|
Post by koshka on Feb 20, 2017 16:57:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 21, 2017 5:01:35 GMT
I would say comment directly on the archimedes thread if you have information to add to it. because of the size of the world war thread, I would say if there is something that looks promising enough, it could get its own thread.
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Mar 15, 2017 21:43:04 GMT
Mildly NSFW due to language - knowyourmeme.com/memes/end-him-rightlyBack in 2014, a popular YouTube host made a video about a bizarre item he discovered in an ancient manuscript. (Original video included at the link; it's the first one.) The manuscript in question is a sword-fighting instruction guide believed to be from the 1400s. The guide instructed that, in a pinch, you can unscrew the pommel from your sword and throw it at your opponent in order to confuse or even stun them before moving in for the finishing blow. Not only does this seem to indicate that screwed pommels were known to exist earlier than most people previously believed, it also raises the question of how effective the maneuver would be, especially in a duel. Well, the comments are calling for the Mythbusters to get on it, so... edit - the second video on the page is someone explaining how it's possible that the manuscript derived its claim from the prospect that a pommel which is still on its sword can potentially serve as a hard striking object in close-range combat.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 16, 2017 0:32:00 GMT
Mildly NSFW due to language - knowyourmeme.com/memes/end-him-rightlyBack in 2014, a popular YouTube host made a video about a bizarre item he discovered in an ancient manuscript. (Original video included at the link; it's the first one.) The manuscript in question is a sword-fighting instruction guide believed to be from the 1400s. The guide instructed that, in a pinch, you can unscrew the pommel from your sword and throw it at your opponent in order to confuse or even stun them before moving in for the finishing blow. Not only does this seem to indicate that screwed pommels were known to exist earlier than most people previously believed, it also raises the question of how effective the maneuver would be, especially in a duel. Well, the comments are calling for the Mythbusters to get on it, so... edit - the second video on the page is someone explaining how it's possible that the manuscript derived its claim from the prospect that a pommel which is still on its sword can potentially serve as a hard striking object in close-range combat. I really can't see doing something as complex as unscrewing a pommel in the middle of a fight, without your opponent taking advantage of your distraction. however, there were parts of armor that were bolted together in that era, so it is possible that some swords might have had screw-on pommels. I HAVE ended more than one round of a tournament with a pommel to the face.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 16, 2017 9:06:22 GMT
Screwed on pommels were around as long as the modern sword, For instance just ask the Chinese and Japanese, the ancient Katana has been around since the late 1300's, and came in parts for cleaning, pommels grip and guard separated.
However, from using one, a two-handed "bast@rd" sword of Celtic design with a heavy pommel, I can tell you, removing the pommel distinctly alters the handling of the sword, not in a good way, the balance is thrown off completely, and you loose all control until you reconcile that.
Also, and this is the part that may just "Bust" the myth, if its a screw on pommel to the tang of the sword that passes through the handle, if you unscrew the pommel, the grip comes off, and the guard, and everything else that isnt the sword blade and that tang pat of the sword that all the other bits attach to.
Trying to wield a blade without a grip, you loose the "Indexing" of the blade, the grip should be shaped to allow you to feel where the sharp edge is on the blade by the shape of that grip, without that, you loose the whole feel of the blade.
Therefore, the pommel, and its tight fit to the blade, are an important part of keeping the whole sword together. A Bit like unscrewing the stock of a rifle and throwing that at your opponent?.. the bits you have left may work as a weapon if you cobble them together, but not just right now, without a bit of time to work something out?.
May I suggest that maybe the article was written by someone who perhaps had all the gear but no idea?. Remembering that at that time, many maps had regions marked on them where the America's are now that simply said "Here be dragons". Well, perhaps that isnt all that untrue, but they didnt believe there was a great land there?..
Back to the swords, its only recently that we have had modern identical threads on all screws and bolts, back then, each one was made individually, so it may have been a case that only one pommel may fit only one blade, which kind of prevented someone steeling your bits to make a hybrid "best of what I can find" sword. Each smith had his own set of taps and dyes to make screws and bolts, so each smiths work was different from another?.. But the definitely screwed or pinned pommels in place that could be removed for either adjustment replacement of grip or worn out guards. Some pommels were adjusted in size to alter the balance of the blade in use. Either take a bit off or screw some more bits on, a few shaped plates just behind the pommel may transfer weight backwards of the grip, or add a few extra plates to the guard to bring the balance and weight backwards to the grip its self from the blade... The guard, especially a full hand guard, as TLW says from experience, was also used as a basic knuckle duster in very close combat. In my experience with the two-hander sword, its good for keeping distance from the opponent, but if they get in close, you need a secondary weapon. Which is where the [ Scottish ] sgian-dubh, pronounced ski-en-doob, the short dagger knife stuck down your sock comes in. Or you have a short sword similar to the Roma Gladius type design stuck in your belt as well.
A Good swordsman does not rely on just one weapon. Also a thrown weapon is now thrown, you can only throw it once, and then, if you miss, they can throw it back.
I suggest the advice be bogus, and the result of testing be "Busted good and proper" and can someone now put the sword back together please?..
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Mar 16, 2017 16:40:26 GMT
It depends on the way the sword was made, which in Europe tended to have the tang actually be the hilt by wrapping leather or fabric around it. This differs from the Katana where a 'sleeve' goes around the tang, which also holds the handguard in place.
In European blades the pommel was there for balance, so removing it would affect the balance but not cause the weapon to fall apart. This would make it hard to swing, but if this was a larger sword that could be used with one hand on the blade that might not be a major issue.
The practicality of such a technique would very much depend on the nature of duels. With what we view as duels, basically fencing, its clearly not something you could or would want to try. But for the 1400's, and given that the technique probably dates to earlier than that, it is likely that duels might be between armoured knights. In that case this technique might be valid given the nature of the swords being used and how they were intended to be used; Slicing armour with a sword is a great way to mess up said sword, so you'd thrust.
Also note; If you look at swordfighting styles and techniques a common rule for all of the older techniques is 'Only use your sword to block a blow if you can't move out of the way. If you have to use your blade to parry use it to slap/direct your opponents blade to the side using the flat of your blade against the flat of theirs'. Because of this if you were fighting someone in armour the balance of the blade for swinging would be less important.
'Hollywood' style swordfights where they hit each others blades is not historically accurate. Something I picked up on at an early age when playing at sword fighting and why no one else wanted to face me; I always knew that the best way to win a sword fight was to aim at the person holding the sword, not the sword itself. So while the other kids were wildly swinging their 'swords' around I stepped aside and tapped them in the stomach, and occasionally caught them on the knuckles.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 17, 2017 1:32:49 GMT
It depends on the way the sword was made, which in Europe tended to have the tang actually be the hilt by wrapping leather or fabric around it. This differs from the Katana where a 'sleeve' goes around the tang, which also holds the handguard in place. In European blades the pommel was there for balance, so removing it would affect the balance but not cause the weapon to fall apart. This would make it hard to swing, but if this was a larger sword that could be used with one hand on the blade that might not be a major issue. The practicality of such a technique would very much depend on the nature of duels. With what we view as duels, basically fencing, its clearly not something you could or would want to try. But for the 1400's, and given that the technique probably dates to earlier than that, it is likely that duels might be between armoured knights. In that case this technique might be valid given the nature of the swords being used and how they were intended to be used; Slicing armour with a sword is a great way to mess up said sword, so you'd thrust. Also note; If you look at swordfighting styles and techniques a common rule for all of the older techniques is 'Only use your sword to block a blow if you can't move out of the way. If you have to use your blade to parry use it to slap/direct your opponents blade to the side using the flat of your blade against the flat of theirs'. Because of this if you were fighting someone in armour the balance of the blade for swinging would be less important. 'Hollywood' style swordfights where they hit each others blades is not historically accurate. Something I picked up on at an early age when playing at sword fighting and why no one else wanted to face me; I always knew that the best way to win a sword fight was to aim at the person holding the sword, not the sword itself. So while the other kids were wildly swinging their 'swords' around I stepped aside and tapped them in the stomach, and occasionally caught them on the knuckles. it's the hardest thing to train out of a person when you are teaching them to fight competitively. there are times when striking a weapon or shield is a strategic move, otherwise, it is just doing your opponent's job for him.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 17, 2017 7:05:59 GMT
Also note; If you look at swordfighting styles and techniques a common rule for all of the older techniques is 'Only use your sword to block a blow if you can't move out of the way. If you have to use your blade to parry use it to slap/direct your opponents blade to the side using the flat of your blade against the flat of theirs'. Because of this if you were fighting someone in armour the balance of the blade for swinging would be less important. Can I add an additional note to that?.. Always always use the flat of your weapon to slap the other weapon out of the way, edge-to-edge is only going to leave divots in your blade down the sharp edge which makes it then less effective at slicing. Even with the hardest steel, when a hard object hits another hard object, its liable to damage, why risk that?.. use the flexibility of the swords length to absorb the blow like the big leaf spring it is, and then direct it away from you. So how are we doing with this one?.. are we saying that the techniques are at least dodgy to say the least?.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 17, 2017 13:57:37 GMT
Also note; If you look at swordfighting styles and techniques a common rule for all of the older techniques is 'Only use your sword to block a blow if you can't move out of the way. If you have to use your blade to parry use it to slap/direct your opponents blade to the side using the flat of your blade against the flat of theirs'. Because of this if you were fighting someone in armour the balance of the blade for swinging would be less important. Can I add an additional note to that?.. Always always use the flat of your weapon to slap the other weapon out of the way, edge-to-edge is only going to leave divots in your blade down the sharp edge which makes it then less effective at slicing. Even with the hardest steel, when a hard object hits another hard object, its liable to damage, why risk that?.. use the flexibility of the swords length to absorb the blow like the big leaf spring it is, and then direct it away from you. So how are we doing with this one?.. are we saying that the techniques are at least dodgy to say the least?. I was going to say something along the lines of it being a fictional work by someone who had never actually USED a sword. sure, throwing something at your opponent will distract him. but disassembling your weapon to do so will distract YOU fist.
|
|