[JG Elmslie]

OK, hopefully, the first one is a simple question... if a bit random.

In all my discussions, studies, etc, generally, I'm referring to specific swords, or, I've been discussing online.
now when talking in person however, this left me with a little thought recently...
petersen's typologies are easy... type a, b, k, and so on...
but when you go into oakeshott's types.... well... when spoken, is it a type X I, or Eleven. XVIII, or Eighteen? and is a type X an X, or a Ten?
saying Ecks-Vee-Eye-Eye-Eye is a mouthfull. Eighteen, would logically indicate there's an eight... somewhere.

What is the general accepted ettiquette when discussing typologies verbally?


Aside from that, a slightly less simple question.
Reenactment blades, vs sharps.
obviously, changing the blade to work for reenactment adjusts the geometry, and in turn the feel and handling. has anyone gone about doing practical tests to evalulate what adjustments can be made to reenactment copies of originals, to get the altered blade geometry to handle as closely as possible to the originals?
is there any way that it can be done, or are the two mutually exclusive? is there a compromise between the two?

What sparked that was looking at the blade geometry on a few XVs in the kelvingrove, and thinking of how much change it'd need to get a safe blade on the same hilt... and if so, how much change of mass that would entail, to the pommel, to counter that excess blade mass. It would likely take a lot of effort... and if it's been done before, I'd love to read people's findings, before wasting resources doing exactly the same work for the same results.

Anyone know of such documentation, or have opinions on it?

[Sean Flynt]

The Oakeshott types are spoken as numbers (e.g., "eighteen b.)"

The purpose-made blunt longswords sometimes seen in fechtbucher reflect exactly the kind of design compensation you're thinking of. Here are some reviews (both modern and historic blunt designs) that will interest you:

http://www.myArmoury.com/review_aa_fech.html

http://www.myArmoury.com/review_aa_fechter.html

http://www.myArmoury.com/review_aa_zogho.html

http://www.myArmoury.com/review_alb_meyer.html

http://www.myArmoury.com/review_alb_liecht.html

[JG Elmslie]

[Sean Flynt]

Ah, I see your dilemma. I don't think anybody could say in advance exactly how you'd have to compromise and adjust to make a blunt analogous in handling. I know from bitter experience how difficult it can be to significantly relocate a balance point. I still think it's worth looking at how this compromise was worked out historically but I think you're right about having to experiment a bit if you DIY. I think the catch is that you can't closely replicate the blade of an historic weapon as a blunt and retain the original's weight and balance. My guess is that you can have a sharp blade that matches the original in all stats and a blunt blade that looks like the original but doesn't match in weight and balance.

You mentioned Armour Class. Are you thinking about a mixed custom/DIY project? If I were in your shoes and working with a semi-custom outfit such as AC, I'd ask for a sharp reproduction of the original, with careful attention to the original's stats, and an interchangeable blunt blade of whatever section is required to retain the weight, length and balance stats of the sharp. One hilt, two blades. You might save some dough on the blunt because without changing the hilt all the changes will have to be in the blade, which I would guess won't look much like that of the original. Therefore, no need for fine or fancy finish. Also, since you want to do at least some of the work yourself maybe AC would agree to leave everything unfinished. You'd get plenty of time at a workbench with files and abrasives. If you can work out the basic section of the original blade you could even ask for just that and do all that fancy filing/grinding yourself.

This is a relatively simple hilt form, so I'd guess that the majority of the labor would be in replicating that funky blade. AC is convenient to you, but if that doesn't work out or if you want a more exacting reproduction you should get in touch with E.B. Erickson. He does astonishing custom work for very reasonable prices and might be willing to create a dual-use piece for you (if you can wait a couple of years). You'll find examples of his work all over this site. I had one and now have another in the works. If you really love that sword, get EBE to make it for you, then use that as the basis for your DIY blunt training piece. If yours turns out with perfect stats but too ugly for a mother to love, at least you'd have a museum-quality reproduction on the mantelpiece.

Here's another Pratchett fan, by the way.

[Sean Flynt]

Now that I look more closely at that blade I wonder if a so-called "schläger" blade would be close in weight and balance. If that original blade tapers significantly, an interchangeable system of accurate blade and schläger blade might work because although its narrower than what we see here, a schläger blade is very thick and tapers very little distally or in profile. At a guess, I'd say the original's blade doesn't taper enough to make this a reasonable solution but it's worth investigating. It wouldn't look right, even if it feels right, but it'd certainly save you some money.

[Sean Flynt]

Here are some inexpensive options if you want to try the interchangeable blades idea:

http://www.alcheminc.com/longblades.html

The "Safeflex" blade might be similar in profile to the original. Weight might be close, too.

[JG Elmslie]

[Sean Flynt]

If you can accept that variance from the original, then I think you could find a good compromise in a blade identical to the original, but with blunt edges. I guess it depends on what we mean by "blunt." I consider Windlass blades to be blunt, but they'd still be lethal when used with lethal intent.

Now that I think of it, that Wallace blade is mostly blunt anyway, right? The only blunting it would need is in the "valleys" created by the unusual grinding. This appears to be primarily a thrusting blade, anyway. I think you could make this work pretty well, actually.

[JG Elmslie]

[Sean Flynt]

Of course it is. The valleys on the obverse are the flats on the reverse, so that it's a continuous, if wavy, edge. Duh! Well, if it's been done once it can be done again.

[JG Elmslie]

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

Sure is an interesting blade
I think that if you start with a tapered bar of rectangular section with the appropriate profile and distal tapers, mark the flammard outlines on the flats, then grind away following the profiles at a constant angle, you end up with something looking like that. Might try it myself in my 3D software

About blunt vs. sharp balance:
The biggest problem is that by keeping a blunt edge, you have to add mass to the blade at least towards the tip. This is especially true with swords that have a needle point like this one... So the blunt blade basically has to have more mass in the blade, and it is difficult to make up perfectly for that. If you just add a bigger pommel, you can bring the CoG back to where it is on the sharp, but the blunt sword will be slower because you've added mass at both ends, so it has a higher radius of gyration (the mass is on average further away from the CoG).

If I were you I'd add an heavier pommel to the blunt, but not so heavy that it brings the CoG back to where it is on the sharp. I think it could give a more realistic balance, even if it is slightly different from that of the sharp. This is a deduction from some of my personal thoughts about sword balance, but I have yet to test that in real life.

Another option is to modify the distal taper to make it more brutal, i.e. have a thicker blade at the base that tapers quickly to something a bit thinner than the sharp. It can work but it will disturb the flammard edge patterns in this particular case, the waves will end up not looking as they do on the sharp...

[Nat Lamb]

An article on another website suggested that you get your blade in a vice that allows it to pivot at the cross, point down. Then you get a pendulum of the same length as the blade and let them both swing. It sugested that you add weight at the pomel until the period of oscelation of the 2 is the same. I can't vouch for this for each and every blade, but on the 3 blades I have tried it with (2 re-enactment type blunts, 1 sharp) it has produced a nicely balanced and lively sword.

[Justin King]

I think a well-calculated I-beam blunt would be the best way to replicate the mass distribution of this blade with safe edges. The flamboyant edges could possibly be carried over to the blunt but I think it would complicate the design a great deal.
The original blade is fascinating, I want to describe the edges as a series of scalloped swedges, staggered on the opposing faces. It almost reminds me of the file-work and unusual swedges one sometimes sees on dirks and "whingers".

[Adam S.]

[Vincent Le Chevalier]