[Chris Fields]

Ah, I completely agree.

Actually, the charts I posted were for people with alot of Albion experience. I was hoping to narrow down what chart better described "handiness". Once I narrowed it down, I wasn't going to show the charts anymore as a visual, but the equation instead. The equation would take away the visual, and just leave you with a number. Again though, people may look too much into that number.

Why is "handiness" so important... well, it's not really. To me, it is interesting that the swords are falling into there respective groups based on the hard numbers. To me, that is meaningful. So if I see a sword online I may like, I can plug in it's weight and POB and see if it falls with in the "handiness" of swords of it's type. If it doesn't then I would have to find out why. It's just another stat for us number thinkers who like comparing swords based on hard stats.

Again, don't get caught up in a case where the higher "handiness" number is better or more handy. That is not the case. it depends on the what type of sword it is, how it's used, and where it falls in it's group. Each group's average handiness number averages around a different number, so you have more of a "target handiness" number per design, instead of "higher is better" per design. Make sense?

[Chad Arnow]

It makes a lot of sense, and you're now saying what people like Nathan and me have been saying all along: don't get too caught up in one or two numbers.

I think it still needs to be more specific than "single-hand", "longsword", etc., as there is a lot of variation within those large categories. Oakeshott type may be a way to go to get more specific. When I look at it in terms of Oakeshott types or main intended use, the trends are easy to see (ie. examples of a similar type fall into similar ranges), but I didn't need all the math to see that. Ditto with odd POBs and other measurements. If you look at manufacturer's sites, historical examples, etc., enough the math is often not necessary to spot outliers.

Don't worry. I'm not caught up in the meaning of the handiness index. Because to me it is meaningless in the context of what a good sword is without more info. I worry that other people will get caught up in it because so many people yearn for the tidiness they think math and science always provide. Again, I've seen it before. Some people will look too far into the number your equation provides.

[Nathan Robinson]

Chad, that's very interesting. I suspect that you're very much like me and despite what you and I have been saying in this topic, we'd both be drawn to a system that could give us more insight with a simple (or even not-so-simple) method of calculation. I think we're both the types of people who want things to be summarized and we both want to leave out the "subjective, interpretive looseness" that a lot of things seem to have. Having said that, I think we've both found over the years that despite our desire for a tidy world, there are things that aren't that simple.

I'm really interested in this type of discussion, even though I think at the end of the day it leaves more questions than answers.

[Jared Smith]

[Chad Arnow]

[Chris Fields]

Chad and Nathan, I think you guys are misunderstanding what we are trying to do from the beginning. I don't think any of us are looking for a way to chart if a sword is "good" or "bad" or trying to make the tell all equation for all swords. Thom said in his first post that he was just looking for a way compare a swords "handiness" (forgot the actual term he used) to other swords by a few numbers. So, if he sees a sword online, he can use this number to compare against swords he already owns as one variable to help guide him in making a judgement. Thats all, it's just another variable that helps us numerically thinking people. =) I have been saying the same thing the whole time

Judging by what is happening in the charts, I say we have generally grasped what we were trying to do.

Jared, if you read what I have stated, just because the Munich scored low, doesn't mean it doesn't have a good "handiness" for a longsword. I'll define the "handiness" number as a number that defines how well a sword can handle when used as it was intended to be used. So maybe the prime number for two handed cutters is a lower number, not a higher one. Yes, the Sempach and Crecy may be score higher, which means they feel easier to handle with out cutting things, that doesn't mean they are better for cutting, you may want a more forward balanced slightly heavier sword for better cutting and other longsword drills, which gives you a lower number, make sense?

Again, I am still eagerly waiting to hear from more people with experience all the albions about these charts and their thoughts on if POB or Mass is more important.

Also, I really like Chad's idea of grouping them even farther into Oakeshott their classes, I just don't have enough stats on enough swords for those results to make any sense yet. Need to get more sword stats, especially real antique stats

[Nathan Robinson]

Yes, Chris, I've been on the same page as you. I understand the intent. Again, I've been adding more to the conversation.

[Chad Arnow]

I had a really long post typed up, poking holes in arguments, pointing out inconsistencies throughout the thread, and all kinds of other fun stuff. I just like debating. But in the end of the day, it wouldn't have added anything.

It's obvious none of the charts posted tell the whole story, regardless of whether their intent was to tell the whole story or not. And, I think it can be agreed that one stat (or two or three) does not a sword make.

The prosecution will so stipulate...

If someone intends to make (or view) charts/numbers to compare "liveliness" or "handiness" between swords I hope they also take the time to look at the context and other factors that surround the results on the chart to make an informed decision before purchasing. For me, the charts shown so far just do not accomplish Thom's goal of having something that allows someone to "get a feel for a sword" simply by viewing those stats or charts (his intent according to the first post).

Chris, some of the trends your chart shows can easily be seen just by looking at enough stats of reproductions (reproduction Viking swords generally tend toward more blade presence, for example). Some of what your chart shows conflicts with my own experience; other posters seem to indicate the same issues. So I don't think we've yet hit a combo that accurately captures a sword's liveliness, especially since there can be some subjectivity to the concept.

[Chris Fields]

That is why I hope more people with albion experience chime in So if you know of anyone who has experience, let them know to come check out the charts and see if they agree with any of them. Thanks

I think I may take some of the swords I currently own, and see which chart works better for them to give myself a better understanding.

I have:

Lutel AS003
Chen Edward III
Windlass Gothic Bastard Sword (similar to Deltin 5155)
Chen American revolutionary sword
Deltin 2140
Deltin 2158
Several Baltimore Knive and Steel stage combat blades (at least 9 or 10)
Huanuo Oxtail Dao
Several Lung Chuan Oxtail Daos (6 I think)
A few Starfire stage combat crow bars... i mean swords
A 30" arming sword from Arms and Armor Europe
A few Chen Practical Katanas
A few Triplette Rapiers
Tons of Wall hangers ( i got before I know what real swords where)
and then all the pieces I make myself now, which I think I have at least 10 or so lying around

Oh... and still awaiting my ATrim from the "Pay of the machine sale" which I hope to hear from him soon on.

So I have alot of pieces I can test these charts on, and hopefully compare what I think to what people with experience with Albions think

[Nathan Robinson]

Hi Chris-

Can you please expound on the type of feedback you're seeking as well as describe what the graphics are intended to illustrate? I've had first-hand knowledge of many of these swords as many of us have.

I'm confused by the one graph with the Regent at one extreme and the Mercenary nearly at the other. These are both extremely "handy" swords.

The Regent, in particular, is an odd one to try to describe with simple stats. It has a pivot point nearly at its tip, making its dynamics quite different than many swords having the same overall length, blade length and width, and point of balance. The Svante has a similar, though even more extreme, characteristic. It's this quality that makes for excellent point control, as just one example, that perhaps another sword with the same basic stats may not have at all. It ends up being an interesting mating of control with the ability to deliver a hard strike. Hard to explain.

The Regent sits right next to the Viceroy on one of the graphs. I do not feel that these two swords are at all similar in "liveliness" or any other quality for that matter.

On two other graphs, the Poitiers and Squire are found on two opposite sides of the graph. I've found both of these swords to be quite "handy" or "lively" and certainly not hugely different from one another in this category.

So, I guess, I don't know. It doesn't make sense to me, personally.

[Chris Fields]

Certainly, I believe I have stated this many times in previous post, though maybe I wasn't quite clear.

The two charts seem to be doing almost the same thing, but are based on two different variable being emphasized. The Mass weighted charts categorize blades by their "handiness" in that swords with more point control, generally light and with a POB close to the guard, have a higher number, and sword that may feel heavier in the hand, generally weight more and have a further POB, have a lower number.

The POB weighted chart also shows this, but it did switch a few of the swords around. So I am curious as to which is more accurate to what you may think shows a better trend for "handiness". Also, I am curious if different types of swords depend on different variables. Say, for example, single handers may be better described with the mass weighted chart, and Longswords may be better described with the POB chart.

Once I narrow this down, (if I can) then we can look at what general numbers different types of swords with cluster around, and then have a target number for what is average for different swords types. So the average number will hopefully show what is considered a good "handiness" number for a sword with a particular use.

I hope this explains what I am look for in regard to feed back, please let me know if I need to elaborate further.

Also, the reason why I think I have a start to something that is working is that both of the charts have predicted many things already. Both charts predicted what Chad though about how the Regent was more "handy" than the Baron, which Chad stated before i even posted the charts. Both charts also told me that the DT2150 was a arming sword built for trusting, I hadn't seen that sword before, and when I looked it up, that was exactly what it was meant for. I still don't know which chart may be better though. Of coarse you may be able to predict the same thing based on looking at the stats, but all I am doing here is grouping those stats into a single number. Yes you would still need to see the blade length along with this number, but it is still a good indicator (which is why Don included blade length in his equation). I may end up including blade length as well.

Btw, feel free to poke holes in my statements, that will tell me where i wasn't clear enough in what I was trying to say. Thanks

[Chad Arnow]

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Chris Fields]

I agree as well, and I hope to do that soon with all my own swords.

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

Hello everybody,

Gee, one week of vacation and I arrive late at the battle...

This subject of quantifying the handling of swords has been one of my main interests for years now. I think the question is very relevant especially because internet business and communication is widespread in the community. Numbers can be transmitted to other enthusiasts, hands-on experience cannot. Numbers are independent of who measures them, hands-on appreciation is not.

Having said that, I think all the approaches outlined in this thread are irremediably flawed. The reason is that they all try to use only the stats routinely measured, and that these only give a fraction of what can be measured and has an enormous influence on handling.

It's like trying to deduce the waist measurement of a person by just looking at weight and height. You'll get a vague idea because it just so happens that we are all more or less built in the same way, but there is only a loose correlation. Any way you try to combine weight and height you'll find people that defeat your formula. Similarly, all the combinations from the one by the late Don Nelson to those discussed here will find some attractive correlation but will fail sooner or later on particular swords.

The very simple truth is that the swords, as do all objects, have a mass, a center of gravity, and a moment of inertia, and that is exactly how much it takes to solve the equations of dynamics. Not more, not less. Right now, without having even tried to measure it, the moment of inertia is discarded as if it were somehow irrelevant to sword motions.

But any time a sword is used the motion is a rotation, where the moment of intertia matters immensely. Center of gravity alone will not allow you to compute the torque needed to move the sword around. I know pivot points are hard to understand (or rather seem hard), but they are by far the easiest way to get an information about the moment of inertia. For anyone interested in the definitions I strongly suggest looking at these threads:

Balance points, pivot points, and nodes on the sword.
How to find point of balance versis center of percussion.
Sword Characteristics Vs Characterization (and a bit on CoP)

Note that the terminology is not set in stone and might be imperfect for historical reasons...

I've tried to quantify the handling of the swords I have by using pivot points and I have met some success. It does not give only one number (because several qualities interact to give us the handling sensation), and it does not give the best sword (which it should not because such absolute does not exist). It does allow comparison between swords, however, as well as some classification. I've yet to see the method fail in a spectacular fashion. I even used that to figure out which sword to buy and was not disappointed.

I've posted some results of mine over the forums during the past few years, here and there for example. Of course the exact computation required changed over the years, but the basic ideas are still the same and it does work with a wide range of weapons that are built in very different ways for different purposes.

Over the last few years I've been trying to write a more comprehensive document about these questions. But it is a tedious work and it advances slowly, because I'd like it to be as complete as possible. I admit that the widespread hostility developed towards the application of simple maths and physics to swords is not helping either... Sometimes I wonder if I wouldn't be better off keeping that to myself instead of trying to help people against their will?


The bottom line is: understand pivot points and you will have a good part of the handling figured out. Ignore them and you'll lose such an amount of information that your stats will inevitably fail to account for very obvious differences between swords. It is really as simple as that in my experience.

Regards,

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Chris Fields]

Well done Vincent!

I'm not sure how much of the thread you read, but to sum it up, here is why I left the Moment of Inertia out of the equation:

Main reason: You need the cross section of the blade all the way through it's length as well as the pommel, grip, and guard cross sections and material densities to be able to calculate the Moment of Inertia with out having the sword in your hand or with out having the pivot points. These stats are rarely to never posted online about swords, but the POB and Total mass are posted quite often.

Secondary reason: In general, most swords have very close moments of inertia within their own sword types, so close that I did not think a human could sense the difference. However, outliers on my charts, like Jean's sword, would have a much different Moment of inertia that would be easy to detect. Since the charts were ultimately set up to compare similar swords, I thought it may not matter.

Again, I could be wrong, and maybe we can detect very small changes in moment of inertia. I have handled over 70 swords, but honestly never thought about it. I am used to heavy stage combat clunkers that range from 3 to 5 lbs most of the time for single handers, and most of them all have relatively the same Moments because they are just big simple bars of steel, I don't think I could tell you the difference in there moments by feel alone.

So, based on these things, I was hoping to be able to classify swords with a number system that works with the available data. Sure, it's not bullet proof, but if it can get the general trend, epecially within sword types, then thats a start.

btw, I remember reading not too long ago that alot of historical swords seem to a pivot point right near, or within a few inches of the tip, am I remembering that correctly?

Thanks again, and look forward to reading more of those links you posted

[Nathan Robinson]

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

Hi Chris,

Thanks for the summary I'll give you my take on both of your points.

Your main reason is something I'm aware of but we have different attitude: you try to work with what is commonly measured, and I'd rather try to change what is commonly measured, so that some meaningful work can be done with it Pivot points are not that difficult to measure and communicate, whithout worrying at all about cross-sections and so forth, and give a pretty accurate estimate (I tried both ways on my Atrim type XI). Discarding them on the ground that they are not "traditionally" given is unwise in my opinion. Things can change; CoG, mass, nodes of vibration were not originally part of the core stats, and they are more and more common now.

The secondary reason is an interesting point. The first question I'd ask is, if the moment of inertia is indeed relatively constant, then what is its value? How does it vary among sword types? Because obviously, if you narrow down the type of sword sufficiently, you should be able to index all the properties by just center of gravity or mass. But how do you sort the swords by type? Handling can be similar between different Oakeshott types, and can be different among representative of the same type. What classification would you use then?

Our sensitivity to the properties is also an interesting problem. Honestly, in my studies so far, I've decided to neglect the total mass, because I realised I was absolutely unable, without scales, to compare by hand alone the masses of swords with any precision. My judgement of weight is hopelessly flawed; my evaluations vary by time of day, excitement, fatigue, and so forth. For example, when I first handle a sword I know it will feel very light, and the weight kicks in only later when excitement fades out. This incapacity to judge weight reliably seems widespread among humans...

On the other hand, I know I am able to spot pivot points with my eyes closed, just by twirling the sword around. I'm sure I feel them, and the perception does not change. It's really something I rely on when I handle my swords, it's what allows me to control their motions. I can't ignore that when trying to quantify handling.

There is a quite simple explanation in a mathematical way, if you don't mind. The moment of inertia can be computed as M * k², where M is the total mass, and k is the radius of gyration. This parameter k accounts for the geometry of the mass distribution alone, it depends only on the shape of the object and not on how much mass fills this shape. The pivot points' positions are determined by k. I think you're right that we can't feel the moment of inertia because there is M in there, and we suck at feeling mass. But I'm sure we feel k. Basically, when you start comparing the static feel that you have when the sword does not move, and the dynamic feel that you have when the sword is moving, M appears equally on both sides, having an equal influence on static and dynamic feel, leaving you with just k.

Of course if all your swords are just simple bars of steel, the radius of gyration is always linked to total length in the same way, so the total length and center of gravity are all you need. But the point is that real swords are not simple bars, and that this difference is crucial if you wish to understand how handling varies.

I'm just hoping to convince you of paying attention to pivot points when you handle swords It's really an eye-opening experience...

[Vincent Le Chevalier]