Albion Baron and A&A German Bastard Sword Comparison
Feb 11, 2014 23:57:30 GMT
Post by Bryan Heff on Feb 11, 2014 23:57:30 GMT
Note - To see full sized pictures, click the Print view at the upper right corner of the page.
The initial comparison between these 2 swords originally began in another thread to compare and contrast overall dimensions of the swords in order to provide "purchasing data" to another forumite. It was suggested that more comparison reviews would be a nice change of pace and I thought it was a great idea. It's not to be taken as a contest to determine the superior sword as its a total apples to oranges comparison. These are obviously completely different swords but I thought it would be interesting to compare and contrast them. The elements these swords do have in common are similar dimensions, ratios and price points, that's about it. They are different swords from different eras with MANY differences....but similar prices. So here it goes.
Albion Baron Type XIIa
Specifications
Overall Length: 47 1/2"
Blade Length: 37 1/4”
Blade Width at guard: 2 1/4"
Overall Grip Length: 7 1/2"
Cross guard Length: 7 1/2"
Weight: 3 lbs, 10 oz
PoB: 5"
Arm and Armour German Bastard Sword Type XVIIIb
Specifications
Overall Length: 48 1/2”
Blade Length: 37 3/4”
Blade Width at guard: 2"
Overall Grip Length: 8 1/2"
Cross guard Length: 10 1/2"
Weight: 4 lbs, 7 oz
PoB: 3"
Same:
-Both 2-handed
-Both "war" swords
-Approx. the same overall size
Differ:
-Blade types
-cross guard type
-Grip types
-Pommel types
- weight
Similar:
- Overall size and bearing
- handling
- Price
Albion Baron "Great" Sword compared to Arms and Armour German "Bastard" sword
First and foremost, both swords are war swords. The Baron of type XIIa and of an earlier era is I suppose the grandfather (along with XIIIa types) to other larger 2-handed war swords that continued to be built years after the XIIa/XIIIa's initial usage. I am not suggesting these early great swords evolved in a linear way into later large war swords like the GBS...merely saying that the need for a larger, 2-handed sword seemed to continue on through the centuries with examples like the GBS. The blade type changed of course as did styles of hilt furniture, but at the end of the day, for all their differences both Baron and GBS are surprisingly similar in a lot of ways.
Blades -
The Baron is WIDE at the hilt, 2.25" and has a fairly significant profile taper from that point to the tip. Its rather linear along either edge in converging lines that begin to converge at the point which is fairly acute. The GBS starts out at 2" but maintains its starting width longer resulting in a sword with less profile taper overall than the Baron. Its not a huge margin but its definitely there. The other main difference is the GBS has that classic XVIII slight curvature to the blade profile the final 1/3 of its length till it makes the point proper. The curvature seems to allow for more mass/blade width to remain in play longer but still creates a very pointy tip for thrusting. The Baron's blade is overall a bit more flexible than the GBS but not greatly so, its pretty close. Both have plenty of stiffness. There is no wobble in either sword (very important to me personally) as the distal taper continues very cleanly all the way along both blades from thickest at the cross to thinnest at the tip. The Baron seems to have a thinner section of blade at the end and appears to be more radically tapered than the GBS.
Cross guards -
The Baron actually has a fairly short cross in ratio to its blade and handle length. I have found that most European "cruciform" swords have a cross that is usually longer than the grip. The Baron's cross is basically the same size as the grip. Just something I found interesting. The GBS has a fairly wide cross, even with the "S" curves (if you straightened the S it would be even wider). Obviously the GBS has a much more complex hilt than the Baron's simple cross as you can plainly see. “Simple” however is not really how I would describe the Baron's cross, while straight its octagon in cross section and has some interesting facets near the middle. The GBS is a much more ornate twisted rope looking cross guard in an "S" shape with oval shaped side rings. Overall the GBS cross is a bigger more complicated affair and I would imagine provide more protection to the hands. My guess is this larger more complex guard accounts for a decent amount of the difference in weight between the 2 swords.
Weight -
The GBS is heavier by 13 ounces., which is pretty significant and actually surprised me. That additional 13 ounces is really not very noticable when held, its a very interesting dynamic and I suppose goes to show how important mass distribution is in the overall feeling a sword has. I really thought they were going to be a bit closer in weight because the handle and feel very close in weight.
Pommels -
Totally different obviously. The Baron's wheel pommel shape allows for some partial grippage with your second hand if you so chose to get additional leverage and space between the hands. The GBS's rather bulbous sphere shape does not allow for that at all.
Grips -
The GBS is a wasted grip and is super comfortable, more so for my hands than the Baron. It is also a bit thicker overall than the Baron. The Baron's while thinner is still very comfortable in my hands and has an very interesting cross section when looking at from all angles. The upper portion is oval in cross section, about half way down it fattens up and becomes more round in cross section (but still oval, just much fatter) and then gets thinnest towards the pommel. The GBS has an additional inch worth of grip (8.5") to the Baron's (7.5"). The grip leather is "harder" on the Baron the same as I have noticed with all the Albions I have handled. The GBS's leather still has some spongy feeling to it. Both grips are very comfortable.
Handling -
In dry handling these swords I was interested to find they handle fairly similar. The GBS while heavier overall is actually quicker . It has a closer POB (3.5") than the Baron (5"). The heavier hilt section makes the GBS less blade forward than the Baron, but neither really feels heavy or too blade dominant. Both feel approximately the same weight in hand and recovery times are similar, but the GBS does win out in that department. I feel like both would be devastating cutters and fine thrusters, but the GBS's blade type and stiffer nature would allow for stronger and more penetrating thrusts. Also, the point control for the GBS is improved over the Baron as the POB and heavier hilt section makes for an oveall more neutral feeling blade. Neither sword really feels like it was ever really meant for 1-handed use. Surprisingly though, the Baron even with the more blade presence feels like if you HAD to pick between the 2 to use 1-handed, it would be the one to choose. It might have something to do with the shorter grip and cross guard on the Baron and the overall heavier aspect of the GBS. I am not a practitioner so take all of this with a grain of salt.
Fit and Finish -
Very similar for both swords but the Baron is overall finished to a higher level but its almost too close to call. The grip seam is almost invisible on the Baron, on the GBS its a stitched affair and is very neatly done, but that stitching does show and you can feel it. Its not a problem for me personally at all and I actually like the stitched leather approach. Both blades are sanded in a satin like finish. Overall the Baron's blade is a hair cleaner looking as far as finishing goes but its minimally "better", almost to the point of not worth mentioning. The one flaw I detect in either sword is the cross guard on the GBS is not perfectly seated at 90 degrees to the blade when seen from the edge side. Its very small and probably not even noticed by most people, but I study these things to no end and can see it. Again, it does not bother me and is within perfectly acceptable limits for me.
Overall -
I love both of these swords. They are both big and bad, borderline menacing looking swords. Neither is a sluggish dog by any stretch. Both are much faster and quicker than they look. I like them both for totally different reasons. I love the Baron because I tend to like the earlier swords, the more austere simpler cruciform knightly weapons and there is something about a long well defined fuller that is so visually appealing. The pommel is also really nice with more facets and complexity in its shape than one would think with a passing glance. I love the GBS because its simply a bad ass looking sword. Its like nothing else I currently own and really fills a niche for me personally. I am not a HUGE fan of the “S” shaped guard. These kinds of curved crosses like this or similar I usually shy away from, but I have gotten used to it and I think it adds a certain something to my collection and really like picking the GBS off the sword rack because it is the only complex curved guarded sword I have and all the components work well together with the GBS. Its just a beautiful sword with the ornate twists in the guard and decorations on the pommel...but while "fancy" in appearance, it still maintains a ferocious look to it. It's like a prize fighter all dressed up in a tuxedo. I also love the blade shape on the GBS, the profile especially and that was on of its biggest selling point for me. If forced to let one go I would have a very hard time deciding...they are both just fantastic swords.
The initial comparison between these 2 swords originally began in another thread to compare and contrast overall dimensions of the swords in order to provide "purchasing data" to another forumite. It was suggested that more comparison reviews would be a nice change of pace and I thought it was a great idea. It's not to be taken as a contest to determine the superior sword as its a total apples to oranges comparison. These are obviously completely different swords but I thought it would be interesting to compare and contrast them. The elements these swords do have in common are similar dimensions, ratios and price points, that's about it. They are different swords from different eras with MANY differences....but similar prices. So here it goes.
Albion Baron Type XIIa
Specifications
Overall Length: 47 1/2"
Blade Length: 37 1/4”
Blade Width at guard: 2 1/4"
Overall Grip Length: 7 1/2"
Cross guard Length: 7 1/2"
Weight: 3 lbs, 10 oz
PoB: 5"
Arm and Armour German Bastard Sword Type XVIIIb
Specifications
Overall Length: 48 1/2”
Blade Length: 37 3/4”
Blade Width at guard: 2"
Overall Grip Length: 8 1/2"
Cross guard Length: 10 1/2"
Weight: 4 lbs, 7 oz
PoB: 3"
Same:
-Both 2-handed
-Both "war" swords
-Approx. the same overall size
Differ:
-Blade types
-cross guard type
-Grip types
-Pommel types
- weight
Similar:
- Overall size and bearing
- handling
- Price
Albion Baron "Great" Sword compared to Arms and Armour German "Bastard" sword
First and foremost, both swords are war swords. The Baron of type XIIa and of an earlier era is I suppose the grandfather (along with XIIIa types) to other larger 2-handed war swords that continued to be built years after the XIIa/XIIIa's initial usage. I am not suggesting these early great swords evolved in a linear way into later large war swords like the GBS...merely saying that the need for a larger, 2-handed sword seemed to continue on through the centuries with examples like the GBS. The blade type changed of course as did styles of hilt furniture, but at the end of the day, for all their differences both Baron and GBS are surprisingly similar in a lot of ways.
Blades -
The Baron is WIDE at the hilt, 2.25" and has a fairly significant profile taper from that point to the tip. Its rather linear along either edge in converging lines that begin to converge at the point which is fairly acute. The GBS starts out at 2" but maintains its starting width longer resulting in a sword with less profile taper overall than the Baron. Its not a huge margin but its definitely there. The other main difference is the GBS has that classic XVIII slight curvature to the blade profile the final 1/3 of its length till it makes the point proper. The curvature seems to allow for more mass/blade width to remain in play longer but still creates a very pointy tip for thrusting. The Baron's blade is overall a bit more flexible than the GBS but not greatly so, its pretty close. Both have plenty of stiffness. There is no wobble in either sword (very important to me personally) as the distal taper continues very cleanly all the way along both blades from thickest at the cross to thinnest at the tip. The Baron seems to have a thinner section of blade at the end and appears to be more radically tapered than the GBS.
Cross guards -
The Baron actually has a fairly short cross in ratio to its blade and handle length. I have found that most European "cruciform" swords have a cross that is usually longer than the grip. The Baron's cross is basically the same size as the grip. Just something I found interesting. The GBS has a fairly wide cross, even with the "S" curves (if you straightened the S it would be even wider). Obviously the GBS has a much more complex hilt than the Baron's simple cross as you can plainly see. “Simple” however is not really how I would describe the Baron's cross, while straight its octagon in cross section and has some interesting facets near the middle. The GBS is a much more ornate twisted rope looking cross guard in an "S" shape with oval shaped side rings. Overall the GBS cross is a bigger more complicated affair and I would imagine provide more protection to the hands. My guess is this larger more complex guard accounts for a decent amount of the difference in weight between the 2 swords.
Weight -
The GBS is heavier by 13 ounces., which is pretty significant and actually surprised me. That additional 13 ounces is really not very noticable when held, its a very interesting dynamic and I suppose goes to show how important mass distribution is in the overall feeling a sword has. I really thought they were going to be a bit closer in weight because the handle and feel very close in weight.
Pommels -
Totally different obviously. The Baron's wheel pommel shape allows for some partial grippage with your second hand if you so chose to get additional leverage and space between the hands. The GBS's rather bulbous sphere shape does not allow for that at all.
Grips -
The GBS is a wasted grip and is super comfortable, more so for my hands than the Baron. It is also a bit thicker overall than the Baron. The Baron's while thinner is still very comfortable in my hands and has an very interesting cross section when looking at from all angles. The upper portion is oval in cross section, about half way down it fattens up and becomes more round in cross section (but still oval, just much fatter) and then gets thinnest towards the pommel. The GBS has an additional inch worth of grip (8.5") to the Baron's (7.5"). The grip leather is "harder" on the Baron the same as I have noticed with all the Albions I have handled. The GBS's leather still has some spongy feeling to it. Both grips are very comfortable.
Handling -
In dry handling these swords I was interested to find they handle fairly similar. The GBS while heavier overall is actually quicker . It has a closer POB (3.5") than the Baron (5"). The heavier hilt section makes the GBS less blade forward than the Baron, but neither really feels heavy or too blade dominant. Both feel approximately the same weight in hand and recovery times are similar, but the GBS does win out in that department. I feel like both would be devastating cutters and fine thrusters, but the GBS's blade type and stiffer nature would allow for stronger and more penetrating thrusts. Also, the point control for the GBS is improved over the Baron as the POB and heavier hilt section makes for an oveall more neutral feeling blade. Neither sword really feels like it was ever really meant for 1-handed use. Surprisingly though, the Baron even with the more blade presence feels like if you HAD to pick between the 2 to use 1-handed, it would be the one to choose. It might have something to do with the shorter grip and cross guard on the Baron and the overall heavier aspect of the GBS. I am not a practitioner so take all of this with a grain of salt.
Fit and Finish -
Very similar for both swords but the Baron is overall finished to a higher level but its almost too close to call. The grip seam is almost invisible on the Baron, on the GBS its a stitched affair and is very neatly done, but that stitching does show and you can feel it. Its not a problem for me personally at all and I actually like the stitched leather approach. Both blades are sanded in a satin like finish. Overall the Baron's blade is a hair cleaner looking as far as finishing goes but its minimally "better", almost to the point of not worth mentioning. The one flaw I detect in either sword is the cross guard on the GBS is not perfectly seated at 90 degrees to the blade when seen from the edge side. Its very small and probably not even noticed by most people, but I study these things to no end and can see it. Again, it does not bother me and is within perfectly acceptable limits for me.
Overall -
I love both of these swords. They are both big and bad, borderline menacing looking swords. Neither is a sluggish dog by any stretch. Both are much faster and quicker than they look. I like them both for totally different reasons. I love the Baron because I tend to like the earlier swords, the more austere simpler cruciform knightly weapons and there is something about a long well defined fuller that is so visually appealing. The pommel is also really nice with more facets and complexity in its shape than one would think with a passing glance. I love the GBS because its simply a bad ass looking sword. Its like nothing else I currently own and really fills a niche for me personally. I am not a HUGE fan of the “S” shaped guard. These kinds of curved crosses like this or similar I usually shy away from, but I have gotten used to it and I think it adds a certain something to my collection and really like picking the GBS off the sword rack because it is the only complex curved guarded sword I have and all the components work well together with the GBS. Its just a beautiful sword with the ornate twists in the guard and decorations on the pommel...but while "fancy" in appearance, it still maintains a ferocious look to it. It's like a prize fighter all dressed up in a tuxedo. I also love the blade shape on the GBS, the profile especially and that was on of its biggest selling point for me. If forced to let one go I would have a very hard time deciding...they are both just fantastic swords.