[Michael Edelson]

[Chad Arnow]

[Michael Edelson]

[Scott Woodruff]

I agree with Chad. I think of the XVII as a transitional type, an early attempt at producing a stiff blade that was superseded when ways of making a blade that better combines stiffness with good edge geometry emerged.

As to the whole controversy about edge blows and armor, I think we tend to put too much emphasis on what the sword is doing to the armor as opposed to what it is doing to the man underneath. I think that a lot of the art and literary evidence that seems to show edge blows defeating armor are actually attempts at showing the blows defeating the man underneath. A killing or maiming blow that does little or no damage to the armor itself does not look very impressive, but that doesn't make it any less effective.

As to stiffness, I just can't seem to get enough. My Albion XVI is a fairly stiff blade, but with hard thrusts it does feel like a wet noodle in my hand. It is when it comes to cutting that I really appreciate its degree of stiffness. I agree that it is really only the last 5-7cm of the blade that matter when it comes to thrusting, after that the taper or breadth don't matter. If the center third of my XVI were a bit stiffer, maybe with a strong mid-rib, it would be perfect. But as it is, it is a very nice compromise, plenty stiff enough to cut with serious authority, barely stiff enough for reasonable thrusting and with a nice mass distribution that lets it handle like a dream.

One thing to keep in mind when it comes to stiffness is length. I find that a small change in length can have a drastic effect on stiffness. It seems that XVII's tend to be a few inches longer than most XVI's and XV's. Perhaps the XVII's design was a way of maintaining stiffness while adding that little bit of length. Perhaps it was considered worthwhile to sacrifice some versatility and cutting performance to get a little more range with the thrust.

[Chad Arnow]

[Michael Edelson]

I think what we're both saying is that we don't know.

btw...fyi...pool noodles are a good test of your cutting ability as long as your sword is not too sharp (ability being a subjective word highly dependent on your goals, but I'm talking about just the ability to maintain good velocity and edge alignment here). If it is very sharp they offer no challenge. However, pool noodels do not test any aspect of the sword other than how sharp it is, within reason.

Pumpkins are worse than pool noodles because while they can be cut by dull swords they require little technique. You can flub your edge alignment consistency and still cut one. Even properly maintained edge alignment can result in a scooped shape to the cut because the pumkin's size and mass distorts the sword blade, which means you will learn little from cutting pumpkins except how much of a mess you can make. However, if the goal is to have fun cutting stuff, pumkins are great.

[Scott Woodruff]

A XVII may not be much of a cutter, but I sure wouldn't want to be hit with one, armor or no. I get the impression that XVII's, while not cutters per se, were strikers. Thin, sharp edge geometries are of little use against a heavily armoured opponent, and putting aside the thrusting aspects, a XVII is exactly what I would want for making strikes and blows that would seriously mess up your game. The great degree of stiffness really helps here. Basically, I feel that a XVII is perfect for striking against armor, and as for the guy without armor, any kind of sword blade, regardless of sharpness or cutting ability, is going to take him down.

I do agree with Michael, most cutting mediums that people use (ie can afford) are pretty much useless for judging the cutting ability of swords. I plan on collecting some road-kill and covering them with linen and/or other armor in order to judge the relative cutting abilities of my swords. I am especially interested in how skulls and large bones hold up to sword-cuts (and vice versa.)

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Fashion should never be excluded in any analysis of why a sword style did, or did not, remain in use.

But, even if we use efficacy against armour as our criteria, things get complicated. What kind of armour? There are significant differences in both handling and defensive qualities between different armours. Attacking someone in an abbreviated late 14th c. cuirass is different than facing someone in full c. 1450 Milanese kit. And, different gauntlet designs create subtley different grips on sword hilts - an hourglass gauntlet may work better with one design, while a long cuffed 'gothic' gauntlet might play better with another.

It's a complicated question, to be sure.

All the best,

Christian

[Michael Edelson]

In regards to effectiveness against mail, this is an example of what can happen against very small diameter mail (5-6mm) with an acute sword point (all rings are intact):



If a single ring is broken it goes in about twice that much. When you factor in flesh compression, it can go in quite deep. Not enough to kill, but enough to wound.

In testing penetration between various Albion swords, I did not find much difference among different sword profiles, the only real factor point acuteness. Of crouse this is far from a study with period swords, but then many suriviving examples don't even have their original points.

Also, a heavy crowbarish sword can break more links than a lighter sword with a more acute point, so that is something to consider as well.

[Sander Marechal]

[Michael Edelson]