Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2007 4:56:32 GMT
Warning = Another newb question inbound = I am still considering my first real sword purchase & I like the reviews on the various Gen2 swords, particularly the "Templar" & the "River Witham Viking". Never having actually handled either one, which of these two swords "handles" better when used one handed?? And which of these two would make a better 1st European sword (I have already talked myself into a Cheness Ayame as a 1st katana). ;D
From reading the reviews I would assume the Witham is the better one hand sword.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2007 6:11:05 GMT
The Witham handles better. The Templar is actually designed to be used from horseback, so the blade is longer for reach. It is not a fast sword, but has a lot of power. You can read the latest review of the Templar here: www.swordsofvalor.com/Gen2Crusader.html be sure to watch the video. The Witham was also reviewed and I think that was put on the main SBG website.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Dec 31, 2007 13:55:21 GMT
"Better" is subjective and doesn't convey a lot of the nuances involved in handling.
I own the witham, and it is a sweet sword, but if used like other, lighter european swords, you will find it an absolute chore to swing - an utter wristbreaker. But, IMHO, the witham requires a different type of usage that maximizes what it's got (power and flexibility) and doesn't use what it doesn't have (speed and the ability to turn on a dime).
I do NOT own the templar, but I'd say, just from looking, that the witham handles "better." (read: I would probably prefer the witham over the templar)
|
|
|
Post by ShooterMike on Dec 31, 2007 16:50:07 GMT
I have both, or at least the 12th Century Norman, which is the same as the Templar except for the cross in the pommel. I would definitely say the Witham is much easier handling when used with one hand, especially for sword-n-shield work and the like.
|
|
|
Post by Brendan Olszowy on Dec 31, 2007 17:24:54 GMT
Hey Mike, does that evaluation stand for your Cut Down version of the 12thC. Mike cut 6-8" off one and made it more of a one hander, less of a bastard, hey mike?
|
|
|
Post by YlliwCir on Dec 31, 2007 18:18:05 GMT
I've never handles the Witham but I have Gen2 10th century viking and it is easier to handle one handed than the 12th century. Still if I had to pick one I'd take the 12th century, it's just a badass.
|
|
|
Post by Brian of DBK on Dec 31, 2007 18:33:00 GMT
Hey Mike, does that evaluation stand for your Cut Down version of the 12thC. Mike cut 6-8" off one and made it more of a one hander, less of a bastard, hey mike? I have a chopped Crusader (around a 26" blade now), and it is now a great one-handed sword.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2007 19:11:13 GMT
I know many think the 12th Century, Crusader and Templar hadle and blade is long but the original (Circa 1100-1250 Northern Europe, Museum and Art Gallery, Glasgow) has the long blade and handle. Ewart also thought this sword was used by the Leppaho Vikings and a group of swords excavated from Viking graves dating from 980-1000 of this type. The crossguard is of an early form, which the Vikings referred to as Gaddhjalt.
So we did do this near near some originals with this blade length and also grip length.
|
|