| Author |
Message |
A. Spanjer
|
 Posted: Thu 04 Mar, 2010 9:59 am Post subject: |
 |
|
[quote="Michael Edelson"] | Jesse Eaton wrote: |
Perhaps the reason basket hilts were not invented earlier was that the sword was a much more commonly relied on weapon on the battlefied, and had to be as light as possible so as not to wear out the user. |
If that were the case, then why would the Scots, the people who kept the sword as a major weapon on the battlefield long after many others had switched to guns, favor a sword with a large basket?
Na sir 's na seachain an cath.
|
|
  |
 |
|
Jonathan Hopkins
|
| Posted: Thu 04 Mar, 2010 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| A. Spanjer wrote: | | Michael Edelson wrote: | | Jesse Eaton wrote: |
Perhaps the reason basket hilts were not invented earlier was that the sword was a much more commonly relied on weapon on the battlefied, and had to be as light as possible so as not to wear out the user. |
If that were the case, then why would the Scots, the people who kept the sword as a major weapon on the battlefield long after many others had switched to guns, favor a sword with a large basket? |
|
I agree. I don't think weight was an issue. Didn't most complex hilts begin to develop around the same time (century)? I still tend to think that it has something to do with armor (lessening the need for it, perhaps, rather than responding to a decline), and maybe technology.
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher Gregg
|
| Posted: Thu 04 Mar, 2010 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you check out Neumann's book, and look at the average weights of 17th and 18th century baskethilted Claymores, they seem to weight in around 2 pounds, perhaps a few ounces more, a few less, so I don't think added weight was much of an issue. In the book, I think I can remember only two being listed at over 3 pounds, and they were more on the horseman's stylistically. So no, actual baskethilts didn't weight any more than many earlier swords - they just redistributed the overall weight differently.
Christopher Gregg
'S Rioghal Mo Dhream!
|
|
|
|
|
Thom R.
|
| Posted: Thu 04 Mar, 2010 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think weight is the issue at all either.
If the question is why complex hilts didn't develop earlier - I think the answer probably lies within the quality of steel developing over time, as well as mechanization of foundries, development of tools, and ways to shape steel. There is a bit of a parallel to plate armour in that complex hilts show up in the late 15th c coincident to more highly formed plate armour. Also the earliest complex hilts seem to show up at the same time that many other more complex weapons like flanged maces, warhammers and other complex polearms start to become prevalent. Anyone who owns an A&A high gothic mace knows how relatively complex that weapon is for one example. So I think this points to development of technology.
If the question is why basket hilts (and schiavona) took longer to develop than rapier hilts or complex bastard sword hilts I suspect Bill is onto something as basket hilts tend to require much more welding than most rapier hilts. If you look at the earliest baskethilts pictured in Mazansky, i.e. Mary Rose time frame, or the earliest Germanic baskethilts, they are primarily comprised of many rounded bars welded up into a basket.
Its a very interesting question. tr
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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