Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2007 4:22:24 GMT
Just as a disclaimer, I too believe that swords should function before they should be made pretty.
But at the same time, I was just trying to say that swords were not designed with function being the SOLE purpose. If it were, then there would be no variation in Hamon pattern in Japanese blades. There would be no variation in color, or menuki, or tsuba.
Same thing goes with European swords. All the different pommel and cross types don't make much a difference in function(until you get to things like basket hilts and cross rings and such but you get my point.
This is why swords are largely unique: They are the only weapon were aesthetics are considered so heavily. They're the only weapon with so much meaning behind the form and function of it.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Apr 10, 2007 2:13:51 GMT
actually (and I made sure of this buying my ritter) pommels DO have make a difference more than one would expect in terms of handling. Mike Sigman and some myarmoury forumites told me that the ritter and hospitaller, while very similar handled a bit differently from one another. Interesting!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2007 5:40:56 GMT
Of course when it comes to the mass of the pommel, it makes a difference, but it doesn't matter if the pommel has gold leaf or etching on it(unless you etch so much off of it that it significantly changes it's mass). I mean, a wheel pommel of mass X grams will affect a sword the same way as a 'brazilian nut pommel' of the same mass. So why work extra hard to make a brazilian nut pommel... why not just make all pommels into simple blocks?
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Apr 10, 2007 19:46:50 GMT
agreed! I fully admit that to be style (though pommel shape DOES make subtle differences)
|
|