|
Post by soulfromheart on Feb 28, 2021 21:21:10 GMT
My fitting(s) punishment indeed... (But yes, lesson learned. Been really careful about expressions now. )
|
|
|
Post by howler on Feb 28, 2021 22:01:16 GMT
So cool and unusual.
|
|
|
Post by Kane Shen on Feb 28, 2021 23:00:30 GMT
Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by Kane Shen on Feb 28, 2021 23:01:23 GMT
My fitting(s) punishment indeed... (But yes, lesson learned. Been really careful about expressions now. ) It's quite unique, and has this...post-apocalyptical feel to it. A Fallout viking(-era) sword!
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Mar 1, 2021 0:31:20 GMT
Both are light-weight (the ikakalaka weighs only 798g with a 22" blade, and the ngala 1234g with a 25" twin curved blades), and feature extreme distal taperingš. I wouldn't call that light-weight, since that's about double what African examples of these usually weigh. These African swords are usually quite thin-bladed. More generally, for 22" blade short swords, I wouldn't call 798g lightweight. It's a pretty typical weight for that size. E.g., www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/31271
|
|
|
Post by Kane Shen on Mar 1, 2021 19:19:33 GMT
Both are light-weight (the ikakalaka weighs only 798g with a 22" blade, and the ngala 1234g with a 25" twin curved blades), and feature extreme distal taperingš. I wouldn't call that light-weight, since that's about double what African examples of these usually weigh. These African swords are usually quite thin-bladed. More generally, for 22" blade short swords, I wouldn't call 798g lightweight. It's a pretty typical weight for that size. E.g., www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/31271They are indeed light-weight when the context is concerned. I didn't exactly call them "peerlessly light". The ikakalaka has a quite broad profile and the geometry of double-sided warpicks really add on enough material equivalent to a sword with 28-30" blade. The twin-bladed ngala has even more blade steel and if you straighten out the curved twin-blades, it's probably equivalent to a 36"-40" straight blade. 798g for a 28"-30" blade and 1234g for a 36"-40" blade are both considered light-weight, but obviously not lighter in every historical swords ever existed. Yeah African swords on auction are typically exceedingly light-weight, I'm aware of that. In fact, one antique ikakalaka is in Purna's possession and it weighs around 450g. However, most of the swords out of Africa are actually much shorter than these two. Most have blades between 15"-20", and they are extremely thin because most on auction were made in post-colonial period as prestige items like art objects and currency tokens, explicitly as non-functional and non-battle-ready weapons. In fact, after Belgians banned certain activities among the native populations, making or possessing a functional sword is likely a punishable offense. So yeah, I could have commissioned a blade of 1mm thickness throughout and he will make it if I pay him, and it would weigh 150g or something, but I didn't want something like that. These swords were used in executions in history as witnessed by European colonists, but nowhere was it indicated to not be used in warfare. In fact, from the different variants of these weapons we can see used by different ethnic groups often in conflicts in the past, they were probably also used in wars, though not as common as various spears. The twin-bladed ngala less so, but the single-bladed ngala very well could have been, as they are basically a local interpretation of the khopesh. Even without considering the unique profile and only factoring in only the reach, 798g for a sword with a 22" blade is not a heavy sword. I have two langes messers around that length and both weigh above 900g, though they do have crossguards and knuckle bows on them, so those add a bit of weight. But neither are those messers ever considered by anyone as heavy-weight swords. Yeah, there are swords much lighter in comparison. Han-dynasty cavalry Dao can weigh just above 600g with a 35"-37" blade, but the blades are extremely narrow. So for both of these Congolese swords of these profiles to remain functional, the way they are constructed with deep hollow ground geometry to serve a broad fullers, and the weight that have been reduced, yet still remain a certain degree of rigidity by a prominent central ridge, yes, they are light-weight.
|
|
|
Post by Eric Bergeron on Mar 1, 2021 22:04:41 GMT
Those look amazing Kane and I love the photography of them being held high in the air :) you also have my permission to include any of my stuff from Purna in your video :)
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Mar 1, 2021 22:49:29 GMT
So yeah, I could have commissioned a blade of 1mm thickness throughout and he will make it if I pay him, and it would weigh 150g or something, but I didn't want something like that. I don't see any point in trying to make a replica 1/4 of the weight of the originals, so I can easily see why you wouldn't want these to be about 150g. If you have a chance, play with some old African swords. Despite the relatively light weight, I find they feel like effective enough weapons. Three things in their construction contribute to the light weight: - Light tangs and hilts. Tangs are thin, and hilts are mostly wood.
- Blades have relatively thin bases. The types of swords that have narrow bases are thicker to compensate for that, but the blades that are wide at the base are also thin at the base - distal taper is minimal, and these blades are thin for their whole length. This would be bad for thrusting swords, but there are designed for cutting.
- Blade cross-sections giving stiffness with minimum weight. Z-section blades are common (Congo spears are often made with similar cross-sections).
The last of these sometimes gives us an easy way of recognising purely currency swords - they don't have those stiffness-enhancing cross-sections. E.g., which is simple and flat, unlike Z-section and ribbed blades like: There are blades that have fighting-blade type construction, but the fancier forms of regalia, and are probably not made for fighting: so one still needs to consider the blade as a whole. Even without considering the unique profile and only factoring in only the reach, 798g for a sword with a 22" blade is not a heavy sword. I wouldn't (and didn't) call that heavy, either. As I said, it's a typical weight for that size. I have antiques of that length that are lighter than that, and antiques of that length that are heavier than that. It isn't a binary choice between "heavy" and "light"; there can be a broad range of "normal" between those extremes. Finally, I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with wanting replicas like this to be built more robustly than the originals. If you want to chop things up in the back yard, heavy-duty slab tangs and thicker bases of the blades (which add to the weight) will make them stronger, and greater overall thickness. Also, being made of steel rather than the iron of the originals. I'm just saying that maybe blades that are double the weight of the originals (even if longer than the originals) aren't "lightweight".
|
|
|
Post by Kane Shen on Mar 2, 2021 0:12:26 GMT
Those look amazing Kane and I love the photography of them being held high in the air you also have my permission to include any of my stuff from Purna in your video Thank you so much, Eric! Since we are all on board, I'm stoked about this presentation.
|
|