Posts: 702 Location: Whitestone, NY
Fri 18 Jul, 2014 7:54 pm
Re: gotta agree with Nick
| Lance Morris wrote: |
Hey Guys.
Albion makes great swords and they look sexy.
However I have to agree with Nick. I don't believe they are made for the trails of battle like other swords.
I've used custom tinkers. Atrims and Albions to death.
The albions break and or bend much sooner.
Some of the best furniture in the Industry however |
I'd be interested to know under what circumstances that happens, because your mostly alone in that. I knw plenty of HEMA people hat train regularly with Albion's both for Sparring and cutting, and I've not heard of more than a very small amount of failures under very heave use. As with any tool it will eventually fail, but bend and break more often than Tinkers and Atrims? never heard it before you.
Last edited by Mike Capanelli on Sat 19 Jul, 2014 5:14 pm; edited 1 time in total
Posts: 1,968 Location: Nipmuc USA
Sat 19 Jul, 2014 9:08 am
Re: gotta agree with Nick
| Philip Dyer wrote: |
| Mike Capanelli wrote: | | Lance Morris wrote: | Hey Guys.
Albion makes great swords and they look sexy.
However I have to agree with Nick. I don't believe they are made for the trails of battle like other swords.
I've used custom tinkers. Atrims and Albions to death.
The albions break and or bend much sooner.
Some of the best furniture in the Industry however |
I'd be interested to know under what circumstances that happens, because your mostly alone in that. I knw plenty of HEMA people hat train regularly with Albion's both for Sparring and cutting, and I've not heard of more than a very small amount of failures under very heave use. As with any tool ,it will eventually fail, nut been and break more often than Tinkers and Atrims? never heard it before you. |
I wonder what he subjects Albions to as well. Albions mainly advertised as weapons that handle and maintain very similarly to originals, they even put pictures and descriptions of finds they model their swords after. |
Not that it directly adds any content to the premise of this thread but only the Museum Line swords from Albion are based on a specific historic sword. The other models based on collective data over a broad spectrum of a given sword type.
Cheers
GC
Posts: 507
Sat 19 Jul, 2014 11:59 am
Re: gotta agree with Nick
| Glen A Cleeton wrote: |
| Philip Dyer wrote: | | Mike Capanelli wrote: | | Lance Morris wrote: | Hey Guys.
Albion makes great swords and they look sexy.
However I have to agree with Nick. I don't believe they are made for the trails of battle like other swords.
I've used custom tinkers. Atrims and Albions to death.
The albions break and or bend much sooner.
Some of the best furniture in the Industry however |
I'd be interested to know under what circumstances that happens, because your mostly alone in that. I knw plenty of HEMA people hat train regularly with Albion's both for Sparring and cutting, and I've not heard of more than a very small amount of failures under very heave use. As with any tool ,it will eventually fail, nut been and break more often than Tinkers and Atrims? never heard it before you. |
I wonder what he subjects Albions to as well. Albions mainly advertised as weapons that handle and maintain very similarly to originals, they even put pictures and descriptions of finds they model their swords after. |
Not that it directly adds any content to the premise of this thread but only the Museum Line swords from Albion are based on a specific historic sword. The other models based on collective data over a broad spectrum of a given sword type.
Cheers
GC |
Yes, hence why I said originals.Obviously the Museum line are closer to this standard, but there Next generation are modeled after excavation as well. Do you think the maintenance, care, expectations of high performance blades such as Albions, Tinker pierce line, Saint George swords, Tods stuff blades, etc, deserves it's own thread?
Posts: 702 Location: Whitestone, NY
Sat 19 Jul, 2014 5:15 pm
Re: gotta agree with Nick
| Philip Dyer wrote: |
| Glen A Cleeton wrote: | | Philip Dyer wrote: | | Mike Capanelli wrote: | | Lance Morris wrote: | Hey Guys.
Albion makes great swords and they look sexy.
However I have to agree with Nick. I don't believe they are made for the trails of battle like other swords.
I've used custom tinkers. Atrims and Albions to death.
The albions break and or bend much sooner.
Some of the best furniture in the Industry however |
I'd be interested to know under what circumstances that happens, because your mostly alone in that. I knw plenty of HEMA people hat train regularly with Albion's both for Sparring and cutting, and I've not heard of more than a very small amount of failures under very heave use. As with any tool ,it will eventually fail, nut been and break more often than Tinkers and Atrims? never heard it before you. |
I wonder what he subjects Albions to as well. Albions mainly advertised as weapons that handle and maintain very similarly to originals, they even put pictures and descriptions of finds they model their swords after. |
Not that it directly adds any content to the premise of this thread but only the Museum Line swords from Albion are based on a specific historic sword. The other models based on collective data over a broad spectrum of a given sword type.
Cheers
GC |
Yes, hence why I said originals.Obviously the Museum line are closer to this standard, but there Next generation are modeled after excavation as well. Do you think the maintenance, care, expectations of high performance blades such as Albions, Tinker pierce line, Saint George swords, Tods stuff blades, etc, deserves it's own thread? |
I was actually thinking it'd be a good idea to split this off in to another thread just for the sake of keeping this one on topic.
Posts: 1,248 Location: New Mexico
Thu 24 Jul, 2014 9:52 pm
| Randall Moffett wrote: |
| But I do not believe any armour ever made/makes the person invulnerable. If so it would have become uniform and we'd see battles would have changed forever. |
The best plate armor during roughly 1450-1600 came the closest to providing invulnerability while still being wearable. (Siege armor and jousting armor offer more protection but were too heavy and awkward to fight in for very long.) A quality suit, at least by the second quarter of the sixteenth century, keep out even the mighty couched lance. At least two sixteenth-century military authors - Fourquevaux and de la Noue - though it extremely unlikely for a heavy lance to kill a man-at-arms. Fourquevaux explicitly described the man-at-arms as proof against hand strokes. Excluding gunpowder weapons, here we get close to invulnerability. Even then the man-at-arms in a full white harness of tempered still could fall to a thrust to the face or other gap, one or more polearm blows to the head, or enough or particularly strong mace/hammer/sword blows from enemy cavalry.
I don't think mail ever managed the same level of protection at a weight suitable for the battlefield. I agree armor didn't have to protect against all possible threats for it to be worthwhile and worn. In some cases it only needed to defend against one commonly encountered threat, such as the helmets worn by otherwise unarmored sixteenth-century gunners and the sleeves of mail and other arm defenses intended to stop sword cuts worn by various lightly armored soldiers in the sixteenth century.
You
cannot post new topics in this forum
You
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