Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Review: Albion Armorers Next Generation SempachProduct Review Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2 
Author Message
Shane Smith




Location: Virginia Beach
Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 49

PostPosted: Sat 21 Jan, 2006 6:03 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Wolfgang Armbruster wrote:
IIRC there are larger type XVII swords, for example this one, http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=2670

Can we assume that blades were often "tailored" to the size and preferences of the customer? I can imagine that this happened quite often (given that the sword was not part of a bunch of massproduced swords for a campaign).
"Ok, I'm taller than my buddies can you make me a larger version of that sword, maybe with such a crossguard blabla"



That's a gorgeous sword Wolfgang! I'd buy one!!!

As for your second point, in George Silvers work, he gives explicit instruction for determining "your" swords perfect length based on your stature. I think you have a valid point and one that I tend to agree with in general.

Shane Smith
ARMA~ Virginia Beach
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Shane Smith




Location: Virginia Beach
Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 49

PostPosted: Sat 21 Jan, 2006 6:18 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Craig Peters wrote:
Shane Smith wrote:
My fiance owns a sempach. It is a very good handler and the lines are visually very striking. I like the sword very much but would favor more blade length in most all Albion models(39"ish would be nice). The Sempach is a fine sword in my opinion as a practitioner. I think it more useful in the Italian tradition myself. I like more mass out front for setting aside cuts in the Ringeck/German tradition. Idea


Shane,

I agree that it would be nice to see a few more of the "longer" swords. There seems to be quite a few long swords in Albion's line up that are towards the shorter end of long swords, and a few more of the longer ones would be nice.


I do agree though that a great sword would be better for things like the meisterhau. And indeed, they appear to be one of the most important aspect of Liechtenauer's tradition, which should be taken into account. However, overall it seems to me that a sword with a narrower, thrust oriented blade has more attributes suited to the Liechtenauer tradition. Certainly though, there are German fechtbucher that feature great swords; Goliath immediately comes to mind.


Hi Craig,

I have handled several period German longswords that seem a bit more nose-heavy than one would perhaps initially expect. Most are 15th Century weapons which puts them squarely in the time-frame in which many of our popular German manuals were written.The Codex Wallerstein in particular seems to show blades of more substantial width and mass to my eye(granted the small sample of swords I have personally handled is not necessarily representaive of anything in particular save that some german swords were certainly much more massive in blade than the sempach). I think the images in the German manuals "generally"(a dangerous work I know) suggest heavier blades. Fiore on the other hand clearly shows a slender sharp and pointy in his manual that readily suggest the lines of the sempach to me. When I think German swords, i think one such as the original in the Oakeshotte Collection seen here in my hands;

http://www.thearma.org/spotlight/ars2005/ARS-017.jpg

They don't twitch the fastest but they sure will set aside another blade as it clears a line to strike in my experience compared to swords with less mass out front. Others may disagree and I have no problem with that.

Shane Smith
ARMA~ Virginia Beach
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Gary Grzybek




Location: Stillwater N.J.
Joined: 25 Aug 2003

Posts: 559

PostPosted: Sat 21 Jan, 2006 6:34 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Shane Smith wrote:
MY desire for longer bladed swords is not ahistorical by any means although the context in which my statement was made is not as I intended. I like long blades in particular and have personally handled many original period longbladed warswords. I would love for Albion to choose one of those to replicate along with the short and stubbies(comparatively) that they currently make as a rule. Our ancestors defintiely saw the use of long-bladed longswords along with the shorter blades you mention.Then as now, men were individuals with differing needs.Make more sense now? Cool Such a sword is VERY historically consistant for one that is seeking to reconstruct German greatsword techniques as seen in many period texts. Glasgow Museums has two very nice swords of the type I am wanting Albion so desperately to turn out(hint, hint Wink )



Hi Shane!

You mentioned "short stubbies" as the majority of the Albion line up. I'm not so sure about that. Models like the Viceroy, Baron, Munich, and Talhoffer run anywhere between 46" and 50" If you haven't noticed there's a few two handers in the works too. I'm sure they'll meet your desired specs Big Grin I prefer larger swords too but I suppose it really depends on blade type. Variety is also nice so I will eventually get one of those short bastards too Big Grin

Gary Grzybek
ARMA Northern N.J.
www.armastudy.org
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Wolfgang Armbruster





Joined: 03 Apr 2005

Posts: 322

PostPosted: Sat 21 Jan, 2006 6:40 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
http://www.thearma.org/spotlight/ars2005/ARS-017.jpg

That's the famous XVIII from Castle Erbach, isn't it? That sword is surprisingly broad at the point for a XVIII with little taper which makes it a very good chopper. Definately a war-sword, if you ask me.
However, there are surely swords from that time that were more pointy and and not as beefy as the Erbach sword. The later manuals from the 15th century seem to emphasize thrusting in many cases. I can't remember how many times I've read things like "....and thrust him through the face".


@ Peter Johnsson: That's interesting. I knew that swords were made by a group of specialists but I didn't know that the whole production process was already that "industrialized", if you can use such a word for that time.
Thx a lot for this interesting insight.
View user's profile Send private message
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

Location: Northern VA,USA
Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Reading list: 43 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 4,194

PostPosted: Sat 21 Jan, 2006 10:16 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Shane Smith wrote:
"generally"(a dangerous work I know) ...


Heh, that made me laugh, because I know exactly where you're coming from in that respect. Laughing Out Loud

I've handled a few antique longswords, though only two were specifically from the Germanic areas. One was incredibly light and nimble. The other was the original antique that A&A based their Schloss Erbach on (is that the same one in your picture? I guess that sword gets around!). The first was light wieght and worked beautifully in the Liechtenauer style. The second had a very far out balance point, and if you handed it to a person who doesn't know anything about swords it would probably confirm in their mind the myths of medieval weapons being awkward and heavy. That isn't because the Schloss Erbach acutally is that way, but more because it was designed with different criteria in mind than what the layperson might expect. Based on my small sampling, and the words of those who've handled several, I tend to believe that there must have been a tremendous variety in German swords, just as in all of Europe.

Heck, some German longswords don't really work so well with specific teachings of Liechtenauer: Complex hilted longswords with thumb-rings get in the way of placing the thumb on the flat of the blade, yet those were certainly used and popular in Germany. What does this say? Maybe that Liechtenauer's teachings are malleable to different swords. Maybe that we moderns put too much emphasis on Liechtenauer being *THE* German master instead of being one of many. Maybe it means nothing at all. Who knows?

I also don't think we can really tell from the manuscript pictures if the swords were heavier or lighter, or how they balanced at all. Not only are the images difficult to interpret in that regard, but sometimes the swords seem to be practice longsword "foils", other times they seem to be type XVas, sometimes they seem more like XVIIIs, and so on. But as usual, until someone invents that time machine, we'll never know. Happy

Regardless, I personally still think the Sempach works beautifully for the Liechtenauer school. (bringing things back on topic! Big Grin )

HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand


"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Shane Smith




Location: Virginia Beach
Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 49

PostPosted: Sat 21 Jan, 2006 12:55 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

That one is the Schloss Erbach sword indeed. I have also handled several originals of probable German origin of greater length but similar balance in Scotland at the Glasgow Museum's Burrell Collection(a must see if you're anywhere within reasonable train or plane distance in my honest opinion). The swords in Glasgow had blades that were 40" minimum as I recall.They balanced about 6 inches or a bit more forward of the cross I believe. In spite of the mass, they had nice tapered blade profiles sloping to a slender thrusting point. They were true greatswords by my definition, but then, when you're 6'3" tall, 39+ inches of blade is little hindrance. I guess it's all relative and subjective. I'm going to fess up and simply admit to having a fascination with steel both keen and in large quantity Laughing Out Loud
Shane Smith
ARMA~ Virginia Beach
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Shane Smith




Location: Virginia Beach
Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 49

PostPosted: Sat 21 Jan, 2006 1:15 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Gary Grzybek wrote:
Shane Smith wrote:
MY desire for longer bladed swords is not ahistorical by any means although the context in which my statement was made is not as I intended. I like long blades in particular and have personally handled many original period longbladed warswords. I would love for Albion to choose one of those to replicate along with the short and stubbies(comparatively) that they currently make as a rule. Our ancestors defintiely saw the use of long-bladed longswords along with the shorter blades you mention.Then as now, men were individuals with differing needs.Make more sense now? Cool Such a sword is VERY historically consistant for one that is seeking to reconstruct German greatsword techniques as seen in many period texts. Glasgow Museums has two very nice swords of the type I am wanting Albion so desperately to turn out(hint, hint Wink )



Hi Shane!

You mentioned "short stubbies" as the majority of the Albion line up. I'm not so sure about that. Models like the Viceroy, Baron, Munich, and Talhoffer run anywhere between 46" and 50" If you haven't noticed there's a few two handers in the works too. I'm sure they'll meet your desired specs Big Grin I prefer larger swords too but I suppose it really depends on blade type. Variety is also nice so I will eventually get one of those short bastards too Big Grin


Hello Gary,

I have not handled the Viceroy, Munich or Talhoffer so I am not qualified to have an opinion there. I have handled and test cut with a Baron (we own alot of Albions here in the VAB region...I personally have a Crecy I'm pretty fond of). The Baron had a 37"-ish blade as I recall. It's similar in feel to my old 39" Deltin 5143 that I tested side by side with the Baron and my 36" Crecy that day. To me , the 37" blade still isn't a true long bladed sword although I do think that the Baron is much more a Great Sword than the Crecy. The Crecy certainly is a "great" sword in my honest opinion(that's why I bought one and kept it!) but it isn't a true "Great Sword" by my definition...but then, who's to say where the dividing line is anyway...my definition really has no real tangible meaning to anyone but me anyhow. To my mind, the Baron is a fine and manly blade ,but it doesn't offer enough over the Crecy I already own to make the switch. Why do we as individuals have to be so darn...different . If/when Albion adds a big sword to their lineup of beautiful weapons, I'm buying. I'll check into the two handers you mentioned Cool

Shane Smith
ARMA~ Virginia Beach
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Geoff Wood




Location: UK
Joined: 31 Aug 2003

Posts: 634

PostPosted: Sat 21 Jan, 2006 4:07 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Chad Arnow wrote:

In the case of the Sempach, its 33.6 inch blade seems to be fairly average for the design. The four listed in Records of the Medieval Swords have blade lengths (in inches) of: 36, 30, 31 1/2, 33. .


33.6 inch?? Sounds precise. Albion and reviews on here suggest 36 inch. Is this one very variable?
Geoff
View user's profile Send private message
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

PostPosted: Sat 21 Jan, 2006 5:43 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Geoff Wood wrote:
33.6 inch?? Sounds precise. Albion and reviews on here suggest 36 inch. Is this one very variable?
Geoff


D'oh! That's a typo. It's actually right about 36 inches.

Happy

ChadA

http://chadarnow.com/
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Gary Grzybek




Location: Stillwater N.J.
Joined: 25 Aug 2003

Posts: 559

PostPosted: Sun 22 Jan, 2006 7:52 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Shane Smith wrote:
Gary Grzybek wrote:
Shane Smith wrote:
MY desire for longer bladed swords is not ahistorical by any means although the context in which my statement was made is not as I intended. I like long blades in particular and have personally handled many original period longbladed warswords. I would love for Albion to choose one of those to replicate along with the short and stubbies(comparatively) that they currently make as a rule. Our ancestors defintiely saw the use of long-bladed longswords along with the shorter blades you mention.Then as now, men were individuals with differing needs.Make more sense now? Cool Such a sword is VERY historically consistant for one that is seeking to reconstruct German greatsword techniques as seen in many period texts. Glasgow Museums has two very nice swords of the type I am wanting Albion so desperately to turn out(hint, hint Wink )



Hi Shane!

You mentioned "short stubbies" as the majority of the Albion line up. I'm not so sure about that. Models like the Viceroy, Baron, Munich, and Talhoffer run anywhere between 46" and 50" If you haven't noticed there's a few two handers in the works too. I'm sure they'll meet your desired specs Big Grin I prefer larger swords too but I suppose it really depends on blade type. Variety is also nice so I will eventually get one of those short bastards too Big Grin


Hello Gary,

I have not handled the Viceroy, Munich or Talhoffer so I am not qualified to have an opinion there. I have handled and test cut with a Baron (we own alot of Albions here in the VAB region...I personally have a Crecy I'm pretty fond of). The Baron had a 37"-ish blade as I recall. It's similar in feel to my old 39" Deltin 5143 that I tested side by side with the Baron and my 36" Crecy that day. To me , the 37" blade still isn't a true long bladed sword although I do think that the Baron is much more a Great Sword than the Crecy. The Crecy certainly is a "great" sword in my honest opinion(that's why I bought one and kept it!) but it isn't a true "Great Sword" by my definition...but then, who's to say where the dividing line is anyway...my definition really has no real tangible meaning to anyone but me anyhow. To my mind, the Baron is a fine and manly blade ,but it doesn't offer enough over the Crecy I already own to make the switch. Why do we as individuals have to be so darn...different . If/when Albion adds a big sword to their lineup of beautiful weapons, I'm buying. I'll check into the two handers you mentioned Cool



I think most of it comes down to personal preference. I can accomplish the same thing with a sword that's 46" overall or a sword that's 50" overall of simalar type. The real difference is the range. Durring waster practice I can often outreach others with my Greatsword. Unfortunately I don't have the resources to experiment with different steel in this way. No argument that length can have an advantage in a given situation. I've handled the Crecy and it's a definate compromise between a lighter bastard sword and a true warsword. I bet those two handers are a long way off but it will be worth the wait.

Gary Grzybek
ARMA Northern N.J.
www.armastudy.org
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Craig Peters




PostPosted: Sun 22 Jan, 2006 1:21 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Shane Smith wrote:


I think the images in the German manuals "generally"(a dangerous work I know) suggest heavier blades. Fiore on the other hand clearly shows a slender sharp and pointy in his manual that readily suggest the lines of the sempach to me. When I think German swords, i think one such as the original in the Oakeshotte Collection seen here in my hands;

http://www.thearma.org/spotlight/ars2005/ARS-017.jpg

They don't twitch the fastest but they sure will set aside another blade as it clears a line to strike in my experience compared to swords with less mass out front. Others may disagree and I have no problem with that.


Shane,

Taking for granted the obvious issues with relying on the manuscript illustrations, such as inconsistencies (compare the swords in Talhoffer's 1467 manual plate 1 with those in plate 4), and the fact that the artists may not have used swords themselves, I'm not sure I'd entirely agree with your assertion on heavier blades. I guess it depends upon how you define "heavy blades". A substantial number of swords in the German manuscripts are broad at the base but taper to an accute point, rather like Albion's XVa swords or the XVIs. Keep in mind that the only sword I have to work with is my Squire Line Bastard, but based upon how it feels and handles, I don't think I'd call it a "heavier blade". I could be wrong about this, and if you, Peter or anyone else knows of a historical XVa that's significantly heavier, let me know. But I don't think there's any XVa or XVI swords that are "heavy" like the one you're holding.

There's actually more German manuscripts that feature, to my eye, narrow blades like the Sempach than you might expect for Blossfechten. Das Solothurner Fechtbuch is one manuscript that comes to mind. And I recall that Jakob Sutor's fechtbuch seems to feature swords with narrower blades too. Obviously, when we encounter sections dealing with harnishfechten, there are lots of narrow thrust oriented swords. So I think there might be more there than you initially suspect. Certainly, there were more than I had remembered seeing.

Aside from the federschwert, (which sometimes are depicted with wider blades), the only indication that I could find of heavier blades of the sort you're referring to was in Goliath and Der Altern Fechter. I believe that one of the illustrations in an earlier Talhoffer manuscript also depicted a longer sword with a wider blade. However, that's just my perspective on things; if you think there's other manuscripts with heavier blades that I've neglected, by all means let me know.
View user's profile Send private message
Shane Smith




Location: Virginia Beach
Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 49

PostPosted: Sun 22 Jan, 2006 2:15 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hi Craig,

We're doomed to disagree on this one as how swords appear in period manuals is perhaps more subjective that I thought. To me, the swords in Codex Wallerstein for the most part are consistant with the proportions of width I've seen in period originals such as is seen here http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/CodexWallerstein/19.jpg . They simply appear wider than the Sempach beyond dispute to me.

Goliath, probable Austrian Fechtbuch;


Talhoffer 1467 does show wider blades as well.

Albrecht Duerer 1520 shows wider blades to my eye.

In the German tradition, I see mainly wider, unfullered blades and feder swords as a fairly fast rule in the sources I am familiar with yet when I look to Fiore, I see a very Sempach-ish profile (although still no fuller as with the Sempach);




Illustrations from period aren't the best source of literal data for certain, yet when a pattern seems to occur consistantly, I am slow to discount the coincidence, especially when my experience tells me that such wider weapons are very servicable for the techniques those manuals depict(more subjectivity). I'm not saying the Germans were depicting XIIIa's in their leaves, but I just don't see many slender XVII's, I see more evidence of an XVIIIb profile than a XVII ...Again all subjective.

Shane Smith
ARMA~ Virginia Beach
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Craig Peters




PostPosted: Sun 22 Jan, 2006 2:44 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Shane Smith wrote:
Hi Craig,

We're doomed to disagree on this one as how swords appear in period manuals is perhaps more subjective that I thought. To me, the swords in Codex Wallerstein for the most part are consistant with the proportions of width I've seen in period originals such as is seen here http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/CodexWallerstein/19.jpg . They simply appear wider than the Sempach beyond dispute to me.

Goliath, probable Austrian Fechtbuch;


Talhoffer 1467 does show wider blades as well.

Albrecht Duerer 1520 shows wider blades to my eye.

In the German tradition, I see mainly wider, unfullered blades and feder swords as a fairly fast rule in the sources I am familiar with yet when I look to Fiore, I see a very Sempach-ish profile (although still no fuller as with the Sempach);




Illustrations from period aren't the best source of literal data for certain, yet when a pattern seems to occur consistantly, I am slow to discount the coincidence, especially when my experience tells me that such wider weapons are very servicable for the techniques those manuals depict(more subjectivity). I'm not saying the Germans were depicting XIIIa's in their leaves, but I just don't see many slender XVII's, I see more evidence of an XVIIIb profile than a XVII ...Again all subjective.


Shane,

We're probably not as far off as you think. Perhaps I was not clear enough with my last post. I agree that generally speaking, there aren't that many blades like the Sempach in the German manuscripts (though there were more than one might expect). My point, however, was that the swords in Talhoffer and Codex Wallerstein seem to be in-between the Sempach and the sword you're holding in the photo, at least to my eye. Because my admittedly very limited experience with blades of this sort seems to indicate that they're relatively light and agile (based upon my Squire line bastard) I wasn't sure if I'd entirely agree with you on the assertion that Germans preferred heavier blades. To me, heavier blades would indicate swords like the Baron or Duke, for instance. This is why I don't know that I'd agree about your initial assertion that German manuals generally featured "heavier blades" because to me, the swords from Wallerstein or parts of Talhoffer from 1467 are wider but not what I'd consider to be "heavier" relatively speaking.

Basically, there's three rough types of blade to my eye in German manuals- narrow thrusting blades like the one from Fiore which are found infrequently in the German manuscripts; (generally) shorter, broad blades that often taper to an accute point but aren't particularly heavy, such as in Codex Wallerstein; and a few instances of swords with what appear to be heavier blades, such as Goliath.

Is that clearer at all? Are we still in disagreement over some things?
View user's profile Send private message
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

Location: Northern VA,USA
Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Reading list: 43 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 4,194

PostPosted: Sun 22 Jan, 2006 3:30 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hi Shane,
The blades in Goliath are practice blades. Check out the flared ricasso and the round tip.

Now check out these images from Talhoffer. They are all what I would consider Oakeshott type XVa blades. At the same time, Talhoffer depicts wider bladed swords, and practice blunts like those seen in Goliath. If we were to draw any conclusions from the manuscripts, it would be that the style works well with many types of swords.

If you look at the pictures, you'll see that they aren't exceptionally large either, though judging proportions in medieval artwork is always a gamble. I think the idea of Germans preferring larger, heavier weapons is really more of us moderns drawing conclusions with insufficient data. There are plenty of the larger, heavier swords that originated from Italy too.



 Attachment: 8.24 KB
tafel_10.gif


 Attachment: 26.52 KB
tafel_23.gif


 Attachment: 93.11 KB
[ Download ]

 Attachment: 96.1 KB
[ Download ]

HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand


"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Shane Smith




Location: Virginia Beach
Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 49

PostPosted: Mon 23 Jan, 2006 2:32 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hi Bill!

I think the pictures you provide may well look slimmer of blade because the blades in all but one of the mens hands is shown obliquely making them appear thinner in profile. The one image of the sword most square-on(bottom right) still looks more like an XVIIIb or even XVIIIc to me(I'm leaning more toward the latter on further consideration).

Also, I can't recall having seen many(if any) fullered blades in Talhoffer, Codex Wallerstein, etc.. If there are few or no fullered blades to be seen, yet no shortage of risered blades, it is thus reasonable to conclude that the men in the fechtbucher aren't using fullered blades after the Sempach pattern. If they aren't using a fullered blade after the sempach pattern, we can then try to find out what they are using. Your idea of the XVa seems VERY reasonable based on the guidelines here; http://www.oakeshott.org/Typo.html , yet the XVa is a risered blade, not a fullered one as I understand it...Once again, that speaks further against the Sempach pattern as the culprit (I know that wasn't your point, I'm just trying to cover all the bases from previous posts above) Cool

I'm also not saying that the Germans necessarily preferred heavy swords as a rule. I am saying that swords with a bit more forward weight work well in the German tradition as I understand it and that the swords in the manuals and the originals I have seen look/are wider of blade than the Sempach and that the sempach looks very much like the blades we see in Fiore. I'm also saying that the German greatsword stuff shows blades of a length that I estimate at 39 inches or more and that I want want one Laughing Out Loud

I am also saying that I am a fairly large guy and that I like fairly large blades as they work well for me in my own hands when performing German swordsmanship techniques. I'm also not saying that a competent Swordsman can't use a Sempach for German techniques, I'm simply saying that I find it less than optimum in my own hands. Idea

Shane Smith
ARMA~ Virginia Beach
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

Location: Northern VA,USA
Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Reading list: 43 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 4,194

PostPosted: Mon 23 Jan, 2006 8:47 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Shane Smith wrote:
I think the pictures you provide may well look slimmer of blade because the blades in all but one of the mens hands is shown obliquely making them appear thinner in profile. The one image of the sword most square-on(bottom right) still looks more like an XVIIIb or even XVIIIc to me(I'm leaning more toward the latter on further consideration).


Perhaps, and I certainly won't argue that they might be some form of XVIII. It's all very hard to tell, unfortunately.

Quote:
Also, I can't recall having seen many(if any) fullered blades in Talhoffer, Codex Wallerstein, etc..


I agree, but I also have never seen any fullers in Fiore or Vadi, either. Happy

Quote:
I'm also saying that the German greatsword stuff shows blades of a length that I estimate at 39 inches or more and that I want want one Laughing Out Loud


Amen to that! Laughing Out Loud

Quote:
I am also saying that I am a fairly large guy and that I like fairly large blades as they work well for me in my own hands when performing German swordsmanship techniques. I'm also not saying that a competent Swordsman can't use a Sempach for German techniques, I'm simply saying that I find it less than optimum in my own hands. Idea


I think that's quite fair. I like a little bit of forward presence myself, although not too much. Some of my students love a lot of blade presence, some of them like very little, and I'm pretty much in the middle. It's nice to know we've got lots of options on the market these days. Cool

HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand


"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Peter Johnsson
Industry Professional



Location: Storvreta, Sweden
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 3
Posts: 1,757

PostPosted: Mon 23 Jan, 2006 10:18 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

All the fechtbuchs shown in this thread are later than the period of the Sempach. The Sempach and Landgraf are contemporary to Liechtenauer however. I would guess he was well aquaintaned with this type as it is very popular duirng his time. In Fiore´s and Talhofer´s times other swords had gained higher popularity. One should not look at these later manuals for validation of use for the Sempach or Talhoffer.
The XVII type is most prominent in the second half of the 14th C and the first few decades of the 15th C.

That you see few fullered blades in the manuals is no mystery either: in the later half of the 15h C and the beginnng of the 16th C there were many blades made without fullers, expecially those swords intended for thrusting as a priority. In the Talhoffer you can see the occasional short fuller on the longswords, but not as a standard (those swords remind quite a bit of type XVIa´s).
You see mostly thrust oriented swords with some cutting performance in the manuals: mostly just like XVa´s and pointy XVIIIa´s. The 16th C Goliath is an exception of course, as one would expect from it´s period, when cutting blades of little profile taper were very popular.

To my eye, we see mostly type XVa and some XVIIIa swords employed in the 15th C manuals. As to length, each swordman *would* have his personal preferences (mostly based on stature). I think it is quite impossible to determine from manuals the actual length of the blades used down to the last few inches. Proportions in the manuals were not really constant anyway. You can´t rely on that as guide.
Instead it is better to look at preserved originals for guidance as to size, weigh and blade shape.
How XVa´s and XVIIIa´s look can best be found out by looking at those swords that are preserved. They tell us a lot.
If those swords do not correspond to personal preference, that is a case of personal tastes. You cannot argue with that. It all depeds on what you want to achieve and strive for.
There is also variation in the material.
The XVII family however, the original theme for this thread, are usually not that long. most are true bastard swords. Some are really just long-gripped singelhanders and a small number are of true two hand size. The blade of the Sempach is on the longer side of the typical size (as far as I can tell from what I´ve personally seen).
We can see in contemporary art (late 14th C and early 15thC) that the type XVII was used by fully armored men at arms for fighting from horseback and foot.
Liechtenauer never made an illustrated manual, so we cannot know the sword style he preffered.
We do know that halfswording was used in the techniques, Liechtenauer developed his techniques in a period when the type XVIII sword were prominent and popular. Halfswording works well with type XVII swords. It is not far fetched to think that Liechtenauer would study/develop techniques that are well suited for the most popular sword types of his time (=type XVa and XVII). Broad cutting swords did of course exist in the late 14th C but it really seems that the narrow, thick types were predominant at this time. The type XVIII had hardly begun its journey to excellence by the end of the 14th C.
Just some observations. I am sure many will find exceptions and variations to this. That is in the nature of all this.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Review: Albion Armorers Next Generation SempachProduct Review
Page 2 of 2 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2 All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
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






All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum