Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2007 1:17:34 GMT
ramm says: Because swordsmiths aren't idiots
Lol..yeah, but we have more intelligent sword smiths today
|
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Nov 29, 2007 1:20:07 GMT
In terms of skill, yes, but not in terms of theory or expertise. Remember, the art of western sword maknig today is really only 50 years old at most. It was lost. Swordsmiths way back when had 5000+ years to perfect their craft. Don't forget, their weapons were PROVEN on the battlefield. If they failed to work properly, the design would be modified to work better. We don't have the luxury of testing things on the battlefield, and there are too many variables to replicate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2007 1:34:36 GMT
In terms of skill, yes, but not in terms of theory or expertise. Remember, the art of western sword maknig today is really only 50 years old at most. It was lost. Swordsmiths way back when had 5000+ years to perfect their craft. Don't forget, their weapons were PROVEN on the battlefield. If they failed to work properly, the design would be modified to work better. We don't have the luxury of testing things on the battlefield, and there are too many variables to replicate. yeah true but I'm sure that an ancient iberian would have loved to use this sword in battle. Though I dont think that the Gen 2 Falcata was made for battle because of the weight, but this Falcata was desined to be a durable and fine beater for sword cutting. It doesn't seam so heavy though because we use 15 pound practice swords in my kung fu class. |
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Nov 29, 2007 1:38:55 GMT
That sounds about right, I'll drink to that  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2007 1:43:23 GMT
Ramm, How do you get higher ranked(Stars)?
|
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Nov 29, 2007 2:09:41 GMT
Post count.
0 = man at arms
50 = warrior
100 = knight
250 = swashbuckler
500 = swordmaster
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2007 2:24:14 GMT
I really think they should go higher...
Not to flog a dead horse, but how did you come to judge the blades as such? Angus Trim used to work for Albion, did he not? His swords may not be based off exact historical examples like theirs, but he takes the general traits of each sword type, and creates sword that fall neatly in each. How is that not historical?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2007 2:29:00 GMT
Post count. 0 = man at arms 50 = warrior 100 = knight 250 = swashbuckler 500 = swordmaster oh, damn, that will take a long time |
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Nov 29, 2007 2:52:09 GMT
If AT did work for albion, I'm not aware of it. Not to say he didn't, I just have not seen that info before.
His blades rarely fall into the oakeshott typology, but then even oakeshott said that there were swords that would not fit. That's not my qualm. What I dislike is the overall appearance of the sword. It exudes modernity and seems to forsake historical intricacies. Again, I'd like to point out that it is only personal preference - quality of his swords are absolutely outstanding. It's just not my thing.
One specific example: Look at his earlier based swords - I've yet to see a type X or XI with a diamond profile. In fact, he doesn't seem to have any swords at all without the steryotypical (and boring, in my opinion) diamond shaped cross section. Another example would be the obviously threaded pommels. Threaded pommels are exceptable, sure, but they are not accurate and they are most certainly not when they have a visible nut. One can argue that it can appear to be a peening block, but when every single sword has an identical knob at the end....it just looks so "machined." And finally, many (I'd hesitate to say most) of the pommels, at least on the longswords are rather ahistorical. Same goes for many of the blade shapes - many are rather fantasy-esque.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2007 3:07:26 GMT
Alright, fine. Yes, I agree that a lack of lenticular cross-sections on the earlier blades is a problem.
However, he is coming out with his new Historical Designs line...
You may have to rethink him as a manufacturer...
|
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Nov 29, 2007 3:11:49 GMT
I'm certainly looking forward to it - I know of these historicall designs  |
|
|
|
Post by kidcasanova on Dec 4, 2007 8:57:42 GMT
Personally, if it's not historically accurate, it's worthless to me. I'm not in this hobby to "cut things up," I'm in it to appreciate the past. Buy a picture. "History = Beauty" We are making history. If everyone throughout history only used weapons that preceeded them, then we'd still be throwing stones and beating each other with sticks. The evolution of the blade, yet it's ability to retain its simplicity, is the real beauty here. |
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Dec 9, 2007 3:51:09 GMT
We are recreating historical weapons. That's not something I take lightly. Go swing your crowbars around.
|
|
|
|
Post by kidcasanova on Dec 9, 2007 6:09:28 GMT
There's a large difference between "historically inaccurate" and "crowbar." It doesn't have to be a crowbar simply because it's not exactly like a piece used in history.
That is a completely ignorant viewpoint.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brendan Olszowy on Dec 9, 2007 7:21:28 GMT
I've found a litle saving on weight can affect the handling of a sword significatly. I took a couple of vids the other night some may find interesting. See Reply 11 here: /index.cgi?action=display&board=swordreviews&thread=1195924237&page=1
|
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Dec 9, 2007 15:01:20 GMT
There's "artistic liscence" and then there's "bull--t."
I don't mind a bit of liberties taken on smaller things. But I challanege ANYONE who says "oh sure, I think I'm hot stuff, those smiths were dumb and I can make a sword too! Watch me!"
AS it is, you're right. Take a bit of imagination, but don't modify the important thing - blade geometry, profile/distal taper, harmonic balance, CoP, CoB, and some other VERY important aspect. Did you know that the shape of the pommel affects handling drastically? Or the crossgaurd? Adding some fantasy downturned spikes is so hilarious, my gut hurts.
So yes, I'm more than happy to add some anachronism that WOULDN'T affect the sword - but when it comes down to it, historically accurate is ALWAYS better. (well unless you've got one of them historical duds - which DO exist).
|
|
|
|
Post by kidcasanova on Dec 10, 2007 6:39:05 GMT
Good points, which I'll agree with. I'm glad you revised the ignorance in the first statement!  |
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Dec 10, 2007 23:06:17 GMT
Meh, that's what I meant all along, but I tend to have a horribly nasty habit of using absolutes |
|
|
|
Post by Brendan Olszowy on Dec 11, 2007 3:02:16 GMT
Only a sith deals in... well you know.
Bad Lord Rammers!
|
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Dec 11, 2007 3:33:01 GMT
Darth Rammy Nice ring dontcha think  ? |
|
?
