Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2008 7:07:11 GMT
Admittedly, they do often pull their blows at least somewhat. but that wasn't exactly my point. My original point was that swords were never meant to be timeless, and only will ever last through so many battles. Never pull your blows. You only end up dead instead. Why do you think anyone would pull a blow in a fight? If you break your sword over someone's head, you take their sword. You might throw a light diversionary blow in one direction with intention of following up with a hard blow from another. A hard blow does not come from just muscling it. Efficiency of motion will deliver faster, harder blows. A sword needs a lot of speed to make up for its light mass in order to do damage through even light armor. I've done a lot of experimentation. It amazing how big the effect is between light blows and full-on blows. A small person can make up the difference in strength vs a big person by using a slightly bigger windup and generate the same speed and power. Of course a bigger windup is easier to see coming. I don't do much bottle cutting, but you can see there why sword must always fly at full speed. If the sword moves fast the bottle cuts. If the sword is slow the bottle bounces in one direction and the sword gets a bounce back in your hand.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2008 8:11:29 GMT
Admittedly, they do often pull their blows at least somewhat. but that wasn't exactly my point. My original point was that swords were never meant to be timeless, and only will ever last through so many battles. Never pull your blows. You only end up dead instead. Why do you think anyone would pull a blow in a fight? If you break your sword over someone's head, you take their sword. You might throw a light diversionary blow in one direction with intention of following up with a hard blow from another. A hard blow does not come from just muscling it. Efficiency of motion will deliver faster, harder blows. A sword needs a lot of speed to make up for its light mass in order to do damage through even light armor. I've done a lot of experimentation. It amazing how big the effect is between light blows and full-on blows. A small person can make up the difference in strength vs a big person by using a slightly bigger windup and generate the same speed and power. Of course a bigger windup is easier to see coming. I don't do much bottle cutting, but you can see there why sword must always fly at full speed. If the sword moves fast the bottle cuts. If the sword is slow the bottle bounces in one direction and the sword gets a bounce back in your hand. Once again, I'm not talking about real fighters here, I'm speaking with regards to modern live-steel re-enactors, who do often pull their blows....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2008 9:56:04 GMT
opps.... sorry.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 19, 2008 15:30:11 GMT
I see what you mean, but then again swords meant for this type o combat today are clumsily, heavy, and exceptionally thick.
So I can imagine them being better, but they certainly bear no resemblence to the historical versions and would never survive a medieval battle.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2008 20:35:22 GMT
I see what you mean, but then again swords meant for this type o combat today are clumsily, heavy, and exceptionally thick. Not necessarily. There are certainly plenty of those around, but not as a rule. Anyhoo, we've gone way off my original point, which was thus: A sword made back in the day didn't have to be made to last a century... Only through a soldier's career (Presuming said soldier did not opt to replace his weapon upon attaining higher rank,etc.) And the length of a soldiers career was a rather limited time span, really. Even a successful soldier would either die or advance in rank after only a few years. It would only make sense to presume that swords back in the day, much as their modern brethren, ran the gamut from being absolute crap to very fine quality blades. Similar to modern firearms as well. One interesting theory someone proposed once was that if a lot of the intact swords we have today were made for royalty and the like, they may have been pretty but of a lesser quality than a typical soldier's blade, as they would likely never see combat... Sort of a period wallhanger, so-to-speak. Not sure if this holds any water, it was pure speculation on my friend's part.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 19, 2008 20:45:30 GMT
Then why are there countless stories of swords being passed down through generations? It wasn't totally rare to find an 11th c. sword on a 14th c. battlefield.
That's an interesting theory and far more plausible than the "swords were untempered garbage" one. HGowever, just from a few examples off the top of my head (the swords of the black prince, henry V, and edward III) all are exceptionally functional swords.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2008 4:16:32 GMT
Did you not read my post? I can pull from about 5 period sources (all of which were translated from latin), regarding soldiers having swords passed down through generations. As I said earlier, the sword was the most common hand to hand weapon througout history. Close formation lances started to take effect from about the 10th century formation of the Conroi until swords became purely for show. Even then, the Normans had to de-mobilize most of their forces at Hastings to combat the Saxons. Every castle assault throughout the Crusades utilized swords. Soldiers on Crusade subjected their swords to much more than what we do today. There are representations of over 15 cities falling in one year on Crusade. That doesnt even begin to count the practice they did to stay in practice. Remeber, this was their life, not some hobby for the weekend. They would have spent every dime they could to insure their equiptment was the best available. Swords that would have broken frequently would have led to the person dying.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2008 23:02:55 GMT
As I said earlier, the sword was the most common hand to hand weapon througout history. Close formation lances started to take effect from about the 10th century formation of the Conroi until swords became purely for show. Not that I'm disagreeing with most of your points but don't you think that's a bit of a push? Right through from early armies? Persian, Median, through ancient Greek Hoplites to the Celts with their lanciae (and throwing spears) to Anglo saxon etc.? You feel the sword was used by the majority of armies as the main weapon? Wouldn't all swords have been used as much or more than today's ones just in training? Would you rely on a weapon without having tested or trained with it to get a feel for the balance, weight...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2008 0:18:23 GMT
Not that I'm disagreeing with most of your points but don't you think that's a bit of a push? Right through from early armies? Persian, Median, through ancient Greek Hoplites to the Celts with their lanciae (and throwing spears) to Anglo saxon etc.? You feel the sword was used by the majority of armies as the main weapon? That's the point I've been trying (Unsuccessfully) to make. The sword has always been a weapon of the elite. On the medieval battlefield you'd see a lot more spears, axes, etc. They are cheaper, easier to use (To the untrained) and quicker for blacksmiths to produce. Throughout history the cannon-fodder of the military has traditionally been the poor. Therefore: I would disagree with most of your points. Something like what you are describing would only be common after about 1400. Before that, the sword was the main weapon, And Swords were incredibly expensive would be contradictory statements. Which leads me to draw two possible conclusions to your statement... 1). Swords were incredibly expensive therefore only the rich fought in a war. or... 2). Swords were so commonplace of a weapon that in order to properly arm everyone, plenty of cheap and inferior models would have been needed. Neither conclusion makes much sense to me. The sword couldn't have ever been a primary battlefield weapon because it has historically been the weapon of the elite.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2008 0:34:17 GMT
I remember hearing from someone over at MyArmoury that by the end of the 13th century, swords were cheap enough that some commoners could afford them. There was a problem in major cities of roaming groups of young men with swords and bucklers, accosting people in an attempt to fight them. Kindof like the street gangs of the middle ages.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2008 0:45:41 GMT
Then that would lend credence to the idea of cheaper, lower grade swords being available.
It's like buying a cheap car... Probably not going to last you a long while, but if it can keep you going till you can buy, beg, borrow, or steal something better, then you make do.
If cheaper swords with poor heat treats and the like were readily available, it makes sense to think that they would have been carried, because they'd only have to last long enough to get you through a campaign. Sure, there were plenty of great weapons being produced, but they were pricey. Your average soldier likely didn't care if he could pass it along for generations, if it lasted long enough to get him through a campaign or two alive.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 21, 2008 1:49:21 GMT
Just becaues they are ceap doesn't mean they are of poor quality. That's a delusion many are laboring over here.
Time and again, munitions grade swords have been shown to be of uneven, yet very capable quality.
DI is spot on. The sword was only a weapon of the elite until sword manufacturing became more organized and more widely available. It's liek car. Sure cars were a vehicle of the elite - in the late 18th c. But today, even many poor people own them, despite the fact that they are pretty darned expensive. It's an investment, meant to serve you over a long period of time. Expensive doesn't mean prohbitively so. It's a stretch, but one most were able to afford if they desired it. Good sword made in solingen or toledo by outstanding period smiths would have probably been out of the range of a peasant, sure, but a local guild, or even one from a few miles away, would be able to make one of very fine durability and handling, with a bit of a sacrifice on aesthetics. We see that most of our surving swords that are lopsided or uneven in texture are not the ones that a king or noble would own. Those swords we attribute to the royalty (sword of the black prince, etc.) are nearly flawless in symmetry. So we know that the ability was certainly present to make perfectly symettrical and even swords, but those used on the battlefield would have looked pretty poor. This should mean (loosely speaking) that swords of perfect and flawless contruction were used by nobles and the like while those of lopsidedness and unevenness were used by ordinary fighting men. As I said, the ability to make clean crisp lines was readily availible, therefore we can easily presume that the swords we have today were most certainly not "all" owned by nobles and kings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2008 2:02:11 GMT
Just becaues they are ceap doesn't mean they are of poor quality. That's a delusion many are laboring over here. Time and again, munitions grade swords have been shown to be of uneven, yet very capable quality. Sure cars were a vehicle of the elite - in the late 18th c. Man, I want a vintage car from 1794! What kind of horsepower did those things have?
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 21, 2008 2:03:04 GMT
that should have said 19th c, but whatever I think the first steam powered car-like think was in the late 18th c. though....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2008 16:54:20 GMT
Just becaues they are ceap doesn't mean they are of poor quality. That's a delusion many are laboring over here. Time and again, munitions grade swords have been shown to be of uneven, yet very capable quality. DI is spot on. The sword was only a weapon of the elite until sword manufacturing became more organized and more widely available. It's liek car. Sure cars were a vehicle of the elite - in the late 18th c. But today, even many poor people own them, despite the fact that they are pretty darned expensive. It's an investment, meant to serve you over a long period of time. Expensive doesn't mean prohbitively so. It's a stretch, but one most were able to afford if they desired it. Good sword made in solingen or toledo by outstanding period smiths would have probably been out of the range of a peasant, sure, but a local guild, or even one from a few miles away, would be able to make one of very fine durability and handling, with a bit of a sacrifice on aesthetics. We see that most of our surving swords that are lopsided or uneven in texture are not the ones that a king or noble would own. Those swords we attribute to the royalty (sword of the black prince, etc.) are nearly flawless in symmetry. So we know that the ability was certainly present to make perfectly symettrical and even swords, but those used on the battlefield would have looked pretty poor. This should mean (loosely speaking) that swords of perfect and flawless contruction were used by nobles and the like while those of lopsidedness and unevenness were used by ordinary fighting men. As I said, the ability to make clean crisp lines was readily availible, therefore we can easily presume that the swords we have today were most certainly not "all" owned by nobles and kings. This is pretty much what I've been saying. You can buy a ford festiva for $500 or a Mercedes-Benz for $50,000. Sure, they'll both get you around, they've both got four wheels and an engine... But which one do you think will give it's owner more years of more reliable use?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2008 19:54:26 GMT
But the comparison breaks down, due to the Festiva only being good for about 5-10 years, whereas muntions grade swords lasted quite a bit more.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2008 20:08:07 GMT
But looks at the difference in maintenance and wear. A car, no matter how cheap, has thousands of moving parts that have to work within strict tolerances. A sword, if you take it down to the most basic level, is a piece of steel with some wood wrapped around one end. It isn't that hard to take care of.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2008 21:22:55 GMT
But looks at the difference in maintenance and wear. A car, no matter how cheap, has thousands of moving parts that have to work within strict tolerances. A sword, if you take it down to the most basic level, is a piece of steel with some wood wrapped around one end. It isn't that hard to take care of. Not a matter of care, a matter of construction. It all comes down to the tempering. The heat treat is what makes the difference between an SLO and a sword. If you have a blacksmith who spent most of his time making horseshoes and wagonwheels, things like that who occasionally made a munitions-grade sword, Vs. a dedicated swordsmith who devoted all of his time and knowledge to swords, it's likely there would be a noticeable difference in things like flexibility, edge retention, longevity, etc. I'm not saying that all swords were crap back in the day, nor am I saying that they were all wonderful. My point is that more than likely they ran the gamut of quality from absolute crap to amazing, high-quality blades. I find this reasonable to assume, as it seems true of just about everything else in the world from cars to swords to guns or whatever.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2008 21:32:51 GMT
Right, I can agree to that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2008 23:01:06 GMT
that should have said 19th c, but whatever I think the first steam powered car-like think was in the late 18th c. though.... Aww, man. You ruined my mental image of george washington sniping redcoats from the back seat of a 1767 rolls royce.
|
|