|
Post by Afoo on Aug 13, 2018 4:41:47 GMT
Can't wait for pics, nice writeup and get what you mean about the sword on sword bullying. Things get particularly bad when I put it next to the French 1822 >.>
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Aug 13, 2018 4:16:47 GMT
Windlass Sword of the 30 Years War? Is that even a thing * checks KoA*. Why the f*ck is afoo writing a review about a discontinued Windlass product? Has he lost his mind? I'm not debating that this is not the case. However, there are still some reasons why this review may be relevant. This sword it still available (allegedly) from Southern Swords. I should also point out that I got this sword this Winter on the second hand market, so they are still available to some degree. Perhaps you or someone else on the forums will run into the chance to buy one yourself, and sincerely wished a review was available. Luckily, I am here to help. HistoryIn the days of old, there were several reviews and articles about this sword on the forums, though they now appear to have vanished into the ether. I remember that they gave an overall favourable impression of the sword, though alas I do not recall any of the historical detail with enough accuracy to repeat here. From my understanding, this can be typed as a Saxon-style hilt, which was commonly used in military swords of the 17th century. As such, the originals tended to er on the more robust and rugged side of the spectrum, though I believe general consensus was that the Windlass copy was a bit under-built relative to the originals. That said, my expertise lies outside this field, so I will cease my exposition on the topic while I am still ahead. Sword of the 30 years war (bottom) next to the CS Mortuary (Top)The SwordThe sword itself is a mixed bag for me. From the description and the overall design aethetic, I was expecting a stout arming sword, somewhat akin to the Windlass Munich. What I got instead was something more akin to a rapier. Thats what you get for not reading the item description on the MRL website I suppose. Its not a full-on rapier, but it definitely represents a more transitory design. The blade is 3.1 cm wide at the base, which is no slouch, but the profile taper and diamond cross section makes it feel lighter than the stats suggest. The heavy pommel shifts the PoB right to the front ring of the guard, further reducing the felt weight of the blade. This itself is not necessarily a bad thing - its a good blade and feels nice in the hand - just not what I expected. If you think of this as a short, stout rapier rather than as an arming or side sword, then it makes more sense. If you think of this in the context of an artillery sidearm, then it does make even more sense - its like the Prussian 1873 of the 1600's - a shorter, stouter, more compact version of the full-on Saxon-hilted rapiers found elsewhere on the battlefield. Blade size of the Mort. vs the 30 Yrs WarThe HiltThe hilt and grips are simultaneously the high and low points of this sword. I was interested in this sword because of the Saxon-style hilt; it has a very clean, simple, yet functional look to it, and since this sword went out of production, there are currently no other similar designs available in the sub-$400 market. I'm here for some Sax, son (get it?)The quillons are very robust, and their great length adds to the visual flair of the sword. The quillons do allow it to bully around any swords which share the same stand as it, so I have to give it the occasional time out. The outside facing rings (the ones protecting the outside of the hand) are reasonably robust and well done. However, the bars protecting the inside of the hand are a bit thin. I do not have confidence in their ability to block another weapon at all. They are also a bit cramped - not so much that it interferes with handling or comfort - they just look a bit comical with all my fingers crammed in there like clowns in a VW. This is not inconsistent with its intended role as a sidearm, and I can easily imagine the guard being reduced in order to facilitate everyday carrying. While this compromise increased the comedy factor of the grip, it does not hinder hand protection as much as you would expect - all my fingers feel pretty safe, especially consideration how small and slim the hilt is.The quillon blcok is well done, and fingering the ricasso is very comfortable. Size of the Saxon guard vs that of the CromwellOutside rings are reasonably proportioned, and give good protection
Inside rings are a bit thin, though like a fig leaf on a Renaissance statue, they just barely manage to cover all of my fingers.The weakest part of this package is the grip. I like how MRL says that the grip is wrapped in "genuine ray skin". Someone needs to go over there and remind them that a ray is an aquatic animal, and not something that can be formed from what appears to be the leftovers of a road paving project. I believe Kelly had to get his re-gripped because he was getting tired of looking at that sad patch of road tar. I think I can live with it, but its definitely a low point. What kind of Rayskin is this?OverallIn general, I think this is a pretty nice sword, if not what I expected. The pictures on KoA or MRL make it look like a sidesword or arming sword, but don't let that fool you. Focus on its design as a transitional rapier for artillery officers or other non-frontline troops, then it makes a lot more sense. Its really just a stout and sturdy sword which leans a bit more to the rapier side of the spectrum, but is still a lot of fun. Another way of thinking about it is a slightly more robust version of the Hanwei side sword with a Saxon style guard and a bit more emphasis on poking vs cutting As always, full images here
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Aug 8, 2018 21:01:03 GMT
Excellent sword and write-up. I have seen them floating around, but always assumed they would behave similarly to the Argentine 1889. I did not think they would be so different in character.
The Hussar-sabre "feel" that you mention reminds me of the original Prosser pipe-backs. In this capacity, the Ertaz sabre really does bring the story of the pipe-back full circle, from light hussar swords to mainline cavalry beaters, and back again - this time incorporating several centuries of design evolution and advancement to produce a much improved iteration of the original concept
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Aug 8, 2018 16:08:39 GMT
Fair enough. Hopefully something works out. The blade of the H/T is good - and the fact it can be easily pulled apart means you can change the grip and fittings easily. Those bits are probably cheaper to ship to the UK
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Aug 8, 2018 15:44:37 GMT
I have the HT EMSHS and the Windlass Type XIV. Its not directly what you are asking about, but in broad terms I like the handling of the H/T better. The taper and geometry is much more refined. The fittings are a bit plain Jane - minimalist and modern. The leather of the grips is glued rather than stitched, so that can come loose (I epoxied mine down). On the flip side.
on KoA, the peen on the H.T Normal looks kinda sad. I had the Hanwei Henry V, and the peen was similarly bad. The peen on the Windlass is neat and clean. Its not a huge issue, but something to keep in mind as well
I take it you are in the UK?
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Jul 23, 2018 20:12:54 GMT
Ignoring whatever neglect a service weapon, in this case a sword, might have suffered in the previous 80 or so years, what sort of damage might a sword such as these exhibit that would indicate having been carried into battle or at least extensive service in the field? This would of course not include rust. I imagine dented scabbards would be the most likely thing and perhaps bent handguards and cracked grips, especially if they are Bakelite. On a slightly different subject, I don't recall reading any mention here (in any thread) of what changes may have been made to service swords once they evolved more into ceremonial weapons instead of something to be used in the field. All I can think of, though, is the possibility of swords being plated that had not previously been finished that way. Alternatively, of course, the opposite could have and more likely did happen, that of a peace-time weapon being modified for active service. That might include use of a scabbard cover, which the French and Japanese did, painting the bright parts of the sword and scabbard and, sometimes, even being sharpened. For a sword like this, I am dubious many saw combat and, if so, it would have been pretty light - I bet most would have seen nothing but air before the poor soul carrying it was mown down by bullets or shrapnel before they could make it to a target. I have heard that dented scabbards are apparently very common for swords which were carried, since they bang against the mount at a regular rhythm and location. I have seen bent handguards and nicked blades on other antiques, though I attribute this to neglect/abuse by prior collectors. ~~ In terms of sword evolution, we have a set of 1897p British infantry swords - one from the reign of GRV (1910-1936) and one from ERII (1952-present). Both are technically the same pattern, but there is a clear difference. The GRV was made when sword combat was a distinct possibility - at least in the context of colonial deployments and police actions. As such, it is much better made, and much better balanced compared to the ERII, which was made when any pretense of battlefield usage was been abandoned. The ERII is by no means poorly made - the assembly is top notch and the fittings are excellent - it just lacks the refinement in the hand relative to its earlier brethren. Uhlan gives a good account of the evolution (some may say decline) of the French sword in the following page. Rather interesting read, especially when you consider the 1896 as a contemporary to the KD 89 sbg-sword-forum.forums.net/thread/46730/french-m1896-m1923-cavalry-sabres
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Jul 22, 2018 2:57:44 GMT
Thank you once again for a very detailed, informative writeup. The 1813 looks like it takes some design cues from the British 1796 HC - from both the design of the blade and the riveted "ears" on the grip.
For the 1814 - is there any etching on the spine akin to what you would find on its French cousins?
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Jul 20, 2018 17:29:24 GMT
Thats because you are weird. I mean, only a wierdo would have so many Swedish swords. Ugh I greatly admire their military history. Especially their untold exploits at the battle of Waterloo Was their secret weapon a recording of Pierce Brosnan singing?
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Jul 20, 2018 16:27:52 GMT
Of course, our opinion likely differs from that of others on the forum, and that's okay. (for those of us who suspect that we're clones, I should dispel that by saying I don't like French 1822 LCs, but Afoo swears by them). Thats because you are weird. I mean, only a wierdo would have so many Swedish swords. Ugh
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Jul 19, 2018 1:38:33 GMT
Thats'd odd; B. 1. U. R. 13.21 stands for 1st Royal Bavarian Uhlans ''Emperor William II, King of Prussia'', squadron 13, weapon no 21. Bavaria had only 2 lancer regiments and 1st Ulanen was located in Bamberg; the 13 puzzles me as it would indicate it is squadron no.13 which is pretty unusual for a regimental composition. B.2.R.C.2._. stands for Bavarian 2nd Reserve Chevauxlegers rgt ''Taxis'', Squadron 2, weapon no ... Regardless, nice sword! I always did enjoy the KD89 for the side sword it was meant to be, not too long but not too short either, easy to slash and thrust. The practical and ergonomic look only adds more charm to it. No wonder Chile and Argentina based theirs swords on them. B.2.R.C.2.39. is the exact number - not sure if that helps. Likely not. For the first number, I think its B. 1 U.R. 1.3.21. There is a dot between the 1 and 3 - its markedly fainter, but closer inspection makes me confident its there. I agree with Dave in that the Argentine version is perhaps technically a better weapon. Handling wise I prefer even the 1822 tmre, or the 1867 swiss I have right next to it my display shelf. However, that does not mean the KD has no charm or character. As a soldier I may prefer something else. As a collector, there is nothing quite like it!
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Jul 19, 2018 1:27:32 GMT
As a clarification, I was not the former owner - I have never had a chance to handle the insanity, but I wish I did. It looks, well, insane.
I don't have an 1816, but we do have its 1854 evolution. There are a few reviews out there for the 1816/1854. Its impressive, but lacks that true taste of madness!
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Jul 18, 2018 1:24:48 GMT
Afoo, thank you very much for your splendid post. Your decision to attach it to mine makes it much more easy for others to have a more informed idea of what the 1889 was about. That is what I like when searching on Deutsche Blankwaffen. Everything related to a certain model is in one easy to explore compartment. That way nothing gets lost in the digital void. Maybe it is time for a discussion about the current layout here. Question: The mouthpiece on your sabre. Can it be removed or is it like on mine soldered to the scabbard body? It looks soldered on. I removed the screws, but still no movement. You can see the solder around the flanges. Like yours, the springs holding the blade in are quite tight - so much so that I worry about scratching it whenever I draw or sheath it (hence why it lives outside its scabbard for now) More images of the scabbard showing the soldered flanges, along with even more markings. I do like the scabbard - its solid, without being comically over-weight like the French 1822. That this is just comically over-built. Despite being an 1916 production, build quality is still excellent! ~~ With regards to the layout - I agree there is space to categorize and compile the threads into more specific categories, though I am not the one to volunteer for that task. You also run the risk of annoying people if you take their posts and cut out only the informative bits, shuffle them around etc. So long as the thread components are accessible to google though, its moderately manageable.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Jul 17, 2018 3:11:01 GMT
Just a follow-up/necro post here, though I hope you will find the revive to be well-justified. I started to write an article, but quickly realized that I do not have enough new information to justify its own standalone piece. There is no point in creating something simply to stand in the shadow of Uhlan's wonderful work here. Recently, I purchased my own 1889. I remember reading Dave Kelly 's long lost article on pipeback sabres. There, as in his post above, he was not enamored by it, viewing it as a short, stubby appendix of a weapon. While perhaps intended as a word of caution, his article actually drove me in the opposite direction - I found myself liking the aesthetics of the 1889, along with the idea of a compromised weapon system akin to the 1822 tmre. Basic stats: - Blade length - 32.5 inches - Overall length- 38.2 inches - POB - 6 inches - Width of blade - 27mm (1 inch) I do not have calipers, though for a pipeback, taper measurements are kinda useless. I also lack a balance here, so the weight will be gauged in a subjective manner only. The sword itself is as Dave Kelly says - heavy and stout. It actually has the same POB as my french 1822, despite the much smaller blade. Shown below is the 1889 next to my 1822 tmre - even it its cut down guise, the 1822 dwarfs its Prussian counterpart.If you look at the numbers, the blade of the 1889 is more closely matched to that of the British 1897p infantry officer sword (28mm wide, 32 inches long). Comparing the width of the blade to the width of the grip really gives a sense of scale (or lack thereof) French 1822 Tmre (above), Prussian 1889 (bottom) Unfortunately my camera setup and skills do not match that of other people such as the esteemed Uhlan, whose thread I am hitchhiking onThe ergonomic handle does help with point control, and the guard does give good hand protection. However, it is undoubtedly much clumsier than even the 1822 tmre. Despite this.....I actually like the feel of the 1889. In what must feel like a sacrilege, I actually like it more than the Argentine 1889. As a bit of background, the Argentina bought a variant of the 1889 with a curved blade (below image, bottom sword). It was undoubtedly lighter in the hand than its Prussian equivalent. However, swords are like wine. A wine which could be described as tart or crisp to one person could be sour and harsh for another. Conversely, while Dave Kelly finds the Argentine sword light and nimble, I find neutral and bland. In fact, I found it so neutral that I ended up selling it. Its a matter of preference of course, but for me the Argentine just never really clicked. In contrast to this, the Prussian feels like a sturdy brawler. It has character. I liken it to the Prussian 1873 artillery " blucher" - its a heavy, clunky thing, but that's part of its appeal. One could also compare the 1889 to the Chilean 1890 cavalry sword (below image, top sword). Its a brute, but a likable brute. Long story short - Dave Kelly is 100% correct in his assessment of the Prussian 1889 vs its Argentine counterpart. However, the reasons he favours the Patagonian Poker happens to be the very reason why I like its Teutonic brethren - it has character and stands out it its own way. When looking at military swords, their handling and "feel" is only part of the story. The other half comes from its history. In this regard, there is nothing I can add beyond what Uhlan has already said. This sword came about at the twilight of mounted combat. While some countries retained the sword as a primary or secondary weapon for nostalgia sake (eg: British 1908, US 1913), the Prussians, in their usual Teutonic, analytical fashion, relegated the 1889 to a tertiary, or even quaternary weapon, behind the lance, rifle/karbiner, and pistol. In this regard, the short length of the 1889 begins to make more sense. Again, I see many parallels to the 1873 artillery sword - a compact weapon built for sturdiness and ease of carry rather than outright combat effectiveness, which makes it more appealing to me. The only account of combat usage I could find comes from an excerpt from the Royal Armouries, which goes as follows: "However, the account of Lieutenant Baron von Buddenbruck of the 1st Guard Dragoon regiment striking an English cavalry officer 'square across the face' but failing to stop him issuing orders and escaping would fittingly describe the lack of cutting ability of the KD 89."
Here, we can see that the pipeback blade is a poor cutter. However, the story would be different had Buddenbruck used the tip. Even after 100 years, the quillpoint looses none of its lethality. The blade is reasonably stiff, and the reinforced point would make the tip easier to maintain in the field. In either case, a short, heavy sword such as the 1889 is certainly better than no sword at all and, as a backup backup backup weapon, that's about all it needs to do. As a caveat, I only recieved the 1889 recently - perhaps my opinions will change once the novelty wears off. I also do not have the majority of my existing collection at my current address, so I may have to reassess my opinions once I have the chance to compare it hand in hand against a wide range of its peers - such as my Finish 1822 for example. Until that happens, my opinion stands as it is. It is an opinion though, so take it for what it is. My particular example is a 1916 production by Clemen and Jung (as shown above). Despite being born after the realities of total war had settled in, it still shows the same quality of manufacture one would expect of the Germans. Everything is finely machined and well put together. The inside of the guard is a bit rough, but I am willing to chalk that up to negligence by the former owner rather (I have not done any cleaning on the sword). The stampings and markings are also a bit faint and inconsistent, but that could also be due to cleaning by the previous owner. I doubt this is the case, but I cannot rule it out. Markings on the guard and the spine. There is one on the pommel, but its faded and hard to make outThe Prussian Eagle, however, remains crisp as always. Full sized pictures here~~ ps: This article, and indeed everything else I (and I am certain this applies to all the other contributors to the forums) post on SBG, is written in my spare time, and is not intended to be a complete and definitive compendium of all things 1889 related. If there are things I have overlooked or misrepresented, I am certain the community would appreciate the chance to share and discuss in a polite manner.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Jul 15, 2018 20:24:21 GMT
Indeed. The etching on the spine is a good place to look. There is a very distinct, well, fake-ness about them >.> The definition of the fullers/central ridge is another good place to look as well.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on May 18, 2018 20:04:34 GMT
The munich is the one I really wanted to know about. Was considering finding a new pommel for the munich that doesn't weigh as much and still fits the correct look of the original. At 7mm that'll be a bit difficult without going custom. An M8 nut fits on the tang of my Munich
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on May 16, 2018 2:30:07 GMT
I had ginned myself up to buy a Windlass Battlecry Againcourt Hand and a Half and discovered that KoA was backordered and it wasn't listed at MRL. I may well get a CS practice hand and a half instead to at least start practicing longsword as well as to work with my buckler. Just another datapoint. That could also reflect the fact that they are choosing to stock less, as a reflection of the times. I dunno what goes on behind closed doors, but the fact that many of the major manufacturers are still putting out new models is encouraging - the Windlass Early Scottish broadsword, the Universal Swedish HC to name a few. The classified seem to be moving quite briskly though just from what I have seen, so perhaps thats another sign. I know myself and my brother both loaded up on a few nice used items from sbg/ebay over the last few months.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on May 16, 2018 0:24:25 GMT
What do you mean a decline in sword buying? Are you hearing this from the vendors themselves, or just in terms of the classified sections?
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on May 15, 2018 17:43:16 GMT
I would go for the Christus. The Pilsen has a nice stiff blade, but overall it is a bit small. The blade is on what I believe to be the short and narrow side and the guard, while it looks nice, is a bit small. It is a rapier, but it feels like its starting the transition over to the small sword side of the spectrum. I have not handled the Christus, but the reviews and numbers suggest that its perhaps more reflective of the type. This is of course speculation based on my somewhat limited knowledge of the field It must be a good sword, as I just noticed it and the Brandenburg are both sold out on MRL and KOA. Unless I'm going to be patient (which I rarely am) I may choose the pilsen anyway. I do not mind lighter swords. The musketeer intrigues me as well, as it reminds me of a more cut-n-thrust style of blade. I like the pilsen - its a solid choice and a good sword in its own right. Just wanted to let you know what to expect. Especially if you get one for a good price.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on May 15, 2018 16:23:34 GMT
I would go for the Christus. The Pilsen has a nice stiff blade, but overall it is a bit small. The blade is on what I believe to be the short and narrow side and the guard, while it looks nice, is a bit small. It is a rapier, but it feels like its starting the transition over to the small sword side of the spectrum. I have not handled the Christus, but the reviews and numbers suggest that its perhaps more reflective of the type.
This is of course speculation based on my somewhat limited knowledge of the field
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on May 15, 2018 5:31:32 GMT
I dunno about you, but I am happy to accept that some people come here to learn. By extension, not everyone has read all the relevant literature, whether due to constraints of time, finances etc. Thats fine. Dun need to sass everyone up and throw the literature at them. If you don't feel like answering, then don't. I have tried to hold my tongue for a while, but attitude like what is shown here and elsewhere really kills the forum. Most of us are amateurs who do this in our free time, however sparse that may be. We don't pretend to be experts - we offer our humble opinion and discuss as best we can and with the tools we can. If I am going to get hammered in the face whenever I say something which is slightly inaccurate, then whats the fun? My fault, Afoo, I gotta work on my Patton jokes more. The ole' general gets me in trouble every time. :P No. This is a general sentiment I have had for a while, hence why the forum posts have dried to a trickle of late. I remember when I first started, I could rely on SBG for friendly help - even for what I would now consider to be very basic or stupid questions. We all have to start somewhere, and should pay it forward if we can On a more positive note, I do appreciate you and everyone else taking the time to have discussions. You may not have all the facts and literature, but you do the best with what you have, and try to find new ideas and solutions.
|
|