|
Post by nerdthenord on Oct 5, 2018 10:30:00 GMT
The #501651 Lief would be a killer without the fittings fused together. It has been a long time but I believe it was Oakeshott's Archaeology of Weapons where I first saw that but seen elsewhere as well. It looks like Windlass is looking to compete with the costume crowd and rennies with a ready to wear ensemble. That's the exact sort of vibe I've been getting from their print catalogues for the past year or so. Not complaining, some of their stuff is plain quirky and fun. The 'mad scientist' and (if I remember right) 'midnight' (goth vampire) garb struck me as particularly novel. I'd love for someone to don the mad scientist costume and run around a U.S. college campus yelling about inherited traits and natural selection. It'd go over all sorts of well. Does running around all wild haired and manic reciting the retroviral replication process count? If so I’m already guilty lol!
|
|
|
Post by Rabel Dusk on Oct 5, 2018 16:49:10 GMT
I checked on both MRL and KOA, and neither says what kind of metal is used for the hilt furniture on the Leif Erikson - not a good sign. Correct me if I'm wrong about that.
|
|
stormmaster
Member
I like viking/migration era swords
Posts: 7,647
|
Post by stormmaster on Oct 5, 2018 17:49:49 GMT
Koa saids the scabbard chape is cast so I'm guessing at best everything is brass
|
|
|
Post by Stromlo_Swords_USA on Nov 1, 2018 9:29:36 GMT
I asked them what the hilt components were made from on the Leif sword.
Response was: They should be a zinc alloy, plated in brass then antiqued.
-- Mia from Museum Replicas Ltd.
|
|
|
Post by Gunnar Wolfgard on Nov 14, 2018 17:54:42 GMT
Really like the blade on the Leif Ericson sword but the rest of the sword is a no go. If the blade width is really 2 7/8 inches wide because usually their Viking blades are to narrow or the fuller is to narrow. Hope they decide at some point to offer the blade sperate or on a better Viking Sword.
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Nov 15, 2018 18:22:24 GMT
I'm curious about your views on the snug grip being more comfortable. I'm really used to a universal 'fencing claw' (sort of describes my grip) that spreads out over roughly 4 in., so a grip with space to spare is appreciated. Especially since with a longer grip you can play around with balance and adjust where you grip for preferred handling (I grip most katana with a solid inch at least between my uppermost finger and the tsuba). So it's just a puzzle for me since I'm used to something quite different. Oops, been a while. Sorry. I don't always agree with him on all the particulars of his interpretation of Viking age combat (a little too strongly I.33-flavored to be 100% correct, I think, although the overall conception makes sense and, importantly, works well in practice) but Roland Warzecha recently put up a pretty good explanation of how the historically short grips combined with the angular pommels can work for you. His way of gripping the sword is somewhat like the grip used in some Victorian military saber systems to maximize reach, if you know what I mean?
|
|
seth
Member
Just Peachy
Posts: 976
|
Post by seth on Nov 16, 2018 15:52:11 GMT
It's got nothing to do with modern people being soft-handed pansies, though. Vikings appreciated good ergonomics as much as anyone, and a properly snug grip is more comfortable than a too long one when used as intended. As far as I can tell, the ahistorically long grips became a thing because people wanted to use these swords as if they were Medieval arming swords (because why learn a new thing when you can twist it to kinda sorta fit what you already know instead), and to accommodate modern padded gloves (and then people just got used to that and wanted the long grip even on swords that were NOT meant to be used with padded gloves). I'm curious about your views on the snug grip being more comfortable. I'm really used to a universal 'fencing claw' (sort of describes my grip) that spreads out over roughly 4 in., so a grip with space to spare is appreciated. Especially since with a longer grip you can play around with balance and adjust where you grip for preferred handling (I grip most katana with a solid inch at least between my uppermost finger and the tsuba). So it's just a puzzle for me since I'm used to something quite different.
I recently acquired an Albion Squire Line Viking sword. It has a 4 inch grip, and I find it very comfortable. The smooth, narrow pommel slides easily into handshake grip. I put up a review with some pictures. I was surprised at how ergonomic it is. I haven't held that Leif Erikson, but the thickness of the pommel, the slight hooking of the pommel and the lack of smooth surface might inhibit the smoothness of using the handshake grip.
|
|
|
Post by legacyofthesword on Nov 16, 2018 19:40:35 GMT
I'm curious about your views on the snug grip being more comfortable. I'm really used to a universal 'fencing claw' (sort of describes my grip) that spreads out over roughly 4 in., so a grip with space to spare is appreciated. Especially since with a longer grip you can play around with balance and adjust where you grip for preferred handling (I grip most katana with a solid inch at least between my uppermost finger and the tsuba). So it's just a puzzle for me since I'm used to something quite different. Oops, been a while. Sorry. I don't always agree with him on all the particulars of his interpretation of Viking age combat (a little too strongly I.33-flavored to be 100% correct, I think, although the overall conception makes sense and, importantly, works well in practice) but Roland Warzecha recently put up a pretty good explanation of how the historically short grips combined with the angular pommels can work for you. His way of gripping the sword is somewhat like the grip used in some Victorian military saber systems to maximize reach, if you know what I mean?
Hmmm... I'm still not convinced that the saber grip is the correct way to grip a Viking sword (or the way the Norse/other people of the Early Middle Ages gripped their swords). It seems more like trying to work around the design of the hilt, rather than gripping the hilt the way it was built to be gripped. There's just too many examples of swords that physically can't be held with a saber grip (tulars, a lot of Bronze Age swords, and so on) for me to be convinced that Viking swords were meant to be held in any other grip than hammer. Here's an example, a sword from before the Viking period, but an actual Norse sword nonetheless:
The design of this sword makes it physically impossible to hold in any other grip than hammer grip. There are many benefits to a hammer grip, particularly when using a shield with a sword. A hammer grip turns most cuts into draw cuts, provides a very secure grip (a great thing when your hand is numb, sore, and weak from a long fight) and helps a lot with controlling the blade by bracing the pommel against the edge of the hand, providing strong leverage. You do lose reach, but with a shield you can get very close to an opponent (easier than with just a sword, anyway).
Then again, I'm just a keyboard warrior with no actual experience sparring with Viking type swords, so I could be completely wrong, haha.
|
|
|
Post by nerdthenord on Nov 16, 2018 20:54:39 GMT
Why do we have to assume that norsemen only had one type of sword with one way to use it? The basic Axiom that whatever works best for you works best probably applies here as well. I know for me a handshake grip on a Carolingian sword feels perfect. It improves my range, speed, power, and edge alignment. A hammer grip feels very unnatural. However, a hammer grip feels better with my Excalibur. While Carolingian and Norse smiths probably had knowledge of biomechanics and designed grips for specific ergonomics as well as beauty, I absolutely believe any warrior would use his or occasionally her sword the way that felt best to him or sometimes her. My brother, who is an identical twin, says he much prefers hammer grips with Carolingian/Viking swords, which gives credence to the idea that whatever worked best for the individual was what was used.
|
|
|
Post by legacyofthesword on Nov 17, 2018 3:17:09 GMT
Why do we have to assume that norsemen only had one type of sword with one way to use it? The basic Axiom that whatever works best for you works best probably applies here as well. I know for me a handshake grip on a Carolingian sword feels perfect. It improves my range, speed, power, and edge alignment. A hammer grip feels very unnatural. However, a hammer grip feels better with my Excalibur. While Carolingian and Norse smiths probably had knowledge of biomechanics and designed grips for specific ergonomics as well as beauty, I absolutely believe any warrior would use his or occasionally her sword the way that felt best to him or sometimes her. My brother, who is an identical twin, says he much prefers hammer grips with Carolingian/Viking swords, which gives credence to the idea that whatever worked best for the individual was what was used.
Oh, I definitely agree. The point I was trying to make was that to me, Viking swords seem to be designed with the hammer grip in mind (like tulwars are, for instance). I'm sure the people of the Early Middle Ages used whatever grip worked for them at the moment though, as you say.
|
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 9,820
Member is Online
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Nov 17, 2018 8:13:48 GMT
For me the tulwar grip is clearly made for a hammer grip but viking swords don"t have such a grip. Some viking swords have a pommel that is indeed more like a tulwar and probably meant for a hammer grip. But there also are the broad flat pommels which bite into your wrist with hammer grip but rest comfy in the palm. For me viking swords feel more lively when palming the pommel and moving the blade around the pivot point close above the hand.
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Nov 17, 2018 10:00:22 GMT
Yeah, the typical viking sword hilt is entirely different from that of a tulwar (or that bronze sword), even ignoring the equally fundamental differences in the swords' overall shape and handling dynamics, and I see no reason to assume that they would (or even could) be gripped and used in the same way.
|
|
|
Post by zabazagobo on Nov 19, 2018 2:50:00 GMT
I'm curious about your views on the snug grip being more comfortable. I'm really used to a universal 'fencing claw' (sort of describes my grip) that spreads out over roughly 4 in., so a grip with space to spare is appreciated. Especially since with a longer grip you can play around with balance and adjust where you grip for preferred handling (I grip most katana with a solid inch at least between my uppermost finger and the tsuba). So it's just a puzzle for me since I'm used to something quite different. Oops, been a while. Sorry. I don't always agree with him on all the particulars of his interpretation of Viking age combat (a little too strongly I.33-flavored to be 100% correct, I think, although the overall conception makes sense and, importantly, works well in practice) but Roland Warzecha recently put up a pretty good explanation of how the historically short grips combined with the angular pommels can work for you. His way of gripping the sword is somewhat like the grip used in some Victorian military saber systems to maximize reach, if you know what I mean? That was a fun video (really like his choice of headgear, that hat is awesome).
It's interesting to note that some of the same mechanics he mentioned regarding the pommel are exactly what I've come to understand with a two handed longsword: that the pommel is sort of the 'key' of leverage. It's interesting to explore this more and see how this same principle translates to a single handed sword as well. Lots of fun thoughts to ponder, I should nab a viking style sword to help with the brainstorm process
|
|
|
Post by zabazagobo on Nov 19, 2018 2:51:40 GMT
I'm curious about your views on the snug grip being more comfortable. I'm really used to a universal 'fencing claw' (sort of describes my grip) that spreads out over roughly 4 in., so a grip with space to spare is appreciated. Especially since with a longer grip you can play around with balance and adjust where you grip for preferred handling (I grip most katana with a solid inch at least between my uppermost finger and the tsuba). So it's just a puzzle for me since I'm used to something quite different.
I recently acquired an Albion Squire Line Viking sword. It has a 4 inch grip, and I find it very comfortable. The smooth, narrow pommel slides easily into handshake grip. I put up a review with some pictures. I was surprised at how ergonomic it is. I haven't held that Leif Erikson, but the thickness of the pommel, the slight hooking of the pommel and the lack of smooth surface might inhibit the smoothness of using the handshake grip. That sword looks awesome, really enjoyed the review. I'm oscillating between that and Hanwei's Godfred model for a first viking style piece.
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Nov 19, 2018 9:17:16 GMT
Go for the Albion if you have the option. They're the only production viking swords I know of without deliberately oversized grips.
|
|
seth
Member
Just Peachy
Posts: 976
|
Post by seth on Nov 19, 2018 23:28:15 GMT
I recently acquired an Albion Squire Line Viking sword. It has a 4 inch grip, and I find it very comfortable. The smooth, narrow pommel slides easily into handshake grip. I put up a review with some pictures. I was surprised at how ergonomic it is. I haven't held that Leif Erikson, but the thickness of the pommel, the slight hooking of the pommel and the lack of smooth surface might inhibit the smoothness of using the handshake grip. That sword looks awesome, really enjoyed the review. I'm oscillating between that and Hanwei's Godfred model for a first viking style piece. Hey thanks for the kind words. As I noted in my review, when I thought of a "viking" sword, the lobed pommel came to mind before I saw the Albion type H. I really like it now though (I'm biased of course). It really has a fit and finish to it that I think puts it above other production swords.
|
|
|
Post by razorseal on Nov 24, 2018 4:29:27 GMT
oooohhhh... I like these... Which one do I get?
I'm surely not a fan of the fancier style stuff, but it sure looks nice.
How will this blade handle cutting though? I know windlass is hit or miss
|
|
|
Post by razorseal on Nov 24, 2018 6:43:21 GMT
SO the ashdown is 1.875 inches wide and the leif eriksson one is 2.875 wide!?!?
I was looking around and it seems like these types should be at least 2 inches wide. Maybe 2.25 or so... Am I wrong to assume that?
Would like to pick one before the 20% deal ends this weekend
|
|
|
Post by nddave on Nov 24, 2018 16:02:44 GMT
SO the ashdown is 1.875 inches wide and the leif eriksson one is 2.875 wide!?!? I was looking around and it seems like these types should be at least 2 inches wide. Maybe 2.25 or so... Am I wrong to assume that? Would like to pick one before the 20% deal ends this weekend It depends, Vikings swords technically are of one blade profile or typoligy but there are plenty of variations in blade width, fuller and blade tip to not say there is only one type of Viking blade. If you go by Oakshotte's Typolgy a Viking sword could fit anyhere between a Type X,Xa,XI, XIa and XII. Though most tended to be most promently of type X and Xa. If you want a more detailed look at Viking sword blade typologies, definitely check out the Giebig Typology as well. He classified 14 different blade types used in the Viking time period. You'll see that not all Viking blades were the broad wide fullered swords some think they were. myarmoury.com/feature_geibig.html
|
|
|
Post by razorseal on Nov 24, 2018 16:32:32 GMT
thanks i'll check that out
|
|