[Christopher Gregg]

Jean,

Yeah, I agree 100% I guess my real issue is with the term "fantasy". All sword designs, as well as anything else created by the human imagination, can be considered a fantasy until it is actualised. If a swordmaker creates a new sword, whether it has a parallel in past history or not, then it becomes a part of current history when made. Its quality should only be judged by its own virtues, not in comparison to something else - apples to apples, if you will. My comments regarding Jody Samson's sword creations certainly show that a sword can be a non-historical design and still be a good functional sword.

[Anders Backlund]

[Craig Peters]

I've always considered that historically accurate swords and fantasy weapons in terms of a dichotomy. But, having actually thought about it for a bit, it seems to me that it makes sense to introduce a third category.

My base criteria for evaluating historical accuracy is whether or not the sword has the appearance and shape of historical swords, and how well it functions for its intended purpose. I'm less concerned about how a weapon is constructed. While, in an absolute sense, swords constructed with more traditional methods are more historically accurate than those which are not, I feel that form and function are far more important considerations. So, for me, construction methods take a back-seat when evaluating a sword's historical accuracy.

Appearance and shape of a sword are one of the main criteria I use to evaluate swords in terms of being historically accurate or fantasy weapons. Those weapons which have hilts or blade types that are not at all consistent with period weapons, particularly with designs catered to fantasy (such as the House of Knives sword which has a dragon's wings for its guard), I rule out as belonging to the fantasy category. Nearly without exception, film swords are relegated to this category, unless it's clear that an obvious attempt was made to make swords appropriate to a given period. Historically accurate swords should have blade shapes, hilt shapes, pommel shapes and grip shapes that are consistent with period weapons. Furthermore, the combination of blade, hilt, pommel and grip shapes should be consistent with, or at least plausible, for the time period which they represent. Thus, I would not consider a sword modelled after a Type Xa blade with a Type G1 pommel to be "historically accurate".

Function is the other key factor in my evaluation. Is the sword made following the same type of edge geometry, cross-sectional design, etc. as what is found on period originals? Does it handle well, like swords normally do, or is it excessively unwieldly and awkward in hand? Is its hilt construction appropriate, and for that matter, is it going to hold together reasonably well, or does it come apart due to modern manufacturing methods?

Obviously, even with the criteria I've mentioned, there can still be quite a bit of lee-way in whether or not one interprets something as historically accurate or not. Personally, I do have a good idea (as far as I am concerned) as to which companies make historically accurate weapons and which do not.

Of course, as I've indicated above, there's a third category that exists. This one is more nebulous than the other two. If a sword is designed to look like a historic sword, but still has significant flaws in terms of its appearance and handling, I would rule it out as a historically accurate weapon. One sword that falls into this category is the MRL Ulfberht sword. While it clearly was designed with a period sword in mind, there are details in its appearance and handling that I feel are too far off to warrant it being called a "historically accurate" weapon. I don't have a name for this category, but it represents swords that are clearly not fantasy weapons, but have too many shortcomings to be called "historically accurate".

In the end though, such distinctions are largely arbitrary and based upon personal opinion. Nevertheless, these are the criteria that I would use when evaluating a sword as historically accurate or fantasy.

[Gordon Clark]

Here is a metric for "historicalness":

Take 9 actual historic swords in good shape from museums around the world. Take you sword to be evaluated and age it carefully to about the level of the others. Have experts examine all 10 swords in a blind evaluation (not knowing which is which). Ask them the question - which of these is not an original? Metric is - how many experts does your sword fool?
It does not matter to me if it is a replica of an actual item, or something that "probably" existed.

Obviously some problems here - but the point is that to me, a historical sword should appear, handle, etc like an original. It should be hard to separate from actual historic swords. Type of material, obvious construction methods, geometry, and overall appearance must give the feel of an actual historical item.
Anything else is not a historic sword - it may be a bad attempt at a historically based sword, a training item, a sporting implement, a piece of art, or something else, but if it does not "feel" like a historic sword, then it is not one.
Gordon

[J. D. Carter]

[Jared Smith]

Much of this comes down to personal preference. I am poor at it, but still enthusiastic about the collective ongoing trend towards "re-creating" WMA from period sources. I would advocate using modern reproductions that are more expendable than actual grave finds, but believed to be close in terms of originals' function and feel when new. For this purpose I desire a reproduction that is not a national monument that should be spared from unnecessary abuse.

I would prefer not to take a good pristine reproduction (perhaps an Albion Munich, very accurate to a well preserved museum original) and deliberately corrode it with false antiquing. This could lead to hard to detect surface cracks and safety issues not realized until injury during test cutting or armoured sparring. I like either a combination of design elements that occur with very high frequency in a particular period's actual surviving swords (historically very plausible), or a design that is fairly (requires estimates of original since it is often badly corroded) close to a surviving specimen. Understanding and experiencing what an "XYZ century" sword really felt like, as maintained by an owner who cared for it before it was permitted to become so corroded that it is no longer safe for practical use is a high priority for me.

"Historical Method" as applied to the use of old texts and as defined by Garraghan (1946) includes all of the following;
1. When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?
2. Where was it produced (localization)?
3. By whom was it produced (authorship)?
4. From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?
5. In what original form was it produced (integrity)?
6. What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)?

In some form or another, poor assembly, inaccurate materials or material condition/ material properties, period non-appropriateness, not knowing who really made and used a something that becomes the basis of a specific modern replica poses a lot of problems for modern aspiring fencers, reenactors, and WMAs. Whenever a modern replica can be claimed as very close and known to all of the above criteria compared to period originals, it is good as a tool for simulating real ones that existed at a previous point in history.

[Joe Fults]

[J. D. Carter]

The odds are about as likely that A & A wrote that as they are you would find anything in my humble collection anything other than..what was your word, ah yes " Turds" Fortunately I bought them to please myself alone.

[Joe Fults]

[Jean Thibodeau]

The problem is not with the words " battle ready " but the fact that the words were invented by poor makers to sell poor swords and have become a joke to people who know what good swords are like.

Maybe the Albion and A&A swords on the Kult of Athena site could be called " battle ready for real.... REALLY ! ".

At least the site does make a distinction about the really REALLY wallhanger decorator swords ! I think Ryan does try to keep the battle ready description only for swords that may vary greatly in quality but at least have real tangs as opposed to the rat tail tangs. In some cases he may be using the makers description of a sword as battle ready ?

Unfortunately most of the less well informed public expect the use of these words and take them as fact until they get to know better: If the words battle ready wasn't used these same people might assume that the Albion and A&A swords were inferior to the other swords on the site.

Well, Albion and other good makers don't use the expression which is just marketing blurb !

Note: Quibbling about terminology aside all my purchases at KoA have been good buying experiences so I don't mean the above to be taken negatively as far as KoA is concerned: Just a comment on marketing.

[Anders Backlund]

[Peter Johnsson]

To use the word "historical" in describing something, it must relate to things from our past. When working with designs and concepts that build on historical example, we must study historical objects and their context. Implied by this is that we will never arrive fully: there are always new things to learn and see. This is part of the fun with the activity, but might perhaps be frustrating to the person who seeks the absolute.

On the other hand you see the term "historical" being misused for exactly the same reason. It is common to see arguments like: "They would have done this if they could", or "It *might* have been like this, even if no examples survive to our time".
Even if knowledge is still expanding and present ideas can be proven wrong, by working in a historical context we need to focus on what we can learn from contemporary research. Otherwise the work cannot be labeled "historical". It can still be interesting and of good quality. It is simply not "historical".
The term "historical" is often used much in the same ay as "Battle ready": a way to suggest quality without any real substance *or* quality.

It is common that aspects of the design of a sword are tweaked and stretched in discussions to somehow make it cover or approximate what could be called "historical" even if it in all aspects and details differ from what we can see in surviving originals. This is to abuse the idea and attitude of historically focused work.
The consequence of this is that the term "historical" is robbed of all meaning.
I think this is why the meaning of the term "historical" is debated. By itself it does not mean much. It all depends on how we define it and what context we provide. That is actually what it is all about: reference and context. We can know certain things and also know what we cannot know. It is about defining knowledge, function and situations.

How closely we can see the work relating to those things from the past, depends on how much we know of the object and its time period.
The more there is to know, the more aspects can be compared or related to.
In that way it is actually *more* demanding to replicate something that is intimately known, than something that is based on a limited set of data. A stricter regime in the reconstruction work is more time consuming and more involved.

All contemporary designs does not have to be "fantasy". It is absurd if any design not before seen in the history of the sword, automatically becomes "fantasy". It can simply be a contemporary design, sharing more or less with swords from ages past, even though that might be of secondary importance. If it´s most obvious character is that it is a contemporary design, why not call it a contemporary sword? That makes it easier to evaluate and understand.
If the design does not have a functional context, it would seem to be a manifestation of an idea or fantasy: you might call it a fantasy sword.

But to me a "fantasy" sword must first of all actively deal with matters of dream and unreality, symbols and archetypes. It is made as an exploration of the subconscious. It often has an element of the fantastic. Such designs work with suggestion and exaggeration. Fantasy swords may or may not have functional aspects or qualities. That is quite apart from the element of fantasy.
To keep in mind: "functional" is a relative term. Functional *always* have to be seen in a context. How, where and when is the object of the action fulfilled? This is not always clearly defined in the case of fantasy swords. And perhaps cannot be fully defined depending on the character of the fantasy.
Sometimes the fantasy is given a context. The weapon in question is presented in a situation where its use or can be understood. We can then talk about function and make up our minds how well the sword fulfills its purpose.
To be truly fantastic, a part of the use or function could perhaps only be understood within the logic of dreams.
The label fantasy is often put on works that are less a result of truly original dreams and personal fantasy, but more often a lame plagiarism of conventions. The exact opposite of fantasy and the fantastic!
I think that is part why fantasy swords have a mixed reputation and following.

[Anders Backlund]

[Christopher Gregg]

Peter Johnson wrote:

"All contemporary designs does not have to be "fantasy". It is absurd if any design not before seen in the history of the sword, automatically becomes "fantasy". It can simply be a contemporary design, sharing more or less with swords from ages past, even though that might be of secondary importance. If it´s most obvious character is that it is a contemporary design, why not call it a contemporary sword? That makes it easier to evaluate and understand."

Thank you, Peter. This is exactly the point I was trying to make, but couldn't quite find words as concise and eloquent as yours. Also, since the sword has never really ever left history, even though it is no longer a mainstay of the modern battlefield, it still remains a viable weapon capable of its intended purpose - to cut, slice, stab or hack a human opponent.

I stand by my assertion that some contemporary swords, particularly those made by Jody Samson, are the equal of many historical swords in both construction, performance and beauty, if not superior.

[Gordon Clark]

[Anders Backlund]