Swords

[jasper]

ok check out the following books on swords.
Oakeshott, Ewart books and articles.
A Knight and his Armour, A Knight in Battle, A Knight and his Castle, A Knight and his Castle, A Knight and his Horse , A Knight and his Weapons, Dark Age Warrior*, The Archaeology of Weapons , The Sword in the Age of Chivalry . Journal of the Arms and Armour Society of London, A Royal Sword in Westminster Abbey in The Connoisseur Magazine 1951*. The Sword in Anglo-Saxon England *, Fighting Men (with Henry Treece)*, The Blindfold Game*, Sound of Battle (with Leonard Clark)*, European Weapons and Armour, Records of the Medieval Sword*, Sword in Hand*, Sword in the Viking Age* (not yet published). http://www.oakeshott.org/

Boutell, Charles Arms and Armour in Antiquity and the Middle Ages
Hans Talfhoffer Fechtbuch*
To sum up there is no uber sword, swords craft varied with time,location, and skill of swordsmith. European blades were not sharpen blunt objects.

 

[knirirr]

Originally posted by jasper:
European blades were not sharpen blunt objects.

Eh? Do you mean that you consider all European sword blades to be blunt?

Of course, "sharp" is a relative thing. I've seen swords that I would consider "blunt" (the edge being 1mm wide) that re-enactors have looked upon with horror and called "sharp". As I've mentioned before, "axe sharpness" is just about right.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Originally posted by knirirr:
Since you bring up the term "foil", what do you think to my chances of getting the terminology within these games adjusted, e.g. replaicing "foil" with "smallsword", "shortsword" with "messer", "longsword" with "shortsword" and "greatsword" with "longsword"? Probably quite low, I'd imagine.

Hey, in YTU, it should be easy. Unless your bureaucracy is overwhelming.

One note about modern foils: Our fencers always warmed the blades by rubbing with a rag before the bout. This made it more flexible. And, if you're fencing in a non-electric bout, especially, you want that blade to bend when you hit. If we (the armorers) got a broken blade to fix and it was cold to the touch, woe to the fencer asking for help.

 

[Rossoneill]

If you dont layer and fold the sword blade it will not be very flexible and has a much greater chance of breaking when used for parry or strike or cut or slash .
Of course you need Excellent quality steel too, and it needs to be quenched just right or it becomes very brittle .
There was an excellent program on the Discovery channel that showed a modern day sword maker making swords just like the old so called Damascus steel ( actually made in India ).
And part of it was a sword maker in India making swords in the old way too .
(The name Damascus Steel or Damascus Sword was used so Traders could keep the source secret )
He folded it many times and it was remarkably flexible and strong .
Im not a metals expert either but years ago for one of my D&D games i did some research on swords and sword making

 

[Uncle Bob]

Originally posted by knirirr:
Since you bring up the term "foil", what do you think to my chances of getting the terminology within these games adjusted, e.g. replaicing "foil" with "smallsword", "shortsword" with "messer", "longsword" with "shortsword" and "greatsword" with "longsword"? Probably quite low, I'd imagine.

I have argued about it, CT+ Light and Medium Weapons and Skills. Frankly I could live with "greatsword" instead of Traveller's "broadsword" for a two-handed sword.. In two-thousand years I expect the terms to change some, but not become daft.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Originally posted by Rossthree:
If you dont layer and fold the sword blade it will not be very flexible and has a much greater chance of breaking when used for parry or strike or cut or slash

Not exactly true. Some of todays highest quality swords, custom or production, are made by milling a blank of homogenous steel (Michael Pierce, Angus Trim and Fulvio Del Tin leap to mind). Layered steel only has an advantage if you are combining steels with different levels of carbon or working with "dirty" steel where you are pounding out inclusions.
.

Of course you need Excellent quality steel too, and it needs to be quenched just right or it becomes very brittle

Actually it is the tempering after the quenching that restores toughness.

There was an excellent program on the Discovery channel that showed a modern day sword maker making swords just like the old so called Damascus steel ( actually made in India ).
And part of it was a sword maker in India making swords in the old way too. (The name Damascus Steel or Damascus Sword was used so Traders could keep the source secret )
He folded it many times and it was remarkably flexible and strong .

True Damascus steel, i.e. pulad or wootz, is not layered. The surface has a pattern of impurities that made many in the 19th century believe it was pattern welded, but it was actually made from homogenous steel refined by a crucible method. Google on "wootz"

Im not a metals expert either but years ago for one of my D&D games i did some research on swords and sword making

You are to be commended, you are far better informed than Gary Gygax. I think that is called "damning with faint praise."

 

[Uncle Bob]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
One note about modern foils: Our fencers always warmed the blades by rubbing with a rag before the bout. This made it more flexible. And, if you're fencing in a non-electric bout, especially, you want that blade to bend when you hit. If we (the armorers) got a broken blade to fix and it was cold to the touch, woe to the fencer asking for help.

+1 Happy memories of "dry" foil before le flic.

 

[ElHombre]

Originally posted by knirirr:
I therefore wonder for how long the Japanese swords will stay in fashion. In the West there have been two rediscoveries of our own martial arts heritage - one about a century ago that was killed off by WW1, and there's one underway now. Presumably the current one would be killed off by the twilight war, but if enough records survived then there could always be another.

a couple of movies involving lots of swordplay most likely had something to do with that.

has anyone else ever noticed that the 'fantasy' LOTR payed more attention to the laws of physics than the 'science fiction' star wars movies?

 

[stofsk]

has anyone else ever noticed that the 'fantasy' LOTR payed more attention to the laws of physics than the 'science fiction' star wars movies?

Was this before or after the crappy magic deus ex machinas? ("We have this magic ring, which for some incomprehensible reason can only be destroyed in a specific volcano and nowhere else, because apparently Mordor has a monopoly on Magic Anti-Ring Lava", "Oh look, Giant Birds come out of absolutely NOWHERE and saved the day; where were they when we were hoofing it for the last three movies?")

Star Wars is about as soft as jelly, but it NEVER claims to be otherwise.

And no, Aragorn's swordfighting prowess is still comfortably in the fantasy realm. Any 'realistic' swordfight between one Ranger and a hundred Uruk-hai wouldn't have ended with the Ranger being bailed out by his Dwarf and Elf friends, but with all three being killed. Quite quickly. Real fights aren't a Bruce Lee movie, where the bad guys line up and fight in turns.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Hmmpph. Both are fantasies, one frankly Heroic Fantasy the other Space Fantasy disguised as SF.

But Tolkein was a better writer than Lucas.

 

[stofsk]

Originally posted by Uncle Bob:
Hmmpph. Both are fantasies, one frankly Heroic Fantasy the other Space Fantasy disguised as SF.

But Tolkein was a better writer than Lucas.

I'll go with the movies that don't bore me to sleep thank you very much. Your mileage may vary.

 

[kafka47]

While Lucas can be accused of many things, I wouldn't call him a Space Fantasy writer. The whole Star Wars sextant is basically a fairy tale (what other story begins with "Once Upon a Time...") with Space Opera elements to keep the audience distracted. To compare Tolkien and Lucas...

 

[knirirr]

Originally posted by ElHombre:
a couple of movies involving lots of swordplay most likely had something to do with that.

If you mean LoTR, then I think it is indeed responsible for new students turning up at established schools. However, there's been a revival underway for over 10 years. What has helped this time is the internet, which has allowed researchers to exchange notes and organise international meetings very effectively (I'm off to teach at one myself next week ).

One other thing of potential interest is that George Silver's finest work* didn't see the light of day until the 1890s, when it was discovered in the BL by an army officer. He recognised how useful it would be and tried to adapt what was descibed therein for military use, but it was a bit late by that point. If such information re-surfaced later then it might well be recognised again.

* http://www.sirwilliamhope.org/Library/Silver/

 

[Spud]

Hey - I took up fencing after seeing the "The Three Musketeers" by Richard Donner back in the 70's.
Oliver Reed, Richard Chamberlain, Frank Finley, and Michael York - how could I not? Plus: Charlton Heston, Faye Dunaway, Christopher Lee...

Took me years to realize that the ideal fencer is an elf, whereas I am built more on the dwarvish weightlifter/wrestler/defensive tackle template. Sigh. I later learned that I am gifted at sword and shield, though.

 

[Jame]

I've always wanted to take up sword and shield. Not because they're useful in 0-G, but because they're good exercise. Only reasons I don't are lack of paid employment and that I can't get to organizations that do it (and don't even know of any in the area).

For Traveller, I think swords are better used in gravity environments - lasers have always seemed beter for gravitylessness.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Spud, if you get the chance rapier takes a lot more strength then fencing. Especially the Spanish style.
The Demystification of the Spanish School

For people interested in sword and shield, I recommend Wagner & Hands' book on the
sword & buckler from the I.33 manuscript
Medieval Sword and Shield

Jame, the SCA has lives for their version of sword and shield, but I see there are few groups in Massachussettes. Not quite any historical style, varies from good to execreble depending on location. The best of the SCA
Bellatrix Fighting School
FUNDAMENTALS OF OLDCASTLE SWORD AND SHIELD

 

[Tobias]

Originally posted by stofsk:
Katanas are sharp but brittle, and thus they easily break.

Actually, no. Japanese swords (Katana is such an overused, and often misused, term) were and are quite resiliant.
If I may try and use a phrase that'll satisfy everyone: Japanese swords were just as brittle as European swords were blunt.
Which is to say, not very much, in both cases. Indeed, Japanese and European swords, and the methods to forge them, are a lot more similar than the ardent geeks on either side of the debate are going to admit.
Both the Japanese (and Chinese, and Arabian, and whathaveyou) sword and the European sword were durable, powerful weapons. Neither was ever the primary battlefield weapon. Both changed significantly over time, adapting to different conditions. Both were more important as a secondary weapon, and one commonly carried as an everyday defense weapon, than as a battlefield weapon.
In short words, knirirr was almost spot on in his original post. No single culturally exclusive technique of swordmaking or swordfighting has ever been proven "superior" and most claims in that direction are usually founded in cultural prejudices of one sort or another.
Sorry for the rant, I'll shut up now.

Regards,

Tobias

 

[Uncle Bob]

+1

 

[Straybow]

Of course, on the field of battle you might just as likely be struck down from behind, in which case neither your school/blademaker nor your opponent's makes much difference at all.

 

[Rossoneill]

Originally posted by Uncle Bob:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Rossthree:
If you dont layer and fold the sword blade it will not be very flexible and has a much greater chance of breaking when used for parry or strike or cut or slash

Not exactly true. Some of todays highest quality swords, custom or production, are made by milling a blank of homogenous steel (Michael Pierce, Angus Trim and Fulvio Del Tin leap to mind).
I will agree with you on that, but i was mainly referring to old style sword making not milling from a block of steel .

Layered steel only has an advantage if you are combining steels with different levels of carbon or working with "dirty" steel where you are pounding out inclusions.
.

Of course you need Excellent quality steel too, and it needs to be quenched just right or it becomes very brittle

Actually it is the tempering after the quenching that restores toughness.
True but if done wrong the sword blade is toast as i understand it .

There was an excellent program on the Discovery channel that showed a modern day sword maker making swords just like the old so called Damascus steel ( actually made in India ).
And part of it was a sword maker in India making swords in the old way too. (The name Damascus Steel or Damascus Sword was used so Traders could keep the source secret )
He folded it many times and it was remarkably flexible and strong .

True Damascus steel, i.e. pulad or wootz, is not layered. The surface has a pattern of impurities that made many in the 19th century believe it was pattern welded, but it was actually made from homogenous steel refined by a crucible method. Google on "wootz"
Well Uncle Bob that shows that relying on a 30 year old book that was a reprint of an earlier book was a Big mistake on my part .
Mea Culpa

Im not a metals expert either but years ago for one of my D&D games i did some research on swords and sword making

You are to be commended, you are far better informed than Gary Gygax. I think that is called "damning with faint praise." </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks for the Faint Praise Uncle Bob