| Author |
Message |
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
 Posted: Fri 18 Jul, 2008 10:13 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Simon G. wrote: | Yes, the A&A is a "branc d'arçon", but a bit late compared to what I'm searching for. It has a diamond cross-section ; I'd be looking for a sword this size, but with a XIIa or XIIIa blade type. 15th century is far too late. I'd be looking for about 13th c. In fact, I even wonder whether there existed earlier "great swords", like about the end of the 11th c. (First Crusade). I will try to do some research on that. Any thoughts ?
Also, the idea behind this sword would really to have a one-of-a-kind. As far as serial-made go, I have my Albion Baron I'm very happy with.  |
There are numerous threads already on early great swords. A few existed as early as the late Viking Age, but they were by no means common until later. A forum search will yield you info and pictures.
A diamond cross-section wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility for the 13th century. As I noted above we have pictorial evidence and surviving examples of diamond cross-section blades in the 13th century.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
    |
 |
Simon G.
|
| Posted: Fri 18 Jul, 2008 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
There are numerous threads already on early great swords. A few existed as early as the late Viking Age, but they were by no means common until later. A forum search will yield you info and pictures. |
Ah, yes, I see you indeed made a thread titled "early great sword". I will be sure to read that and the other related threads, and try to build something of a "file" for my "case".
Before I swear to use the search function seven times before asking, and on another, more specific element of custom sword design, I kinda like the late mediaeval swords' adornments and decorations, as compared to the often simpler swords of the "early middle ages" - I like these too, but less so. Now, I know there are early swords that are decorated - heck, even from the Viking age and Antiquity, after all it would be stupid to think that some time during the 15th c. some bloke woke up one morning and told everyone, "guys, I just invented something, it's called decoration !". But I have not a very clear picture of what "fancinesses" there could be on 13th c. or earlier swords : for some reason (I'd be curious to know why exactly), modern replicas of swords of this era always seem to be on the "spartan" side.
I only know of things along very general lines, like the use of medals in recesses, or the etching of mottos on the blade. However, I have no clear picture of what forms decoration could take on a late 11th c. european sword. I really must search about that, since I would want to have this custom sword decorated, but absolutely want also to steer well clear of anything tacky or dead unhistorical. If anyone has good clues as to where to look at, I'd be glad to hear it. I do not have an extensive knowledge of period sources where adequate pics could be found, or of what modern books would be the more useful on the subject (though I do put Ewart Oakeshott's Records on my list of books to get ASAP !).
Damn, at first it was only a thought, now the idea really sticks with me. It's your fault everybody. You're too damn helpful and inspiring. Couldn't you for the sake of my bank account have responded with many instances of "shut up noob lol" ? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Watson
Location: Upper Hutt, New Zealand Joined: 08 Feb 2006
Posts: 395
|
| Posted: Fri 18 Jul, 2008 3:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Simon, as Gordon said contact Peter Lyon direct for his availability. IIRC in conversations with him he may be tied up full time from next year for a year or two but you may get in before then, or after, but I doubt you will ever have to wait 6 years for a sword from him, I mean how many more movie trilogies as time consuming as The Lord of the Rings do you think he will be involved with
As far as pricing goes, you will find him very reasonable, it is going to cost me less for him to make me a custom sword than it will be for me to continue importing swords from from Albion (please note this is due to shipping, the NZ dollar exhange rate with the US dollar and having to pay taxes upon entry of the item into the country, this is no reflection on Albion I have been very happy with every dollar I have spent with them and will continue to do so with some more swords). It will only cost more than swords from Albion if I start to get extreme with my design requests.
I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, but that which it protects. (Faramir, The Two Towers)
|
|
|
|
|
Luka Borscak
|
| Posted: Sat 19 Jul, 2008 6:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Simon G. wrote: | | Quote: | How about this one from A & A it sure looks a lot like the one in the picture/drawing: Any stylistic or period differences could be dealt with by having A & A do some custom modification on the hilt as the blade seems about right !
http://www.arms-n-armor.com/sword156.html
Found the pic in the book and it looks almost like the same sword. Wink Cool If not the same it would take very little to make it so ! I have this A & A and it's a huge but not excessively heavy one, and I can recommend it highly. |
Yes, the A&A is a "branc d'arçon", but a bit late compared to what I'm searching for. It has a diamond cross-section ; I'd be looking for a sword this size, but with a XIIa or XIIIa blade type. 15th century is far too late. I'd be looking for about 13th c. In fact, I even wonder whether there existed earlier "great swords", like about the end of the 11th c. (First Crusade). I will try to do some research on that. Any thoughts ?
Also, the idea behind this sword would really to have a one-of-a-kind. As far as serial-made go, I have my Albion Baron I'm very happy with. |
You have the same ideas as me actually. I will solve the problem with customizing my Del Tin 2142. I don't need such a great size as you do, I'm satisfied with 98cm long blade of it, I will just put brazil nut pommel on it and shorten the grip a bit so there will be space for barely two hands like on most of the early greatswords.
|
|
|
|
|
Simon G.
|
| Posted: Sat 19 Jul, 2008 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wow, 98cm of blade and only 121cm long overall ? The DT 2142 must have a pretty short grip as is... That's 10cm less grip than on a Baron, and I find the Baron's grip to be, well, quite sufficient but not very roomy...
I still have not found definitive information on early great swords, and nothing on early real two-handers in the size I'm looking for (150cm). Seems like there are no surviving examples and only scant knowledge about them. It doesn't really matter though, I wasn't going for dead-on historical accuracy, so I'll just try and ponder on "if there were two-handers at the end of the 11th century, what could it have looked like ?". In fact, from the start my idea was to have a sword that would be more a chansons de geste (or romance, if you prefer) sword than a museum-referenced, period-representative sword. I would even take some sort of sadistic pleasure in designing a sword that is not right off-mark, but doesn't fit well in any period/category, something to drive the forum members of the 31st century's myArmoury.com to madness ( * insert evil laughter * ).
Plus, historical accuracy proponents (and I say this while being a History student) can always imagine the following dialogue taking place during the siege of Jerusalem, july 1099 :
"Howdy, lads !
- Hail fellow, and all that... Say, what's that strange sword you have ?
- It's called a two-hander. Comes from Overseas.
- It looks ugly and dumb. You shouldn't buy stuff from foreigners, they have the strangest ideas. Better stick with our trusty, time-honoured blades.
- Yeah, well, you stick to your backwards one-handers you got from your great-grandads. In a century or two babies like this one will be all the rage, I tell ya."
As an aside, but actually more important than these silly considerations, I stumbled on the website of Odin Blades the other day, and I think I'll add this maker to my list of potential smiths. I'm about set on either Arma Bohemia, Odin Blades, or Peter Lyon. Now I will pit them three in a ring with grete swerdes and see who wins. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Artman
|
| Posted: Sat 19 Jul, 2008 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Is Peter currently accepting commissions? Do you have to know him or have done previous work with him to get on his waiting list? I thought that he might not be accepting any new commissions whatsoever, but maybe not ??
|
|
|
|
|
Luka Borscak
|
| Posted: Sun 20 Jul, 2008 2:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Simon G. wrote: | Wow, 98cm of blade and only 121cm long overall ? The DT 2142 must have a pretty short grip as is... That's 10cm less grip than on a Baron, and I find the Baron's grip to be, well, quite sufficient but not very roomy...
I still have not found definitive information on early great swords, and nothing on early real two-handers in the size I'm looking for (150cm). Seems like there are no surviving examples and only scant knowledge about them. It doesn't really matter though, I wasn't going for dead-on historical accuracy, so I'll just try and ponder on "if there were two-handers at the end of the 11th century, what could it have looked like ?". In fact, from the start my idea was to have a sword that would be more a chansons de geste (or romance, if you prefer) sword than a museum-referenced, period-representative sword. I would even take some sort of sadistic pleasure in designing a sword that is not right off-mark, but doesn't fit well in any period/category, something to drive the forum members of the 31st century's myArmoury.com to madness ( * insert evil laughter * ).
Plus, historical accuracy proponents (and I say this while being a History student) can always imagine the following dialogue taking place during the siege of Jerusalem, july 1099 :
"Howdy, lads !
- Hail fellow, and all that... Say, what's that strange sword you have ?
- It's called a two-hander. Comes from Overseas.
- It looks ugly and dumb. You shouldn't buy stuff from foreigners, they have the strangest ideas. Better stick with our trusty, time-honoured blades.
- Yeah, well, you stick to your backwards one-handers you got from your great-grandads. In a century or two babies like this one will be all the rage, I tell ya."
As an aside, but actually more important than these silly considerations, I stumbled on the website of Odin Blades the other day, and I think I'll add this maker to my list of potential smiths. I'm about set on either Arma Bohemia, Odin Blades, or Peter Lyon. Now I will pit them three in a ring with grete swerdes and see who wins. |
The grip of DT2142 is 17.5cm long without pommel and guard. I have small hands so I need even less and that's good because it seems that that early greatswords were just a bit overgrown one handers, maybe with a bit longer grips just to balance the long blade, not because of the second hand...
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...highlight=
|
|
|
|
|
Simon G.
|
| Posted: Sun 20 Jul, 2008 4:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hey, thank you very much Luka for your link to this very informative thread ! It escaped my researches through the forums. Either the search function is not very powerful, or I am not skilled at using it (maybe both ! ).
Anyway, it confirms the ideas I started to throw yesterday evening as to what this sword could look like. I was thinking about a "type Xa on steroids", as Peter Johnsson put it in the thread you linked to ; with an acute point. My inspiration is mainly Records Xa.7 ( http://www.myArmoury.com/view.html?features/pic_spotx18.jpg ). Another hypothesis was a buffed-up early type XII (as Records XII.1 and XII.3 : http://www.myArmoury.com/view.html?features/pic_spotxii03.jpg and http://www.myArmoury.com/view.html?features/pic_spotxii05.jpg ) but I feel this idea is less interesting as the result would be some kind of XIIa. I find the idea of a "bastard type" more interesting, a sword that is far from "typical" but that could have existed as the result of a lunatic knight's wish or of a crazy smith's drunken bet (well, maybe not going that far, I don't want an anime sword...  )
It's a shame Peter cannot unveil more details about this sword he talks about in this thread, but as I'm not actually going for a museum-documented replica, it doesn't matter much. It suffices me to know that there were some swords that breached the neat Oakeshott classification's rules, and especially by being "beefed-up" one-hand types. I found another example of that with Records XIIIa.5 that's apparently a type XI beefed up to type XIIIa proportions ( http://www.myArmoury.com/view.html?features/pic_spotxiii09.jpg ). It makes my idea of a two-handed type Xa not too much preposterous, even if it definitely would be, as Peter pointed out in the aforementioned thrad, walking on thin ice. But I don't mind (as long as Alexander Nevski is not around, I should be fine).
Another interesting observation is that
| Peter Johnsson wrote: | | On the contrary, earlier often means more elaborate. |
I wanted to give this sword "elaborate" traits, as I said earlier, but I did not have (and still do not) many ideas, as in Oakeshott's types, earlier forms (pommels, guards etc.) do seem to be less elaborate. I guess it just shows the need to
| Jeremy V. Krause wrote: | | think beyond Oakshott's typology |
which is kinda hard for a newbie sword amateur such as me to do (classifications are sooooo convenient... and so misleading !).
As per the guard, I'm about set on a style 4 (and saying that, I demonstrate that I do not think beyond Oakeshott's typology at all  . But it does provide nice, clear, newb-friendly boundaries as to what is about historical, and what is definitely out of bounds). As to the pommel, type R intrigues me (it's a spherical style). A plain sphere would be, I think, quite ugly : it would look like a golf ball stuck at the end of the tang. But I think this style could offer much potential for an elaborate design, if done right (as it could also be very tacky). I need to think about it and research this style of pommels, and also to research what traits, exactly, make earlier swords "more elaborate". If you have suggestions, please chime in. Meanwhile, I'll be diving through this wonderful site's pics...
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sun 20 Jul, 2008 6:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Simon G. wrote: | Hey, thank you very much Luka for your link to this very informative thread ! It escaped my researches through the forums. Either the search function is not very powerful, or I am not skilled at using it (maybe both ! ).
|
There's nothing wrong with the forum Search function. It's plenty powerful. I use it all the time and find what I'm looking for.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Simon G.
|
| Posted: Sun 20 Jul, 2008 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ah, it is as I feared. I will have to fire someone down in Technical Services and hire someone else. It's the last thing I can do to avoid taking the blame myself.
(Seriously, though, the problem I'm having with it is that I can't seem to comprehend how to search for exact expressions. The consequence being that searching for "early great sword", even with the "search for all terms" option ticked, will yield instances of "hey guys, I recieved this sword early this morning, and it is great !". No "order results by relevance", either, or I am missing that too. Mmm, maybe I should try using ole Google to sweep the forums, as I'm more familiar with that...)
|
|
|
|
|
Luka Borscak
|
| Posted: Wed 23 Jul, 2008 5:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Simon G. wrote: | Hey, thank you very much Luka for your link to this very informative thread ! It escaped my researches through the forums. Either the search function is not very powerful, or I am not skilled at using it (maybe both ! ).
Anyway, it confirms the ideas I started to throw yesterday evening as to what this sword could look like. I was thinking about a "type Xa on steroids", as Peter Johnsson put it in the thread you linked to ; with an acute point. My inspiration is mainly Records Xa.7 ( http://www.myArmoury.com/view.html?features/pic_spotx18.jpg ). Another hypothesis was a buffed-up early type XII (as Records XII.1 and XII.3 : http://www.myArmoury.com/view.html?features/pic_spotxii03.jpg and http://www.myArmoury.com/view.html?features/pic_spotxii05.jpg ) but I feel this idea is less interesting as the result would be some kind of XIIa. I find the idea of a "bastard type" more interesting, a sword that is far from "typical" but that could have existed as the result of a lunatic knight's wish or of a crazy smith's drunken bet (well, maybe not going that far, I don't want an anime sword... )
It's a shame Peter cannot unveil more details about this sword he talks about in this thread, but as I'm not actually going for a museum-documented replica, it doesn't matter much. It suffices me to know that there were some swords that breached the neat Oakeshott classification's rules, and especially by being "beefed-up" one-hand types. I found another example of that with Records XIIIa.5 that's apparently a type XI beefed up to type XIIIa proportions ( http://www.myArmoury.com/view.html?features/pic_spotxiii09.jpg ). It makes my idea of a two-handed type Xa not too much preposterous, even if it definitely would be, as Peter pointed out in the aforementioned thrad, walking on thin ice. But I don't mind (as long as Alexander Nevski is not around, I should be fine).
Another interesting observation is that
| Peter Johnsson wrote: | | On the contrary, earlier often means more elaborate. |
I wanted to give this sword "elaborate" traits, as I said earlier, but I did not have (and still do not) many ideas, as in Oakeshott's types, earlier forms (pommels, guards etc.) do seem to be less elaborate. I guess it just shows the need to
| Jeremy V. Krause wrote: | | think beyond Oakshott's typology |
which is kinda hard for a newbie sword amateur such as me to do (classifications are sooooo convenient... and so misleading !).
As per the guard, I'm about set on a style 4 (and saying that, I demonstrate that I do not think beyond Oakeshott's typology at all . But it does provide nice, clear, newb-friendly boundaries as to what is about historical, and what is definitely out of bounds). As to the pommel, type R intrigues me (it's a spherical style). A plain sphere would be, I think, quite ugly : it would look like a golf ball stuck at the end of the tang. But I think this style could offer much potential for an elaborate design, if done right (as it could also be very tacky). I need to think about it and research this style of pommels, and also to research what traits, exactly, make earlier swords "more elaborate". If you have suggestions, please chime in. Meanwhile, I'll be diving through this wonderful site's pics... |
With spherical pommel and type 4 guard I think you would end up looking much later then you want to. I would suggest A, B, C, D, E or maybe M or octagonal type for pommel and guard type 1, 2 or 3. I think the best combination would be type A or D for pommel and 1 for crossguard. But it's on you to choose...
|
|
|
|
|
Simon G.
|
| Posted: Thu 24 Jul, 2008 10:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
With spherical pommel and type 4 guard I think you would end up looking much later then you want to. I would suggest A, B, C, D, E or maybe M or octagonal type for pommel and guard type 1, 2 or 3. I think the best combination would be type A or D for pommel and 1 for crossguard. But it's on you to choose... |
Not that I doubt your judgement, but I'd very much like to understand its reasons... Why do you think this particular combination would look "too late" ? Now my knowledge of the Oakeshott classification is yet extremely limited, but I was reasoning from what myArmoury.com's features section sums up of it. About the spherical pommel it states that "Most examples seem to come from the 9th through 10th centuries however there are existing examples from as late as the 16th century." And about the type 4 guard : "Many examples of this style are found on swords of the 12th century but it is not confined to this era and can be found as late as the 15th century and as early as the 10th. Cross-section is square or round." So, although my idea was based solely on looks and not on any existing combination, from these texts it looks like it could have existed in the 10th or 11th century, which is my target area. But if you think otherwise I'd really be curious and glad to hear your reasons to.
Thanks again for your interest and advice !
|
|
|
|
|
Luka Borscak
|
| Posted: Thu 24 Jul, 2008 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No specific reason. I'm not an expert in these things either. Of course it's theoretically possible, I just thought that maybe if you are going for a sword that is because of it's size something very unusual for the period maybe you would want the guard and the pommel which are really typical for the era so that people will see the sword and say: "Look at that nice greatsword! It's typical for 13th or 14th century! But wait, do you see the fittings? It's probably representation of those rare 11th century greatswords!"
You're welcome, I'm enjoying the discussion, I also collect ideas for my sword customization in it.
|
|
|
|
|
Luka Borscak
|
| Posted: Thu 24 Jul, 2008 12:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I forgot to say, I'll be away from the computer for about two weeks, so I'll join the discussion then again. Good luck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic