| Author |
Message |
Bryce Felperin
Location: San Jose, CA Joined: 16 Feb 2006
Posts: 552
|
 Posted: Mon 08 Feb, 2010 1:57 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | | Jeroen Zuiderwijk wrote: | | I don't practice any sword art, but having attended some classes, I don't believe catching a cut with the guard is a proper technique. You block or divert with the blade, and use the angle between the blade and guard to direct the blade instead after you already blocked it. |
I do practice and in practice at least a hard stop happening on the guard is mostly accidental and the blade does most of the stopping but the guard will contact the opponents blade after most of the energy has been absorbed by the blade.
But one can miss with the blade and have no choice other than use the guard " occasionally " but its usually accidental rather than a normal use of the guard.
The guard does protect the hand(s) and it is used at times to control the opponents blade and push hard against the blade but this is very different than cutting into the guard of having one's guard cut into.
Bronze seems like a good choice unless made too flimsy or using a brittle alloy ( I assume that not all bronzes are equally suitable for guard material and brass might be softer. Forget about plated mystery pot metal used on some fantasy SLO i.e. sword like objects that are just ornamental display pieces ). |
As someone else who has practiced with the sword, I can say there are some times when you have to block with the guard hard. Usually though, the stop is made at or near the blade and at the thickest and strongest part of the guard. Also it will more than likely be the opponents sword tip, rather than his forte that comes into contact with your guard when it happens. So even brass could stand up to this kind of blow if you block it right.
|
|
  |
 |
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Mon 08 Feb, 2010 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bryce Felperin wrote: | [
As someone else who has practiced with the sword, I can say there are some times when you have to block with the guard hard. Usually though, the stop is made at or near the blade and at the thickest and strongest part of the guard. Also it will more than likely be the opponents sword tip, rather than his forte that comes into contact with your guard when it happens. So even brass could stand up to this kind of blow if you block it right. |
I agree and apart from theoretical situations where one might use the guard or the guard would be more likely to take a harder hit I base my observation on just what seems to happen most of the time when practising drills or bouting that the guards on my practice swords have almost no marks on them on the guards after months or even years of use: So just on a statistical basis the guard take a lot less damage than the blade. ( Note:I should say potential damage since my Albion Liechtenauer has no significant damage i.e. no deep nicks and only very light dimpling on the edges. The guard also has barely a scratch ).
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Phillip Caron
|
| Posted: Sun 08 Jan, 2012 4:43 pm Post subject: Brass On Weapons |
|
|
While wandering this site to see what is here I came across a subject; "Use of brass for hilts ..." by Chad Arnow from several years ago. After reading three pages I concluded that there had not been much resolution. If there is still an interest I thought I could add a few unmentioned facts. These come from Napoleonic War studies, but might be relative.
During the Napoleonic Wars brass and bronze field guns were preferred because though more expensive they were lighter pieces than a like iron gun. By 1811 the Russian Army only had "highly polished brass" field pieces. In that same year the British Army was converting to their bronze guns.
Two points are of interest here; 1) brass and bronze alloy was more expensive, and 2) they were lighter than iron pieces.
Is it possible that brass or bronze on a weapon was used as a minor display of wealth?
Is it possible that that small difference in weight might have been thought an advantage? I am assuming that steel is not lighter than iron, but I actually do not know that.
The first casualty of battle is bravado, the second is macho.
|
|
|
|
|
Robert Brandt
Location: Virginia Joined: 11 May 2010
Posts: 36
|
| Posted: Sun 08 Jan, 2012 6:18 pm Post subject: Re: Brass On Weapons |
|
|
| D. Phillip Caron wrote: | | Two points are of interest here; 1) brass and bronze alloy was more expensive, and 2) they were lighter than iron pieces. |
You sure about these points? I'll certainly buy that copper alloys could have been used for some bits of a sword for aesthetic reasons, but I don't buy the lighter weight rationale. One, because you'd need alot of metal to make a noticable difference in handling, and two, because I'm pretty sure you've got the weights backwards. A quick net check shows:
copper 8930kg/cu.m
brass 8400 - 8700kg/cu.m
iron 7870kg/cu.m
steel ~7850kg/cu.m
Perhaps copper alloy cannon could be made thinner, but that doesn't really translate to sword components.
History was certainly far more complex, varied, and intriguing than the blanket of generalities that we so often lay over our handful of surviving data points.
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Phillip Caron
|
| Posted: Sun 08 Jan, 2012 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, the gun tubes did not take as much metal as the brass and bronze were stronger than iron. Therefore the guns were lighter. About their use on swords, that's one of the two questions I asked.
The first casualty of battle is bravado, the second is macho.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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