Windlass Ulfberht vs H/T Norman
Jul 16, 2014 16:21:15 GMT
Post by Bryan Heff on Jul 16, 2014 16:21:15 GMT
Note - To see full sized pictures, click the Print view at the upper right corner of the page.
I was struck at how similar in proportions these 2 swords were and decided to do a comparison review. A few things to note are that both swords have had some post manufacture modifications...but those mods were all superficial type changes around how the sword looks. The H/T has a new leather grip wrap but the core is the original. It also has a little bit of file work on the ends of the crossguard and the pommel was filed slightly on the corners to make it more comfortable for my hands. The Ulfberht has had its diamond cross section tip reprofiled to be a more lenticular cross section. Other than that the Ulfberht is stock.
Ulberht
Specifications
Overall Length: 36"
Blade Length: 30 1/4”
Blade Width at guard: 2 1/8"
Overall Grip Length: 4 1/8"
Cross guard Length: 6 1/2"
Weight: 2 lbs, 14 oz
PoB: 4 1/2"
H/T Norman
Specifications
Overall Length: 36”
Blade Length: 30 1/4”
Blade Width at guard: 2"
Overall Grip Length: 3 7/8"
Cross guard Length: 7"
Weight: 2 lbs, 5 oz
PoB: 5 1/2"
Same:
-Both type X
-Both Brazil nut variants
-Approx. the same overall size
Differ:
-cross guard type
-weight
Similar:
- Overall size and bearing
- handling
- Price
Both of these swords are late Viking/Early Medieval period type X swords. The Ulfberht is Windlass's take on one of the many Ulfberht viking blades that have survived. It has a faux inlay pattern that has been etched in as opposed to actual iron inlay on the originals in order to keep costs down. The pattern takes a bit of getting used to as at first I did not really like it, but it has grown on me and I am fine with it now. The H/T is modeled after some early Medieval period swords that could easily have been used by Normans, Saxons Crusader Knights of the 1st crusade to name a few. Both swords in my opinion show some transitional characteristics from earlier Viking swords with stubby cross guards and Viking pommels to what would be a more classic "Knightly sword" of cruciform type, longer straight guard and wheel pommel.
Blades -
Both are fairly broad blades at the base but show a fair amount of profile taper to the point. Many X blades remain very profile broad longer than these 2 examples but the wideness and length of the fuller is a sure characteristic of an X blade, and X blades are surely what these are. The H/T has more distal taper and the blade stock on the H/T is thicker but due to the distal taper, thins nicely toward the tip. The Windlass is a bit thinner stock and has less distal taper. The H/T has a slightly stiffer blade but both blades are fairly stiff for this type of blade.
Cross guards -
Both crosses are fairly simple and not overly complex. The Windlass cross is rather chunky and is a pretty serious piece of metal. Thick and basically square in cross section. I have heard complains about this but I don't think its really a negative, I think with this sword it works fine. It has a slight downturn curve to it. The H/T is a pretty simple straight cross that narrows a bit towards the ends. Its cross section is rectangle. The Windlass fittings are of mild steel (as far as I can tell) while the H/T is some sort of alloy.
Weight -
The Windlass is heavier but in hand really does not feel much heavier at all, barely so. My guess is the more substantial hilt furniture adds a lot of weight to the Windlass but also pulls the POB back more than the H/T. Both swords have good blade presence but do not feel blade heavy, but rather feel fairly nimble and quick in hand.
Pommels -
Like the cross on the Windlass, the pommel is also large and chunky. There is not a lot of geometry in terms of the shape...its basically a flattened oval shape, but I find it pleasing and it matches well with the chunky cross guard. Its also a serious piece of steel. The H/T has more of a "tea cosy" pommel. Its smaller and a bit more elegant in its shape that the Windlass.
Handling -
In dry handling these swords I find them very close to each other in how they feel and move. The Windlass is a bit more stout and feel like a slightly heavier meat cleaver than the H/T. Both have shortish grips and the pommel types work well with that grip to give a very secure feeling when gripping. With the 30" blade and fairly significant profile taper, these swords move fast and do not feel sluggish. Of the 2 I prefer the feel of the Windlass as it is just a bit more comfortable to me, but its close.
Fit and Finish -
I put the fit and finish for these 2 sword on par with one another. The H/T costs more, but that extra cost IMO comes not from the fit and finish but from you could argue a better blade. The hilt furniture and grip treatments are both very similar. Obviously with this H/T the grip has been redone, but the stock grip is about the same quality on both. I actually prefer the Windlass hilt parts over the H/T because I am not a major fan of the alloy metal..but that is really the only gripe I have. In both cases the parts are simple but done nicely and finished well. Both swords are peened and are tight with no obvious issues with construction.
Overall -
I would recommend either sword to anyone interested in this earlier medieval period. I like them both very much. They handle well, look good and seem to be of very high quality, especially considering the price. The bang for the buck aspect on these swords is really going to be tough to beat.
I was struck at how similar in proportions these 2 swords were and decided to do a comparison review. A few things to note are that both swords have had some post manufacture modifications...but those mods were all superficial type changes around how the sword looks. The H/T has a new leather grip wrap but the core is the original. It also has a little bit of file work on the ends of the crossguard and the pommel was filed slightly on the corners to make it more comfortable for my hands. The Ulfberht has had its diamond cross section tip reprofiled to be a more lenticular cross section. Other than that the Ulfberht is stock.
Ulberht
Specifications
Overall Length: 36"
Blade Length: 30 1/4”
Blade Width at guard: 2 1/8"
Overall Grip Length: 4 1/8"
Cross guard Length: 6 1/2"
Weight: 2 lbs, 14 oz
PoB: 4 1/2"
H/T Norman
Specifications
Overall Length: 36”
Blade Length: 30 1/4”
Blade Width at guard: 2"
Overall Grip Length: 3 7/8"
Cross guard Length: 7"
Weight: 2 lbs, 5 oz
PoB: 5 1/2"
Same:
-Both type X
-Both Brazil nut variants
-Approx. the same overall size
Differ:
-cross guard type
-weight
Similar:
- Overall size and bearing
- handling
- Price
Both of these swords are late Viking/Early Medieval period type X swords. The Ulfberht is Windlass's take on one of the many Ulfberht viking blades that have survived. It has a faux inlay pattern that has been etched in as opposed to actual iron inlay on the originals in order to keep costs down. The pattern takes a bit of getting used to as at first I did not really like it, but it has grown on me and I am fine with it now. The H/T is modeled after some early Medieval period swords that could easily have been used by Normans, Saxons Crusader Knights of the 1st crusade to name a few. Both swords in my opinion show some transitional characteristics from earlier Viking swords with stubby cross guards and Viking pommels to what would be a more classic "Knightly sword" of cruciform type, longer straight guard and wheel pommel.
Blades -
Both are fairly broad blades at the base but show a fair amount of profile taper to the point. Many X blades remain very profile broad longer than these 2 examples but the wideness and length of the fuller is a sure characteristic of an X blade, and X blades are surely what these are. The H/T has more distal taper and the blade stock on the H/T is thicker but due to the distal taper, thins nicely toward the tip. The Windlass is a bit thinner stock and has less distal taper. The H/T has a slightly stiffer blade but both blades are fairly stiff for this type of blade.
Cross guards -
Both crosses are fairly simple and not overly complex. The Windlass cross is rather chunky and is a pretty serious piece of metal. Thick and basically square in cross section. I have heard complains about this but I don't think its really a negative, I think with this sword it works fine. It has a slight downturn curve to it. The H/T is a pretty simple straight cross that narrows a bit towards the ends. Its cross section is rectangle. The Windlass fittings are of mild steel (as far as I can tell) while the H/T is some sort of alloy.
Weight -
The Windlass is heavier but in hand really does not feel much heavier at all, barely so. My guess is the more substantial hilt furniture adds a lot of weight to the Windlass but also pulls the POB back more than the H/T. Both swords have good blade presence but do not feel blade heavy, but rather feel fairly nimble and quick in hand.
Pommels -
Like the cross on the Windlass, the pommel is also large and chunky. There is not a lot of geometry in terms of the shape...its basically a flattened oval shape, but I find it pleasing and it matches well with the chunky cross guard. Its also a serious piece of steel. The H/T has more of a "tea cosy" pommel. Its smaller and a bit more elegant in its shape that the Windlass.
Handling -
In dry handling these swords I find them very close to each other in how they feel and move. The Windlass is a bit more stout and feel like a slightly heavier meat cleaver than the H/T. Both have shortish grips and the pommel types work well with that grip to give a very secure feeling when gripping. With the 30" blade and fairly significant profile taper, these swords move fast and do not feel sluggish. Of the 2 I prefer the feel of the Windlass as it is just a bit more comfortable to me, but its close.
Fit and Finish -
I put the fit and finish for these 2 sword on par with one another. The H/T costs more, but that extra cost IMO comes not from the fit and finish but from you could argue a better blade. The hilt furniture and grip treatments are both very similar. Obviously with this H/T the grip has been redone, but the stock grip is about the same quality on both. I actually prefer the Windlass hilt parts over the H/T because I am not a major fan of the alloy metal..but that is really the only gripe I have. In both cases the parts are simple but done nicely and finished well. Both swords are peened and are tight with no obvious issues with construction.
Overall -
I would recommend either sword to anyone interested in this earlier medieval period. I like them both very much. They handle well, look good and seem to be of very high quality, especially considering the price. The bang for the buck aspect on these swords is really going to be tough to beat.