Hello all
I just wanted to post a link to this, as me and a few mates have gotten a good laugh out of this. i dont know how many of you have already seen this but its basically shows you just how wrong some people can be with some subjects
for your viewing "pleasure"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Szn6AHiQqto
all the best
mark
Hahahahahahahaha :D
Remind me to remove all the steel pommels from my swords and replace them with wood, bone or ivory so I can win in a bind.
;)
Remind me to remove all the steel pommels from my swords and replace them with wood, bone or ivory so I can win in a bind.
;)
He's not completely off. Blade presence has its advantages and various swords do lack heavy pommels.
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: |
| He's not completely off. Blade presence has its advantages and various swords do lack heavy pommels. |
And many styles have pommels used to counter balance the blade to make the sword light and lively in the hands.
Don't base your whole presentation on a early one handed sword and a modern foil.
Cheers,
David
So swords and warhammers now have the same function? :wtf: :p This guy is an idiot .Notice how he doesn't seem to have a source for this "revelutionary " concept(except his daydreams,perhaps?)Far worse is that thousands of people see this video and believe everything it tells them.People like this are a thorn in the side of all knowledgeable swordsmen and weapons enthusiasts.
| David Teague wrote: |
| And many styles have pommels used to counter balance the blade to make the sword light and lively in the hands. |
Of course. It all depends on the style and period. From what I've seen, earlier and/or cavalry weapons tend to have the most blade presence. Ignoring classic and common arms like the medieval longsword and Renaissance rapier is silly. I'm just saying it's not to the level of 20lb swords and useless armor.
I got the point. That's why chainsaws doesn't have pommels, but such an awesome blade presence.... :lol:
Geez I looked at the Geibig typology right here own our own beautiful web site and counted many viking swords ALL with great big heavy pommels, that were used with shields. then there's ALL the Oakeshott sword typologies. I mean unless he considers the late Medieval period to have started some time around the 7th century I think he has grossly miscounted what was being used in nearly all of Europe and a portion of Asia, and the middle east.
| Isaac H. wrote: |
| So swords and warhammers now have the same function? This guy is an idiot |
Don't call people names. Challenge issues or the concepts but do not attack people. I will not tolerate this sort of attitude here. Such elitism soils our entire community and I'll trust that you won't do that again.
If you have any questions or comments regarding this, you can contact me via a private message.
Regarding this topic as a whole: I expect more from you guys. Keep elitism and mockery off this site and hold yourselves to a higher level of discussion, especially when doing so with critique.
Many, if not most, of the videos produced by the person contain factually incorrect points. Countering these points is a good cause, however, doing so with snide comments, elitist gesturing, name-calling or mockery doesn't help your argument but actually hurts it. Most people immediately dismiss a person arguing in such a way, ignoring the points being made and focusing only on the method by which the person is arguing. As I said, I expect more.
For those interested in making a difference and trying to actually counter the person's incorrect facts, I encourage you to post useful and factually correct comments on the person's videos on YouTube.
Actually I had a discussion about that with him on that video. It seems to him, when he says most swords, he means all of history... so when you conside that...most swords DID have wooden or bone or ivory pommels. He is more interested in antiquity then the middle ages tho, so that is where his idea comes from. Also to him late middle ages started after the battle of hasting so when he says late middle ages, he means after hasting...which I don't agree with, but that what he means.
really? Hastings? 1066, that Hastings? wow, I'd say that sounds like just barely into the medieval period and certainly not late period at all. ok well that definition throws a whole different look on things I guess. I don't know, I still think he's off by a good margin but I haven't got the studying or resources to argue much before Hastings. I think all I could manage at this point would be to argue what the conventional beginning of the middle ages is considered and I'm frankly not interested in arguing that.
oh well, I have enjoyed many of his videos, and hang the accuracy issue simply because he is a right entertaining guy to listen to. Guess I'll just continue to not care about whether or not I agree with him while I enjoy his little rants.
oh well, I have enjoyed many of his videos, and hang the accuracy issue simply because he is a right entertaining guy to listen to. Guess I'll just continue to not care about whether or not I agree with him while I enjoy his little rants.
| Tom Kinder wrote: |
| really? Hastings? 1066, that Hastings? wow, I'd say that sounds like just barely into the medieval period and certainly not late period at all. ok well that definition throws a whole different look on things I guess. I don't know, I still think he's off by a good margin but I haven't got the studying or resources to argue much before Hastings. I think all I could manage at this point would be to argue what the conventional beginning of the middle ages is considered and I'm frankly not interested in arguing that.
oh well, I have enjoyed many of his videos, and hang the accuracy issue simply because he is a right entertaining guy to listen to. Guess I'll just continue to not care about whether or not I agree with him while I enjoy his little rants. |
In the most recent terminology Hastings represents the beginning of the high medieval period, with the early medieval period beginning in the late 8th century. The term "dark ages" isn't commonly considered acceptable anymore, thus this period is now know as the early medieval period.
Well the point is not to take one single truth for the whole thing.
European medieval sword do usually have counterweight pommels, that's true.
A lot of arabic, or eastern swords or sabers don't because being used by horsemen it was useless.
Different fighting technics, different swords.
Sacrifice swords : heavy at the top, as much as possible, but not for fighting
Flyssa : as long as possible, for slicing, very unbalanced
Khyber sword : totally unbalanced (knife design)
And, hmmm, let's have a look at african weapons ... :eek:
European medieval sword do usually have counterweight pommels, that's true.
A lot of arabic, or eastern swords or sabers don't because being used by horsemen it was useless.
Different fighting technics, different swords.
Sacrifice swords : heavy at the top, as much as possible, but not for fighting
Flyssa : as long as possible, for slicing, very unbalanced
Khyber sword : totally unbalanced (knife design)
And, hmmm, let's have a look at african weapons ... :eek:
| Patrick Kelly wrote: | ||
In the most recent terminology Hastings represents the beginning of the high medieval period, with the early medieval period beginning in the late 8th century. The term "dark ages" isn't commonly considered acceptable anymore, thus this period is now know as the early medieval period. |
Yeah I'm a bit out of date on that it sounds like as I am seeing more reference to post hastings as the high middle ages in more recent readings I have been doing. I have however been taught under the old school at UC berkeley so I'm fairly against this movement mind you ;) .
Also remember he is talking about swords in general...not middle ages european swords. Yes middle ages european sword did have a pommel as a counter weight, but Tang dynasty jians? Nope. The katana? Nope. The shark tooth swords of the maori? Hell no. So you have to not thinks of swords as the cuniform sword, but all swords. In which case, most pommels really didn't act as a counter weight...and he wasn't saying no swords did...just that the many didn't from all swords from all reagion through out history. When you think of it this way, he does kinda have a point.
| P. Cha wrote: |
|
Also remember he is talking about swords in general...not middle ages european swords. Yes middle ages european sword did have a pommel as a counter weight, but Tang dynasty jians? Nope. The katana? Nope. The shark tooth swords of the maori? Hell no. So you have to not thinks of swords as the cuniform sword, but all swords. In which case, most pommels really didn't act as a counter weight...and he wasn't saying no swords did...just that the many didn't from all swords from all reagion through out history. When you think of it this way, he does kinda have a point. |
Just as a general comment I have seen most of his You tube movies and he is very entertaining and in most of them I have found that what he says make common sense although one could nit pick something if one was looking for something to disagree with.
This one surprised me " initially " as very inaccurate but taking your comments and the context in which he meant his comment he isn't so much wrong that pommels are not primarily counter weights but they do in some cases party function as counterweights in Medieval European swords.
If the pommel was just a counterweight the sword blades dynamics and geometry would be of little importance in handling and the balancing would be done mostly by tuning the weight of the pommel: This isn't the way it is I believe since distal and profile taper are very important in tuning the handling of a blade but the pommel may be the final tweak that can make or break the handling qualities of a sword.
I think he was trying to make a point about pommels but didn't explain the context well enough I think.
From a physics standpoint, his argument does not totally hold up either. Any mass on the hilt will act to counterbalance the blade, even if just a little, and even if that is not as the primary function.
I have followed that guy on youtube for a while now, and he has some very interesting points to make.
At the very least, he does make you stop and think for a second...which is never a bad thing.
| Quote: |
| At the very least, he does make you stop and think for a second...which is never a bad thing. |
P. Cha, that's a very good observation!
Very interesting how what he says may seem "wrong" in one context (medieval european weapons), "right" in others (as has been said, katanas do not have heavy pommels to act as a counterweight). This guy's problem is in fact more a lack of nuance and contextualisation, than being flat-out wrong. It's also a question of audience, most people here are interested mostly in medieval european swords; if someone did a vid where he said that all swords needed a pommel to act as a counterweight, and then someone posted that in a JSA forum, the vid would probably get quite the same reactions that this one had here...
By the by, he does have a very good point just before the pommel thing that it makes no sense to say that the pommel holds the hilt assembly together...
| Quote: |
|
If the pommel was just a counterweight the sword blades dynamics and geometry would be of little importance in handling and the balancing would be done mostly by tuning the weight of the pommel: This isn't the way it is I believe since distal and profile taper are very important in tuning the handling of a blade but the pommel may be the final tweak that can make or break the handling qualities of a sword. |
Jean, I think all the elements you quoted are important... You can get a POB close to the guard without any distal or profile taper, but then it would mean a heavy blade counterbalanced by a heavy pommel, and probably a quite bad sword! I think the medieval sword is best approached as a very complex engineering problem, kinda like a race car or a fighter plane. No one single element does the trick, you have to care about them all, "tweak", as you said, and find the best combination...
PS - it also resembles a complex engineering problem in that you have to choose what you seek to have, and then make compromises as you can never have everything. Thus the reason that a counterweight makes sense for some blades made for some uses, as someone here has said, and not on other blades made for other uses.
Even if what this guy says is mostly correct in the context he intended, some people are going to watch this vid and then take it to be true in the area of medieval swords as well. Then you'll have some kid who will argue with you that this applies to all swords and won't even consider any other view.
We need more Vid's that educate people about medieval swords, then maybe we can convince people that european swords are just as good as katana's. :)
We need more Vid's that educate people about medieval swords, then maybe we can convince people that european swords are just as good as katana's. :)
Page 1 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou 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 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum