Battletag: Wrexie#1549
Sword-Catching Parrying Dagger
- Dated: 1600
- Culture: Italian
This unusual fencing dagger demonstrates the way in which the artistic qualities of a weapon could be influenced by the practical concerns of the swordsman. The Renaissance duel was usually fought with rapier and dagger. The rapier, as the main weapon of attack, was complemented by a parrying dagger held in the left hand, used primarily for defensive movements.
However, by 1600 fighting with the rapier alone was becoming the latest fashion. The opposing blade could still be parried or beaten away with the left hand. The free left also allowed the duellist to grab hold of his enemy’s swordblade, temporarily immobilising it to expose him to a lethal counter-thrust.
This distinctive fencing weapon is designed to provide the blade-grabbing ability of the free left hand, while retaining the dagger for defensive action. The arrow-like barbs allowed a sword blade to enter the ‘jaw’ of the dagger, but made it difficult to free it again. With his weapon ensnared, the enemy was exposed, if only for an instant.
The practical challenges of creating such a specialised weapon were considerable. The hardened and tempered steel blade had to be carefully cut with the series of dramatically barbed teeth, a laborious process. The spaces between the teeth have been elegantly filed with ornamental edges, while the base of the blade has been finely etched and gilt- an unusual feature, even for high-quality weapons. In this way, despite its very specific function as a fighting tool, the weapon’s artistic merit is evident.
Source & Copyright: The Wallace Collection
3,401 notes (via loweryi & art-of-swords)
Sword
- Dated: about 1480
- Culture: probably German
The sword comes with a writhen hilt.
Source & Copyright: Royal Armouries
432 notes (via art-of-swords)
A Blizzard employee exclusive sword and shield set is on eBay for $9,999.99.
The shield features the crest of Lordaeron ;_;
Oh god if I had the money
okay yeah im salivating over here and all but
WHY WOULD ANYONE EVER EVER
EVER
SELL THIS?!
WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?!!!!!
the employee must need money for game time.
161 notes (via hclark70 & carrotatheart)
Sword Facts & Myths
- All Medieval swords weighed at least 12 pounds – FALSE
Most Medieval swords weighed around 2.5 lbs - even long hand-and-a-half and two-handed swords weighed less than 4 lbs.
- Medieval swords were not sharp - FALSE
Some surviving samples of Medieval swords are still sharp - many are razor-sharp.
- All swords should balance within 2” of the guard - FALSE
A sword’s balance should be determined by its function, not an arbitrary standard. Swords intended for cutting often balance 5 or 6 inches from the guard.
- Swords were made to cut through armour - FALSE
Period armour was often work- and case-hardened and curved such that it is difficult to hit at a right angle. Late Medieval thrusting swords, even the ones with a reinforced point, were used to thrust into the gaps in armour, not through the plate.
- Viking swords were heavier than Medieval swords - FALSE
The Viking sword was a very highly developed sword form. Often the blades were quite thin in cross section, and as a result, were often the same or lighter in overall weight than other similarsized swords.
- There is no such thing as the “perfect” sword - TRUE
There are only “perfect” swords for their intended purpose and the tastes of the owner.
- A “good” sword should be able to bend past 90 degrees without taking a set - FALSE
Flexibility is only one of the aspects of the steel properties that is important in a sword. Too flexible, and it is inefficient in the thrust and the cut. Too stiff and it is prone to breakage. Most makers are content if a sword will bend to 45 degrees without taking a set.
- Real swordfights were just like they are in the movies - FALSE
Swordfights in movies are choreographed for entertainment not authenticity. Edge to edge parries and fancy techniques are designed to heighten drama in a scene. An actual swordfight would be short, brutal and much quieter.
- Japanese swords are the sharpest and best swords ever made - FALSE
Japanese swords have many admirable qualities and were well-suited to their intended use, but they are not necessarily sharper or better than a properly designed and sharpened Medieval sword.
- Medieval swordmakers were uneducated barbarians - FALSE
It is apparent from even a cursory study of surviving Medieval swords that blademakers and cutlers were highly skilled artisans with a profound understanding of mathematics and proportion.
- Not all swords should be as sharp as a razor - TRUE
The sword’s intended purpose is always the guide to use — thrusting swords are not intended for cutting, so some may not even have an edge at all, just a well-defined and reinforced point.
- Swords were tempered in urine or blood - FALSE
The steels smelted in Medieval Europe required either clean water or oil for quenching. Urine or blood would not allow a blade to temper properly.
- The “blood groove” is on a sword to release pressure in the wound and allow the sword to come back out - FALSE
“Blood groove” as a term is a recent invention — “fuller” is the proper name for the groove or grooves on a sword blade. The purpose of the fuller has nothing to do with “blood” — fullers reduce weight, assist in the proper distribution of mass in a blade, and help make the blade more stiff.
- A good sword can cut through a concrete pillar - FALSE
Swords were intended to cut through flesh, clothing, and (in earlier swords) leather or mail armour. They are not intended to cut wood, concrete or metal pillars, even though that is often seen in films.
- A sword will fall apart if you don’t clean the tang of the sword - FALSE
The tang of a sword, if properly made and the rest of the sword properly maintained, will not require any maintenance for generations of use.
- Japanese folded steel is superior to European sword steel - FALSE
Folding steel was a technique used by Japanese smiths to try to get the best steel they could from very poor ore sources. Folded steel blades are more likely than modern monosteels to have large, unseen inclusions of impurities that may in fact critically weaken a blade. By folding the steel billet many, many times, they achieved a more even distribution of carbon and worked most of the impurities out of the steel. The result is stunningly beautiful, but we have to believe that if a 16th C Japanese smith had access to modern monosteels, he would have switched in a heartbeat.
- Pattern-welded steel is superior to mono-steel - FALSE
Like folding steel, pattern-welding was a technique used to try to get the best steel from very poor ore sources. Pattern-welding is the art of hammering together, and then twisting and re-hammering layers of iron (often of varying carbon content). The Celts as far back as the 5th century BC may have made swords by pattern-welding, and this technique was used extensively until at least the end of the 10th century. After this, better, more consistent iron ore was obtainable, and furnace technology improved, making this laborious technique unnecessary. Also like folded steel blades, pattern welded blades are more likely than modern monosteels to have large, unseen inclusions of impurities that may in fact critically weaken a blade.
- Swords are just big knives - FALSE
The design of a sword is far more complex than a knife. Flexibility balance and vibration are far more critical in a sword-length blade than in a knife-length blade.
Info source: © 2005 Albion Armorers, Inc.
Photo source: © Royal ArmouriesThis information should be SO much better known.
13,641 notes (via loweryi & art-of-swords)
Longsword Geometry
Swordsmith Peter Johnsson shows a defining feature of the medieval sword is its beautiful and subtle proportions. In this video he presents how to design a longsword with geometry following principles of lay out similar to those used in architectural plans of Gothic cathedrals.
Source & Copyright: Peter Johnsson on YouTube
599 notes (via art-of-swords)
On a much happier note have I ever shown you guys Theresa Wendland of the Chicago Swordplay Guild
because she’s awesome
I mean let’s be honest here
a short sword is going to weigh about 3lbs. a longsword? probably 5lbs
actually no let’s get a source. I’m not doing this from memory. Let’s go with the Association for Renaissance Martial Arts, real people fighting with real swords using real techniques and documents. And they said…
Despite frequent claims to the contrary, Medieval swords were indeed light, manageable, and on average weighed less than four pounds. As leading sword expert Ewart Oakeshott unequivocally stated: “Medieval Swords are neither unwieldably heavy nor all alike - the average weight of any one of normal size is between 2.5 lb. and 3.5 lbs. Even the big hand-and-a-half ‘war’ swords rarely weigh more than 4.5 lbs. …”
And just to make sure, I just went and asked my brother for his claymore. It’s a two-handed sword, looks almost exactly like the one on the wikipedia page:
it weighs 3.5lbs. I was actually over-estimating.
I weighed my white oak training sword. It also weighs 3.5lbs. Now considering I can’t even lift my own body weight and I was able to swing that thing around for a good hour once a week, it… really doesn’t take that much strength to lift a sword. Especially when it’s properly balanced! Like, having a sword with a good balance alone takes off a lot of the energy required to wield it.
But using it for hours on end with finesse and accuracy? Completely different story. That’s where the strength to use a sword comes in. You’re going to find yourself wearing out really fast wielding anything in combat if you don’t have the stamina to use it for three hours, let alone a day or two.
I mean I’d even argue it takes more strength to use a bow. And I mean a good bow that’s going to actually take down something like a deer, instead of, I dunno, bouncing off of it like gnats on a gnoll.
I’m sure most of you reading this know all this already, though! To which I’m super proud. Allow me to kiss you on the cheek or the forehead and rub noses with you in glee. And if you didn’t know? Well, welcome to the wonderful world of swordplay! Go forth with your new knowledge. Maybe look into taking up kendo or fencing or even the historical fencing people like ARMA do. (Because European swordplay wasn’t the unskilled use of sharp things. It was an art, just like the more popular Asian martial arts.)
I’m mostly just really tired of this trope set in our minds by things like DnD where melee is determined by STR and archers are determined by DEX, that ignores that archers were some of the biggest and strongest people. And if there’s a woman in fray, she’s probably a spellcaster because women are weak or something like that. (Which, while we’re talking about that, one time in the mogu tag someone tried to justify the sexual dimorphism of the new female mogu models by saying something to the tune of “they’re probably spellcasters.” To which I wanted to respond, “the entire mogu race is made up of spellcasters, dimwit. It’s also made up of individuals who value strength above all else.”)
So when Anduin, who apparently can’t swing a sword (and from what I can tell, isn’t just bad at swordplay, but is actually incapable of swinging it), becomes a priest? It feels less like he’s different from his father, or that he has a strong connection to the light, or maybe he disapproves of drawing blood, and more like it was his only option. To become a spellcaster. Which is a path so many weak, female characters are pushed down. Because, you know, they can’t swing a sword, whether explicitly stated or not.
I’m not saying this is a bad thing. I’m not even saying it was intentional. I’m not even saying Anduin isn’t a totally awesome priest, smiting enemies and making the sky rain holy fire upon the darkness. I’m just so tired of it being the road priests walk down. (Can’t swing a sword? Don’t worry, you can be main healer!)
And I’m so tired of it being the road women walk down.
During the first run of our DnD campaign, in a group where I’m the only female, I made a cleric. He was male. Somebody commented about how everyone in the party was male, and we should have a little more diversity. Someone else suggested I change the gender of my character to achieve it. I gave them a noncommittal shrug. I wasn’t going to budge on the gender of my character, a character who I already knew and was excited to play as. That “M” over “gender” was staying.
So my character was continuously misgendered for the rest of the campaign, and nobody else stood up to change their character’s gender for the sake of diversity.
When we rebooted to switch back from 4.0e to 3.5e, we got a new guy, who made a cleric— one who worships a deity of death, which will eventually give him powers related to necromancy, I believe. He sneered at the thought of maybe having to toss out a heal or two on occasion, and immediately asked me what my character was. The look on his face when I replied “fighter” made me want to sock him in the jaw.
Because being a healer is seen as being womanly. Effeminate. Girly. Weak. It means you’re not strong enough to fight. It means you’re someone who needs protection.
And while Anduin does a great job at disproving this, holding his own in battle and proving that there’s a lot of bite behind that priesty power, I can’t help feel it would have been a little more compelling if he could have swung that sword. If he had truly chosen to be a healer, even though warrior-hood and his father’s approval was within his grasp. Even if he was a little tall with some bulk on his frame. Even if he wasn’t constantly compared to his mother.
And you may tell me, “but Wrexie, he could have been a lot of things besides a priest! Like a mage, a rogue, or a hunter!”, to which I may respond, “Yeah, but he didn’t become any of those things, did he?”, and point out that the problem here is that those three roles are pretty gender-neutral, while the role of a healer is much more often seen as a woman’s role. A role that a man who is truly manly would never take out of his own volition, that he would never turn to if the situation would permit otherwise.
Which is why I will grudgingly accept canon but be loud about how much better it could have been. Why I will glare at Christie Golden, and if it is by no fault of her own, then the person she consulted with who advised her on the matter. And then glare at Christie Golden again for not knowing about swords, and glare at all the other writers for not knowing about swords, and then glare at the high-fantasy nerd culture that didn’t tell them to question otherwise and do five minutes of googling.
