It's still a hard thing to get a handle on though. The test cutting medium alone isn't the only factor. The force of the swing being consistent would also have to be addressed. Then there's the sharpening job. Every single sword tested would have to have a consistent sharpening job or you could end up with two swords that are the same model but would peform differently. The also the variation from sword to sword. I've seen man swords that were the "same" model but had variation. Then there's the fact that a sword may be an excellent sword of its type without being a good cutter - the type itself isn't supposed to be a cutter and so on and so forth...

This is one of those issues that the modern mindset really has to overcome. We want everything minutely quantifiable and put into a tightly controlled set of parameters. This can't be done with the sword.

There is simply no reason why an absolute testing criteria is neccessary, it isn't even possible. I repeat, it isn't possible. A sword is a hand made object. Every functional sword has a certain amount of handwork involved. Consequently there will be a certain amount of variance, even in swords of the same type and make. This fact alone is enough to invalidate any kind of imperical testing procedure that is controlled down to the pounds per square inch and centimeters of movement. The kind of mindset that insists on this type of testing criteria will itself invalidate any purposed criteria based on these very facts.

Embrace the sword for what it is: a hand made object from another time that still fascinates us even after several thousand years.

Tend to agree, there's just to many variables and your test set will never be big enough.

Mechanical testing would probably do nothing more than provide fuel for useless debate. Although the data could be used to help describe a sword to someone who did not have an example available to handle in person, there would always be somebody who claimed that the test data established that one sword is demonstrably 'superior' to another, when no such inference could be drawn from the tests rationally. The subjective question that started the thread is a much better way of describing what we all really want to know.

Even if we could strip away all of the mystery and romance, and even if modern swordmakers could turn out physically indistinguishable mass production runs of a sword prototype, the fact would remain that a sword is a tool to be wielded by a swordsman. It is the combination of the sword and its user, not the character of the sword alone, that determines how well the tool performs. The point and edge of any one sword will move differently and strike differently when wielded by two persons of different arm length, for example. None of us is a mechanical testing apparatus, and any testing rig that approximated my own arm and swing would not reproduce someone else's individual arm and swing. Ultimately there is no substitute for handling the sword yourself, unless you are interested in the sword solely as a decoration.

One thing we know for sure about the original sword of Henry V. In the hands of its owner, it performed exceptionally well, and suited his personal style. He could have used any one of hundreds of other swords, and he chose this one. The same sword might prove nearly useless in the hands of a person six inches taller than he was, with arms five inches longer than Henry's, using techniques that were not employed by Henry.

Could not agree more guys. The process of understanding swords fully does involve a certain amount of usage but it is to train the user not the sword. If the sword is made in the historical parameters of the originals or as a demonstration of what going outside the normal envelope of those perimeters are, it is an example of what was used in period or probably what someone in period tried at least once, though I think a good argument can be made for at least several times over the period of the swords use in western culture.

There is one function that test cutting truly does test, that is the ability of the user with that particular sword. After many years studying these things and thinking a lot about how a sword works and why they were made the way the were, I am always a bit startled in my modern mind to come back to the same realization over and over, the sword in hand is only as good as the hand.

As with so many aspects of our lives we want the best things for ourselves (this is what our consumer economy is based on) but when it comes down to the function of a sword in its historical context the ability of the user was the most important function. The martial talents of the knight had far more to do with his survivability than the exact edge grind on his sword. This simple truth is one of those kind of unspoken aspects to many discussions about whats best wether it be swords, fire arms, cars, boats, basically any tool. The hand on the grip is the biggest factor in its successful use.

Maybe we should have user testing as opposed to product testing :)

Anyway did not mean to get to philosophical on this but I think it is crucial to truly understanding swords and their use through out history. There is no best or exactly right sword in any given scenario. As in a good temper of a blade it is a balance between many factors and the best is a compromise among those for any given user.

Have a good day everybody
Craig

:D Now there's an idea, we need to measure arm strength, reach, speed, precision...