Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2008 1:13:33 GMT
Hello gentlemen (and ladies). I have been wondering about something for some time and thought I would post it. I sometimes get caught up in sword materials and try to find the most durable sword at the price range that I (and many on this forum) can afford. I wonder however what was the quality of swords use in the days when the sword was the primary means of self-defense. Of the countless warriors who have used swords in battles or duels or what have you, I find it very difficult to believe that most of them were the same quality as an Albion or other such high-end sword. I do not believe most people could afford such a fine weapon and with technology what it was in days gone by, I would think that Windlass or generation 2 or other products of similar quality would at least be equal if not superior than many of the blades that men used to defend themselves. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Aug 17, 2008 1:37:33 GMT
Most swords in the middle ages would have looked like albions, however made of significantly worse steel. By worse I mean a less thurough hardening. Windlass and gen2 are, forgive me, cheap knock offs that are not historically sudied and fall short on both geometry and hilt construction. Gen2 has made some good strides recently and windlass has always been more acceptable than most, but both do not reach the mark.
Basically Albion is about as historically accurate as you can get, even for a poor man's weapon. True some swords, notably the viking ones, would have been almost solely for the rich. But most would be acceptabale for at least a typical warrior could afford. Don't forget, swords wereoften handmedowns, meaning that finding a 12th c sword on a 14th c. battlefield was not unheard of and happened frequently. These 12th c. sword, though high quality, would have been cheap because they were outdated.
So, sorry I rambled, but most of what we see in the sub 300 market does not meet historical standard.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2008 1:44:33 GMT
Thanks for the response. I understand that Windlass and Gen 2 are not historically accurate, but I was wondering about the durability. Surely making a sword centuries ago was a hit and miss affair many of them issued from armories and not custom made. I would also think that broken swords were common place on any battlefield. The time and cost to make such a beautiful weapon such as an Albion probably meant that most people did not carry one of such quality.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Aug 17, 2008 2:22:17 GMT
I think gen2's might be more durable if we ignore the recent temper issues. Windlass certainly not - loose fittings, wippy blades, threaded tangs - but gen2 are built like a tank.
The problem is, time and cost was not of much importance in the middle ages. Economics at the time were such that materials were expensive but labor was cheap. Dedicated guilds (or skilled individuals) could be expected to turn out quality blades at very low prices, or at least lower than our modern philosophy of minimum wage is concerned. Albions represent typically run of the mill weapons with the exception of MUCH better steel. Medieval steel, while the best in the world (even better than japan), is of astonishly inferior quality to today's steel. So it's unlikely in my opinion that they could escape a battle as unscathed as a modern one can. I agree with you, broken swords would be more common with historical blades than with modern ones, but this has to do with the steel in the sword and it's (comparatively) uneven treatment/temper rather than the quality. Hilt strength was countless times better in the day than it is in our modern era - tangs were stronger too, as evidenced by their always changing nature in order to deal with new styles of swords. If you notice, most modern swords fail at the hilt - I think (uneducated guess, I may be wrong) that more swords in the middle ages failed from blade damage than today.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2008 2:28:28 GMT
So in essence, a modern sword, such as generation 2 or perhaps cold steel would survive a battle maybe better than a historical sword because of todays superior tempering and heat treatment ?
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Aug 17, 2008 2:40:40 GMT
Depends. They may be more durable, but remember a lot more comes into account ahead of durability. Sure the swords may survive the battle - but will the weilder? A clumsy sword that is very well built isn't going to help even if it is durable. I think ablion's are more representative of handing and feel of medieval swords. This is where I'd say ALL makers in this money bracket fail. Just because a gen2 might survive a battle better doesn't mean it's a better sword or more representative of the genre.
Either way I think the durability thing isn't really an issue here, other things are more important. Gen2 does make a strong sword, but it's not very weildy compared to the originals and therefore can't be compared to them - apples and oranges and all that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2008 3:04:25 GMT
I suppose handling characteristics is something I never really considered. A strong ultra-beater is not going to do you much good if the thing is too heavy to wield, and your opponent had a sword lighter and I guess the term would be faster.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2008 3:33:12 GMT
Historical swords surely ranged from crap to superb, just like today. Armories were well stocked for wartime, and the quality of these mass-produced blades were probably just enough to make for a functional weapon. I'd put these swords in a close quality bracket to companies like Windlass and DelTin. They were good, but certainly didn't have the time, care, and effort put into them that a one-off piece, made specifically for a wealthy individual, would have.
The steel quality was certainly an issue, though not as big as you'd think in all cases. Steel was smelted, and the quality and content surely varied by region. Hell, there were probably as many different recipes for steel as there were furnaces to make it. Sometimes we don't give our ancestors enough credit, because they really did know what they were doing. In the present day, we've mostly made production quicker, easier, and more controlled; they did most of the legwork to get us here.
Another thing to remember is that pieces in museums and collections nowadays are a small sample. Mostly the better ones survived. You have to remember that most swords that were broken, bent, or otherwise damaged, were recycled due to the cost of materials. Even the onset of firearms would've caused the recycling of blades into gunbarrels. This would've been easy, since most(if not all) early gunbarrels were made by wrapping a strip around a rod and forgewelding the seam. Kinda like the core from a paper towel roll. Swords were already a good shape for doing this, and were already a strong, high-carbon alloy. I don't know if it's a fact, but it makes sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Aug 17, 2008 3:38:07 GMT
I think that mostly the better ones survive INTACT
However, battlefield finds are (to me) more important than pristine ones. The ones you see in near perfect conditions protected by bullet proof glass in a fancy museum are often very good. But guilds needed to pump out quality swords to outfit armies or else the armies would fail and you'd have an angry noble wanting your blood. Some crap swords existed, the one that the albion landgraff is based on oakeshott said to be very clumsy, but the majority were of decent quality, if plain and not uniform.
Just a side note, the higher quality blades came from northern italy, solingen, and toledo - these were swords of the rich.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2008 3:47:04 GMT
This is why I don't mind the quality of Windlass. They're pretty much right on the level of Munitions grade, maybe a smidge better due to more controlled, uniform methods of construction. Even with their occasional QC issues, Windlass still makes serviceable blades that mayt not be EXACT historical representations, but do offer historically styled swords with a quality and functionality that I beleive was more common than some think.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2008 4:40:23 GMT
Well the gen 2 Lucerne and Black Prince handle pretty much like a type XVa should. The crusader line would be find if the handle was a bit longer like the A&A one. The Henry the V by all acounts acts just like an XVIII should as well. So I wouldn't say that gen 2 are clumsy or unwieldy for their type. I mean honestly the A&A black prince is more unwieldy then the gen 2 one. Not that I'd pick the gen 2 one over the A&A one mind you.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Aug 17, 2008 4:44:57 GMT
HR, the only problem with windlass is their hilt contruction. A pressure grip is far shoddier than the perfectly fitted on albion uses.
|
|
|
Post by ShooterMike on Aug 17, 2008 4:46:37 GMT
This is why I don't mind the quality of Windlass. They're pretty much right on the level of Munitions grade, maybe a smidge better due to more controlled, uniform methods of construction. Even with their occasional QC issues, Windlass still makes serviceable blades that mayt not be EXACT historical representations, but do offer historically styled swords with a quality and functionality that I beleive was more common than some think. I have to respectfully disagree. I've used and broken quite a few Windlass-made swords. The steel is uniformly good, but the hilt construction is uniformly poor. While historic swords of the munitions-grade were likely fairly plain, and the steel in some was definitely unacceptible by today's standards, they HAD to be much better in the durability and quality of hilt construction than anything Windlass makes. I think that also applies to most of the models made by CAS Hanwei and a few others. Gen2 hilt construction is just about as indestructible as the traditional medieval methods. But they rely more on the use of lots of modern epoxy for this durability. When the epoxy is melted away through heat, they seem to come apart much like the other lower-end swords. A good indicator of the difference in durability is how well the guard and pommel are secured on beat up old battlefield and river finds. In many, much of the blade may be rusted away and the piece shows signs of much abuse. The wood core grip has long since rotted away to nonexistence. But the cross and pommel are still as tight as when they were new. And on many of the better examples, all that is required to make them serviceable fighting swords is to fit a new grip. Good examples of this are some swords found at a crossing on the Dordogne River near Castillon. The Albion Next Gen Burgundian is a sword that is very similar to the majority of these swords, though they were Type XV and the Burgundian is a Type XVIII. Something like 20-30 swords were found in this haul. They were believed to be a shipment of replacement "munitions-grade" armoury swords intended for a nearby English garrison. It is believed that they were all crated up together and the crate fell off a ferry. These are supposedly representative of what a "munitions-grade" sword of the late 1300s and early 1400s was like. So to me the bottom line is, while the steel was likely of greatly varying quality, and the decoration and beauty was widely varied, the design and care with which fighting swords were made was quite consistently higher than what we find on the lower level of the market. Also, subtle things like proper distal taper are critical elements that make properly designed and built medieval swords much more durable and long-lasting. A blade with proper distribution of mass is typically able to withstand much more abuse than something that's improperly thick at the end of the blade.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2008 4:46:50 GMT
However compression fit handles ARE perfectly traditional way of doing it too. The way albion does it is just ONE of many ways that they did thing back then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2008 4:59:49 GMT
However compression fit handles ARE perfectly traditional way of doing it too. The way albion does it is just ONE of many ways that they did thing back then. Exactly. Everything done now has some root in historical construction methods. Some may be better or ideal, but all were used for one reason or another. Even the use of epoxy isn't a stretch, since surely some handles were fitted(though not permanently secured) using resins, which were always common for fitting knife hilts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2008 10:11:01 GMT
Historical swords surely ranged from crap to superb, just like today. Armories were well stocked for wartime, and the quality of these mass-produced blades were probably just enough to make for a functional weapon. I'd put these swords in a close quality bracket to companies like Windlass and DelTin. They were good, but certainly didn't have the time, care, and effort put into them that a one-off piece, made specifically for a wealthy individual, would have. The steel quality was certainly an issue, though not as big as you'd think in all cases. Steel was smelted, and the quality and content surely varied by region. Hell, there were probably as many different recipes for steel as there were furnaces to make it. Sometimes we don't give our ancestors enough credit, because they really did know what they were doing. In the present day, we've mostly made production quicker, easier, and more controlled; they did most of the legwork to get us here. Another thing to remember is that pieces in museums and collections nowadays are a small sample. Mostly the better ones survived. You have to remember that most swords that were broken, bent, or otherwise damaged, were recycled due to the cost of materials. Even the onset of firearms would've caused the recycling of blades into gunbarrels. This would've been easy, since most(if not all) early gunbarrels were made by wrapping a strip around a rod and forgewelding the seam. Kinda like the core from a paper towel roll. Swords were already a good shape for doing this, and were already a strong, high-carbon alloy. I don't know if it's a fact, but it makes sense to me. I agree with most of the post, but it isn't very realistic to compare the quality of Windlass and Del Tin swords. Del Tins are much much better, excellent heat treatment and much better hilt construction. And far more historical of course.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2008 12:42:58 GMT
This is just my opinion.
It seems to me that the better quality steel used today offsets the well practiced hand made quality of days long gone. I wanted to mention that modern swords do not have someones life riding on how well they are made. I believe that is the most significant difference.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2008 15:02:14 GMT
Del Tin are certainly made to a higher standard of artisanship. I understand many of them lack distal taper though, which unless there is a sharp profile taper, makes for a clumsy blade
Windlass tend to exhibit decent weight distribution and good heat treat (most of the time) but as said above, they don't make the grade when it comes to hilt construction. The guards are slotted with a generic rectangle, with a hole in the center to let the round tang through. Also, the shoulders of the blades aren't always 100% parallel to the guard.
All the lower brands have quality issues of some sort, some short cut in the process taken in order to make them affordable. I'd have to agree with Rammestein about Albion.
Many swords from the middle ages would have been made of inferior steel, with subpar heat treat, but better built hilts and stronger tangs than what we generally have available in the sub 300 market.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Aug 17, 2008 15:27:36 GMT
Shooter, +1 for that, I'd not heard about the munitions grade find for albion.
I'm not aware of any historical sword being compression fitted. That seems like a modern short cut. Where do you come up with the idea that it was historically accurate to do so?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2008 21:27:59 GMT
This is not really my niche but i'll try to add something....
I would say its a trade off between the two...
We reached a point in steel production that allows smiths to work with materials that are almost completely free of impurities and are very superior to the steel production of old. Even advances in what were once referred to as "space age metals" like silicon alloys and tungsten or molebdum based high carbon steels are pushing the structural integrity of todays swords beyond what was once thought possible.
The reason i think its a trade off is:
Despite the advancements in steel production and the improvement of the trade tools and devices used in making swords, today they are not really made with the same care that they once were. Thats not to say that all ancient swords were of superior quality, i'm sure they had a whole lot of junk floating around back then as well. I'm just saying that today it is easier to accomplish the same goal with fewer people and very little time, so i think that companies today (not all of them) are more focused on money than on making a weapon.
Smiths of old were employed by the lords of their land, and they knew that the weapons they made would be used in battle. And that if the weapon failed due to improper forging, then they're countrymen would die as a result. Today swords aren't a necessity, so i think they just "bang em out" for the most part....
Thats not to bash modern sword production or anything,... its just a thought about values and necessity of old, compared to the capitalistic views of our modern culture.
|
|