|
|
Post by bloodwraith on Jun 11, 2017 13:19:34 GMT
It was used on some scottish claymores.
You are talking about the mordhau or murder stroke. It is the way you hold the blade. It is imperative that you don't let the blade slide when making the murder stroke. I don't really like that technique to be honest.
As to keeping side rings off your practise sword? Um, no because when it comes to it if you don't practise with them and you intend to utilise them then practising without them would not be a smart move. Even if they add a fractional amount of weight, that fraction will make a difference in sparring and in use from my experience.
The ricasso is not just present on swords used for half swording. A blunt ricasso has a few potential uses and are present on many types of historical straight swords. Even some rapiers had a blunt ricasso.
|
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Jun 11, 2017 20:30:39 GMT
Ok, so side rings are good if you want an added protection on your sword, but keep them off your practice weapon to develop good habits. Got it! Up to you. Without side rings, you'll develop better habits to protect your hands. With them, you'll be hit in the hands less during training = less pain, less chance of injury. Another thing, I think Ricasso (blunt areas) were common around the forte (near guard and stronger), on swords that might've been half-swords against armor? Not really. Plenty of one-handed swords that would never have been used for half-swording have them (tulwars, late Qing/Republican jian, 19th century European military sabres). It isn't common on longswords. You'll see them on some late longswords, but not usually on the more dedicated anti-armour ones. For half-swording with a longsword, you want it further down the blade. There are a few swords out there with a blunt section for halfswording:  And, did something like the following added safety on forte exist? (Its fantasy I know but it is a good concept, so I think it would have existed. Not sure though.) Mostly only on large two-handers. Probably for improved carry on the shoulder (like a shouldered rifle). Plus, some techniques make use of the hilt and pommel as mace by grabbing the blade. How is that safe and how does it work? Hold firmly, don't let the blade slip in your hand. |
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Jun 12, 2017 17:50:44 GMT
Lots of good points here. Hilts seem to have grown more complex as shields and bucklers faded. With a large roundshield or scutum you don't need much of a guard on your sword. It's mostly used for offensive hits. As the shield got smaller the sword had to be able to cope with covering the line on its own or with a small buckler. That exposes at least one wrist to attack and a longer crossguard helps enormously at protecting this vulnerability. As armor grew stronger shields faded and swords took over all roles. I think this is one reason you see more and more complex hilts in later centuries. And why the old simple cruciform guard never really returned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2017 21:15:01 GMT
Lots of good points here. Hilts seem to have grown more complex as shields and bucklers faded. With a large roundshield or scutum you don't need much of a guard on your sword. It's mostly used for offensive hits. As the shield got smaller the sword had to be able to cope with covering the line on its own or with a small buckler. That exposes at least one wrist to attack and a longer crossguard helps enormously at protecting this vulnerability. As armor grew stronger shields faded and swords took over all roles. I think this is one reason you see more and more complex hilts in later centuries. And why the old simple cruciform guard never really returned. So in the later Medieval period, as armor got much more sophisticated and judicial duels grew in popularity, and swords were trying to implement cutting and thrusting against both armor and bare opponents, while being a tool for all occasions, the hilts had to have atleast side rings for protection? Also, I really do not understand the concept of the more ornate hilts that tended to cover some of the grip as well. Wasn't flexibility being sacrificed, especially since it was much more important given how versatile the sword had be? |
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Jun 12, 2017 21:46:13 GMT
From the surviving swords and period art, I'd say that the swords were becoming more specialized. Some might be for armored fighting such as those with spiked hilts or specially constructed blades for half-swording. At the same time there may have been less need for an all-purpose longsword good for duels or battlefield. Of course you're correct that the more protection on the hilt, the more restricted your movements. With a simple arming or longsword you are free to move the blade around in your hand and use a variety of grips while flipping from long to short edge With more complex hilts you are limited to fewer hand options. But the fighting styles adjusted accordingly, and became more specialized. Personally I suspect that the firearm didn't kill swords, but it did kill the all-purpose sword in Europe. You could expect to use your blade in more limited circumstances than before. So it could be more fine tuned for those purposes. Whether fighting on the battlefield with a massive zweihander or dueling with smallswords. Just my theory though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2017 22:27:26 GMT
From the surviving swords and period art, I'd say that the swords were becoming more specialized. Some might be for armored fighting such as those with spiked hilts or specially constructed blades for half-swording. At the same time there may have been less need for an all-purpose longsword good for duels or battlefield. Of course you're correct that the more protection on the hilt, the more restricted your movements. With a simple arming or longsword you are free to move the blade around in your hand and use a variety of grips while flipping from long to short edge With more complex hilts you are limited to fewer hand options. But the fighting styles adjusted accordingly, and became more specialized. Personally I suspect that the firearm didn't kill swords, but it did kill the all-purpose sword in Europe. You could expect to use your blade in more limited circumstances than before. So it could be more fine tuned for those purposes. Whether fighting on the battlefield with a massive zweihander or dueling with smallswords. Just my theory though. Although not quite like an answer I was expecting for the questions, your theory does seem to make sense... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2017 9:30:29 GMT
I am officially in favor of simple hilts (at the extreme with side rings).
Onwards to discussions of how long (in proportion to a person) was the longsword supposed to be. In my perusing of the great WWW, I seem to have found two opinions causing the most major segregation;
1- Reach enough so the pommel rests in the armpit
2- Shorter, more 'standard' lengths
There also seems to exist a new concept that is sourced from historical texts, that states the longsword was to be 'even longer' than opinion #1.
Again, thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Jun 13, 2017 17:24:44 GMT
I don't know of any set standard. Heck, they didn't even call them "longswords" in period. They were just swords. In the sources some appear to be slightly longer than an arming sword, while others look quite a bit longer. I think the outer limit is reached when you can no longer perform basic longsword drills with one, and have to switch to something like montante drills. If you're having to kick start your longsword, it may be too long :-)
On the other hand, you've got to be able to get two hands on it comfortably, and it should have a blade long enough to allow for basic moves. That could be no more than riding sword length. So in Albion terms, the Count is a longsword and the Munich is a longsword.
|
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
"Lord of the Memes"
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 10,346
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Jun 13, 2017 17:46:07 GMT
In german hema sources the use the term "long sword" for a sword with a long handle (three handbroads long, even with the pommel screwed off  ) that allows certain techniques, the blade lenght isn't soooo important, but should match to a two handed fighting style and also to yourself. There are swords with a shorter blade but the long "long sword" handle, we call them "bastard swords". You can use them two handed like long swords but they are also light enough for single hand use. |
|
|
|
Post by Lukas MG (chenessfan) on Jun 13, 2017 19:38:03 GMT
As the others have said, there is no "standard" longsword length as far as the originals are concerned. I think even back in period this was a matter of personal preferance. I'd say pretty much anything between 80-100cm blade length and enough hilt (including pommel) to allow for both hands can be used in the fashion shown in the manuals.
I personally prefer a 95-100cm blade and an overall length of 120-130cm. That's on the longer end of the spectrum. Most Albion longswords except for the Munich are in fact a bit short for my liking, especially in the hilt.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2017 0:11:25 GMT
Hmm...thank you guys.
I just read up on some articles, papers etc and thought to confirm to what the more practiced individuals thought. After all, experience is the mother of all practice.
I have some questions regarding dagger play with swords and which daggers existed and how they were used. Any information is again very appreciated, though I will be reading up on them too. Just need to get past 15th's OSCE in one piece.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Jun 14, 2017 1:12:02 GMT
Good luck on the test!
The daggers in the sources are mostly rondels, and the techniques are designed around the idea that someone is coming to kill you dead with a deep penetration hit. They don't really cover wild slashing attacks, probably because of the nature of clothes and society at the time. Linen and wool are excellent light armor.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2017 3:41:10 GMT
Good luck on the test! The daggers in the sources are mostly rondels, and the techniques are designed around the idea that someone is coming to kill you dead with a deep penetration hit. They don't really cover wild slashing attacks, probably because of the nature of clothes and society at the time. Linen and wool are excellent light armor. What about against plate or maille armor? |
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Jun 14, 2017 4:33:25 GMT
I made this video a while back using a dagger against a sword. One of my objectives was disarming a sword bearing opponent which I did in the first two scenes, the rest was just horse play which I hadn’t done since losing my sparring some years back. That is my neighbour and he wasn’t sure whether to really try to hit me and was at first hesitant as you will see. He overcame his reluctance quickly after seeing that I could more than defend myself. I don’t know if this will help any.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2017 4:52:00 GMT
I made this video a while back using a dagger against a sword. One of my objectives was disarming a sword bearing opponent which I did in the first two scenes, the rest was just horse play which I hadn’t done since losing my sparring some years back. That is my neighbour and he wasn’t sure whether to really try to hit me and was at first hesitant as you will see. He overcame his reluctance quickly after seeing that I could more than defend myself. I don’t know if this will help any. It sure does help. Whole new perspective. Plus, you are quick |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2017 15:52:08 GMT
At 13:23-13:27, OF THIS VIDEO
Wanted to ask how viable for combat such a ricasso area would be?
Purely theoretical interest ofcourse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Jun 18, 2017 20:22:45 GMT
No reason why it wouldn't work - it's just shallow wide notches in the edge. As long as it doesn't do bad things to the stiffness of the base of the blade.
No ricasso works. A conventional ricasso works. A slightly unusual ricasso will work too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Jun 18, 2017 22:48:23 GMT
There were longswords designed for harness that had unsharpened portions. They played with a lot of different ideas.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2017 12:54:10 GMT
From what I thought was that the notches wouldn't severely effect the stiffness or handling, but would be quite excellent in breaking the opponents momentum while in the bind and may also trap/damage the foible.
Let me know if I am being naïve.
|
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Jun 19, 2017 13:09:46 GMT
Don't it being useful for "breaking the opponents momentum". As for trapping, the edges of the notches look quite rounded - you could do them more square, or even with acute angles. Not sure that would be good. Sure, it might trap the opponent's blade and stop if from sliding along your blade all the way down to the guard, but why would you care if it slides all the way down to your guard. It might also stop you from sliding your blade along their's to put your guard against their blade.
Some possible but very small benefit. Some possible but small disadvantage.
Which makes me wonder what Parierhaken on large two-handers are for. I don't think you want to fight longsword-like in the bind with them, so that takes away the disadvantage above. Perhaps it might be useful to stop an opponent's blade further up your own blade. But perhaps Parierhaken are also useful for keeping an opponent's blade between your guard and the Parierhaken - maybe not to keep the opponent's blade out, but to keep it in?
|
|
) that allows certain techniques, the blade lenght isn't soooo important, but should match to a two handed fighting style and also to yourself.
