|
Post by ShooterMike on Jan 7, 2008 22:34:11 GMT
What sword is the second one from the left, Mike? ATrim/Christian Fletcher Borderwatch (LOTR Ranger-inspired)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2008 22:35:01 GMT
What sword is the second one from the left, Mike? ATrim/Christian Fletcher Borderwatch (LOTR Ranger-inspired) Yes, I could tell it looked like something from LOTR, thats why I was intrigued.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2008 22:36:54 GMT
Depends on blade length and weight as well. I would consider a hand and a half to be a sword with a grip that allows you to get most or all of your second hand onto it, but would ideally have a pommel that would support the rest. It would be usable in one hand or two, ideally equally, but if not, then still quite usable in one. A two hander would have a grip that can easily fit two hands, and requires it. It can be used in one hand, but not easily. Unless your Arnold Schwarzenegger, then all bets are off!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2008 22:39:34 GMT
wow shootermike those are all pretty swords....
and yeah, the 1566 is certainly a two handed sword (9 inch handle after all) though certainly light enough to be used in one hand i think (i guess it all depends on how much the long handle will get in the way with just one hand). definately not a sword i'd try to use with a shield or something, but i can see going for a strike with one hand if the other is buisy grappling or giving your opponent the finger or something
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 7, 2008 22:42:00 GMT
All of those swords are hand and a half or longswords. Heck, even the albion munich is categorized by most as hand and a half.
As I said before I despise categorizations (dude, this is an longsword NOT a hand and a half!) but I'm afraid I've got to go along wth it. Either way, TRUE two handed swords (by which I means swords that we all can agree upon both on their form and use) are strictly a renaissance weapon.
DI, many if not most lnogswords or hand and a halfers lend themselves to two handed use and are a bit difficult to use one handed. But it can be done. And there we've got the problem with categories. Shootermike, my above comment about what category your swords fall into is 100% pure opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2008 22:44:00 GMT
oh and in case no one here noticed i'm a big tolkien fan and it was partially out of desire for a 'ranger' type sword that i went for the 1566.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2008 22:44:58 GMT
All of those swords are hand and a half or longswords. Heck, even the albion munich is categorized by most as hand and a half. As I said before I despise categorizations (dude, this is an longsword NOT a hand and a half!) but I'm afraid I've got to go along wth it. Either way, TRUE two handed swords (by which I means swords that we all can agree upon both on their form and use) are strictly a renaissance weapon. DI, many if not most lnogswords or hand and a halfers lend themselves to two handed use and are a bit difficult to use one handed. But it can be done. And there we've got the problem with categories. Shootermike, my above comment about what category your swords fall into is 100% pure opinion. I dont understand your logic here at all... but oh well im not here to get in an argument with rammstein.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2008 22:46:05 GMT
I am not sure if the hilt dimensions of my 1319 are based on anything in particular, but being a XIIa it would date 1250-1350 (I think). The grip is 9", which is more than enough for both of my moderately sized hands.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2008 22:50:20 GMT
whats the blade length of your 1319 Jonathan? methinks we're going to end up having pretty similar swords
|
|
|
Post by ShooterMike on Jan 7, 2008 22:50:33 GMT
Depends on blade length and weight as well. I would consider a hand and a half to be a sword with a grip that allows you to get most or all of your second hand onto it, but would ideally have a pommel that would support the rest. It would be usable in one hand or two, ideally equally, but if not, then still quite usable in one. A two hander would have a grip that can easily fit two hands, and requires it. It can be used in one hand, but not easily. Unless your Arnold Schwarzenegger, then all bets are off! I think we have a winner! That's just about the most textbook definition I've heard. And for the record, the sword on the left is also a hand-n-a-half, by the way I was taught to think about those terms. There is just room for the second hand if you grip the pommel with the last two fingers. Two handed sword would be one with a grip expressly designed to accomodate two full hand placements. The term "bastard sword" is an invention of the 19th century I believe, that's used to describe a hand-n-a-half sword with a mostly cut-oriented blade design. It's a "bastard" mix of a sword and a greatsword (two-handed sword). At least that's the way I remember it. Could be wrong?...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2008 22:51:46 GMT
Then you throw the term bastard sword in there, and it gets even more confusing.
Allright. Hand-and-a half should be exactly what it says. 1 hand and a half of another. Two handers, two hands required.
Everything in between, light blades with long grips, swords that can be wielded in one hand or two equally well, Bastard sword.
Though it's in doubt as to whether the bastard really refers to an unholy union of a single hander and a two hander. It could have another meaning entirely.
Thanks Mike! I fleshed it out a little to include the bastard sword.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2008 23:08:54 GMT
whats the blade length of your 1319 Jonathan? methinks we're going to end up having pretty similar swords David, ~36". It will be interesting to compare and contrast. I think that the difference is that your is a XIIIa and mine is a XIIa (right?). PS--check your PMs!
|
|
|
Post by ShooterMike on Jan 7, 2008 23:15:56 GMT
whats the blade length of your 1319 Jonathan? methinks we're going to end up having pretty similar swords ~36" It will be interesting to compare and contrast. That definitely sounds like a Grete Swerde in length and overall dimensions. But I know it's light and extremely fast-handling. I have a 1317 that is the same size, but with double fullers and extremely thin throughout the blade. It's very whippy and definitely a "light cutter". Wanna trade? Heh, heh. Just kiddin'.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 7, 2008 23:19:23 GMT
I disagree entirely with both DI and Shootermike.
You can't set ANY sorts of broad defnitions of swords - they are as varied as people. Is this person a "tall" person because he's 5'11? Is this person "large" because he weighs 250 lbs? You just can't make such sweeping statements as that and draw a line between what is what - it's something I've been getting rather annoyed at as of late - pure D&D mythology. I see no need at all to define swords for anything other than use. This is a thrusting sword, this is a cutting sword, etc. A categorization like "This sword can be used in two hands" will rarely ever mean it's a two handed sword in your books. Where's the logic in that? Shouldn't by our standpoint of being amatuer sword historians all swords that can be gripped in two hands be two handed swords? (playing along here, I don't believe that at all). Even the oakeshott typology has many flaws, albiet oakeshott did very well at limiting these flaws to make an effective system - but even still, it provides unneccessary restraints. Not all swords fal l into the one category without boarding yet another category. And there are plenty that can't be defined at all! (good god! What is the world comnig to! Rammy just critisized the oakeshott typology!)
The fact is, all swords have some degrees of overlap, and bastard/h&h/longswords are the worst of the bunch. trying to define them as anything but "swords" is a fruitless effort that severaly overly simplifies swords and does a pretty good job at wasting quite a few forum posts arguing over whether something is one particular type or another - it''s not an undertaking that should be done.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2008 23:58:03 GMT
I tend to go with "Long Sharp Pointy Things" myself. Takes care of all of these categories.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2008 2:10:05 GMT
ramm, you certainly have a point but i think you've taken it a bit overboard. yes categories aren't perfect and of course there's always going to be a bit of wiggle room, especially with something like swords. but that doesn't mean we shouldn't use them. we just have to A. recognize that categories are inherently limiting in certain ways and therefore don't treat them like the end all be all of understanding and B. try to define as accurately as possible what the categories actually mean (as has been done very well by darkintruder). if we do this than categorization can be one of many useful, if imperfect (like everything), tools
to paraphraze (poorly) Lau Tzu: to name something is to cut it. i.e. by naming, or even percieving, we make something less than what it truely is, for there is no way to percieve everything about anything. the same obviously goes for categories. yes they can never be truely comprehensive when it comes to things like swords or people or whatever but, as long as we recognize this, they can still be usefull tools for both communicating and understanding.
i think its quite useful to be able to say 'hand-and-a-half sword' and have the person you're talking to imediately understand that its a sword with a handle that fits one and a half hands (roughly over 4 inches and less than 8). now of course there's wiggle room... how big are the hands blah blah blah... but no one in their right mind is going to get too worked up over whether a sword with a 7and a hlaf inch handle constitues a hand-and-a-half or a two hander. having a debate about that would be useless, but thats not what was going on here, this was a process of defining categories (just as oakeshott did) which in the end gives us more concise language to use in discussion. if you really think that the discussion is useless than you'd have to say that oakeshott's typology is useless, and i think most of us would agree that it is in fact one of the more useful tools out there for learning about swords.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 8, 2008 2:27:34 GMT
Unfortunately, that's not a correct measurement. I could say a hand and a half sword could be between 6 and 12 inches in grip length and since neither of us have any sources, both are just as valid. I'm not against calling a sword a hand and a half (which, by the way, did not ever mean that it fit 1 and a half hands on the hilt AFAIK) - What I'm against is the strict lack of intermingling in categorization. Heck, even our medieval counterparts disagreed on what to call their weapons (Guissarme? Bill? etc.).
However, I feel if you absolutely "must" categorize swords, then harmonic balance and the overall feel is far and away more important than something like grip length which is individual fit for each sword ever made and because each sword is different, we can't apply the same standards to one as we can the other. Just a note on terminology, bastard/h&h/longsword all mean almost literally the exact same weapon except that a bastard sword implies a slightly earlier, more cut dedicated sword. That's it. Nothing on grip length, nothing on "my fingers MUST pass this certain part of the pommel or else it's this entirely different sword."
Since there is no standard agreement on terminology in this case, it's far more confusing to make cookie cutter terms for swords which always have and always will be unique in the fact that they are not fully two handed nor fully one handed.
{quote]if you really think that the discussion is useless than you'd have to say that oakeshott's typology is useless, and i think most of us would agree that it is in fact one of the more useful tools out there for learning about swords. [/quote]
I agree with you - I used that as an example of a benificial (not to mention UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED) tool even if it does provide negative restraints.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2008 2:38:41 GMT
I agree with you to a point, Ramm. By picking up a sword, I can tell what it is. Can it be used in one hand, two hands, either, is it better in one, ect.
However, that requires me to pick up the sword, and that's kinda on the interwebs. Therefore, I use the classification, because I can do so from pictures. I am not limited by doing so, because I know that most sword will not fit exactly.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 8, 2008 2:45:41 GMT
That's perfectly acceptable as long as you don't start such rigid groupings as: From shootermike's comment. I can direct you (refering to anyone) to numerous swords that fit perfectly for two handes yet are just as agile in 1. (And it doesn't "kinda" interweb. It interwebs so much your head spins )
|
|
|
Post by ShooterMike on Jan 8, 2008 3:05:53 GMT
Rammstein, speaking for myself...and probably several others...
I wish you would hurry through the hormone years and stop smokin' that dope. You're gettin' so argumentative! And now...BLASPHEMY OF BLASPHEMIES, you've spoken derogatorily about Ewart Oakeshott and The Typology. Harumph! Pistols at dawn, I say! Heh, heh, heh... ;D
How about this? I will fit my terminology to suite my needs and how I see it. Everyone else can too. And you just call everything a "sword"?
|
|