| Nathan Robinson wrote: |
|
There's nothing wrong with collecting swords that are fantasy-based, "inspired-by" something historic, made up of qualities of various swords, or any combination of those things. But to call each of these things "historical" really must be done with care if we are to be literal about the term. The fact is, one can pick and choose parts that represent a type of sword history would have brought and then accurately call it "historical". But doing so requires careful study and knowledge that keeps those people picking parts and attributes that are consistent for a specific type of sword, for a specific region, and during a specific time. Not doing so just generates another form of a fantasy sword: something that when looked in the most general sense may appear historical, but when compared to the historical record, really couldn't have existed. While these types of fantasy creations are not as "wild" as those versions with claws, cut-out blades, jewels and other elements, they are still a product of imagination (ie, "fantasy") and not something out of the historical record, despite any vague inspirtion by something authentic. |
This is an interesting topic here but I don't like the word "fantasy " applied the way you use it here. To me, a fantasy sword is one that never existed or is outside the bounds of our relaity. To say that I have a fantasy sword in the same category as a stainless steel creations ou described above, simply because I chose the parts from several different historical examples to me is hyperbole. One thing no one mentioned here is that a sword chosen from mixed historical parts could be a very good sword DEPENDING ON THE MAKER!. Now historical purists would argue that ONLY historical examples should be made . That is certainly their opinion. We know from teh historical record that there were certain sword production centers where makers had shops of grinders, forgers and cutlers. Certainly there would haev been some standardization of parts in these places. It would seem that some collectors haev the romantic notion that medieval swords were all custom made for individual clients. HIstorical facts say otherwise; some were and some were made with standard parts and blades. So to dismiss a sword design compiled from several differnt swords as "fantasy" I think is wrong here. Certainly I don't think one created this way shold be called a historical reproduction as reproduction implies the copy of something that exists. However, there must be some category ( if you must) that lies somewhere beween that and fantasy. It brings to mind a similar thread somewhere years back: what does historical reproduction mean? The same methods used? The same steels used? Take , for example, the Sture sword that Peter J studied in detail to reporduce. In the end Peter used modern steels , modern heat treating processes and modern materials for the final product. So it is a "true" historical reproduction? Some may argue no, but rather a great facsimile of an original. I guess this issue is of semantics, but the baggage the term "fantasy" carried with it kinda bothers me. Can any one tell ? ;)
Joel