|
Post by bluetrain on Jul 29, 2016 22:22:48 GMT
In some people's opinion, I gather, there are no acceptable modern reproductions of historical weapons, swords in particular and in others, in certain respects, no improvements in the last hundred years.
As regards to my opinion of the Cold Steel smallsword, my comparison is based not on the similarities but rather on the differences. The Cold Steel interpretation looks like it would be stiff, and stiffness is conspicuously missing from my own sword. Of photos of numerous others, some look like they have blades like the Cold Steel sword, some broader or thicker, others less so and invariably, all are fancy. But on the other hand, there are other small swords with blades like mine: good but way too flexible, almost foil like. And typically, they are fancier but not necessarily. I also haven't handled anything that might be described as a spadroon, there being no local sword store now--but there used to be!
By the way, the 18th century was the age of reason, not the nineteenth.
As to Scholagladitoria, I've viewed some of his videos and found them interesting. But he speaks to just about all periods in all places and I can't quite broaden my interest and activities that far. I'm sort of like the American revolutionary soldier who used whatever he could get.
Yes, a smallsword is a "pokie," and you want it sharp to make it easier to poke things.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Jul 29, 2016 23:10:46 GMT
I certainly agree with all your statements about the weight and larger dimentions (could/should have been 1/4lb. lighter, with smaller dimentions), but it's still usable as a smallsword, and technically within historical parameters (under 1 1/2lbs.). These things existed for over 200 years, so you will get variation. Something we can all agree on...you DO NOT WANT some of the stuff that came in the end...flimsy, brittle "Court Swords", which were little more than fashion items, and nobody will say that the CS item is that. The 17th century ones in the Wallace Collection are about 650g (just estimating from a first look at the weights), and the 18th century ones are about 330g. There's a lot more variation in weight in the smallswords in the Met Museum (which also has a lot more of them). Their 17th century ones look lighter on average, maybe 600g, and their 18th century ones vary from 300g to 1kg, perhaps with a median of about 450g. They will all leave a hole of about the same size and lethality when poked into a human. With heat treatment to a good spring temper, none will be brittle, and they'll all be hard to break. A lighter blade, all else being the same, will be faster, but easier to displace with a beat. The blade must be of a certain minimum stiffness to be useful: the lighter ones tend to have very weight-saving hollow triangular cross-sections, and the heavier ones tend to have more "sword-like" blades. Triangular blades become much more common around 1700 - thus the 18th century swords are, on average, lighter. Regular "sword" blades continued in use, so we still see heavier 18th century smallswords. Swords were also made for different purposes: military dress swords, specialised civilian duelling swords, etc. A court sword with a lenticular, hex, or flat diamond blade, but with the same weight as a hollow triangular bladed sword is likely to be too flimsy. Such swords existed. Dress accessories only. Don't lump the stiff-bladed lightweight smallswords together with them - they're seriously functional. (There were significant improvements in steel-making and steel-working in the late 17th century. It may well be that these enabled the development of the lightweight smallsword. Mid-17th century, it may not have been an option.)
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Jul 29, 2016 23:38:40 GMT
If nothing else, the Cold Steel smallsword has a blade like no other I could find a photo of, though others I'm sure will be more diligent. They way they decided to make it probably has something to do with the ease of manufacturing. As I mentioned before, it is similar to the old Lebel "needle" bayonet, just longer. I suppose it could have been made with a triangular blade with a distinct "V" on one side like a fencing epee but they didn't. It probably wouldn't sell.
At any rate, judging from photos, there doesn't seem to be a definitive smallsword they could have made a copy of. It would forever be historically incorrect because it doesn't match someone else's absolutely, positively, historically accurate without question, sword. It would either be too heavy (as many seem to think), too light, too long, too short, too plain and invariably, too expensive, and in the wrong color.
I think I might go back to using an ax.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jul 30, 2016 2:52:31 GMT
I believe you can (and I have actually considered) sharpen the two edges of the CS smallsword. I would love to hear from people who have done so. Why bother? They were never meant to be anything but pokies. As freshly ground, the trefoil blades had a bit of a hollow chisel grind. Even the colichmarde was not meant to be a cutter. A stinging laceration, sure. some of the "prettiest" had slim hexagonal blade profiles. The broader 18th century diagonal cross section blades married to a small sword hilt are going the same way as the backsword spadroons. I honestly don't get it guys. Why take any sword out of its original contexts? All the firearm analogies and "what if" hopeful social acceptance is no more than mental masturbation. Home and self defense a hugely misplaced subject of its own and found regularly in many subsections here in happy valley. Instead of looking at the history of a sword type, more often the popular debate is "but how would it be as a cutter?" I think that in addition to discouraging blade grabbing (as, historically, there were sharpened examples), you also get some use in the push and pull cut (as your so right in that these things would never be cutters). You can, in any event, get a good raking cut with the tip (kind of like a gouge or ripping tear). Really, if one wants to improve the smallswords ability...pair it with an offhand long knife.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jul 30, 2016 3:01:41 GMT
If nothing else, the Cold Steel smallsword has a blade like no other I could find a photo of, though others I'm sure will be more diligent. They way they decided to make it probably has something to do with the ease of manufacturing. As I mentioned before, it is similar to the old Lebel "needle" bayonet, just longer. I suppose it could have been made with a triangular blade with a distinct "V" on one side like a fencing epee but they didn't. It probably wouldn't sell. At any rate, judging from photos, there doesn't seem to be a definitive smallsword they could have made a copy of. It would forever be historically incorrect because it doesn't match someone else's absolutely, positively, historically accurate without question, sword. It would either be too heavy (as many seem to think), too light, too long, too short, too plain and invariably, too expensive, and in the wrong color. I think I might go back to using an ax. The lighter ax or the heavier one...just kidding.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jul 30, 2016 3:15:04 GMT
Why bother? They were never meant to be anything but pokies. As freshly ground, the trefoil blades had a bit of a hollow chisel grind. Even the colichmarde was not meant to be a cutter. A stinging laceration, sure. some of the "prettiest" had slim hexagonal blade profiles. The broader 18th century diagonal cross section blades married to a small sword hilt are going the same way as the backsword spadroons. I honestly don't get it guys. Why take any sword out of its original contexts? All the firearm analogies and "what if" hopeful social acceptance is no more than mental masturbation. Home and self defense a hugely misplaced subject of its own and found regularly in many subsections here in happy valley. Instead of looking at the history of a sword type, more often the popular debate is "but how would it be as a cutter?"
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Jul 30, 2016 12:25:55 GMT
Well, let's see here. The original topic was specifically about the Cold Steel smallsword. I've never handled one but I'd still like to own one. It doesn't have to be historically correct as far as I'm concerned. If that's important, and I'm not saying it shouldn't be, then get something else, maybe even an antique, and be happy. There is still the question of whether the Cold Steel idea of a smallsword is a good "working" smallsword. It looks to me like it should be.
Modern fencing began at a time when swords were still battlefield weapons, although I doubt that anyone kept one for fear of "home invasions" (the legal term is breaking and entering). Even so, fencing went in two directions, one apparently oriented more towards officers armed with a sword, the other towards the duelist. I don't think cavalry use of swords had any impact on fencing or vice versa. So, which camp, so to say, would the Cold Steel model fit into or would it be behind the times? It looks like a pretty good dueling sword but I don't know what the rules were--and there were rules. I don't know if the rules said you had to have a certain kind of sword or not, in other words. But the rules for the men who might fight duels over honor (there was no other reason for a duel) were not intended to apply to us ordinary people.
I haven't made up my mind about which ax. Maybe a small one that could be concealed (a hand ax). Of course, now that is going to make me go look at new axes. But they're all less expensive than any sword, except for ones from Sweden. That would be like buying a new sword made in the U.K. You know, Cold Steel makes some nice looking axes, too, not over expensive, either. But I don't know if they're really historically accurate or not.
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Jul 30, 2016 15:37:59 GMT
Well, let's see here. The original topic was specifically about the Cold Steel smallsword. I've never handled one but I'd still like to own one. It doesn't have to be historically correct as far as I'm concerned. If that's important, and I'm not saying it shouldn't be, then get something else, maybe even an antique, and be happy. There is still the question of whether the Cold Steel idea of a smallsword is a good "working" smallsword. It looks to me like it should be. It's a perfectly functional sword, alright, but it's only superficially a smallsword at all. Good sword, but also a lousy smallsword. Kinda like how Solomon Kane is a fun movie in its own right but also an insultingly bad adaptation of its alleged source material, you know? The divide was actually more along the lines of fighters and theorists - practical fencing in duels, warfare and self defense on one hand, and increasingly refined academic fencing in the salle on the other. And even then a lot of the best fencers and masters were both (e.g. William Hope's Vade Mecum and subsequent New Method specifically present a simpler and most of all safer system of fencing than the one discussed in his more academically oriented works, to be used in serious life-or-death situations). You'd be right only if we define "fencing" to mean "modern sport fencing". Remember, cavalry was the last place where swords remained relevant in a military context, arguably up through WWI. It's not so much "behind the times" as just plain weird. You won't find anything quite like it at any point in history, unless someone digs up a smallsword made for a person with gigantism or something. There were rules when the participants agreed to have rules. There was never any single monolithic code of duelling, just wildly varying customs and assumptions specific to certain times, places and contexts - and a knightly trial by combat was different from an impromptu duel of honor was different from a formal duel with seconds and all. If that's what was agreed upon, then yes. Otherwise no. Of course it was a common practice in formal duels, scheduled and organized in detail beforehand, to have both parties armed in as similar a manner as possible, but even this was far from universal. Don't let Hollywood fool you, people fought duels for all the same reasons people have always fought each other. Honor, money, love, hate, politics, boredom and more. If you think peasants and street urchins didn't duel, you're wrong. They didn't take part in royally sanctioned knightly judicial combat, of course, that being a privilege of vassals of state, but the sort of less official dueling that became increasingly popular when trials by combat fell from use during the 16th Century was not restricted to any social or economic class of people. All it takes is two people willing to try and hurt or kill each other face-to-face, for whatever reason. The black finish CS puts on almost all their axes is 100% modern. But then, it should come off easily enough with sandpaper, scotch brite and/or mild solvents, and aside from that their tomahawks at least are actually pretty good, for the most part.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Jul 30, 2016 16:20:10 GMT
I used to get in fights all the time when I was little but I never lost anything essential; came close a couple of times, though. I don't think that happens so much now--or maybe I'm just living in a nicer neighborhood.
My comments about axes were not entirely serious, although Cold Steel does in fact have a nice selection. But they aren't the only people who do. I do have axes, though, as well as a few guns, even a few chainsaws. Totally illogical and anachronistic to be interested in swords, though, isn't it? As taken as I am with the Cold Steel smallsword, I think the typical available price is a little high and there are other swords I'd pick first anyway. Don't plan on any swordfights anyway.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jul 30, 2016 20:13:29 GMT
Well, let's see here. The original topic was specifically about the Cold Steel smallsword. I've never handled one but I'd still like to own one. It doesn't have to be historically correct as far as I'm concerned. If that's important, and I'm not saying it shouldn't be, then get something else, maybe even an antique, and be happy. There is still the question of whether the Cold Steel idea of a smallsword is a good "working" smallsword. It looks to me like it should be. Modern fencing began at a time when swords were still battlefield weapons, although I doubt that anyone kept one for fear of "home invasions" (the legal term is breaking and entering). Even so, fencing went in two directions, one apparently oriented more towards officers armed with a sword, the other towards the duelist. I don't think cavalry use of swords had any impact on fencing or vice versa. So, which camp, so to say, would the Cold Steel model fit into or would it be behind the times? It looks like a pretty good dueling sword but I don't know what the rules were--and there were rules. I don't know if the rules said you had to have a certain kind of sword or not, in other words. But the rules for the men who might fight duels over honor (there was no other reason for a duel) were not intended to apply to us ordinary people. I haven't made up my mind about which ax. Maybe a small one that could be concealed (a hand ax). Of course, now that is going to make me go look at new axes. But they're all less expensive than any sword, except for ones from Sweden. That would be like buying a new sword made in the U.K. You know, Cold Steel makes some nice looking axes, too, not over expensive, either. But I don't know if they're really historically accurate or not. You cant go wrong with that CS Viking hand ax (under 30 smackers), or maybe a hawk...spiked or hammer (more utilitarian). For wood axes, Husqvarna are great for the price. I think the earlier smallswords were used in multiple roles more often than the latter. Smallswords were certainly a lot better than pocket knives or even dirks/daggers, defensively (but, as has been mentioned, great paired up) for just walking on the streets. Yeah, for duels, each contestant would have to be armed with the same implement, and be expected to follow the rules. For dealing with break ins at the time, there are better choices than a smallsword (a carrying weapon)...like a spear, long sword, etc...
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Jul 30, 2016 20:31:07 GMT
"home invasions" (the legal term is breaking and entering) At least over here, "home invasion" and "breaking and entering" are two very different things. Most B&E is for burglary, and the intent is to be undetected. A home invasion is a where an armed group enters the home with intent to harm or threaten the occupant(s), and preferred entry is to be let in through the front door by the occupant(s).
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jul 30, 2016 20:31:45 GMT
Well, let's see here. The original topic was specifically about the Cold Steel smallsword. I've never handled one but I'd still like to own one. It doesn't have to be historically correct as far as I'm concerned. If that's important, and I'm not saying it shouldn't be, then get something else, maybe even an antique, and be happy. There is still the question of whether the Cold Steel idea of a smallsword is a good "working" smallsword. It looks to me like it should be. It's a perfectly functional sword, alright, but it's only superficially a smallsword at all. Good sword, but also a lousy smallsword. Kinda like how Solomon Kane is a fun movie in its own right but also an insultingly bad adaptation of its alleged source material, you know? The divide was actually more along the lines of fighters and theorists - practical fencing in duels, warfare and self defense on one hand, and increasingly refined academic fencing in the salle on the other. And even then a lot of the best fencers and masters were both (e.g. William Hope's Vade Mecum and subsequent New Method specifically present a simpler and most of all safer system of fencing than the one discussed in his more academically oriented works, to be used in serious life-or-death situations). You'd be right only if we define "fencing" to mean "modern sport fencing". Remember, cavalry was the last place where swords remained relevant in a military context, arguably up through WWI. It's not so much "behind the times" as just plain weird. You won't find anything quite like it at any point in history, unless someone digs up a smallsword made for a person with gigantism or something. There were rules when the participants agreed to have rules. There was never any single monolithic code of duelling, just wildly varying customs and assumptions specific to certain times, places and contexts - and a knightly trial by combat was different from an impromptu duel of honor was different from a formal duel with seconds and all. If that's what was agreed upon, then yes. Otherwise no. Of course it was a common practice in formal duels, scheduled and organized in detail beforehand, to have both parties armed in as similar a manner as possible, but even this was far from universal. Don't let Hollywood fool you, people fought duels for all the same reasons people have always fought each other. Honor, money, love, hate, politics, boredom and more. If you think peasants and street urchins didn't duel, you're wrong. They didn't take part in royally sanctioned knightly judicial combat, of course, that being a privilege of vassals of state, but the sort of less official dueling that became increasingly popular when trials by combat fell from use during the 16th Century was not restricted to any social or economic class of people. All it takes is two people willing to try and hurt or kill each other face-to-face, for whatever reason. The black finish CS puts on almost all their axes is 100% modern. But then, it should come off easily enough with sandpaper, scotch brite and/or mild solvents, and aside from that their tomahawks at least are actually pretty good, for the most part. I guess dueling was a BIG problem early on (particularly with rapiers...yipes), among large segments of the upper class, nobility, military officers, etc...that they had to clamp down on it, as you were losing large segments of the "upper" class to the practice. In fact, this may have been one of the reasons more formalized (and sanitized) versions of dueling took root. But your spot on about EVERYBODY dueling, and the "regular" folk (who the powers that be did not care as much about) would/could "settle" things, drunkenly, in the back of a tavern, street corner, barn...and the rules could be whatever their angry, demented hearts would dream up.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jul 30, 2016 20:42:08 GMT
"home invasions" (the legal term is breaking and entering) At least over here, "home invasion" and "breaking and entering" are two very different things. Most B&E is for burglary, and the intent is to be undetected. A home invasion is a where an armed group enters the home with intent to harm or threaten the occupant(s), and preferred entry is to be let in through the front door by the occupant(s). Yup, there are different levels of "home invasion" and "breaking and entering", where the two sometimes merge. For instance, you can have a "breaking and entering" where a bad guy thinks the person is home, but is trying to be very quiet in order to steal, rape/abduct a child, etc..., and at which point, it would have clearly entered the realm of "home invasion". Also, you could have a few thugs kick in a door ("home invasion"), thinking someone is home (with weapons ready), but upon seeing the home is empty, they take a bunch of stuff and leave ("breaking and entering").
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jul 30, 2016 20:57:22 GMT
I used to get in fights all the time when I was little but I never lost anything essential; came close a couple of times, though. I don't think that happens so much now--or maybe I'm just living in a nicer neighborhood. My comments about axes were not entirely serious, although Cold Steel does in fact have a nice selection. But they aren't the only people who do. I do have axes, though, as well as a few guns, even a few chainsaws. Totally illogical and anachronistic to be interested in swords, though, isn't it? As taken as I am with the Cold Steel smallsword, I think the typical available price is a little high and there are other swords I'd pick first anyway. Don't plan on any swordfights anyway. Being interested in...lets call it "pre (reliable) firearm, non ballistic, hand wielded weapons" (cut, thrust, smash) is simply a hallmark of being a male HomoSapiens, and I don't think you are alone (I sarcastically say on THIS forum) . Hey...it beats collecting purses, dolls, whatever that women like to collect. Ya gotta spend your money on SOMETHING that YOU like (or at least that's what I tell myself in my insane spending on anachronistic items). Its still there (the CS smallsword at $100 and free shipping). You know you want it...and you HAVE to have it, don't you.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Jul 30, 2016 21:30:30 GMT
It's all a matter of allocation of scarce resources. No, I don't have to have it or any other sword--or pistol. It become what can I get more satisfaction out of if I buy this thing or that thing and how long will that satisfaction last. I tell you also it is a little easier buying something when all you have to do is look at pictures long enough to make up your mind and then just punch a few buttons. But you all know that already. There are always a lot of things you want that are simply out of reach, at least at the moment.
But if we may return to the topic, especially since early on someone mentioned rusty swords for sale at a steep discount. What is the usual finish on these things? Are they bare metal? What about other models? Same thing? In other words, it sounds like continual maintenance is necessary anyway for any of them.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jul 30, 2016 21:51:49 GMT
It's all a matter of allocation of scarce resources. No, I don't have to have it or any other sword--or pistol. It become what can I get more satisfaction out of if I buy this thing or that thing and how long will that satisfaction last. I tell you also it is a little easier buying something when all you have to do is look at pictures long enough to make up your mind and then just punch a few buttons. But you all know that already. There are always a lot of things you want that are simply out of reach, at least at the moment. But if we may return to the topic, especially since early on someone mentioned rusty swords for sale at a steep discount. What is the usual finish on these things? Are they bare metal? What about other models? Same thing? In other words, it sounds like continual maintenance is necessary anyway for any of them. I hear you, blue, I'm just joking around with the "need" thing, and all. Of course, only you (or any individual, for that matter) knows what they need for themselves. I'm the culprit who brought the CS Smallsword sale to light, btw (unless you knew that), so I'm the guy too blame if someone buys a lemon. However, in my (admittedly amateur) opinion, these things are a STEAL at $100 bucks and free shipping, even if the rust issue was SIGNIFICANT. I wish I could give you an exact blade covering makeup, as I'm not sure, but I think you might want to give them a call. I didn't really see much of anything, rust wise, on the two swords I purchased, just a bit of light green on one of the scabbards, as well as the handle on the other one, so I don't know how much of a rust variance there may be. Maybe they had flooding at a warehouse or something (where the sword inventory was stored), as I was wondering myself how this issue came up with these smallswords.
|
|
|
Post by 28shadow on Jul 30, 2016 23:02:08 GMT
It's all a matter of allocation of scarce resources. No, I don't have to have it or any other sword--or pistol. It become what can I get more satisfaction out of if I buy this thing or that thing and how long will that satisfaction last. I tell you also it is a little easier buying something when all you have to do is look at pictures long enough to make up your mind and then just punch a few buttons. But you all know that already. There are always a lot of things you want that are simply out of reach, at least at the moment. But if we may return to the topic, especially since early on someone mentioned rusty swords for sale at a steep discount. What is the usual finish on these things? Are they bare metal? What about other models? Same thing? In other words, it sounds like continual maintenance is necessary anyway for any of them. I hear you, blue, I'm just joking around with the "need" thing, and all. Of course, only you (or any individual, for that matter) knows what they need for themselves. I'm the culprit who brought the CS Smallsword sale to light, btw (unless you knew that), so I'm the guy too blame if someone buys a lemon. However, in my (admittedly amateur) opinion, these things are a STEAL at $100 bucks and free shipping, even if the rust issue was SIGNIFICANT. I wish I could give you an exact blade covering makeup, as I'm not sure, but I think you might want to give them a call. I didn't really see much of anything, rust wise, on the two swords I purchased, just a bit of light green on one of the scabbards, as well as the handle on the other one, so I don't know how much of a rust variance there may be. Maybe they had flooding at a warehouse or something (where the sword inventory was stored), as I was wondering myself how this issue came up with these smallswords. Mine arrives Tuesday. I don't know if anyone else has ordered one and can give a description of what the condition of the sword is, but I will make sure to post about my findings here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2016 0:24:50 GMT
I just ordered one tonight. The price looked too good and it should make a nice companion with my Windlass Falco dagger.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jul 31, 2016 1:34:35 GMT
I just ordered one tonight. The price looked too good and it should make a nice companion with my Windlass Falco dagger. An excellent companion indeed, and a formidable combination.
|
|
|
Post by drachen on Jul 31, 2016 4:16:23 GMT
I own a Cold Steel smallsword. I bought it mainly so I could show people my rapiers and then compare it to the swords that came later. The Cold Steel was the only sharp on the market that had a triangular hollow-ground blade at a low pricepoint, so I picked it up. It's a chunkfest. Everything is overbuilt about it. The blade is not bad until about halfway down and it just gets too fat. The fuller on the flat side is way to thin and never tapers so the ridges at the edges get very fat. On the double-ground side it ends in a rounded elephants foot thing, which looks nothing like the antiques I've seen. I guess that's how a guy who's idea of testing smallswords is ramming them into rolled tatami would build them. The result of all that extra mass in the blade is a 3" POB, which is pretty far out for a smallsword. The shell guard is way too thick as well. The rest of the hilt isn't bad, but it's a bit squarish. This might be a Cold Steel thing, but the entire hilt seems to be stainless steel.
If you want something historically accurate or that handles like an antique, this isn't the sword. If you want something that has all the basic design features of a triangular-bladed smallsword with a low-maintenance hilt for fairly cheap, it's a decent buy. I'm not a smallsword guy and bought it just to put my more historically accurate A&A rapiers into historical context and it does that very well.
|
|