Post by toddstratton1 on Jan 19, 2024 15:06:35 GMT
Fine points.
And just to clarify again. The only reason I mentioned DSA was to say when at DSA, Eyal let me handle and flex his REAL antique medieval swords. Showing me they are not floppy. So, not talking about DSA swords at all, it rather genuine antiques from Eyal's private collection.
Understood, blade types is also a big factor for flex versus rigidity. Modern steel is much better than steel in medieval times so nothing about our stuff today is lesser than. Blades that are corroded through hundreds of years are not going to have all the same properties as they did when they were new.
But for the most part the feel of the swords and how they were balanced and handle in the hand, most of the geometry etc is in tact. Would be nice if more European swords were as well preserved as many ancient Japanese swords, but more often they weren't continuously cared for through centuries as a generalization. Anyways the thinner a blade is and add to that with more length generally speaking it's going to have more flex. Diamond shaped reinforced cross sections helped later swords to have a more stiff blade, but an overly too thin sword even of the same blade type will have more floppiness and flex. I just don't know what you consider to be "too floppy", nor have I personally held the Albion you specifically owned, i dont mean the model but your specific sword. As i held multiple swords of the same blade thats used on the Knight. As a general standpoint the Knight was quite a nice blade that never stood out as being too floppy to me, personally. And I haven't ever had an Albion of which ive owned and handled very many, to be floppy or flexible to the point of detriment. Really it's just never been an issue.
Although I've owned too swords I've considered so floppy I didn't really like it as much, neither were Albions. And there wasn't anything wrong with those either, I just knew they wouldn't work as well on the thrust is all. But again when we go back to those early eras of medieval swords they really weren't designed to be thrust centric swords anyways. A lot of them had spatulated tips after all.
Especially migration and dark age era swords. A more acute point wasn't common until after the 12th century. Later becoming more reinforced and even more acute, with also more reinforced cross sections and stiffer blades etc. Just wasn't a need for it at the earlier times for those swords. The Albion Poiters is a recreation of a later sword in history at a time that swords developed more acute tips and stiff blades for stabbing through gaps in plate armor and the like. That's why it's quite different than the Albion knight. Anyways nothing wrong with your preferences I just disagree with the assertion that Albions as a whole are too floppy of swords as a generalization compared to real historical swords, as all common evidence points to the contrary.
Peter Johannson who designed all of them spent innumerous hours studying and handling all of the original historical swords that he later made reproductions of to give the exact same feel as possible. And his expert experience and skill speaks for itself, he's an expert in the field regarded as one of the best by everyone else. Modern swords can be made to be more stiff of the same blade typology as certain historical recreations, but I wouldn't say that makes them superior swords or more accurate to history. Often it's the opposite and usually a sign over an overly built blade.