[John Cooksey]

[Maurizio D'Angelo]

What we mean by replicas of historical swords?
1) Type of work, manual, cnc, casting.
2) Type of steel, only to carbon or other alloy elements.
3) type of finish, texture additives (leagues that draw the metal), hand-made texture. (Cast bronze and hand-crafted)
4) Type of grip, a sandvich or a single piece.
5) A website which sells swords, would be given that the techniques of manufacture?
6) Are you satisfied with the descriptions?
7) What are the ones that you think should be necessary?
Thoughts are appreciated.

[Chad Arnow]

This idea has been discussed before:

What it historical accuracy?

The definition varies by person.

[Maurizio D'Angelo]

I did not think that there was already a topic on this.
I apologize for the redundancy. I read quickly. I think your first thought makes the concept.
You write: "Ask 15 people and you'll get 16 responses. This is a highly personal and subjective definition. Your question should provoke interesting debate."

To be honest, I am a bit disappointed.
The mechanics have rules. Physics has rules. History has rules. Otherwise, the Nazi concentration camps, never existed.
But no, we seek the historical truth in the lies.
Why here has to be subjective?
But it is only my personal opinion.
Regards
Maurizio

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

Hi Maurizio,

Perhaps you can find some other information in this thread over at swordforum:
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=84212

It's only about a small part of what historical accuracy is, but it goes on to show that even on that people do not necessarily agree.

One of the facet of the matter is that historical accuracy is used for marketing purpose, keeping whole shops afloat, which can prevent the sort of academic consensus that you seek.

Regards,

[Maurizio D'Angelo]

Hi my friend,

You write in the post link:
I've been chewing on these questions for a long time now, so I have my own ideas about how to solve them... But I'd be interested to hear the opinions and experience of the members here.
We are two, now.

ciao

[Michael Pikula]

[Jared Smith]

[Chad Arnow]

I've merged two threads on the same topic as there is no reason to have two separate discussions of the same idea.

Let me describe a sword to you. Tell me if you want to buy it:

The blade has carbon content that's variable throughout the blade from .3 to .5
The blade has a hardness that varies from less than RC 23 to ~RC 50, with an average edge hardness of around 20 RC

Sound desirable? Those are specs from a historical sword (from Craig Johnson's great article). Most modern makers wouldn't even consider making something like that because most modern customers are not interested in something like that. By using modern homogenous steel alloys and consistent heat treat, a case can be made that the resultant sword is not historically accurate.

Not many smiths are willing to work without electricity or hydraulics. So does that make their product ahistorical in the most strict sense of the word? Sure.

Modern reproductions are generally a balance of historical look, feel, and construction with economic and technical realities. If a smith was to make something without any power tools and with the kind of steel/steely iron used back then without the benefit of quenching in a modern salt tank, etc., it would take more time to make and would require special tools, skills, and materials. Those cost money and most people don't want to pay for that.

A case can be made that 99% of replica swords are not accurate because some modern method or material was used in its construction. The level of inaccuracy varies and people's tolerance for modern methods/materials varies as well. When someone calls a replica "historically accurate" they generally are saying that it is correct visually and proportionally, made of solid materials with good construction and can stand up to its intended historical use, based on historical examples.

But unless period methods and materials are used exclusively in the making, you can still say that it is not truly historically accurate in the technical sense of the phrase.

But most people aren't that technical, as long as the product is as good as or better than its historical counterparts.

[Jean Thibodeau]

Well one can have the form historically correct but prefer the best one can make using the best modern materials for as good as sword as one can make. ( Up to unobtanium or mythrill indestructible super sword capable of cutting a marble column in half with it's monomolecular vibro blade .... O.K. just joking here ! But it could still superficially look like a historically correct sword ).

Or one might want a sword as close to what an original would be like in looks and materials including the period weaknesses or flaws in symmetry and variations in quality.

In period skill or luck might produce and exceptional sword that would stand out as " legendary " compared to the average sword that might have a soft blade or a very variable quality blade depending on where on the blade one tested it.

What we might consider a really lousy sword might in period be just good enough to do the job it was intended to perform in it's historical environment.

We can try to get close to historical swords but the priorities can be very different from one collector or maker to another.

Reproduction will always be reproductions and what compromises are considered acceptable or event desirable will vary greatly depending on what one is using as criteria to judge historical accuracy.

[Maurizio D'Angelo]

[Maurizio D'Angelo]

[Chad Arnow]

[Chad Arnow]

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

Here is another thread that discusses this topic:
On the terms "historical" and "fantasy."

[Maurizio D'Angelo]

hi all,
Thanks for the good luck, Chad.
Apart the jokes.
I think that this site has the authoritativeness to dictate some rules, it also has the correct people that can do it.
Good builders, a person of the level of Peter, you, Nathan and a lot of others, but they are also there great consumers of swords, we can be arrived to a compromise.
Accepted by the most greater part of us. Utopia? Everything can be it to the beginning.
This site is a reference for a lot of people. You don't perhaps know how much you are appreciated.
To speak only of Museum reproductions, the other swords out. Rules, don't law to make to respect, who doesn't respect the rules he is punished by the consumer. This if the consumer knows the things.
To start from a single piece, the grip, the steel, the method of construction, doesn't matter, but to start.
To buy something having the awareness of thing buys, it is always correct.
To sell something knowing that your job is appreciated, is always correct.
Good luck Nathan, you can begin.
Good luck Peter, you can begin.
Of the rules put here, from some part, it is not then a bad idea.

Regards
Maurizio

[Kirk Lee Spencer]

Since swords are not used as weapons today, to speak of a swords “historical accuracy” seems somewhat redundant to me. In other words, a sword’s “accuracy” would in itself be a reference to a time when the sword was developing as a weapon. We would only need to make a distinction of “historical” accuracy, if we accept that swords have other purposes today… which I guess they do—Art Objects, Movie Props, Freudian Symbols, Jungian archetypes, etc. However I think most people would still see the sword as primarily a killing tool, however anachronistic.

As to “rules” for “historical accuracy” there are two possibilities:

1. “Rule” as a regulations of what must be followed and enforced. Though we might develop such rules there is no way they could, or should, be enforced.

2. “Rule” in a canonical sense as a standard of judgment.

In this second sense, I think that is may be worthwhile to begin to define categories, if nothing but to facilitate discussion.

Once the categories are defined as a standard of comparison or judgment, it will be possible for sword makers and sword collectors to determine which category they find appealing.

Here is an example of such categories:

1. Experimental Accuracy
Objective: Recreating Specific Archeological Finds to Learn About The Past
By using same or similar methods and materials as period craftsmen and producing as exact a recreation as possible in terms of known statistics such as lengths, widths, thicknesses, weight, point of balance, centers of percussion, vibration nodes, etc. etc.

Divisions:

Material Accuracy: using only materials found in the time period and geography of the artifact being recreated. (i.e. only steely bloomery iron rather than modern steels. Grip core only of wood available at the time. )

Manufacture Accuracy: using only procedure and tools existing or understood in the time period and geographic regions of the artifact being recreated. (i.e. bow drills, hand-made files, self propelled stone grinding wheels.)


2. Deep Accuracy
Objective: Reconstructing Specific Archeological Finds or Find Type
By using period materials or upgraded versions of period materials (i.e. spring steel) shaped with modern tools ending with a reconstruction that has the same appearance and basic statistical specification and thus handling characteristics of the artifact being replicated. However on completion not only will the reconstruction appear as an original finds on close examination, but also materials below the surface will also be of period materials or upgraded versions. (i.e. grip core below the leather would be real wood. Pattern-welded blade core is real pattern welding and not just an etched surface to appear identical to period finds.)

3. Surface Accuracy
Objective: Replicating Archeological Find Types
By using upgraded versions of period materials to optimize the efficiency of the replica to match or exceed the toughness and durability of the absolute best of period finds. All surface features, even on close examination would appear as the originals in pristine form. However, below the surface more durable and cheaper modern materials could be found. (i.e. Stabilized wood or plastic grip core, epoxy resin filler, etc)

4. Distance Accuracy
Objective: Producing a Facsimile of a Period Find Type for Modern Purposes.
By using the most efficient and most economical materials to achieve the specific purpose desired with little or no reference to period materials, methods or statistical specifications. This facsimile would appear as a period find from varying distances but not on close examinations by a knowledgeable observer.

Swords developed primarily as killing tools and at times fashionable prestige objects. With the advent of modern war with weapons that allow mass killing at distance, the sword no longer has this function. Yet in “postmodern” fashion, the sword has been appropriated for more modern “functions.”

Modern Purpose Divisions:

Cutting Accuracy
When you hold a sword, especially a well made sword, there is an innate desire to swing it. And after swinging it, it is natural to want to hit something with it. But because you have money invested and your life is not on the line, you are careful not to damage or break it. So over time cutting water filled plastic bottles has become popular. In this contexts a swords “accuracy” involves blades that are thin and long, with hollow ground edges that will slice easily through plastic bottles filled with water.

Movie Prop/Reenacting Accuracy
With the advent of cinema and especially the “Sword and Sandal Epics” which showcase swords and sword “play,” the needs of sword geometries changed. Thick edges were needed to take the abuse of edge to edge contact as blade smashes against blade. The sight and sound spectacle would require blade to smash against blade to convey the danger and add the clanging and sheering background “music” of the sound track. Constant parrying with your blade, even though you have a perfectly good shield in your other hand. With the thickened edges the blades would be heavy, to balance out the heavy blade, gigantic spiky guards and pommels are added as counter weight or the grip is extended (explaining why in recent big budget movies Vikings and Crusaders swords are all at least bastard sword length.)

Fantasy Accuracy
The rise of fantasy movies and video games and the tidal wave of cheap replica from these has become so ubiquitous that, to many people, this is what a sword should look like. These are the designs of dreams and visions… not functions. For this reason, and others, they are not only non-functional but dysfunctional—Often these swords are gigantic and massive with dangerous spikes all over the pommel and guards. If such a sword was actually used in battle, with all the spikes, you would probably do as much damage to yourself as your opponent. It has, in essence, a blatantly dysfunctional function. And while, apart from Freudian symbols and Jungian archetypes, this might seem absurd, it fits perfectly into postmodern modes in art over the last thirty years—“blatant dysfunction.”


While these categories were defined in a modern context, it is possible that similar concerns existed in the past. For instance:

Ancient Fantasy Swords—Presentation or ceremonial swords, covered in fine gold and inlayed with jewels with little regard for function made to show off wealth and prestige.

Ancient Movie Prop Swords—Swords made for dramatization or significance in burial… Wooden or diminished in size to better serve these purposes.

Ancient Cutting Swords—At times swords have developed very narrowly defined function, such as Bronze Age “rapiers” over a meter long with a hollow triangular blade for thrusting or blunt-end sword which could not thrust, even those designed for execution.

Ancient Surface Swords—At times surface decoration was applied to mimic something below the surface that was not there, such as etching, engraving and inlay on spears and swords to mimic pattern-welding.

Even Ancient Deep and Experimental Swords, if the ancients ever practiced reverse engineering.

As for myself… I tend to find myself working toward “Surface Accuracy” camp; however I have great respect for “Experimental and Deep Accuracy.”

Take care

ks

[Troy G L Williams]

I thought I would throw my two cents in.....

Weapons and armour: Historical accuracy to me is something VERY similar to an actual piece as possible using either modern or original methods and/or material. The item does not have to be really expensive to accomplish "historical accuracy" it just depends on where you get it and who you trust. I do admit that I do not put as much emphasis or study into arms and armour as I should, that is why I come to this site. I read reviews here, etc. which led to me purchasing the Albion Knight, Arms and Armor Rondel Dagger, Arms and Armor King Edward III, and a Bullock Dagger from Arma Bohemia. Thank you myArmoury.com!

Clothing and accessories: Historical accuracy in this department is the use of proper materials. For my 14th century attire that means, to me, the use of wool and linen. I do cheat and I do not mind the use of machine stitching if you do not see it. I put more research and thought into clothing and accessories because they define who you are, again in my own opinion, than just the sidearm you carry. Some, if not most, will argue that your weapon really defines your station not just your attire.

Anyway, that is my thoughts on the subject. As always, I'm open for critisism.