|
Post by howler on Apr 21, 2018 18:42:01 GMT
Thought I'd bump this thread, both for the excellent review, and to note that the $95 price was seen before (almost 2 1/2 years ago) and may well be seen again...for those who missed out and want this excellent sword. Thanks for the bump and compliment! Can't believe this review is almost 3 years old it doesn't seem that long, lol. You know I have a feeling that before we see the XIV make a sneaky limited comeback we'll see it renamed and blackened as the next "new" sword in their Battlecry line. So far as of recently they've reissued their older steel hilted baskethilt model into the Culloden Basket-hilt, Soldiers Dagger into the Crecy Dagger and the Roman Cenuturian Gladius into the Centurian Gladius. Wouldn't be surprised at all if the next in line would be either the XIV or maybe the 15th Century Longsword or maybe even the Sword of Roven. Yeah, I couldn't have made a better review if I tried, so the bump made sense as an ad hoc substitution as it was done long enough ago as to refresh peoples memories. Cutting a few costs, renaming it and adding it to the Battlecry line would be smart, and seems like a good prediction.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Apr 21, 2018 19:09:36 GMT
The XIV in the Battlecry Line would be a nice addition. I played with mine this morning in regard to comparing it with the Agincourt’s penetration. For the Agincourt review I used new rugs that I wasn’t sure how the comparison between them and the old rugs were. They were folded to ¾” thickness and placed over a plastic gallon jug. The Agincourt made it completely through as did my P1796. My German Bastard Sword would only barely penetrate the front of the jug, the deepest penetration was only about 2”, the others less. This morning I tried the XIV as it was the only thrust designed sword that I hadn’t tried. Not only did I get complete penetration it consistently made the biggest, nastiest hole of the lot. I can't swing the XIV as freely indoors as I can the Windlass Qama due to blade length (17 1/2" vs 26"), but notice the power difference behind even a slightly choked up swing. The stabbing potential (as you note) is incredible, as the blade length and mass are a great combination of power and reach, and when I pull back to wind up for another thrust, the tip is only a foot in front of my stomach, so good close quarters ability, and one of the reasons I like the hybrid length (as apposes to 32").
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Apr 21, 2018 20:03:54 GMT
I can't swing the XIV as freely indoors as I can the Windlass Qama due to blade length (17 1/2" vs 26"), but notice the power difference behind even a slightly choked up swing. The stabbing potential (as you note) is incredible, as the blade length and mass are a great combination of power and reach, and when I pull back to wind up for another thrust, the tip is only a foot in front of my stomach, so good close quarters ability, and one of the reasons I like the hybrid length (as apposes to 32"). My quarters are tight, even outdoors. This is one reason I find such great favour with the XIV and favour the thrust. I can hid that thing behind a buckler somewhat, and really behind my heater shield giving me an element of surprise.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Apr 21, 2018 20:32:30 GMT
I can't swing the XIV as freely indoors as I can the Windlass Qama due to blade length (17 1/2" vs 26"), but notice the power difference behind even a slightly choked up swing. The stabbing potential (as you note) is incredible, as the blade length and mass are a great combination of power and reach, and when I pull back to wind up for another thrust, the tip is only a foot in front of my stomach, so good close quarters ability, and one of the reasons I like the hybrid length (as apposes to 32"). My quarters are tight, even outdoors. This is one reason I find such great favour with the XIV and favour the thrust. I can hid that thing behind a buckler somewhat, and really behind my heater shield giving me an element of surprise. An interesting hybrid for sure, and in many ways, as it was the last group one Oakeshott that favored cutting in the blade profile, yet (in the XIV) was designed for better penetration. Very good for tighter spaces, and a probable beast, particularly with thrusting maneuvers with shield (which reminds me, I have to get more into shields).
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Apr 22, 2018 3:40:58 GMT
I do like spears. The XIV with 21½” x 24 ¾” heater shield feels “right”. That and the 12” buckler both feel good with the Agincourt, but would like to test more. If a choice, my stand will not be in my front garden nor patio. It will be in whichever doorway they choose where my flanks are protected and their movement is restricted. The noise they will make getting through my two steel gates/fence one with razor wire and my dog sounding the alarm should give ample time. My windows are barred. The rear will be more difficult for them.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Apr 22, 2018 5:41:42 GMT
I do like spears. The XIV with 21½” x 24 ¾” heater shield feels “right”. That and the 12” buckler both feel good with the Agincourt, but would like to test more. If a choice, my stand will not be in my front garden nor patio. It will be in whichever doorway they choose where my flanks are protected and their movement is restricted. The noise they will make getting through my two steel gates/fence one with razor wire and my dog sounding the alarm should give ample time. My windows are barred. The rear will be more difficult for them. 21 1/2" X 24 3/4" heater shield...that sounds interesting, gandy. Where did you get it?
|
|
|
Post by howler on Apr 22, 2018 5:43:42 GMT
An interesting hybrid for sure, and in many ways, as it was the last group one Oakeshott that favored cutting in the blade profile, yet (in the XIV) was designed for better penetration. Very good for tighter spaces, and a probable beast, particularly with thrusting maneuvers with shield (which reminds me, I have to get more into shields). Yes, from my training experience, a shorter sword (20”-27”) paired with a larger shield, that’s able to cover some of the body (like a 20” targe, for example) is amongst the best combos for fighting in a 3.5’* 7.4’ hallway (with two aggressive opponents rushing at you, spotting various weapon combinations). A 57” spear proved very effective, too, since it allows to really press on your opponents. It’s just hard to replicate the “struck” (and especially "stuck") effect, lol, so this is to be taken with a grain of salt I think it's time to delve into shields.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2018 12:16:50 GMT
My quarters are tight, even outdoors. This is one reason I find such great favour with the XIV and favour the thrust. I can hid that thing behind a buckler somewhat, and really behind my heater shield giving me an element of surprise. An interesting hybrid for sure, and in many ways, as it was the last group one Oakeshott that favored cutting in the blade profile, What about the XVIII swords? They're no slouch in any sense of the word and came in lots of lengths (see the Henry V). Or hell, a good wide XV. Not to forget they evolved along with advances in more plate being added. myarmoury.com/review_aa_french.htmlarms-n-armor.com/sword075.html
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Apr 22, 2018 14:32:40 GMT
I do like spears. The XIV with 21½” x 24 ¾” heater shield feels “right”. That and the 12” buckler both feel good with the Agincourt, but would like to test more. If a choice, my stand will not be in my front garden nor patio. It will be in whichever doorway they choose where my flanks are protected and their movement is restricted. The noise they will make getting through my two steel gates/fence one with razor wire and my dog sounding the alarm should give ample time. My windows are barred. The rear will be more difficult for them. 21 1/2" X 24 3/4" heater shield...that sounds interesting, gandy. Where did you get it? I’ve had it for some years and did a SBG review which I cannot find. Here’s another. www.museumreplicas.com/small-unpainted-shield . I got it from KoA, it was their last. Since then MRL has restocked and are now on close out. My next project is to make one. I’ve been saying that for at least a couple of years though. I believe it this time. I’ve collected the rivets and linen. The one from MRL is heavier than I prefer and is something that I believe a re-enactor could use routinely and still ask for more punishment. I plan on making one lighter by using thinner wood and not built with the intention of nearly unlimited use. If a sword or machete will cut into the edge, fine. That way I can hopefully trap the weapon momentarily. It will also be flat as I find the curve of this one hits me if I am not careful during a strike.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Apr 22, 2018 14:55:53 GMT
An interesting hybrid for sure, and in many ways, as it was the last group one Oakeshott that favored cutting in the blade profile, What about the XVIII swords? They're no slouch in any sense of the word and came in lots of lengths (see the Henry V). Or hell, a good wide XV. Not to forget they evolved along with advances in more plate being added. myarmoury.com/review_aa_french.htmlarms-n-armor.com/sword075.htmlI can’t say anything is wrong with either of those swords as such and they will no doubt work fine. But personally speaking I prefer the Windlass XIV blade at 26” blade over the 29 ¼” on the French sword. And the price on the Windlass over that of the Henry V. I picked the XIV up on the DoD with promo code and still cost me in the neighbourhood of $300, I can’t remember exactly now, I think a tad more. I estimate the Henry V will cost me about $1500, and I wouldn’t enjoy it half as much trying to protect it. Henry V would hang on the wall with me fighting off the rust. The Windlass I take out and with play, cut, etc. feeling relaxed, not that abuse it.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Apr 22, 2018 20:27:15 GMT
An interesting hybrid for sure, and in many ways, as it was the last group one Oakeshott that favored cutting in the blade profile, What about the XVIII swords? They're no slouch in any sense of the word and came in lots of lengths (see the Henry V). Or hell, a good wide XV. Not to forget they evolved along with advances in more plate being added. myarmoury.com/review_aa_french.htmlarms-n-armor.com/sword075.htmlWouldn't kick those out of bed , and I don't believe the overall differences between all swords to be very large, but was only going on what's said about the XIV with its wide cutting blade altered for better penetration near the tip, a hybrid affair. The XV looks visually cool to me, as I like long, spiky, angular shapes with that simple, elegant diamond profile.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Apr 22, 2018 20:41:32 GMT
21 1/2" X 24 3/4" heater shield...that sounds interesting, gandy. Where did you get it? I’ve had it for some years and did a SBG review which I cannot find. Here’s another. www.museumreplicas.com/small-unpainted-shield . I got it from KoA, it was their last. Since then MRL has restocked and are now on close out. My next project is to make one. I’ve been saying that for at least a couple of years though. I believe it this time. I’ve collected the rivets and linen. The one from MRL is heavier than I prefer and is something that I believe a re-enactor could use routinely and still ask for more punishment. I plan on making one lighter by using thinner wood and not built with the intention of nearly unlimited use. If a sword or machete will cut into the edge, fine. That way I can hopefully trap the weapon momentarily. It will also be flat as I find the curve of this one hits me if I am not careful during a strike. Was that your review on MRL (if so, I know what P stands for in Gandy)? It appears there would be a problem for left handers (afflicted with "devils paw") regarding shield straps in the back, correct? Wonder about some kind of ballistic resistant (stopping 9mm) type material, maybe even transparent? Would be nice to stop blades AND bullets.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Apr 23, 2018 0:48:39 GMT
Was that your review on MRL (if so, I know what P stands for in Gandy)? It appears there would be a problem for left handers (afflicted with "devils paw") regarding shield straps in the back, correct? Wonder about some kind of ballistic resistant (stopping 9mm) type material, maybe even transparent? Would be nice to stop blades AND bullets. My review and now you know my secret. I hadn’t thought about southpaws and I just tried the shield using my right arm. Big problem, I couldn’t even get my right hand through the x straps. If you are a lefty forget that shield as is. If you are planning on making a shield using bullet resistant or proof material consider stopping the bullet is only part of it. Example: you hold up the shield the bullet strikes and the shield stops the bullet, if all goes correctly. The bullet has stopped alright but its energy will not. The case of a 9 x 19 mm develops roughly 300-400 ftlb of energy and can go as high as 500. That is a lot to hope to catch and hopefully stop on your arm. A rough and crude comparison would be to let a refrigerator fall on you from 1’. I think that you would be better off in a bullet proof vest designed for 9 mm or better. Or hope that no one offers you a bullet.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Apr 23, 2018 0:59:38 GMT
Was that your review on MRL (if so, I know what P stands for in Gandy)? It appears there would be a problem for left handers (afflicted with "devils paw") regarding shield straps in the back, correct? Wonder about some kind of ballistic resistant (stopping 9mm) type material, maybe even transparent? Would be nice to stop blades AND bullets. My review and now you know my secret. I hadn’t thought about southpaws and I just tried the shield using my right arm. Big problem, I couldn’t even get my right hand through the x straps. If you are a lefty forget that shield as is. If you are planning on making a shield using bullet resistant or proof material consider stopping the bullet is only part of it. Example: you hold up the shield the bullet strikes and the shield stops the bullet, if all goes correctly. The bullet has stopped alright but its energy will not. The case of a 9 x 19 mm develops roughly 300-400 ftlb of energy and can go as high as 500. That is a lot to hope to catch and hopefully stop on your arm. A rough and crude comparison would be to let a refrigerator fall on you from 1’. I think that you would be better off in a bullet proof vest designed for 9 mm or better. Or hope that no one offers you a bullet. "The Secret Of P": Graphic novel of the sword wielding, rum drinking, Costa Rican barbarian/gentleman. I thought I was doomed on the shield, oh well. Not sure of the physics regarding a 9mm round on a shield, so I'll have to look into that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2018 1:08:34 GMT
Wouldn't kick those out of bed , and I don't believe the overall differences between all swords to be very large, but was only going on what's said about the XIV with its wide cutting blade altered for better penetration near the tip, a hybrid affair. The XV looks visually cool to me, as I like long, spiky, angular shapes with that simple, elegant diamond profile. Right, my comment was rather a counterpoint to your view that somehow a type XIV was the end of cutting profiles capable of thrusting, not in necessarily posting of a specific sword. Now this "I don't believe the overall differences between all swords to be very large" I know you probably don't exactly mean that either but you might clarify all "what swords" you are describing as all being more or less the same? I quit, nevermind. I was never meaning to interrupt again.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Apr 23, 2018 1:24:41 GMT
Wouldn't kick those out of bed , and I don't believe the overall differences between all swords to be very large, but was only going on what's said about the XIV with its wide cutting blade altered for better penetration near the tip, a hybrid affair. The XV looks visually cool to me, as I like long, spiky, angular shapes with that simple, elegant diamond profile. Right, my comment was rather a counterpoint to your view that somehow a type XIV was the end of cutting profiles capable of thrusting, not in necessarily posting of a specific sword. Now this "I don't believe the overall differences between all swords to be very large" I know you probably don't exactly mean that either but you might clarify all "what swords" you are describing as all being more or less the same? I quit, nevermind. I was never meaning to interrupt again. Yeah, should have said specifically arming swords, and that the XIV was the last of the group 1 primary cutter/blade profile (fuller) that was then altered for better penetration due to armor advancements (simplifying Oakeshott literature on the XIV). They clearly made cutters later, and the Oakeshott type shouldn't be viewed as super exact, as you probably saw examples of everything at all times.
|
|
|
Post by nddave on Apr 23, 2018 5:48:47 GMT
Obviously swords have always been about cutting and thrusting from ancient bronze swords down to modern military sabers.
One thing that I feel is missing in this current discussion is the difference between a riding sword and an arming sword. Obviously when you look at swords of a shorter blade length in the middle ages of cut and thrust profile you see them described as riding swords as opposed to arming swords, even in later typologies of the Class 2. For example XVI and XVIII riding swords that were similar in length to the XIV. Now why were these swords "riding swords" as opposed to arming swords? Well because how they were used which was on horse back.
In full armor on horse obviously a longer sword is going to present complications to the usefulness of a longer sword. Cutting from horse back to another saddled knight is going to be useless, a long thrust oriented blade as well so what would suit those on horseback? Obviously a blunt weapon such as a mace but with a sword a shorter thrusting blade or cut and thrust blade would be more suitable to the situation. In close quarters combat on horse in full armor a shorter blade will prove more effective.
The reason XIV is considered "transitional" is due to the fact that they were the last of the lenticular blade types,but alsp the XIV was considered the introduction to the Class 2 of thrust oriented blade types. Again the classes aren't meant to be so black and white in termination and this is obvious in later typologies and how there are some who do in fact focus on the cut, some even more so than the thrust as even some in Class 1 can be seen to offer focus on the thrust. But again what defines the two classes and separates them is the transition from a primary lenticular blade profile suited for cutting and moving into the more advanced diamond and hexagonal profiles suited for thrusting, while retaining equal cutting capabilities.
Hope this clears something up in regards to the discussion.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Apr 24, 2018 0:58:50 GMT
Yup, shields add a whole new dimension to the sword. A buckler is a step in that direction but a shield is "it". I understand what Markusagain is meaning when he describes his H/T EMSHS w/o shield. I feel the same with my XIV, it's just lacking. Sort of like being served a fabulous meal but given only water as a beverage. You really need to check shields out. Once you know what a shield is about you won't want to be without one.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Apr 24, 2018 1:20:23 GMT
Yup, shields add a whole new dimension to the sword. A buckler is a step in that direction but a shield is "it". I understand what Markusagain is meaning when he describes his H/T EMSHS w/o shield. I feel the same with my XIV, it's just lacking. Sort of like being served a fabulous meal but given only water as a beverage. You really need to check shields out. Once you know what a shield is about you won't want to be without one. I have several Main Gauche as well as large blades that could act as such, though with varying degree of hand protection, and I feel these are better than a buckler. However, a medium/larger shield would (I believe) be a significant game changer. Size, weight, shape, curved or flat, will be important considerations. I think a kind of oval, rectangular or crescent would be better than a pure circular or square shape, as you don't need as much side to side as head to toe (we are kind of rectangular, not square), and you can better use your weapon and maneuver around hallways, doors. This is all just thought speculation, of course. Firearm concepts (along with potential wearing of ballistic armor) may alter/complicate this further.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Apr 24, 2018 19:18:16 GMT
I have several Main Gauche as well as large blades that could act as such, though with varying degree of hand protection, and I feel these are better than a buckler. However, a medium/larger shield would (I believe) be a significant game changer. Size, weight, shape, curved or flat, will be important considerations. I think a kind of oval, rectangular or crescent would be better than a pure circular or square shape, as you don't need as much side to side as head to toe (we are kind of rectangular, not square), and you can better use your weapon and maneuver around hallways, doors. This is all just thought speculation, of course. Firearm concepts (along with potential wearing of ballistic armor) may alter/complicate this further. Perhaps you’d want to take a look at Scottish targes, especially as a lefty. Buying these can get rather costly though, and they’re often rather heavy. I made my own using 10 mm poplar plywood. It measures 57 cm in diameter and weighs around 2,3 kg. Like pgandy said, the (softer) wood can trap a blade momentarily, and the additional arm board gives more than enough protection to the forearm. The insulation tube is only there for safety in training. I prefer the targe for dueling, since it allows for a very offensive style of fighting, it lets you control the opponents weapon at the hilt. Due to its design and low weight, it is very maneuverable. Another design I like very much is the center-grip tear drop shape. It suits a defensive style of fighting a little better than the targe, but can also be used very well offensively. Mine is made of 8 mm poplar plywood and an iron boss I bought online. It measures 97,5 cm * 47,5 cm and weighs around 2 kg, very manageable. While these shields may lack the authentic looks, they certainly are capable. Those shields you made are pretty cool, particularly the teardrop. I'll look at Scottish targes.
|
|