| Author |
Message |
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
 Posted: Thu 15 May, 2008 3:38 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I don't think plywood and tire pells should be the sole standards. All those tests tell me is how the tested swords perform against tire pells and plywood.  It says nothing about how a historically based sword should perform overall. After all, swords were not made to cut tires and building materials... Plywood and especially tire pells are better than the Ren Faire concrete block tests, but in my own opinion are in the same vein. They will tell you how durable a sword is but not whether that durability is typical for a historical sword. After all, an over-built non-historic sword could chop plywood or stand up to tire pells, but that doesn't mean its performance will be historic overall.
The light (typically foam noodles and the the like) and medium targets (husked fruits/gourds and some mats) most people report using are basic (and usually cheap) cloth and flesh simulators. I feel they are targets more suitable for determining cutting effectiveness (only) than tires and plywood.
This paragraph of yours says a lot about the issues we face in this regard:
| Quote: | | Here Gus Trim launched two swords several times each into a piece of plywood, and reported the depth of the cut for each swing. Not a ton of data, but the results were consistent enough (and presumably his swings were consistent enough) to convince me that one sword was the better cutter for that medium. |
First, assumptions have to be made about the consistency of swings. And that review told you what a better cutter was "for that medium." What does cutting that medium say about historical performance? I have yet to see plywood armour in a museum. 
If you want to use tests like that and wanted to balance out a testing routine, you could use a very hard material (tires, plywood, 2 x 4's, etc.) for durability testing, flesh simulators for cutting ability and some other medium for thrusting tests. However, don't expect that these tests will give you a full picture of whether a sword's performance is historic, just whether it passes somewhat arbitrary tests.
One thing to keep in mind is that reviewers are offering their services to the community, free of charge. We use the materials we are comfortable with and can afford. For myArmoury, we never state that our reviews are absolute. There is subjectivity to it and variability in the materials used. It's a side effect of the inherent difficulties in testing items whose intended use (battles and duels with life, death usually on the line) isn't common any more as well as using volunteers with differing experiences, standards, budgets, access to materials, etc.
I understand the desire for standardization, and that would work great if there were a paid group doing the testing, like Consumer Reports does for consumer products in the US. If people want to pay me a good salary and expenses to be a full-time sword-tester, I'm for hire.
In an ideal world, all reviewers would test age-of-mail swords against the best and most correct riveted mail available. They'd use real meat and bone. They'd use proper plate armour with realistic shapes and variations in thickness/heat treat for thrusting tests with age-of-plate swords. All of this media would be used in conjunction with proper quilted or padded supporting garments. They'd all have the same amount of experience and the exact same cutting swing all the time. Etc., etc.
Does anyone see that happening?
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
    |
 |
J.D. Crawford
|
| Posted: Thu 15 May, 2008 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't disagree with anything you are saying Chad. But there will still be people like me (scientists, engineers, other geeks) who want numerical measurements. Even without getting into the reviewing issue; just to see if one's technique is making small measurable improvements. If it was something simple and available, all the better.
| Chad Arnow wrote: | | The light (typically foam noodles and the the like) and medium targets (husked fruits/gourds and some mats) most people report using are basic (and usually cheap) cloth and flesh simulators. I feel they are targets more suitable for determining cutting effectiveness (only) than tires and plywood. |
Yeah, gotta love those husked gourds, but the damn things keep coming in different shapes and sizes! Can you think of some variant of these materials that might lead to more quantifiable results? Like:
1/2 inch dowel wrapped in some common 'Walmart' available mat (i.e., a simulated limb) - where one could report how many turns of mat the sword was able to cut through?
Some variant of the pool noodle-like material, but shaped in a way that one could measure depth of the cut or thrust?
What about something like heavy styrofome? Like those cheap surfboards we used to have as kids. (Except it would make quite a mess and not too enviromentally friendly.) Ideally something organic would be good.
That's all I'm really asking for...not the perfect world solution.
|
|
|
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier
|
| Posted: Thu 15 May, 2008 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chad Arnow wrote: | | In an ideal world, all reviewers would test age-of-mail swords against the best and most correct riveted mail available. They'd use real meat and bone. They'd use proper plate armour with realistic shapes and variations in thickness/heat treat for thrusting tests with age-of-plate swords. All of this media would be used in conjunction with proper quilted or padded supporting garments. They'd all have the same amount of experience and the exact same cutting swing all the time. Etc., etc. |
Also, they would always use techniques appropriate for the material they target and historical for the type of sword. Which is even more complicated, as we don't really know for sure how hard, if at all, plate armour should be hit, for example. Just adding to the unlikeliness of it
I support wholeheartedly the quest for more objectivity, but I don't think cutting tests are the way to go. There are plenty of other informative things that can be measured and interpreted, even on originals, in a far easier and non-destructive way. Measuring a cut makes little scientific sense: it is about the worst mix-up of uncontrolled parameters, that have nothing to do with the sword, you can think of.
With sufficient knowledge of originals, it will always be possible to strive for more durable swords by submitting them to all kinds of abuse...
--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
|
|
|
|
|
Jared Smith
|
| Posted: Thu 15 May, 2008 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| J.D. Crawford wrote: | But there will still be people like me (scientists, engineers, other geeks) who want numerical measurements. Even without getting into the reviewing issue; just to see if one's technique is making small measurable improvements. If it was something simple and available, all the better.
. |
You can invent your own method for "relative comparison" of your own technique and your own swords. A U.S. 1 gallon milk jug filled with water reveals a painful amount about flawed cutting alignment and technique in test cutting. Just examine the cut edge for straightness afterwards. A full Sunday edition newspaper wrapped around a 1" diameter green wood limb generally stops my most ferocious blows somewhere in the wood. A heavy support base is really needed for this though.
I think tire pells are actually the right way to go for testing integrity of assembly. A tire should not roll an edge of a properly tempered European, reproduction-Medieval era sword. It may dull it, but this should be easy to touch up. In addition to being a reasonable way of practicing swings and drills, the tire will have enough abrupt stopping power to simulate the sword repeatedly striking opponents that were not technically rigid. Swords were not used to carefully saw through styrofoam, chop bamboo, or other such things. The poems of the era describing the "din of clangs as if 100 armourer's were at work" and anecdotes about William Marshal's helmet being so battered from blows it was un-removable (more than once), deaths by trauma of bruises received through mail, etc., have led me to a pretty resolute opinion on this issue. I believe swords should withstand a couple of thousand abrupt impacts against reasonable media before the assembly fails. Much more than that probably represents the survival of a phenomenally talented fencer (considering how many bouts are nearly over in 3 cuts.)
Another way of looking at it is how specialized the sword would have to be if a very specific media is chosen. I sharpen carving gouges for wood sculpture carving. A significant change of included blade angle (varying from 15 to 22 degrees) is required for hard versus soft woods (bass/limewood or pine versus maple, etc.). This is only considering one medium, wood. If sharpened in a manner that I consider optimal (leaving clean cuts, easy to push or hammer) for soft wood, the chisel will tend to chip in hard woods, and require very tedious repair before it can be used again. Once you understand just how sensitive and touchy the included blade angle is to specific media, you should completely reject the notion of a "do it all" edge geometry.
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
|
|
|
|
|
Steven Reich
Location: Arlington, VA Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 237
|
| Posted: Thu 15 May, 2008 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's the problem: do we know that any of these tests are in the least bit meaningful except when grading reproductions to each other? What I mean is, unless we find an original (i.e. museum piece) to use to "calibrate" our expectations, we don't really know what sort of results we're getting. That is, are our expectations too high, too low, or in the ballpark? We can guess all we want, but without knowing how well an original would hold up, we just don't know. I'm not saying that these tests aren't potentially useful, but if we are practicing historical arts, then we need to be careful to relate our expectations to our historical practitioners.
Steve
Founder of NoVA-Assalto, an affiliate of the HEMA Alliance
|
|
|
|
|
J.D. Crawford
|
| Posted: Thu 15 May, 2008 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Very true Steve. On the other hand, by subjecting replicas that make every effort to emulate museum pieces to various tests one might get a reasonable idea of what the originals were capable of (as opposed to testing over-built 'beaters').
That was part of the motivation for my original question here...if people develop unrealistic expectations of what a sword should do, then they are encouraging modern sword smiths to build products that are not historically accurate. This runs both ways, with some people on one fringe expecting swords to cut through bricks, and at the opposite end expecting a viking-age sword to handle like an 18th century small sword (I am exaggerating to make the point, but one can easily pick out examples where different niches of the market get skewed in both these directions).
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Thu 15 May, 2008 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I totally agree with Steven. We need to know the limits of antiques if we want to test the effectiveness of their replicas.
J. D. suggested:
| Quote: | | On the other hand, by subjecting replicas that make every effort to emulate museum pieces to various tests one might get a reasonable idea of what the originals were capable of |
I still think we would need to know what antiques are capable of. There are some modern swords that are close to museum pieces (like Albion's Museum Line), but they are still made of a nice, neat modern steel with consistent heat treat. So they differ from period swords. Some think that makes them better, but without data on antiques, we're guessing. And they point of a standardized way of doing things is to avoid guessing.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Thu 15 May, 2008 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| J.D. Crawford wrote: |
Here Gus Trim launched two swords several times each into a piece of plywood, and reported the depth of the cut for each swing. Not a ton of data, but the results were consistent enough (and presumably his swings were consistent enough) to convince me that one sword was the better cutter for that medium. This is the sort of thing that I would like to see more of, instead of statements like 'the sword cut well through both light and medium targets', which really tells me nothing except that the reviewer liked it.
|
The unscientific tests at least do tell me if I would be happy/safe using a particular sword in period ( time machine needed ) or at least that it won't fall apart and will cut if I know what I'm doing ( assuming that in period I would have had better training  )
I doubt that modern made swords would handle better than period swords ( might equal them, maybe ? ) but it is probable that the modern materials are better and much more consistent, and barring the argument that the imperfections in period actually made the swords better, the modern made swords should exceed the durability of most of the period swords: At least this would be one theory that should be considered as well as the one that period swords have to be better than what we can make ( secrets we haven't found yet about what makes the best sword ).
On a purely anecdotal note about cutting: Last Autumn we where cutting melons and pumpkins and most of the swords where the steel blunts used in our Longsword classes with very rounded edges and these could cleanly cut these targets easily  I used a sharp and it was easier in comparison to the blunts, but the point is that edge geometry is the most important thing and these blunts had it. ( Note blunts are safe enough for training but any uncontrolled blows at unprotected body parts are still dangerous and the only reason why blunts can be used is because of sane safety precautions ).
Oh, I am not disputing your comments in other posts I'm just adding a few ideas/observations about cutting ability that surprised me a lot.
Edge sharpness and edge geometry can be optimized to specific cutting media but a " fighting " sword should have an edge type capable of handling all the probable media they would have to deal with in battle: If no armour is likely to be encountered the ideal sharpness would be different than if maille and or plate was involved.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Corey D. Sullivan
|
| Posted: Fri 16 May, 2008 11:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Edge sharpness and edge geometry can be optimized to specific cutting media but a " fighting " sword should have an edge type capable of handling all the probable media they would have to deal with in battle: If no armour is likely to be encountered the ideal sharpness would be different than if maille and or plate was involved. |
Exactly, which brings up the old question, how sharp is a sword? The answer? As sharp as it needed to be!
The problem with using pumpkins as a actual test is well illustrated by your story above Jean. Sparring blunts can cut a pumpkin with little difficulty. Heck, you can cut a pumpkin with a butter knife, if you're so inclined! However, steel blunts (and butter knives ) would not be entirely effective at killing a person. They could accomplish it, but not as efficiently as a sharper sword.
My personal opinion towards finding a standard test medium would be (as others before have said) to test with targets that approximate the period targets of the weapons in question as closely as possible.
Perhaps for a light target, a single tatami or beach mat with a dowel core, wrapped in a piece of lightly padded fabric would work. This would approximate a limb covered in medieval clothing, which was considerably thicker then modern clothing.
More padding would simulate a gambeson or jack, and mail could be added to further increase the difficulty. Really, this is as far as you need to go for most accurate tests, since swords were not thrusting or cutting directly through plate armour.
However, once you reach this point, it becomes rather expensive and difficult for the average collector to attempt.
Also, there is the problem that Chad mentioned. We don't know exactly what the originals were capable of. We know approximately what they could do, but not the fine particulars, and we must not assume that they would be the same as a sword produced today, regardless of accuracy.
"He had scantly finyshed his saienge but the one armye espyed the other lord how hastely the souldioures buckled their healmes how quikly the archers bent ther bowes and frushed their feathers how redely the byllmen shoke their bylles and proved their staves redy to appioche and loyne when the terrible trotnpet should sound the blast to victorie or deathe."
|
|
|
|
|
Thom R.
|
| Posted: Fri 16 May, 2008 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Edge alignment into the cut is without doubt critical, however, in my experience the compressibility of a material affects cutting performance to a very large degree..... the reason that blunts can cut things like pumpkins is that they are not very compressible materials whereas at the other extreme end a pool noodle is remarkably compressible which means that you will find that one type of edge will do better for pumpkins and another for noodles. tatami is a great cutting medium precisely because it has this nice set of combined properties of density, compressibility, stiffness, and basal friction for test cutting. whether any of these materials is representative of what swords are intended to cut is of course, debateable forever. i still believe that cutting is a very dynamic process and will be difficult to distill into a meaningful and repeatable testing standard. tr
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Nogueira
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina Joined: 26 Aug 2006
Posts: 42
|
| Posted: Fri 16 May, 2008 1:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chad Arnow wrote: | | We need to know the limits of antiques if we want to test the effectiveness of their replicas. |
Please do not be offended but allow me not no agree to this.
I think creating a "modern" standard for replica swords (As the post by J.D. Crawford suggests), and comparing modern vs. antique effectiveness, are two different things.
However, both things will overlap somewhere and I think that what you say is absolutely essential if one desires to accurately duplicate (Or even surpass) the "historical" capabilities of a given sword type.
I mean... not just one feature like durability, but everything.
Like the capacity to cut soft, medium and hard targets... "heavy" and "light" ones... the ability to thrust them... the ability to withstand those strains holding both tip and edge... the ability to sustain stress maintaining overall integrity... the resistance to bending and twisting... and a really long etc. etc. that escapes my narrow mind.
I think some of these features, a well-made modern sword may manage better.
But all the features... Well, that's impossible to know as you correctly say, without performing a thorough (and unlikely) investigation that may damage several valuable historical examples.
Besides, for imagination's sake, let's suppose (And just suppose) that a modern sword "does everything better".
Would that diminish at all the value, the beauty, or the mystic of an historical piece?
Should modern deserve to be called "better", just for being better as plain tools? A tool with little or no practical application today (Except maybe for martial artists)?
However... I think this may be not the case, and I prefer to think that ancient swords still hold secrets that one will never learn.
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Fri 16 May, 2008 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not offended. People can disagree with me all they want. I'm far from infallible.
I think that establishing modern standards without a baseline derived from historical performance serves no purpose--at least for me-- but I'm making the assumption that people posting in this thread are interested in historically accurate swords (this is a website for historic arms and armour collectors after all ).
I'm not sure if modern swords are better than antiques or not. But I doubt we'll know without comparative testing. I do think ancient smiths knew things we don't know today, since their experience (and their customer's) with these weapons is different than ours today.
I know some people who are convinced modern swords are better just because they're modern in materials. Others think ancient swords are better just because they're ancient. I don't care one way or another, actually.
But if we want to truly test modern replicas for their capabilities, I still think it's imperative to know what ancient swords could do. Otherwise, we might as well use the concrete block test as a standard for all it will tell us about historical performance.
Anything besides a test based on the performance of antiques is potentially applying faulty standards. Since the point of this thread was to try to create a set of objective, realistic standards for replicas, I still feel the way the best way is to know what antiques are capable of.
Comparing modern vs. antique should be the crux of the tests, not "two different things" as you say. If someone replicated a 1965 Mustang, it would make far more sense to judge it in comparison to an actual 65 Mustang rather than comparing it to a 2008 Mustang or any other modern car. It's suggesting people compare copies to other copies rather than to the originals on which they're based. This will only tell you how the copies compare to each other and removes the most critical element: how good of a copy is it?
You can't know without going to the source, in my opinion.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
J.D. Crawford
|
| Posted: Fri 16 May, 2008 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
OK, running with that idea, do you know of any documented examples where original medieval swords actually have been subjected to the kinds of tests that we do with replicas? Or trustworthy historical references to specific feats of swordsmanship? We've probably all read the sagas about legs being hacked off, skulls being split to the chin etc., but not everyone will agree on their accuracy. Another source of information could be physical anthropology - looking at damage to bones. I recall watching a documentary where a skull found near a late medieval English battle site had several apparent sword strokes. The hosts were impressed by these 2-3" wounds, but to me it looked like the work of a pretty light sword.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Fri 16 May, 2008 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe we shouldn't get side tracked by whatever qualities make a great " quality " sword and whether period swords had some superior qualities or not: This doesn't mean that investigating period swords and modern swords and finding those theoretical " best " aren't worth the the investigation and research. But, and it's a big BUT the minimum qualities for a functional sword to be acceptable aren't that great in my opinion !
1) It has to take a reasonable working edge that needs to be only sharp enough and it doesn't have to be a very durable edge.
2) It should be softer than harder: More important that it not break than it bend, and if it bends that it can be straitened.
3) Good for a fight or battle: Longterm durability is nice but not essential ! Just get a new sword for the next fight.
4) Skill in use more critical than sword durability as long as it does last through that first fight.
Now, these are NOT my ideal requirements for a sword: I would much prefer my sword(s) to be as indestructible as possible assuming that handling is not sacrificed to make the sword indestructible or almost so.
Anyway, I'm suggesting that when seen as a tool and not as a precious and loved art object a sword need not be the best possible to do the job.
So, maybe we have two ideas to separate here: The search for criteria to test for superior or at least upper end swords
( modern and/versus period ) and what are the minimum qualities needed for a sword to be a good fighting sword and this according to type by period, culture, fighting style and use of armour.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Nogueira
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina Joined: 26 Aug 2006
Posts: 42
|
| Posted: Fri 16 May, 2008 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Chad,
I agree with you on much, but allow me to point out a couple of statements where I seem to have a different idea.
| Chad Arnow wrote: |
But if we want to truly test modern replicas for their capabilities, I still think it's imperative to know what ancient swords could do
|
Why? To test what modern swords can do, the only thing we need to test are... modern swords.
I get your idea however.
| Chad Arnow wrote: |
I'm making the assumption that people posting in this thread are interested in historically accurate swords (this is a website for historic arms and armour collectors after all)
|
I understand.
Maybe my different point of view comes because I only own modern replicas.
And modern replicas are simply not (strictly speaking) historically accurate, nor historic arms.
I have to live with the fact that they only try to "mimic" a real historical sword.
They are not made with the exact same materials, the exact same heat treatments, and through the exact same processes.
So they are different. Modern. Therefore, I don't understand why "modern" standards cannot be set for them.
Especially, "safety" standards for swords destined to practice, cutting or demonstration purposes.
Well, just my opinion.
And sorry to have "quoted" you so many times , I promise I won't bother again on this subject.
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Tsafa
Location: Brooklyn, NY Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 599
|
| Posted: Fri 16 May, 2008 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just in case anyone has not seen this, this is a clip from a video documentary on Viking swords where experts make a conclusion that a great number of historical swords were not that good. They go as far as to say that a lot of them were bad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtIyj8KoDoE
The vast majority of historical swords that survive are either terribly rusted or decorative pieces that never saw combat. Of course no one would ever, or should ever do destructive tests on historical pieces... so that leaves us with the fact that we will never get any more useful information about historical swords other then some size dimensions and possibly weight if the sword is not badly rusted.
For this reason I prefer to draw my own conclusions on what I want from a sword as far as durability based on how I fight, how fast I move, and the force that I hit with. This makes a whole lot more sense to me rather then reverse-engineer a rusted sword for 700 years ago. Sure its a great place to start for some basic dimensions like aprox length, thickness, tapering, balance, etc... but in the end the sword is just a tool for getting the job done. All you have to decide is what job needs to get done.
I would also point out that all swords pretty much evolved from the basic Greek hoplite sword. The longswords, messers, fachons, greatswords, claymors, rapiers, smallswords, etc..... are all the result of people breaking with tradition.
No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
Last edited by Bill Tsafa on Sat 17 May, 2008 9:02 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
 |
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sat 17 May, 2008 12:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| D. Nogueira wrote: |
Why? To test what modern swords can do, the only thing we need to test are... modern swords.
I get your idea however.
|
Yeah, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think knowing how modern swords compare to each other has some use, but since I'm interested in history, I also want to know how well they replicate the performance of period swords.
I feel without that, the tests are arbritary and have limited value (to me, at least).
But to each his own.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
J.D. Crawford
|
| Posted: Sat 17 May, 2008 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gentlemen, I'm sure there's room for both perspectives, i.e. how well does a modern sword replicate the characteristics of an historical sword, vs. how well does one modern sword perform relative to another one. But in either case one needs some objective basis for the comparison or we are just talking opinion.
There's another reason for setting (safe) standards in a field of interest; people take it more seriously. Look at the problems they are having in England. I was once involved in a profession where our practices were shut down on grounds of safety, when this really masked the hidden agenda of 2-3 individuals. I have since become active in legislating those standards for the purpose of protecting both the safety and rights of those concerned. One learns from such experiences that public opinion is fickle and having scientifically founded standards is the best protection from the agendas of special interest groups.
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sat 17 May, 2008 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| J.D. Crawford wrote: | Gentlemen, I'm sure there's room for both perspectives, i.e. how well does a modern sword replicate the characteristics of an historical sword, vs. how well does one modern sword perform relative to another one. But in either case one needs some objective basis for the comparison or we are just talking opinion.
|
Testing antiques and comparing modern swords to them is objective. To me, it's the most objective way.
You can have modern, arbitrary tests divorced from historical realism that are objective but it doesn't mean the results are valid or tell us anything about the quality of the replica as a replica. Isn't that what the tests should do?
But enough about that.
Here's an example of this conundrum: a welded assembly can be stronger than an historical one. Does that mean the welded sword is a better replica (no in my opinion) or just a tougher sword (perhaps)? My concern is the former, not the latter.
Perhaps the first step would be to decide the goal of the testing. That will vary by the audience you're trying to reach. For me, the goal is to see how historical a sword is in every regard: looks, durability, performance.
Vasillis seems to be more interested in durability than in a sword's other characteristics. That's fine and there's an audience of people who have the same requirements. He said:
| Quote: | | but the end the sword is just a tool for getting the job done. All you have to decide is what job needs to get done. |
That's an important point. We all have different goals and different jobs "to get done." The job of my swords is to be as correct as possible in all period aspects. Because I only buy from people who study antiques, I feel confident that the product is sound, despite the impossibility of getting data on period swords.
My swords may not stand up to 2000 hits on a stationary tire pell or to chops into plywood or concrete without damage. That means, for some people, they're not the best swords because their standards and mine don't match up. I'm okay with that.
Establishing standards is probably going to be impossible since we don't all agree on what makes a good sword to start with.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
J.D. Crawford
|
| Posted: Sat 17 May, 2008 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chad Arnow wrote: | | Perhaps the first step would be to decide the goal of the testing. That will vary by the audience you're trying to reach. For me, the goal is to see how historical a sword is in every regard: looks, durability, performance. |
I happen to agree with you on that point. Otherwise we might as well be studying fantasy swords and tactical swords (not that there's anything wrong with those!)
This leads to other conundrums though, at least to me. This may be heresy for many of you, but I am somewhat ambivalent towards the higher end production lines, e.g., Albion. Historically accurate in dimensions and hilt construction for sure, beautiful works of technological art no doubt. But are they TOO perfect to be historical? There was no computerized milling in medieval times. I happen to like something where you can see the the maker's hand. In many forms of collection (for example, certain types of antiques) it's the imperfections that actually add value. Or in other cases (like hand-made furniture) it's the human eye and hand striving for perfection and never getting quite there. One only need glance through 'Records' or another similar book to see that early medieval swords were rarely perfect in form, let alone construction.
This is not a criticism of anyone, simply a matter of personal taste that could change over time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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