both types and I think they each have their uses.
Regarding the false edge, all mine are sharpened for 8-10 inches on the false edge. So false edge cuts still work well as long as you strike with the last 10 inches of blade.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff K. ( Jak) on Jan 1, 2008 3:58:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Brendan Olszowy on Jan 1, 2008 13:58:38 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2008 21:17:23 GMT
I found this curved/single-edged vs straight double-edged interesting.
My question is why did most cultures start to use single edged curved blades? In Europe the saber became the norm, the Middle East of course, and Asia. Such design isn't adopted without reason and I don't think it was a fashion statement.
I'm with shootermike, I personally think they have different feels to them and I like both.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff K. ( Jak) on Jan 1, 2008 21:29:30 GMT
i actually like the shape of the furniture in the windlass better but the etching on the other is cool. the blade on the other looks somehow more primitive which adds to the look of it. some kind of hybrid beween the two would be sweet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2008 21:40:59 GMT
I found this curved/single-edged vs straight double-edged interesting. My question is why did most cultures start to use single edged curved blades? In Europe the saber became the norm, the Middle East of course, and Asia. Such design isn't adopted without reason and I don't think it was a fashion statement. I'm with shootermike, I personally think they have different feels to them and I like both. Haven't curved single edged swords always been more applicable to cavalry? That's my theory of how they came to be used anyways. Curved single edged swords are most useful for slashing and draw cuts, which are about the only cuts you can make on a moving horse. Heck, with a curved sword, you don't even need to swing, just hold it out in front of you and run into a guy. The curve does the cutting for you. Prior to the introduction of the chariot in Egypt, they used various bronze daggers and axes. After the chariot is introduced, they use the curved kopesh. Same with the Greeks, or at least Alexander's troops. Infantry used spears and short swords, cavalry used falcatas. Samurai were principally mounted warriors no? And the sabre and scimitar were definitely cavalry weapons. I just can't figure out why the European cavalry didn't use them The closest I can come to a reason is a combination of the use of the couched lance instead, as well as a preference for a cruciform shaped sword. That and the evolution of the sword in Europe didn't really have curved swords as a factor, except for messers.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff K. ( Jak) on Jan 1, 2008 21:53:11 GMT
yeah i agree with your theory on having cruciform blades. especially during the crusades...probably would have been considered a blasphemy to have a curved blade like the muslim sickle moon or something hey? (no predjudice intended here...just referring to the mentality of the period ![;)](//storage.forums.net/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) )
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2008 21:57:03 GMT
The muslims used straight double edged swords as well as curved ones. The classic curved shamshirs and turkish kindjals didn't come about until quite a bit later, IIRC.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 1, 2008 22:03:47 GMT
I was about to point that out DI, karma for you.
THe problem is, early european cavalry swords were amazingly effective. The type XI was incredibly powerful, even without the curve. It may have to do with the environment of the fight. A draw cut will do squat against maille and other european armour. Well maybe a light gambeson, but probably not a heavy one with 30-40 layers. So a more percussive force is therefore needed.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff K. ( Jak) on Jan 1, 2008 23:09:34 GMT
The muslims used straight double edged swords as well as curved ones. The classic curved shamshirs and turkish kindjals didn't come about until quite a bit later, IIRC. yeah i knew this...the comment was more made in jest ;D ;D
|
|