| myArmoury.com is now completely member-supported. Please contribute to our efforts with a donation. Your donations will go towards updating our site, modernizing it, and keeping it viable long-term.
Last 10 Donors: Anonymous, Daniel Sullivan, Chad Arnow, Jonathan Dean, M. Oroszlany, Sam Arwas, Barry C. Hutchins, Dan Kary, Oskar Gessler, Dave Tonge (View All Donors) |
| Author |
Message |
|
Thaddeus Burns
|
 Posted: Sat 10 Mar, 2007 9:36 am Post subject: What real sword is closest to this design? |
 |
|
This is a rough design for a sword I plan to have cusom-made. I'm a bit of a novice with 3d modeling, so bear with me.
Anyway, what would be the closest historical parallel to this design? The only place I've seen anything very similar was carried by soldiers in the playstation game Final Fantasy VIII.
I like it because it has such a short blade for a two-handed sword. I am concerned though, that the blade will be too heavy. Any estimates? I would be willing to scale the blade with down to 2" at the base.
Specifications for this design:
Blade
- 30" length
-2.5" wide at base, narrows to 2" before coming to a point
-10" Handle, add 1" length for the handguard and about 2" for pommel
-Handguard is 11x4.5", 1/2" thick, 1.5" wide
-Center of blade and handle set at 3" from front of guard
|
|
  |
 |
|
Edward Hitchens
|
| Posted: Sat 10 Mar, 2007 11:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
A two-hander with a 30-inch blade? Hmmm... that might turn out to be very hilt-heavy, especially with the handguard going alongside the grip to the pommel (which, BTW, looks really cool!). Perhaps extend the blade another 6 or 7 inches. Make the blade a diamond-cross section, or model it after an Oakeshott Type XI blade (minus the fuller).
"The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest." Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thaddeus Burns
|
| Posted: Sat 10 Mar, 2007 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hilt-heavy? Really? I figured the width of the blade might already make it too blade heavy!
Maybe I could go with an even wider blade then? I don't know. I think I'm pretty much in love with that length though.
I had to look up "diamond cross-section", but yeah, that's exactly what I had in mind!
Thanks for the input.
|
|
|
|
|
Craig Peters
|
| Posted: Sat 10 Mar, 2007 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I wouldn't go with a wider blade if I were you. Already the blade you have in mind looks like it could only be loosely classified as a Type XIIa or XIIIa in terms of historical type blades- any wider and you'll be moving into a realm of pure fantasy.
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sat 10 Mar, 2007 1:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig Peters wrote: | | I wouldn't go with a wider blade if I were you. Already the blade you have in mind looks like it could only be loosely classified as a Type XIIa or XIIIa in terms of historical type blades- any wider and you'll be moving into a realm of pure fantasy. |
With no fuller, it would have to be more like a Type XVIII without a really pointy blade.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
  |
|
|
Edward Hitchens
|
| Posted: Sat 10 Mar, 2007 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thaddeus Burns wrote: | Hilt-heavy? Really? I figured the width of the blade might already make it too blade heavy!
|
The large D-shaped guard on the hilt would add more weight, especially around the hilt (hence my assumption of it being hilt-heavy). I've held many pirate cutlasses that felt hilt-heavy because of this. Craig's right, that blade does resemble the shape of a XIIa. 
"The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest." Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sam Barris
|
| Posted: Sat 10 Mar, 2007 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Edward Hitchens wrote: | | Craig's right, that blade does resemble the shape of a XIIa. |
If we're considering things purely in terms of blade profile—two-dimensions only, like a cookie cutter shape—then it looks rather like a XIIa. If we expand our analysis to include overall blade geometry, it becomes a Type XVIII or XVIIIa without much in the way of a profile taper. Type XII blades have a fuller, and do not transition into a diamond cross-section as you near the tip.
Pax,
Sam Barris
"Any nation that draws too great a distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting done by fools." —Thucydides
|
|
 |
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sat 10 Mar, 2007 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sam Barris wrote: |
If we're considering things purely in terms of blade profile—two-dimensions only, like a cookie cutter shape—then it looks rather like a XIIa. If we expand our analysis to include overall blade geometry, it becomes a Type XVIII or XVIIIa without much in the way of a profile taper. Type XII blades have a fuller, and do not transition into a diamond cross-section as you near the tip. |
That was my point, too. Only a few Oakeshott types regularly lack a fuller (thought not always): XV, XVII, XVIII. The diamond section eliminates Type XVII. The profile taper eliminates Type XV.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
John Cooksey
|
| Posted: Sat 10 Mar, 2007 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nothing wrong with a long hilt on that length of blade.
There might be a real problem with the handguard/knucklebow dimensions! That thing would be enormous! a half inch thick and 1.5 inches wide? That is a heck of a lot of metal! Enough to make a whole other sword blade all on its own . . . . . You would either have to make it much, much thinner to keep that width, or make it much narrower to keep the thickness. Otherwise, the whole deal would be very, very hilt heavy and very overweight, even given the dimensions of the blade.
I didn't surrender, but they took my horse and made him surrender.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thaddeus Burns
|
| Posted: Sat 10 Mar, 2007 11:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Alright, so what if I went down to, say, 1/8 or 3/16 thick for the guard? I'd still like it wider than the handle. I think I made the handle 1.25 inches wide, because I'm used to that for staffs, but I guess 1" would be better, and then 1.25" wide on the guard.
Can someone educate me on anything you all just said about the blade itself? What direction should I go with that? I am pretty well decided on the legth, but I'm open to suggestions on the cross-section, shape, single vs. double edge.
Also, if I were to make the design more realistic (thinning the handguard too), can anyone guess how heavy the whole thing might be? I don't want a monster sword here. That's why I went with a shorter blade.
Bear in mind that with a limited knowledge of swords, Every factor of this design was based purely on aesthetics.
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sun 11 Mar, 2007 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Thaddeus Burns wrote: |
Can someone educate me on anything you all just said about the blade itself? What direction should I go with that? I am pretty well decided on the legth, but I'm open to suggestions on the cross-section, shape, single vs. double edge.
|
Thaddeus,
We have many articles that cover various blade types and cross-sections on our Features page. Also, take some time to check out our Photo Albums for many pictures of period weapons.
Blade cross-sections were quite (most) often chosen for their effectiveness against their intended targets.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Craig Peters
|
| Posted: Sun 11 Mar, 2007 8:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chad Arnow wrote: | | Craig Peters wrote: | | I wouldn't go with a wider blade if I were you. Already the blade you have in mind looks like it could only be loosely classified as a Type XIIa or XIIIa in terms of historical type blades- any wider and you'll be moving into a realm of pure fantasy. |
With no fuller, it would have to be more like a Type XVIII without a really pointy blade. |
True enough, though that's why I said "loosely" in my initial post, since it was apparent that there was no fuller.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Sun 11 Mar, 2007 8:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Thaddeus Burns wrote: | | Can someone educate me on anything you all just said about the blade itself? What direction should I go with that? I am pretty well decided on the legth, but I'm open to suggestions on the cross-section, shape, single vs. double edge. |
On this count, I completely second Chad's suggestion. Go check the Features page, especially the articles on the Oakeshott types. It'd also be a good idea to check the Reviews page to see the good and bad points of the models presented there.
| Quote: | | Also, if I were to make the design more realistic (thinning the handguard too), can anyone guess how heavy the whole thing might be? I don't want a monster sword here. That's why I went with a shorter blade. |
The basic design, modified to make it more workable (including a thinner knucklebow and a smaller or hollowed pommel), gave me the impression of something in the region of 3-3.5 pounds. Personally, for a sword like this I would have preferred a longer blade with a flatter profile--with two or three fullers. That would have kept the weight around the same while allowing me to use a longer blade that would have given the sword a more aesthetically pleasing set of proportions. It's only what I would have preferred in that, though. Other people probably won't think the same.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Sun 11 Mar, 2007 9:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
One approach is to discuss the design with a custom maker and leave the details of how thick the blade and hilt elements should be.
If you are certain about what you want the outline of the sword should look like then a maker can try to give you what you want and the sword should work if you don't impose detailed specifications on the maker.
Since this sword is inspired by a computer game design remember that the size of the sword in the computer game if done to the same " heroic " dimensions would end up weighing 3 to 10 times what it should.
Also showing the maker the original computer game sword in addition to your drawing he could interpret the design to respect the look closely but bring things back to real world specifications.
If there are subtleties that you haven't captured in your drawing compared to the game version the maker will be better able to duplicate the sword if he sees what you based it on.
If I can direct you towards a specific maker it would be Ollin http://www.ollinsworddesign.com/
They are flexible in that they do fantasy designs but are also knowledgeable and have experience making historical swords with good handling. ( I currently have a sword project with them ).
Their prices are very reasonable for custom work and they try very hard to give the client what they want, but it would be a good idea to listen to their suggestions. 
Not all makers will accept fantasy work as some have no interest in making something not historical: Some makers will do fantasy swords but don't really have experience making a historically good handling sword; I'm recommending OlliN because they combine the best of both interests and competencies. ( My opinion and they are very easy to work with ).
Although with a custom project expect to have to wait a few months at the very least for the project to be finished and probably closer to a year. As well, even a very low price for custom work is going to be very close to 4 figures in cost and
UP depending on complexity. ( OlliN is your best bet to be closer to a high 3 figure cost )
You could look at this Topic dealing with my current project with OlliN as it a window into the exchanges of ideas following the progress of my sword from concept to execution. ( Deliberate and mutual decision to let people in to the process of making my sword ). http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=8131
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Angus Trim
|
| Posted: Sun 11 Mar, 2007 5:08 pm Post subject: Re: What real sword is closest to this design? |
|
|
| Thaddeus Burns wrote: | This is a rough design for a sword I plan to have cusom-made. I'm a bit of a novice with 3d modeling, so bear with me.
Anyway, what would be the closest historical parallel to this design? The only place I've seen anything very similar was carried by soldiers in the playstation game Final Fantasy VIII.
I like it because it has such a short blade for a two-handed sword. I am concerned though, that the blade will be too heavy. Any estimates? I would be willing to scale the blade with down to 2" at the base.
Specifications for this design:
Blade
- 30" length
-2.5" wide at base, narrows to 2" before coming to a point
-10" Handle, add 1" length for the handguard and about 2" for pommel
-Handguard is 11x4.5", 1/2" thick, 1.5" wide
-Center of blade and handle set at 3" from front of guard |
Make sure that you hand this to a swordmaker that knows what he's doing. That would be real easy to turn into a sword shaped boat anchor......... no disrespect meant.........
The given dimensions will make it real challenging to make a functional sword..... and by functional I'm not talking about something that can be used in the backyard to break concrete blocks. I'm talking about a sword that could be used either in combat or a duel........... in other words what real, period swords were used for...........
swords are fun
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thaddeus Burns
|
| Posted: Sun 11 Mar, 2007 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | by functional I'm not talking about something that can be used in the backyard to break concrete blocks. I'm talking about a sword that could be used either in combat or a duel........... in other words what real, period swords were used for........... |
I think you misunderstand my intentions for this project, sir. While I do find video games and fantasy settings to be inspiring, I am not a teenager, and I will not be "smashing cardboard blocks in my backyard." This is quite serious for me.
Yes, so far my biggest concern is weight, and I'll be paring down the design based on the feedback I've recieved here. Thanks, folks.
Last edited by Thaddeus Burns on Sun 11 Mar, 2007 8:51 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Angus Trim
|
| Posted: Mon 12 Mar, 2007 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Thaddeus Burns wrote: | | Quote: | | by functional I'm not talking about something that can be used in the backyard to break concrete blocks. I'm talking about a sword that could be used either in combat or a duel........... in other words what real, period swords were used for........... |
I think you misunderstand my intentions for this project, sir. While I do find video games and fantasy settings to be inspiring, I am not a teenager, and I will not be "smashing cardboard blocks in my backyard." This is quite serious for me.
Yes, so far my biggest concern is weight, and I'll be paring down the design based on the feedback I've recieved here. Thanks, folks. |
Hi Thaddeus
Actually I did understand, but having made swords for the last eight years, and pretty much specializing in handling and performance issues, I can understand the difficulties of making this work right. Personally, in the shape as described, this is something I'd pass on......... but there are good swordmakers that could make something like this work. The reason I spoke up, is they're in the minority............
swords are fun
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aaron Schneiker
|
| Posted: Thu 15 Mar, 2007 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thaddeus
A few suggestions on the design that might help give you a more manageable sword. The first being the dimensions of the hand guard you have there. If made of steel to your initial dimensions that hand guard alone would come in at a little over 4 pounds! To maintain the look I would suggest replacing the solid 11" section with 2 perhaps 1/4" dia bars, and reduce the thickness of the 4.5" plates to 1/4". Better yet, I would use something more along the lines of sheet metal than a steel bar. Leave your basic geometry the same and use 12 gage sheet metal. Still plenty strong and it will weigh more on the order of .85 pounds. The second suggestion is to the blade itself. Being that it is pretty thick, I would suggest other areas to reduce the blade weight. Make sure the blade has a well thought out distal taper. The blade is thick even up to the tip area at 2", not much profile taper there, the balance of the blade will need to be accomplished using the distal taper. Another thing to consider might be a hollow ground cross section instead of a diamond. This will cost alot more, but on a blade that wide it would add a significant weight savings without compromising the blades integrity.
Just my $.02
-Aaron
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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