The Windlass Novara and Renaissance War Sword.
Dec 27, 2014 14:45:05 GMT
Post by Uhlan on Dec 27, 2014 14:45:05 GMT
Both swords are re issued old Windlass models bought at Irongate Armoury.
I have no relation with them, only as a satisfied costumer.
Brute power war swords these. Made for cutting Cavalry (as in horse and rider) and pikes. Not for sword play and other gentlemanly past times.
Not for wimpy, lace clad and wine slurping aristocratic dandies and other assorted dandelions. No no. These are for the beer belching, pork eating class, that will go berserk on your ass. The children of Wores* and such. Raised in the slums of Europe. Tough as nails murdering, raping and plundering SOB's, with no teeth and very bad breath.
Enough said. You get the drift.
Lets see how these two Windlasses hold up in that environment and start with the numbers.
* Due to censorship I am not allowed to write this word in the right spelling here!
The Novara. ( at right ).
Length: 129 cm - 50.78".
Lenght of the blade: 101 cm - 39.76".
Width of the blade: 4.8 cm - 1.88".
Blade thickness at the guard: 0.45 cm - 0.18".
Width of the guard: 34.5 cm - 13.58".
Width of the rings: 14 cm - 5.51".
POB: 9 cm - 3.54".
Taper: 4.5 - 3 mm - 0.18 - 0.11".
Geometry:Ricasso 25 cm, fullered diamond section 50 cm,diamond.
Grip length: 21 cm - 8.26".
Grip thickness: 4.5 - 2.5 cm - 1.77 x 0.98".
Weight: 2473 grams.
The Renaissance War Sword.
Length: 122.5 cm - 48.22".
Length of the blade: 97 cm - 38.18".
Width of the blade: 4.5 cm - 1.77".
Blade thickness at the guard: 0.45 cm - 0.17".
Width of the guard: 33.5 cm - 13.18".
POB: 11 cm - 4.33".
Taper: 4.5 - 3.5 mm - 0.17 - 0.13".
Geometry: Diamond.
Grip length: 17.5 cm - 6.88".
Grip thickness: 4 x 2.6 cm - 1.57 x 1.02".
Weigth: 2189 grams.
Both swords have brass guards and pommels with nice detail. The Novara is the more historic looking, the RWS has a kind of steam punk look.
The Novarra guard is not exactly flimsy, but the RWS has the thicker guard, very sturdy.
Where the RWS sports a wooden grip, the Novara has a grip made of aluminium of sorts, or maybe some kind of pot metal, as can be read about here: sbg-sword-forum.forums.net/board/58/medieval-swords?q=novara
Let me assure you that there is no grip noise, as mentioned in one of the threads, on mine. It seems also clear that most of the posts were made by people who did not own the sword, so there is a lot of the usual bickering over the supposed Windlass wippyness and such. That said, I concur with the notion to remove the grip, however nicely detailed as it is and fit it with a good wooden grip. As the Novara is not peened ( the RWS is! ) that will not be a big problem. The scabbards on both swords are the standard Windlass leather affairs and they are quite floppy because of their length. I would suggest to make ones with leather over a wooden core, but than again, these swords probably did not have a scabbard at all way back then. The scabbards the swords come with are good anti dust devises and should be seen as such, not more.
The blades.
The Novara has the best looking one, with a long ricasso that helps to stiffen the thin blade, good straight fullers and even some etching.
The RWS has the sort of blade one recognises from the English two hander. Diamond sectioned and because of the too thin stock used on both these swords, this is the more flexible one. Notice though that I say MORE flexible here, not floppy. Overhang is minimal and I think that the blade is very good and certainly would hold up nicely were it put to the test. But, the Novara fares a lot better in the stiffness stakes because of the long ricasso. What is one more reason to remove the metal grip is that the Novara has a nasty vibration, going up from the blade, straight up the grip when the blade hits something, even with low force. I remember reading some expose about nodes and how they supposedly effect handling. Well, the Novara vibrates in the grip to such an extant that one will be unable to hold on to the grip when one hits the target with great force and with the wrong place on the blade. A good wooden grip should dampen these vibrations.
And so we come to handling.
Though the Novara is the slightly bigger one, it handles very well and is just what it is supposed to be, a two hander.
It is alive, easy to manoeuvre and it is easy to recover from a blow set in motion.
Just now I compared it with the Hanwei Scottish claymore and the Novara blows that one out of the water. The Hanwei, though it had a lot of rave reviews, handles like a brick compared to the Novara and if one would like to talk flexible or even floppy blades, this is one hell of a flexible blade! Strange. The ,,Windlass is wippy'' crowd never mentiones that?
The RWS is a sort of conundrum to me. What is it supposed to be? A large, brutish HaH? Or a slightly shorter two hander?
I do not say it is bad or dull or clumsy in any way. Depending on who wields it, it can be a very fast sword, even as a HaH, though that last requires a lot of muscle. The point is that I am not sure how to classify it. Used in two hand mode it is very good, but I do prefer the Novara.
Just like the Novara it makes mincemeat of the Scot, easely.
But compared to the Hanwei Bastard and even my home made Wallace German Bastard, in HaH mode both these blades handle better, though it must be said, the Hanwei Bastard is realy VERY light. So, the RWS is a good two hander and a little too heavy HaH, at least compared to the Hanwei and the Wallace. Funny thing this last, because my Wallace sports the same blade and also the hilt is not so far off. Must be the fairies.
Conclusion.
Both swords deserved better. Where the Hanwei Scottish claymore was hyped to the gills, these two received no such attention and disappeared into the mists of time. Pity, because both are very well made, good handling swords, excellent for the kind of action they were intended for.
I prefer the Novara as I do not have to work so hard as with the RWS. I am a LAZY bum.
I have no relation with them, only as a satisfied costumer.
Brute power war swords these. Made for cutting Cavalry (as in horse and rider) and pikes. Not for sword play and other gentlemanly past times.
Not for wimpy, lace clad and wine slurping aristocratic dandies and other assorted dandelions. No no. These are for the beer belching, pork eating class, that will go berserk on your ass. The children of Wores* and such. Raised in the slums of Europe. Tough as nails murdering, raping and plundering SOB's, with no teeth and very bad breath.
Enough said. You get the drift.
Lets see how these two Windlasses hold up in that environment and start with the numbers.
* Due to censorship I am not allowed to write this word in the right spelling here!
The Novara. ( at right ).
Length: 129 cm - 50.78".
Lenght of the blade: 101 cm - 39.76".
Width of the blade: 4.8 cm - 1.88".
Blade thickness at the guard: 0.45 cm - 0.18".
Width of the guard: 34.5 cm - 13.58".
Width of the rings: 14 cm - 5.51".
POB: 9 cm - 3.54".
Taper: 4.5 - 3 mm - 0.18 - 0.11".
Geometry:Ricasso 25 cm, fullered diamond section 50 cm,diamond.
Grip length: 21 cm - 8.26".
Grip thickness: 4.5 - 2.5 cm - 1.77 x 0.98".
Weight: 2473 grams.
The Renaissance War Sword.
Length: 122.5 cm - 48.22".
Length of the blade: 97 cm - 38.18".
Width of the blade: 4.5 cm - 1.77".
Blade thickness at the guard: 0.45 cm - 0.17".
Width of the guard: 33.5 cm - 13.18".
POB: 11 cm - 4.33".
Taper: 4.5 - 3.5 mm - 0.17 - 0.13".
Geometry: Diamond.
Grip length: 17.5 cm - 6.88".
Grip thickness: 4 x 2.6 cm - 1.57 x 1.02".
Weigth: 2189 grams.
Both swords have brass guards and pommels with nice detail. The Novara is the more historic looking, the RWS has a kind of steam punk look.
The Novarra guard is not exactly flimsy, but the RWS has the thicker guard, very sturdy.
Where the RWS sports a wooden grip, the Novara has a grip made of aluminium of sorts, or maybe some kind of pot metal, as can be read about here: sbg-sword-forum.forums.net/board/58/medieval-swords?q=novara
Let me assure you that there is no grip noise, as mentioned in one of the threads, on mine. It seems also clear that most of the posts were made by people who did not own the sword, so there is a lot of the usual bickering over the supposed Windlass wippyness and such. That said, I concur with the notion to remove the grip, however nicely detailed as it is and fit it with a good wooden grip. As the Novara is not peened ( the RWS is! ) that will not be a big problem. The scabbards on both swords are the standard Windlass leather affairs and they are quite floppy because of their length. I would suggest to make ones with leather over a wooden core, but than again, these swords probably did not have a scabbard at all way back then. The scabbards the swords come with are good anti dust devises and should be seen as such, not more.
The blades.
The Novara has the best looking one, with a long ricasso that helps to stiffen the thin blade, good straight fullers and even some etching.
The RWS has the sort of blade one recognises from the English two hander. Diamond sectioned and because of the too thin stock used on both these swords, this is the more flexible one. Notice though that I say MORE flexible here, not floppy. Overhang is minimal and I think that the blade is very good and certainly would hold up nicely were it put to the test. But, the Novara fares a lot better in the stiffness stakes because of the long ricasso. What is one more reason to remove the metal grip is that the Novara has a nasty vibration, going up from the blade, straight up the grip when the blade hits something, even with low force. I remember reading some expose about nodes and how they supposedly effect handling. Well, the Novara vibrates in the grip to such an extant that one will be unable to hold on to the grip when one hits the target with great force and with the wrong place on the blade. A good wooden grip should dampen these vibrations.
And so we come to handling.
Though the Novara is the slightly bigger one, it handles very well and is just what it is supposed to be, a two hander.
It is alive, easy to manoeuvre and it is easy to recover from a blow set in motion.
Just now I compared it with the Hanwei Scottish claymore and the Novara blows that one out of the water. The Hanwei, though it had a lot of rave reviews, handles like a brick compared to the Novara and if one would like to talk flexible or even floppy blades, this is one hell of a flexible blade! Strange. The ,,Windlass is wippy'' crowd never mentiones that?
The RWS is a sort of conundrum to me. What is it supposed to be? A large, brutish HaH? Or a slightly shorter two hander?
I do not say it is bad or dull or clumsy in any way. Depending on who wields it, it can be a very fast sword, even as a HaH, though that last requires a lot of muscle. The point is that I am not sure how to classify it. Used in two hand mode it is very good, but I do prefer the Novara.
Just like the Novara it makes mincemeat of the Scot, easely.
But compared to the Hanwei Bastard and even my home made Wallace German Bastard, in HaH mode both these blades handle better, though it must be said, the Hanwei Bastard is realy VERY light. So, the RWS is a good two hander and a little too heavy HaH, at least compared to the Hanwei and the Wallace. Funny thing this last, because my Wallace sports the same blade and also the hilt is not so far off. Must be the fairies.
Conclusion.
Both swords deserved better. Where the Hanwei Scottish claymore was hyped to the gills, these two received no such attention and disappeared into the mists of time. Pity, because both are very well made, good handling swords, excellent for the kind of action they were intended for.
I prefer the Novara as I do not have to work so hard as with the RWS. I am a LAZY bum.