thomasthesecond
Member
"I thought I was an architect, but I was just moving dirt."
Posts: 153
|
Post by thomasthesecond on Jul 27, 2019 17:34:23 GMT
So something that comes to mind for me is that the early European swords are mostly all double edged. Wouldn't the pommel being crooked really only help in one direction? At that point, with an assymetric hilt, why not only have one edge, and save on time, steel, weight, etc etc. Another thing is how much solid evidence is there? If the pommel were made crooked, and specifically so, they should show up on basically most of not all swords of the era right? It's not hard for steel or iron to warp slightly. www.patreon.com/posts/28623786?fbclid=IwAR2wWLjgjnvJstRKuD2cDMocoudz16uAjbTa096D0oXeOvXow0JuTWRATA8Here Roland illustrates how he believes they should be held, or the possibility of how they were held anyways. While some seem slightly twisted, the tang is always perfectly straight. m.facebook.com/266934476773420/photos/a.549286731871525/1128798853920307/?type=3www.patreon.com/posts/14800155?fbclid=IwAR0trmlw7IeY2x2GDZa15zhYoR85fFTWV7dA6eVGxOrhj2tmYTK-sBnXTgkBut the fact that more "viking" era swords are found twisted than not supports this claim.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Jul 27, 2019 18:09:01 GMT
So something that comes to mind for me is that the early European swords are mostly all double edged. Wouldn't the pommel being crooked really only help in one direction? At that point, with an assymetric hilt, why not only have one edge, and save on time, steel, weight, etc etc. Another thing is how much solid evidence is there? If the pommel were made crooked, and specifically so, they should show up on basically most of not all swords of the era right? It's not hard for steel or iron to warp slightly. www.patreon.com/posts/28623786?fbclid=IwAR2wWLjgjnvJstRKuD2cDMocoudz16uAjbTa096D0oXeOvXow0JuTWRATA8Here Roland illustrates how he believes they should be held, or the possibility of how they were held anyways. While some seem slightly twisted, the tang is always perfectly straight. m.facebook.com/266934476773420/photos/a.549286731871525/1128798853920307/?type=3www.patreon.com/posts/14800155?fbclid=IwAR0trmlw7IeY2x2GDZa15zhYoR85fFTWV7dA6eVGxOrhj2tmYTK-sBnXTgkBut the fact that more "viking" era swords are found twisted than not supports this claim. Yeah, any non patreon articles or serious studies on this? Is this twisted pommel theory supported by later swords with the same feature? I mean, functionally the blade and hilts are not so different. Still a pretty intrusive pommel, Still a double edged blade. I will say I am not at all convinced by his ideas on gripping the viking era sword in a thumb up grip. In fact, in a German sabre manual, from 1848 (German Sabre of the Berliner Turnschule) advises NOT to have the thumb butted up against the guard as on a harsh impact (a hard cut or parry) the thumb will be shocked. I have actually had this happen and it made me drop the sword. Hurts quite a lot. Why don't we see this artwork either?
|
|
|
Post by nddave on Jul 27, 2019 18:13:26 GMT
So something that comes to mind for me is that the early European swords are mostly all double edged. Wouldn't the pommel being crooked really only help in one direction? At that point, with an assymetric hilt, why not only have one edge, and save on time, steel, weight, etc etc. Another thing is how much solid evidence is there? If the pommel were made crooked, and specifically so, they should show up on basically most of not all swords of the era right? It's not hard for steel or iron to warp slightly. www.patreon.com/posts/28623786?fbclid=IwAR2wWLjgjnvJstRKuD2cDMocoudz16uAjbTa096D0oXeOvXow0JuTWRATA8Here Roland illustrates how he believes they should be held, or the possibility of how they were held anyways. While some seem slightly twisted, the tang is always perfectly straight. m.facebook.com/266934476773420/photos/a.549286731871525/1128798853920307/?type=3www.patreon.com/posts/14800155?fbclid=IwAR0trmlw7IeY2x2GDZa15zhYoR85fFTWV7dA6eVGxOrhj2tmYTK-sBnXTgkBut the fact that more "viking" era swords are found twisted than not supports this claim. He really doesn't have much evidence though, just speculation based on a few examples. I'd put money on for every 3 swords with a crooked pommel there's 10 without. I'd double that bet that 80% of these crooked pommels are simply human error on the part of either the smith who hilted it or the person using it doing routine maintenance. I'd triple that bet that the other 20% of these crooked pommels are simply wear and tear or age due to being hundreds of years old, kept in various forms of preservation. From being kept in armouries or personal collections down to the river bed of some long lost battlefield of Europe. Again when I see these pics of crooked pommels I see simple error in regards to hilting, not some ingenious grip form. He's got a decent theory but it seems he's reaching a bit, trying to make a discovery than really having something substantial. I have a perfect real life example right here for you, This is my Windlass Effigy Sword, notice something about it? Yep the pommel is slightly crooked. Why? Well within my first year of owning it I decided to get a little rough with it an did some pell work with it. Well the hilt came loose (as I'm sure historical swords did all the time) so to fix it I took a hammer and tightened it back up via cold peening. But as you see I didn't line up the pommel correctly so it sits slightly crooked. Has it affected its performance? No I never notice it in handling. Does it benefit performance? Again I'd say no as it doesn't really do much to change my gripping of the sword. Sure my example doesn't disprove his theory but it does seem more plausible that these crooked pommels are a result of rudimentary field repairs or layman "DiY" style work over intentional design by the swordsmith who first assembled it. Again if it was a popular hilt form we'd see it consistently throughout the centuries, not here and there on a few examples.
|
|
|
Post by mpsmith47304 on Jul 27, 2019 18:46:23 GMT
Yeah, I’m gonna agree with those who say that while this is interesting speculation, there is almost no evidence for it, and it must be regarded as speculation.
|
|
thomasthesecond
Member
"I thought I was an architect, but I was just moving dirt."
Posts: 153
|
Post by thomasthesecond on Jul 27, 2019 20:33:29 GMT
Yeah, I’m gonna agree with those who say that while this is interesting speculation, there is almost no evidence for it, and it must be regarded as speculation. I agree, but I certainly felt this was a topic worthy of conversation.
|
|
thomasthesecond
Member
"I thought I was an architect, but I was just moving dirt."
Posts: 153
|
Post by thomasthesecond on Jul 27, 2019 20:38:01 GMT
Yeah, any non patreon articles or serious studies on this? Is this twisted pommel theory supported by later swords with the same feature? I mean, functionally the blade and hilts are not so different. Still a pretty intrusive pommel, Still a double edged blade. I will say I am not at all convinced by his ideas on gripping the viking era sword in a thumb up grip. In fact, in a German sabre manual, from 1848 (German Sabre of the Berliner Turnschule) advises NOT to have the thumb butted up against the guard as on a harsh impact (a hard cut or parry) the thumb will be shocked. I have actually had this happen and it made me drop the sword. Hurts quite a lot. Why don't we see this artwork either? Maybe not thumb up grip, but certainly something along those lines. Check out this short article by Peter Johnssonn arguing this very grip. myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=2478&fbclid=IwAR35BeS38RePjDXOw8AXtk3yr5vx94HdGIUYqNSQAXb4RqeengRCOQx07lIThere were a few images I found dating to the 11th century as well depicting what looked like this very grip, though I am having trouble finding them. I'll post them as soon as I do however.
|
|
|
Post by nddave on Jul 28, 2019 0:34:33 GMT
Yeah, I’m gonna agree with those who say that while this is interesting speculation, there is almost no evidence for it, and it must be regarded as speculation. I agree, but I certainly felt this was a topic worthy of conversation. Absolutely. If it wasn't worth discussing nobody would've posted, lol!
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Jul 28, 2019 10:28:21 GMT
So something that comes to mind for me is that the early European swords are mostly all double edged. Wouldn't the pommel being crooked really only help in one direction? Actually, no! As long as the pommel is symmetrical, it doesn't matter which edge you hold forward. Looking at the sword from the pommel end, rotating the pommel counter-clockwise moves its upper edge to your left and the lower edge to your right; if you now flip the sword 180 degrees around its longitudinal axis, the upper and lower edges simply trade place and the new upper edge (the old lower edge) of the pommel is still shifted to your left, and the new lower edge (the old upper edge) to your right. I think this can help align the blade with your knuckles because the base of your thumb is fatter than the heel of your pinkie, so in a pommel-hugging handshake grip the base of your thumb pushes the upper edge of a broad pommel to your left if you try to hold the grip flat to your palm, which does somewhat complicate aligning the blade properly. Whether this would have been significant enough to warrant built-in compensation depends entirely on how the sword was intended to be used, though. Having a single edge doesn't really save any time, steel, weight or anything else, at least not in any meaningful degree. You still need to forge each side of the blade to shape, whether it's an edge or a back, and the thicker back would actually take marginally more steel than the sharp edge.
|
|
thomasthesecond
Member
"I thought I was an architect, but I was just moving dirt."
Posts: 153
|
Post by thomasthesecond on Jul 28, 2019 15:00:51 GMT
So something that comes to mind for me is that the early European swords are mostly all double edged. Wouldn't the pommel being crooked really only help in one direction? Actually, no! As long as the pommel is symmetrical, it doesn't matter which edge you hold forward. Looking at the sword from the pommel end, rotating the pommel counter-clockwise moves its upper edge to your left and the lower edge to your right; if you now flip the sword 180 degrees around its longitudinal axis, the upper and lower edges simply trade place and the new upper edge (the old lower edge) of the pommel is still shifted to your left, and the new lower edge (the old upper edge) to your right. I think this can help align the blade with your knuckles because the base of your thumb is fatter than the heel of your pinkie, so in a pommel-hugging handshake grip the base of your thumb pushes the upper edge of a broad pommel to your left if you try to hold the grip flat to your palm, which does somewhat complicate aligning the blade properly. Whether this would have been significant enough to warrant built-in compensation depends entirely on how the sword was intended to be used, though. Having a single edge doesn't really save any time, steel, weight or anything else, at least not in any meaningful degree. You still need to forge each side of the blade to shape, whether it's an edge or a back, and the thicker back would actually take marginally more steel than the sharp edge. You are in fact correct, just tried it with my cardboard copies. Very well said,and thought out, MOK. I would assume that a single edged weapon would be heavier, if it has the same proportions as a double edged variant. Though I could probably just compare the albion berserker to another of there viking age swords on the website to confirm that.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Jul 28, 2019 18:24:36 GMT
Yeah, I just tried it with my dirk. I imagined it wrong!
I am thinking not the same dimension... remove the back edge, realign the tang and tip, and voila. A backsword sans the weight of the back edge. Little finishing and sharpening needed for a flat spine.
A broad fuller and shallow front edge go a long way to shave off weight. The same dimensions are usually the same.
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Jul 28, 2019 18:36:04 GMT
Yeah, I just tried it with my dirk. I imagined it wrong! I am thinking not the same dimension... remove the back edge, realign the tang and tip, and voila. A backsword sans the weight of the back edge. Little finishing and sharpening needed for a flat spine. At that point you'd pretty much have an early steppe saber.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Jul 28, 2019 18:52:56 GMT
Yeah, I just tried it with my dirk. I imagined it wrong! I am thinking not the same dimension... remove the back edge, realign the tang and tip, and voila. A backsword sans the weight of the back edge. Little finishing and sharpening needed for a flat spine. At that point you'd pretty much have an early steppe saber. Yeah, the whole point goes out the window when it's realized the pommel stays the same orientation either way you flip it. I still think it's mostly speculation, along with the "viking pistol grip" theory. I have never cut with a viking sword but got to handle some, they felt great moving them like a tulwar and I bet they cut great in that motion as well. It seems like a lot of the "evidence" for it that isn't in some artwork is that the grip is not comfortable for the user in a traditional grip, which reminds me of putting a finger over the quillon of a tulwar in modern times, something I've read wasn't done at all in actual Indian martial arts, and is an artifact of some modern 21st century collectors just having bigger hands than the original 18th or 19th century Indian hand the hilt was made for. I'm sure that nesting the pommel in the palm was done in the sort of handshake grip with some styles of pommel though.
|
|
thomasthesecond
Member
"I thought I was an architect, but I was just moving dirt."
Posts: 153
|
Post by thomasthesecond on Jul 28, 2019 23:44:14 GMT
At that point you'd pretty much have an early steppe saber. Yeah, the whole point goes out the window when it's realized the pommel stays the same orientation either way you flip it. I still think it's mostly speculation, along with the "viking pistol grip" theory. I have never cut with a viking sword but got to handle some, they felt great moving them like a tulwar and I bet they cut great in that motion as well. It seems like a lot of the "evidence" for it that isn't in some artwork is that the grip is not comfortable for the user in a traditional grip, which reminds me of putting a finger over the quillon of a tulwar in modern times, something I've read wasn't done at all in actual Indian martial arts, and is an artifact of some modern 21st century collectors just having bigger hands than the original 18th or 19th century Indian hand the hilt was made for. I'm sure that nesting the pommel in the palm was done in the sort of handshake grip with some styles of pommel though. While again, still purely speculation, I found a video where Roland makes quite a few very good "duh" kind of points to bolster this idea.
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Jul 29, 2019 1:56:11 GMT
From a manufacturing standpoint, if the early smith was using a twisting jig to fit the pommels, then all pommels made by that smith will have the same twist. It's a manufacturing issue. But, as it's been stated in earlier posts, excepting for high end swords, your average production unit was concerned with proper fit and function of aesthetics.
To make a functional sword with a not so symmetrical pommel or other parts takes X time to do at Y cost. To make that same sword with a higher level of QC where everything was aligned visually and all joints shimmed or filed to eliminate gaps takes X+Xy=Y time/ cost. That has to equal higher costs and lower production rates since it consumes more time and man-hours. It's true now, and it was true then.
And there is always the outlier that maybe they just didn't care enough to worry about it in olden times and just made swords without much regard to our modern QC standards. And perhaps the slightly misaligned swords we see are actually first class examples and were the best they could do with the equipment they had. It's possible they were very proud of their work. I would, however, hate to see what they considered "bad"...
|
|
|
Post by leviathansteak on Jul 29, 2019 6:20:27 GMT
From a manufacturing standpoint, if the early smith was using a twisting jig to fit the pommels, then all pommels made by that smith will have the same twist. It's a manufacturing issue. But, as it's been stated in earlier posts, excepting for high end swords, your average production unit was concerned with proper fit and function of aesthetics. To make a functional sword with a not so symmetrical pommel or other parts takes X time to do at Y cost. To make that same sword with a higher level of QC where everything was aligned visually and all joints shimmed or filed to eliminate gaps takes X+Xy=Y time/ cost. That has to equal higher costs and lower production rates since it consumes more time and man-hours. It's true now, and it was true then. And there is always the outlier that maybe they just didn't care enough to worry about it in olden times and just made swords without much regard to our modern QC standards. And perhaps the slightly misaligned swords we see are actually first class examples and were the best they could do with the equipment they had. It's possible they were very proud of their work. I would, however, hate to see what they considered "bad"... What's a twisting jig used to fit pommels and how does it work?
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Jul 29, 2019 9:41:26 GMT
A jig would be a vice to hold the sword and a tool with a long handle, probably on a hinge of some type, so that they could mass produce hundreds of swords. This device would eliminate the need to laboriously hand fit each and every one. The pommels would then all exhibit the same twist according to the dimensions of the machine used to make them.
Of course, I am speculating. I don't know if there are any such tools from that time that we can examine. But I would think even in medieval times they would try to work smarter, not harder, especially when the King demands those swords for the upcoming war.
|
|
thomasthesecond
Member
"I thought I was an architect, but I was just moving dirt."
Posts: 153
|
Post by thomasthesecond on Jul 29, 2019 12:35:50 GMT
From a manufacturing standpoint, if the early smith was using a twisting jig to fit the pommels, then all pommels made by that smith will have the same twist. It's a manufacturing issue. But, as it's been stated in earlier posts, excepting for high end swords, your average production unit was concerned with proper fit and function of aesthetics. To make a functional sword with a not so symmetrical pommel or other parts takes X time to do at Y cost. To make that same sword with a higher level of QC where everything was aligned visually and all joints shimmed or filed to eliminate gaps takes X+Xy=Y time/ cost. That has to equal higher costs and lower production rates since it consumes more time and man-hours. It's true now, and it was true then. And there is always the outlier that maybe they just didn't care enough to worry about it in olden times and just made swords without much regard to our modern QC standards. And perhaps the slightly misaligned swords we see are actually first class examples and were the best they could do with the equipment they had. It's possible they were very proud of their work. I would, however, hate to see what they considered "bad"... I remember reading that they likely recycled broken or damaged blades into tools etc, which is likely why we don't have any real poor examples, though I'm sure there are a few surviving pieces. One of the things I thought I mentioned earlier as well, is that the reason that cross guard fit got poor century after century in the middle ages, was likely due to the fact that they were mass producing them, or the medieval equivalent anyways. The cross guards of 9th or 10th century swords fit far more snuggly with smaller gaps than 11th through 14th century swords.
|
|
thomasthesecond
Member
"I thought I was an architect, but I was just moving dirt."
Posts: 153
|
Post by thomasthesecond on Aug 13, 2019 19:48:39 GMT
Tod just posted a video basically explaining the exact point I was trying to make.
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Aug 13, 2019 20:17:32 GMT
Yeah, I fully agree with that. There's nothing wrong about a handmade thing looking handmade - it's all those little inconsequential irregularities that give a thing character.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Aug 14, 2019 18:53:28 GMT
He's been accumulating examples and posts on the topic from time to time. I don't think anyone has done a systematic study of all similar era blades on this question. But it will be interesting to see how it hashes out as more examples arise. I'm always interested in his theories, and he takes a lot of unfair heat for speculating when, in fact, we're all speculating the moment we start to do anything with pre-14th century blades. There are no sources showing us how to use them. It's better to have some level of theory and testing than to simply assume a standard way of doing things. For example, why is hammer grip viewed as the default? Nobody proposed that as a theory. It's just the way most modern people hold the swords from the 8th to 11th centuries. It has some merit to it, but nobody seems to have tested it or compared it before concluding it was the default setting for holding swords.
|
|