pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Apr 13, 2023 19:31:15 GMT
For our members that criticize their sword because the manufacturer left the blade a bit wavily, or a line not running true, one quillon not the mirror image of the other I present two videos by well known guys in the field.
|
|
|
Post by perignum on Apr 14, 2023 7:58:50 GMT
I’ve watched both these videos. They’re spot on. Like most European countries, even the local museums here have a fair smattering of medieval weaponry and from looking at those I’d agree that the ’quality’ is pretty much as Tod Cutler describes.
I’d even go further and say that the surviving examples, especially those kept in castles and family collections, are probably some of the best executed examples. I’d imagine ‘munitions grade’ stuff was built to fairly wide tolerances.
I’d also suggest that medieval people probably didn’t fetishise their weaponry the way that modern people do. They were tools for the most part and as long as they did the job, they were good enough. Think a labouring man’s shovel or wheelbarrow. More than likely a little wonky and held steady with shims but they’ll get that hole dug.
|
|
|
Post by cerberus1426 on Apr 14, 2023 21:55:01 GMT
Agreed. I bet most historical swords leaned closer to a properly sharpened newer style Deepeeka than we would like to think.
|
|
|
Post by kloborgg on Apr 14, 2023 22:51:15 GMT
Agreed. I bet most historical swords leaned closer to a properly sharpened newer style Deepeeka than we would like to think. I think this is very much the wrong way to look at this. Medieval swords had flaws not because the makers didn't care or were hurried or sloppy, they had flaws because critical standards and aesthetic preferences were different. It's also wrong to assume that swords were always made as utilitarian tools for battle and nothing more - we know they held immense symbolic meaning and were often quite ornate and complex. An Albion is still going to be much closer in spirit and appearance to an average museum sword then a Deepeeka. The exact "perfect" historical finish and proportions are hard to nail down, but I hope we don't take that to mean quality and craftsmanship can't be appreciated, or that outright ugly swords are more "accurate".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2023 23:34:17 GMT
Agreed. I bet most historical swords leaned closer to a properly sharpened newer style Deepeeka than we would like to think. I think this is very much the wrong way to look at this. Medieval swords had flaws not because the makers didn't care or were hurried or sloppy, they had flaws because critical standards and aesthetic preferences were different. It's also wrong to assume that swords were always made as utilitarian tools for battle and nothing more - we know they held immense symbolic meaning and were often quite ornate and complex. An Albion is still going to be much closer in spirit and appearance to an average museum sword then a Deepeeka. The exact "perfect" historical finish and proportions are hard to nail down, but I hope we don't take that to mean quality and craftsmanship can't be appreciated, or that outright ugly swords are more "accurate". Hear, hear. Swords are more than just their aesthetic appearance. Swords are three-dimensional objects that physically handle differently from one another based on their design and their distribution of mass. Deepeeka is not known to produce swords where the stock used to forge the blades is sufficiently thick for its type. Nor are they known to distribute the mass properly via distal taper. Furthermore, the edges are unsharpened, and if sharpened at all have pronounced shoulders or big secondary edge bevels. Not every Medieval sword was perfect, but many of them featured the aforementioned qualities, whereas, Deepeeka seldom does. Even if Deepeeka properly sharpened their blades, it doesn't mitigate their poor handling characteristics. It's about physics.
|
|
|
Post by patmourin on Apr 15, 2023 0:08:53 GMT
Yeah, I never understood people who complain about Albions having marks on them from the factory, or God forbid something is a few mm off from a museum replica. Big f'n deal to me.
|
|
|
Post by nddave on Apr 15, 2023 16:04:49 GMT
The main point is 100% of actual medieval swords from say 700-1700 were hand made. To error is human and many of the flaws and miss-alignments most Stat Junkies complain about these days would have been non issues to the military man of that 1000 year period! They had bigger things to worry about like heat treatment and edge retention.
Honestly the quality we see in the $300-$800 production market from manufacturers such as Windlass, DelTin and the like were pretty accurate to what would be expected from the Medieval Sword Smith. And quite frankly if we ever were able to time travel and bring along a few Windlass or Albions with us, the Smiths would be less focused on the fit and finish and more on the quality of steel and how exact the heat treatment is!
|
|
|
Post by shizzeldidizzel on Apr 15, 2023 16:26:34 GMT
Agreed. I bet most historical swords leaned closer to a properly sharpened newer style Deepeeka than we would like to think. I think this is very much the wrong way to look at this. Medieval swords had flaws not because the makers didn't care or were hurried or sloppy, they had flaws because critical standards and aesthetic preferences were different. It's also wrong to assume that swords were always made as utilitarian tools for battle and nothing more - we know they held immense symbolic meaning and were often quite ornate and complex. An Albion is still going to be much closer in spirit and appearance to an average museum sword then a Deepeeka. The exact "perfect" historical finish and proportions are hard to nail down, but I hope we don't take that to mean quality and craftsmanship can't be appreciated, or that outright ugly swords are more "accurate". Oh my god first ever post so hey guys been lurking for too long lets have a go at this. I believe that you're not wrong, however you have to keep in mind that historical context changes dramatically through the ages. During the late 15th, early 16th munition grade swords were readily available and as such i doubt they held a high significance to the average soldier. For nobility and richer men certainly, but i dont believe some watchman Hermann standing at the city gate since 6 hours would hold his issiued sword by the armory in too high of a regard nor would he care about it being too straight or having both quillons. You shouldnt forget that most museum swords were from known people or of a quality that even back then was found worthy to preserve. Sadly most battlefield finds are too decayed to properly measure and study, but i doubt they'd be too well made. The only counter argument i can think of is the surviving armories that still hold swords to this day, but the only ones i remember having period inventory are from the 17th century where mass production of swords was perfected and so they were of higher quality.
|
|
|
Post by kloborgg on Apr 15, 2023 17:00:11 GMT
I think this is very much the wrong way to look at this. Medieval swords had flaws not because the makers didn't care or were hurried or sloppy, they had flaws because critical standards and aesthetic preferences were different. It's also wrong to assume that swords were always made as utilitarian tools for battle and nothing more - we know they held immense symbolic meaning and were often quite ornate and complex. An Albion is still going to be much closer in spirit and appearance to an average museum sword then a Deepeeka. The exact "perfect" historical finish and proportions are hard to nail down, but I hope we don't take that to mean quality and craftsmanship can't be appreciated, or that outright ugly swords are more "accurate". Oh my god first ever post so hey guys been lurking for too long lets have a go at this. I believe that you're not wrong, however you have to keep in mind that historical context changes dramatically through the ages. During the late 15th, early 16th munition grade swords were readily available and as such i doubt they held a high significance to the average soldier. For nobility and richer men certainly, but i dont believe some watchman Hermann standing at the city gate since 6 hours would hold his issiued sword by the armory in too high of a regard nor would he care about it being too straight or having both quillons. You shouldnt forget that most museum swords were from known people or of a quality that even back then was found worthy to preserve. Sadly most battlefield finds are too decayed to properly measure and study, but i doubt they'd be too well made. The only counter argument i can think of is the surviving armories that still hold swords to this day, but the only ones i remember having period inventory are from the 17th century where mass production of swords was perfected and so they were of higher quality. Welcome to the forum! To start off, I want to be clear that I wasn't trying to suggest that all swords in the middle ages were held in high regard or as pieces of art; certainly, sometimes you just need a bunch of functional blades to hand to your men-at-arms. I just want to push back against the idea that people as a whole "didn't care" about swords or the aesthetic details and care put into them, or the idea that they were only ever tools for the battlefield and nothing more. Really, even if we keep to the idea of city watchmen, if we look at the well-known Munich town guard swords we can see a lot of details that go beyond simple utility. If the idea was just to hand someone a tool, why would they need wire wraps with Turks head knots and (relatively) elaborately swept bars? Of course there's a spectrum of quality that exists, and if someone buys a high-end reproduction from makers today they should understand that they're most likely getting a better-than-average sample of what might've existed in the past. But stepping back, my main point was to counter the idea that mass-produced budget swords are "closer" to actual historical pieces than high-end replicas. Sure, they both tend to have flaws, but the flaws are fundamentally different. A skilled and experienced blacksmith working within certain time constraints for an average customer may not spend a ton of time on the finish and may not care about the odd asymmetry or bit of blade waviness. However, the flaws that result from that are not identical to those that come from non-specialized modern mass-production labor. You can find lots of "flaws" in an A&A piece or a Tod's Workshop sword, but that doesn't mean they're anything like a Deepeeka.
|
|
|
Post by shizzeldidizzel on Apr 15, 2023 17:59:10 GMT
Oh my god first ever post so hey guys been lurking for too long lets have a go at this. I believe that you're not wrong, however you have to keep in mind that historical context changes dramatically through the ages. During the late 15th, early 16th munition grade swords were readily available and as such i doubt they held a high significance to the average soldier. For nobility and richer men certainly, but i dont believe some watchman Hermann standing at the city gate since 6 hours would hold his issiued sword by the armory in too high of a regard nor would he care about it being too straight or having both quillons. You shouldnt forget that most museum swords were from known people or of a quality that even back then was found worthy to preserve. Sadly most battlefield finds are too decayed to properly measure and study, but i doubt they'd be too well made. The only counter argument i can think of is the surviving armories that still hold swords to this day, but the only ones i remember having period inventory are from the 17th century where mass production of swords was perfected and so they were of higher quality. Welcome to the forum! To start off, I want to be clear that I wasn't trying to suggest that all swords in the middle ages were held in high regard or as pieces of art; certainly, sometimes you just need a bunch of functional blades to hand to your men-at-arms. I just want to push back against the idea that people as a whole "didn't care" about swords or the aesthetic details and care put into them, or the idea that they were only ever tools for the battlefield and nothing more. Really, even if we keep to the idea of city watchmen, if we look at the well-known Munich town guard swords we can see a lot of details that go beyond simple utility. If the idea was just to hand someone a tool, why would they need wire wraps with Turks head knots and (relatively) elaborately swept bars? Of course there's a spectrum of quality that exists, and if someone buys a high-end reproduction from makers today they should understand that they're most likely getting a better-than-average sample of what might've existed in the past. But stepping back, my main point was to counter the idea that mass-produced budget swords are "closer" to actual historical pieces than high-end replicas. Sure, they both tend to have flaws, but the flaws are fundamentally different. A skilled and experienced blacksmith working within certain time constraints for an average customer may not spend a ton of time on the finish and may not care about the odd asymmetry or bit of blade waviness. However, the flaws that result from that are not identical to those that come from non-specialized modern mass-production labor. You can find lots of "flaws" in an A&A piece or a Tod's Workshop sword, but that doesn't mean they're anything like a Deepeeka. I see what youre saying and i agree that swords were held in a higher regard as they were still seen as symbols of power by the society as a whole. The imagery of swords being associated with the knightly class do go back centuries. But i feel the need to point out that this idea is largely related to the knightly class as we can see knightly swords in modern collections having a higher quality standard than the few munitions grade swords that survive pre 17th century. The munich swords you point out are indeed beautifully made but those too are from the 17th century so after the middle ages during a time where almost any soldier would have carried a sword and had the means to acquire one as they were readily available and as such perfected to a point not seen in history before. In addition the 17th century was a time where aesthetic standards where quite high in all facettes of life and things were as ornate as never before. Also Munich was quite a rich town with Nuremberg close where some of the most beautiful armors were made so id almost imagine the region would try to keep up a certain image of quality in the arms and armor industry. In any case youre right about your last point and i agree that """"flaws""" in quality back then were different to today as even the most crooked sword would have had atleast some distal taper, a functionally forged and differentially hardened tang and a pommel that wouldnt come flying off like we see on some of the worse depeekas.
|
|