|
Post by feral on Feb 17, 2014 3:15:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Vincent Dolan on Feb 17, 2014 4:07:37 GMT
Personally, I think that, when you get right down to it, the difference is in the perception. When most people think of a bowie knife, they think of a large, intimidating blade with a long clip point and a coffin shaped hilt. On the other hand, when most people think of a seax (assuming they actually know what one is, that is), they would likely picture a somewhat long, slender blade with a more wharncliffe style with a somewhat crude wood or horn hilt. So, I think the prime difference, especially when you look at some of the different styles of seax, particularly the Norse variations which exhibit a clipped point, or certain variations of Bowie, such as the Searles bowie which looks wildly different from what people think of as a "Bowie" knife, is really just one of perception.
Mind you, that's just my two cents on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Feb 17, 2014 4:11:28 GMT
Broken-back seaxes are only a part of the seax world. We see more of them in repro than other types, since they're the most popular part of the seax world, and are characteristically British. Spear-point seaxes were more common, e.g., en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Merow ... ttgart.jpg However, I'm happy to call spear-point bowies "bowies", and don't insist on a clipped point. Some insist that a bowie needs a guard, but we have historical bowies without them. So the difference is chronological/geographical. And styles of grip and scabbard. And we see blade geometries in bowies that are very un-seaxlike (except we see them on crap replicas).
|
|