|
Post by aronk on Feb 10, 2015 0:55:08 GMT
Also, the side sword is hardly a fencing-style weapon. It's just an arming sword with some rings on the guard instead of a simple cross, and it was used as such as far as I know, very cut and thrust.
*ETA* Unless you happen to be talking about something like an espada ropera, which is essentially a rapier with a shorter, wider blade, and a slightly simpler hilt.
|
|
|
Post by spearman on Feb 11, 2015 2:40:28 GMT
As far as I know, a smallsword would be 200 years too early. I believe they first became popular in Lowland Scotland in the 1700s. The bulk of the really popular 16th Century swords would have been side swords and English basket hilts. There were some early rapiers around in use by the very wealthy, but they did not really take over until the 1600s. In addition, there was Elizabethan legislation aginst the rapier due to the length of the blades, and the increase of the frequency of street fighting and duels. I still think that the best sword for a 16th Century reenactment would be a side sword because they would not be restricted to a civilian impression. They could do a soldier, mercenary, sell sword, or civilian. I have to disagree. Rapiers would be present in the 16th century, and abundant in the 17th century. The side sword would only really be appropriate for civilian wear in the late 16th and early 17th centuries, the rapier rapidly replacing it in most civilian contexts outside of England, where the basket-hilted backsword was initially more popular. As for the smallsword, check your sources, it begins to appear in the 17th century, reaching the peak of its popularity between the middle of the 17th century and the later part of the 18th century, with persistence on the continent well into the 1830s in dueling contexts until replaced by the epee du combat and similar weapons before the triumph of pistol dueling on the continent. By your math, if the smallsword was 200 years too early in 1650, it shouldn't have appeared until 1850, when it finally went out of style completely! By 200 years too early, I did not mean 1650, I meant the 1500s. Look at the OPs first few posts. The OP's reenactor friend is doing an impression from the 1500's, so you have missed the point (pun intended). Would a reenactor with an impression from the 1500s want to carry a smallsword from 1650 onwards? Smallswords were everywhere in the 1700s having taken off after the decline of the rapier. Wikipedia agrees that the smallsword starting becoming popular around 1650, but that is too late for the OP's reenactor friend, so there is nothing wrong with my math, or my sources. Rapiers were in use by the very wealthy in the late 1500's and really took over in the 1600s, but rapiers were not military swords in the 1500s. If that reenactor is not doing a wealthy civilian impression, a rapier would not be the best choice. It is not so that the sidesword would only be for civilians in the late 1500s. Sideswords were the overwhelming choice of swords for military men in the last three quarters of the 1500s along with the English Basket Hilt broadsword which remained popular through the reign of Elizabeth I, and were favorites of mounted soldiers. Civilian students of George Silver would have also used both the sidesword and the English Basket Hilt. The sidesword is also known as a cut & thrust, and can be used for any 1500s impression. If you look at a lot of period illustrations for the 1500s, you will notice that the majority of the men are wearing sideswords. You can tell the difference from the rapier by the hilts. If you want to see a sidesword in action, check out the documentary, Reclaiming The Blade.
|
|
|
Post by spearman on Feb 11, 2015 3:14:17 GMT
Also, the side sword is hardly a fencing-style weapon. It's just an arming sword with some rings on the guard instead of a simple cross, and it was used as such as far as I know, very cut and thrust. *ETA* Unless you happen to be talking about something like an espada ropera, which is essentially a rapier with a shorter, wider blade, and a slightly simpler hilt. I disagree that the sidesword was just an arming sword. It is something different. Compare blade profiles of arming swords to sideswords. An arming sword has a broader blade. Sideswords are much narrower, and they were intended to allow fencing with the point and still allow decent cutting ability on the battlefield. They were a compromise. Civilians often paired a sidesword with a parrying dagger, but soldiers often paired it with a buckler. Sideswords seemed to decline after the European Wars of Religion. The period illustrations I have found after that date tend to show soldiers mainly armed with some form of basket hilt, and civilians armed with rapiers. Sideswords and English Basket Hilts coexisted in England. Both were the preferred swords of George Silver, the so called English School. Rapiers belonged to the Italian School, but it was really only the very wealthy that wore them in the 1500s. They could also afford to pay the fine on the excessively long blades during the reign of Elizabeth. The espada ropera was not essentially a rapier. It was, in fact, the original sidesword. For some reason, the sidesword does not seem to have been used by the military in Spain, unlike other places in Europe.
|
|
|
Post by aronk on Feb 11, 2015 5:11:53 GMT
spearman, I'm afraid you've lost the plot a bit, though I seem to have also been under the impression that the OP was asking about both the 16th and 17th centuries. My comment regarding the side sword being only appropriate for civilian wear was intended to include civilian wear, and not exclude battlefield use, which was the primary context for the use of the side sword. The rapier and side sword were contemporaries for civilian use in Mediterranean and Iberian Europe for a rather brief period of time. Which brings us to a very important point. The side sword was not a pan-European weapon like the arming sword, longsword, or smallsword. It, in the sense typically used in modern contexts, was largely restricted to Mediterranean and Iberian Europe and to a lesser extent, the regions in direct proximity. As for the side sword and arming sword, take a look at some early side swords, and compare to late arming swords. Then compare late side swords to early rapiers. The side sword existed on a continuum from an arming sword with rings on the guard to a rapier with a short blade and a less complex hilt. The changes in blade profiles you mention only occur as the side sword began to become more rapier-like. In terms of use, side sword is a direct descendent of arming sword, being a one handed sword that is very cut and thrust in use. Not exactly a fencing weapon as requested by the OP (thus "losing the plot") unless it happens to be a rather late example used in a late Italian or Spanish style. it really depends on the context. Early 1500s would indeed really be limited to arming swords, longswords, early backswords, and arming sword-like side swords (but remember, depending on context many civilians would not have been allowed to carry swords in public). Later on though, rapiers, basket hilted backswords, and espada ropera like side swords would be better choices. Now, for a *very* late 1500s French gentry impression, a proto-smallsword could be appropriate. But in any case, you still seem to want to date the smallsword too late. I would argue that smallswords were not difficult to find by 1650, and probably existed in a proto form as early as 1590-1600. By 1750, they were already starting to fall out of style as daily wear of swords (tragically) ceased to be fashionable.
|
|
|
Post by aussie-rabbit on Feb 11, 2015 5:55:57 GMT
Something missing is the approx size and strength of your lovely lady,
|
|
|
Post by aussie-rabbit on Feb 11, 2015 6:05:49 GMT
|
|
Scott
Member
Posts: 1,676
|
Post by Scott on Feb 11, 2015 12:31:09 GMT
Darkwood armoury gives the option of picking which blade you want with which hilt, so you could have an earlier style hilt with a rapier blade. As far as what type of sword would be appropriate, I'm not sure it matters, as women did not wear swords.
|
|
|
Post by spearman on Feb 13, 2015 4:55:39 GMT
Darkwood armoury gives the option of picking which blade you want with which hilt, so you could have an earlier style hilt with a rapier blade. As far as what type of sword would be appropriate, I'm not sure it matters, as women did not wear swords. Darkwood Armory looks to be a great source for a reenactor, not only for available hilts, but also blade options.
|
|
|
Post by spearman on Feb 13, 2015 5:02:20 GMT
Something missing is the approx size and strength of your lovely lady, Shieldmaidens rock! One of my favorite visuals in the History Channels The Vikings is when the Princess shows up at Ragnar's home surounded by Shieldmaidens in a procession from their ship.
|
|
|
Post by spearman on Feb 13, 2015 5:05:33 GMT
spearman, I'm afraid you've lost the plot a bit, though I seem to have also been under the impression that the OP was asking about both the 16th and 17th centuries. My comment regarding the side sword being only appropriate for civilian wear was intended to include civilian wear, and not exclude battlefield use, which was the primary context for the use of the side sword. The rapier and side sword were contemporaries for civilian use in Mediterranean and Iberian Europe for a rather brief period of time. Which brings us to a very important point. The side sword was not a pan-European weapon like the arming sword, longsword, or smallsword. It, in the sense typically used in modern contexts, was largely restricted to Mediterranean and Iberian Europe and to a lesser extent, the regions in direct proximity. As for the side sword and arming sword, take a look at some early side swords, and compare to late arming swords. Then compare late side swords to early rapiers. The side sword existed on a continuum from an arming sword with rings on the guard to a rapier with a short blade and a less complex hilt. The changes in blade profiles you mention only occur as the side sword began to become more rapier-like. In terms of use, side sword is a direct descendent of arming sword, being a one handed sword that is very cut and thrust in use. Not exactly a fencing weapon as requested by the OP (thus "losing the plot") unless it happens to be a rather late example used in a late Italian or Spanish style. it really depends on the context. Early 1500s would indeed really be limited to arming swords, longswords, early backswords, and arming sword-like side swords (but remember, depending on context many civilians would not have been allowed to carry swords in public). Later on though, rapiers, basket hilted backswords, and espada ropera like side swords would be better choices. Now, for a *very* late 1500s French gentry impression, a proto-smallsword could be appropriate. But in any case, you still seem to want to date the smallsword too late. I would argue that smallswords were not difficult to find by 1650, and probably existed in a proto form as early as 1590-1600. By 1750, they were already starting to fall out of style as daily wear of swords (tragically) ceased to be fashionable.
|
|
|
Post by spearman on Feb 13, 2015 6:48:28 GMT
How could I have lost the the plot when the OPs original post was " I feel I really should know this, but it seems the bulk of my sword knowledge revolves around earlier period Euro's A friend asked for a recommendation for a sword (for a gift) from about 1500-1600, and around Albion quality. The sword is for his wife, they are reenactors...anyhow, she tends to like fencing style more than longsword. I know this will probably produce a range, so what's your thoughts?"
I submit that not only were my posts dead on regarding plot and on target, but yours were off plot and off topic. 1500 - 1600 is not 1650 - 1800. You know a great deal about 18th Century sabers, but you have information regarding the 16th Century cut & thrust sword that is in error, such as "It's just an arming sword with some rings on the guard". You now state, " My comment regarding the side sword being only appropriate for civilian wear was intended to include civilian wear, and not exclude battlefield use.", but your earlier statement was,"The side sword would only really be appropriate for civilian wear in the late 16th and early 17th centuries", which is the Wikipedia opinion. Once you get beyond Wikipedia, your begin to encounter sources regarding the military use of the side sword. It looks like you have been doing more research based on my replies, but I will hold you to your earlier quotes. if you want to change your tune, just admit that your previous information was in error, and admit that your understanding of the OP's time frame was also an error on your part. A little humility goes a long way in establishing personal honor. 1650 is not 1500 - 1600. Just admit it. Your source regarding side swords "largely restricted to Mediterranean and Iberian Europe" is also a huge error. I do not know what your source was for that informatiom, but it is wrong. They were very popular in England, France, and Germany, and widely used by foot soldiers in the Wars of Religion, including the 30 Years war. I have done at least 100 hours of research on the side sword, which is one of my real sword passions, including studying English 16th Century paintings. You can continue to attempt to research after my replies in an attempt to win your arguement, but you will not win. Just have a little humility and admit that you misunderstood the OPs time frame which lead you into this argument. I am certain that you have a strong sense of personal honor, and I look forward to seeing it.
|
|
Scott
Member
Posts: 1,676
|
Post by Scott on Feb 13, 2015 10:22:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Rabel Dusk on Feb 13, 2015 15:47:00 GMT
To refer back to the original post, what could be more fun than searching out and then giving your HEMA girlfriend an Albion level sword as a gift?
|
|
|
Post by aronk on Feb 14, 2015 4:02:47 GMT
How could I have lost the the plot when the OPs original post was " I feel I really should know this, but it seems the bulk of my sword knowledge revolves around earlier period Euro's A friend asked for a recommendation for a sword (for a gift) from about 1500-1600, and around Albion quality. The sword is for his wife, they are reenactors...anyhow, she tends to like fencing style more than longsword. I know this will probably produce a range, so what's your thoughts?" I submit that not only were my posts dead on regarding plot and on target, but yours were off plot and off topic. 1500 - 1600 is not 1650 - 1800. You know a great deal about 18th Century sabers, but you have information regarding the 16th Century cut & thrust sword that is in error, such as "It's just an arming sword with some rings on the guard". You now state, " My comment regarding the side sword being only appropriate for civilian wear was intended to include civilian wear, and not exclude battlefield use.", but your earlier statement was,"The side sword would only really be appropriate for civilian wear in the late 16th and early 17th centuries", which is the Wikipedia opinion. Once you get beyond Wikipedia, your begin to encounter sources regarding the military use of the side sword. It looks like you have been doing more research based on my replies, but I will hold you to your earlier quotes. if you want to change your tune, just admit that your previous information was in error, and admit that your understanding of the OP's time frame was also an error on your part. A little humility goes a long way in establishing personal honor. 1650 is not 1500 - 1600. Just admit it. Your source regarding side swords "largely restricted to Mediterranean and Iberian Europe" is also a huge error. I do not know what your source was for that informatiom, but it is wrong. They were very popular in England, France, and Germany, and widely used by foot soldiers in the Wars of Religion, including the 30 Years war. I have done at least 100 hours of research on the side sword, which is one of my real sword passions, including studying English 16th Century paintings. You can continue to attempt to research after my replies in an attempt to win your arguement, but you will not win. Just have a little humility and admit that you misunderstood the OPs time frame which lead you into this argument. I am certain that you have a strong sense of personal honor, and I look forward to seeing it. Okay, so first of all, yes, I was under the mistaken impression that the OP was asking about 1500's and 1600's, not solely the 16th century. In that case, yes, there would be no smallswords around with the exception of very, very early proto-forms (still rapiers, really) in the 1590s. The rapier, however, is dead accurate to period, and would suit the fencing style the OP is talking about far better than anything but a late side sword (probably something from after 1550 from my admittedly somwhat limited knowledge) used in a late, rapier-like style (remember, the rapier evolved from the side sword, and was used in parallel with it). Thus your losing the plot. Now, if side swords did not evolve from arming swords (at one point being nothing more than a late arming sword with first one, then two rings, etc.) as you at this point appear to believe where, pray tell did they come from? Of course late period side swords were much more rapier-like, following the general trend toward the thrust on the continent, but at first, yes, they were arming swords with rings on the guard. Now, as to the issue of side swords in battle, my first comment was indeed phrased in such a way that it could be interpreted as indicating that I believed that the side sword was only used in civilian contexts. This was not at all what I meant to say. Of course the side sword was used in war, but it does rapidly disappear from civilian use later in the period, this being largely due to the dominance of the rapier. It also disappears from the battlefield as pallasch-type swords, backsword derivatives, sabres, and smallsword derivatives (i.e. the spadroon) come into favour for military use in much of Europe. Which brings me to my final point: The side sword was indeed geographically restricted, though perhaps not as much as my post would seem to indicate. Consider the supremacy of the backsword in Elizabethan England, the early broadswords of Scotland, the militarized rapiers found across the continent, and the swords of Germanic Europe. The side sword was used everywhere, but it is undeniable that it was most popular (and most commonly used) in Iberian and Mediterranean Europe, which, coincidentally, are the places where the rapier arose and was dominant.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Thorfinn on Feb 16, 2015 23:01:09 GMT
My intent was not to start a brawl Anyhow... She's a proficient fencer, about 5'6" and in fairly good shape, so anything he buys thats in the 'real' sword range would be usable by her. As to the time frame, I reference, I'm going by what her Husband told me, he may be off a bit so there could be some slop in the time frame of as much as +-50 years. (I know, not helpful) So even the point/counterpoint of Aronk and Spearman helps him learn (me too!) I do appreciate the info, so does he. Now I just need to get him to start lurking on the site.
|
|
|
Post by spearman on Feb 17, 2015 20:43:41 GMT
My intent was not to start a brawl Anyhow... She's a proficient fencer, about 5'6" and in fairly good shape, so anything he buys thats in the 'real' sword range would be usable by her. As to the time frame, I reference, I'm going by what her Husband told me, he may be off a bit so there could be some slop in the time frame of as much as +-50 years. (I know, not helpful) So even the point/counterpoint of Aronk and Spearman helps him learn (me too!) I do appreciate the info, so does he. Now I just need to get him to start lurking on the site. The most important thing to establish is whether she is a reenactor doing blade on blade contact, or if she is doing HEMA sparring. That would affect the blade that would be needed. Also, if she is a reenactor, a common impression would be best, which is why I recommended the side sword. If she is doing a 16th Century soldier or a middle class impression, and not a wealthy noble, and she shows up with a rapier, the authenticity police could give her grief all weekend. I have been there myself in the past. If she is sparring in HEMA, then a rapier is fine. Although using a side sword would still be considered "fencing" in the 16th Century, she would be able to use a rapier right out of the box if she is a fencer, although there is much about the rapier not included in modern fencing. A side sword would require relearning the weapon. The documentary, Reclaiming The Blade has some excellent sequences of the side sword. ARMA director, John Clements wrote a great book, Renaissance Swordmanship: The Illustrated Use of Rapiers and Cut-and-Thrust Swords. I would recommend that book regardless if she is in HEMA or a reenactor. If her persona is English, I would also recommend Master of Defence: The Works of George Silver by Paul Wagner. George was a proponent of the side sword and English Basket Hilt. He taught his students to defeat rapiers. He even killed a few Italian rapier instructors until no rapier instructor would accept his challenges. One thing he pointed out about the rapier was that the blade was so long that it required stepping back from timing of the hand or timing of the arm range in order to disengage. George felt it was a fatal flaw that had led to the deaths of brave men. The later small sword corrected that flaw and was a better dueling weapon. So it all depends on whether she is doing reenacting or HEMA as the needed blades would be a bit different. For side sword, an Albion trainer or an AA would be the best quality. For a rapier , Darkwood Armory or AA would probably be the best choice.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Feb 17, 2015 22:54:08 GMT
Although using a side sword would still be considered "fencing" in the 16th Century, she would be able to use a rapier right out of the box if she is a fencer, although there is much about the rapier not included in modern fencing. A side sword would require relearning the weapon. Why would a side sword be more different? While a side sword isn't such a close match to modern fencing weapons as a smallsword, it doesn't seem any worse than a rapier as far as difference goes. Closer to the same length, lighter and will handle more like modern fencing weapons (not much like them, but close to them than a rapier). (However, modern "reproduction" rapiers tend to be short and very light for rapiers.)
|
|
|
Post by Lukas MG (chenessfan) on Feb 17, 2015 23:10:40 GMT
Didn't read all the posts so if this has been mentioned already, I apologize. Anyway, what about a longsword? They were still in use for at least the first half of the 16th. century...
Edit: nevermind, just re-read the first post and apparently, the lady is not into longswords. A shame, there are some beautiful complex hilted pieces.
|
|
|
Post by spearman on Feb 18, 2015 0:27:45 GMT
How could I have lost the the plot when the OPs original post was " I feel I really should know this, but it seems the bulk of my sword knowledge revolves around earlier period Euro's A friend asked for a recommendation for a sword (for a gift) from about 1500-1600, and around Albion quality. The sword is for his wife, they are reenactors...anyhow, she tends to like fencing style more than longsword. I know this will probably produce a range, so what's your thoughts?" I submit that not only were my posts dead on regarding plot and on target, but yours were off plot and off topic. 1500 - 1600 is not 1650 - 1800. You know a great deal about 18th Century sabers, but you have information regarding the 16th Century cut & thrust sword that is in error, such as "It's just an arming sword with some rings on the guard". You now state, " My comment regarding the side sword being only appropriate for civilian wear was intended to include civilian wear, and not exclude battlefield use.", but your earlier statement was,"The side sword would only really be appropriate for civilian wear in the late 16th and early 17th centuries", which is the Wikipedia opinion. Once you get beyond Wikipedia, your begin to encounter sources regarding the military use of the side sword. It looks like you have been doing more research based on my replies, but I will hold you to your earlier quotes. if you want to change your tune, just admit that your previous information was in error, and admit that your understanding of the OP's time frame was also an error on your part. A little humility goes a long way in establishing personal honor. 1650 is not 1500 - 1600. Just admit it. Your source regarding side swords "largely restricted to Mediterranean and Iberian Europe" is also a huge error. I do not know what your source was for that informatiom, but it is wrong. They were very popular in England, France, and Germany, and widely used by foot soldiers in the Wars of Religion, including the 30 Years war. I have done at least 100 hours of research on the side sword, which is one of my real sword passions, including studying English 16th Century paintings. You can continue to attempt to research after my replies in an attempt to win your arguement, but you will not win. Just have a little humility and admit that you misunderstood the OPs time frame which lead you into this argument. I am certain that you have a strong sense of personal honor, and I look forward to seeing it. Okay, so first of all, yes, I was under the mistaken impression that the OP was asking about 1500's and 1600's, not solely the 16th century. In that case, yes, there would be no smallswords around with the exception of very, very early proto-forms (still rapiers, really) in the 1590s. The rapier, however, is dead accurate to period, and would suit the fencing style the OP is talking about far better than anything but a late side sword (probably something from after 1550 from my admittedly somwhat limited knowledge) used in a late, rapier-like style (remember, the rapier evolved from the side sword, and was used in parallel with it). Thus your losing the plot. Now, if side swords did not evolve from arming swords (at one point being nothing more than a late arming sword with first one, then two rings, etc.) as you at this point appear to believe where, pray tell did they come from? Of course late period side swords were much more rapier-like, following the general trend toward the thrust on the continent, but at first, yes, they were arming swords with rings on the guard. Now, as to the issue of side swords in battle, my first comment was indeed phrased in such a way that it could be interpreted as indicating that I believed that the side sword was only used in civilian contexts. This was not at all what I meant to say. Of course the side sword was used in war, but it does rapidly disappear from civilian use later in the period, this being largely due to the dominance of the rapier. It also disappears from the battlefield as pallasch-type swords, backsword derivatives, sabres, and smallsword derivatives (i.e. the spadroon) come into favour for military use in much of Europe. Which brings me to my final point: The side sword was indeed geographically restricted, though perhaps not as much as my post would seem to indicate. Consider the supremacy of the backsword in Elizabethan England, the early broadswords of Scotland, the militarized rapiers found across the continent, and the swords of Germanic Europe. The side sword was used everywhere, but it is undeniable that it was most popular (and most commonly used) in Iberian and Mediterranean Europe, which, coincidentally, are the places where the rapier arose and was dominant. I am glad to see you admit that a sword from 1650-1800 is not a sword from 1500-1600. I never said that the side sword did not evolve from the arming sword. You are putting your own spin on what I say. You first said, "It's just an arming sword with some rings on the guard". I pointed out that it was an entirely different sword. The Germanic Migration sword evolved from the Roman spatha, but it was not a Roman spatha. Viking swords evolved from Migration swords, but they were not Migration swords. 12th and 13th Century swords evolved from Viking swords, but they were not the same. Arming swords evolved from 12th and 13th Century swords, but they were not the same. Side swords evolved from arming swords, but they were not the same. Rapiers evolved from side swords, but they were not the same, and finally small swords evolved from rapiers. The 15th Century transitional side swords with an arming sword blade profile were also not the same as 16th Century side swords. No ancestor of the next evolutionary sword was the same as the sword from which it evolved. If you do not believe that the arming sword was a very different sword from the arming sword, simply study the guards and attacks of the arming sword and buckler. Then study the guards and attacks of the side sword, and you will see that they were two different critters. If you have further interest, I highly recommend the documentary, Reclaiming The Blade. I own the DVD, but you can rent it on Amazon. I also recommend Renaissance Swordsmanship: The Illustrated Use of Rapiers and Cut-and-Thrust Swords by John Clements, the director of ARMA. I cannot recommend this book highly enough for both reenactors and HEMA practicioners. Of course the rapier would be period for the 16th Century, however, if the lady in question is a reenactor, there could be a problem. It would only be good for a very wealthy civilian persona. As I previously stated, rapier instruction was so expensive in the 16th Century that only the wealthy could afford to study. Soldiers and the middle class could afford side sword lessons. In addition, rapiers were very expensive in the 16th Century. In reenactment, you generally want to go with a common impression. Otherwise the authenticity police will harass you all weekend. I used to carry printed documentation in my pouch for many items of my kit to deal with it. It is not fun. IMO, it is better to dumb down your kit a little bit and only have sterotypical items so that you are left in peace. If the lady is wearing garb fabrics and colors of the working or middle classes and carrying a rapier, the authenticity police will ruin her weekend. So you admit that the side sword was everywhere but most popular around the Med. What does that matter except to try and save face? Look at 16th Century English paintings and count the number of side sword hilts contrasted to other sword types. Having established these clarifications, is there even further need for this discussion?
|
|
|
Post by spearman on Feb 18, 2015 0:41:57 GMT
Didn't read all the posts so if this has been mentioned already, I apologize. Anyway, what about a longsword? They were still in use for at least the first half of the 16th. century... Edit: nevermind, just re-read the first post and apparently, the lady is not into longswords. A shame, there are some beautiful complex hilted pieces. Although longswords are outside of my period of interest, if I were asked to choose a longsword off a a table of 30, I would immediately choose yours. What a beauty!
|
|