| Author |
Message |
|
Geoff Wood
|
 Posted: Thu 20 Nov, 2003 9:27 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Gordon and Jason
Thanks for the responses. I don't at all doubt that hollow ground swords can cut well. I'm just nagging on about relative performance here. I hope you don't mind if I try to progress the question a little further (it's an area that has bothered me since I first saw a hollow ground dagger blade on a war heirloom). If, instead of having swords of the same weight and different thicknesses at the spine as in my question a couple of posts back, you had a swords of the same thickness at the spine but one was diamond or lens section and the other was hollow ground, and they were of the same mass and hit a soft target at the same velocity (yeah, I know, getting a bit far fetched), do you think the actual shape of the hollow ground cross section would result in a different degree of penetration from the others? What's bothering me is the rate of change of the slope that the soft medium is having to climb to get out of the way during the cut (clumsy way of putting it, but I can't think of a better one at the moment). With a diamond section it is a constant, with the lens section the slope is increasing progressively more slowly and with the hollow ground the slope is steepening the deeper the penetration of the edge.
It reminds me a bit of the hard chine versus round bilge hulls on fast boats. The former is probably best for calm waters, but the latter is superior when facing rough seas, as with deeper penetration of waves the hard chine hull experiences severe wave buffeting as the waves hit the hull sections that are more face on, whereas with the round bilge section the deeper the penetration of the waves the less resistance each new section of hull offers (or so I'm told).
Geoff
edited because I can't type accurately/spell
|
|
  |
 |
|
Harlan Hastings
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Thu 20 Nov, 2003 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm going to jump into this discussion with both feet and, likely as not, they're both going to end up in my mouth.
On a "microscopic" scale a hollow ground blade will probably create more drag in a cut than a convex or flat ground one. That difference, however, will most likely be undetectable to the user and certainly of less consequence to the recipient of the blow.
To use a very gross analogy, would I rather be hit with a car going 60 mph with a flat front or one going the same speed with a sloped front? I doubt at the moment of impact I would be able to appreciate the difference .....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Angus Trim
|
| Posted: Thu 20 Nov, 2003 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Harlan Hastings wrote: | I'm going to jump into this discussion with both feet and, likely as not, they're both going to end up in my mouth.
On a "microscopic" scale a hollow ground blade will probably create more drag in a cut than a convex or flat ground one. That difference, however, will most likely be undetectable to the user and certainly of less consequence to the recipient of the blow.
To use a very gross analogy, would I rather be hit with a car going 60 mph with a flat front or one going the same speed with a sloped front? I doubt at the moment of impact I would be able to appreciate the difference ..... |
Actually........Harlan hit it dead on.......
Assuming good main bevel geometry, and edge geometry, and harmonics, similar profile swords of similar weight {trying to get as close to apples and apples}, should cut similarly in an appropriate target. [concave main bevels, or straight main bevels}
I doubt most people would notice the difference in mats or bottles. Likely not even cardboard tubes. Meat and bone certainly wouldn't know the difference.........
Where you would notice the difference is in something like plywood. The increased drag of the thicker blade would cause it to "catch" sooner than the narrower blade. But plywood certainly isn't a good guage of how a sword would react in the target the originals were meant to actually meet..........
Auld Dawg
swords are fun
|
|
|
|
|
|
Angus Trim
|
| Posted: Thu 20 Nov, 2003 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jason said:
"A large reason (personal opinion here) for there not being more hollow-ground blades on the market is that not everyone wants to invest in multiple thicknesses of stock. The Svante is milled from 1/2" stock and the Rouen (as well as others) is milled to a 5/16" max thickness, but the starting stock is 3/8". It's a big investment for a smaller company to carry two-three stock thicknesses standard. Individual smiths have an advantage in this case of being able to order only what they need for each project, production really doesn't have that option, or else "
Actually, I can't speak for any other small shop, but I stock three sizes of 5160, from 1/4 inch to 3/8. Have some 1065 and 1084 here.... keep three different sizes of 1018 {guard stock}, and five different diameters of 1144 {pommel stock}.
I order it as I need it, and generally over order as you never know when some "hot" order will come in, or suddenly a fella is able to create some r&d time. I was able to create the time to do the first false edged back blade last week, and having the appropriate material on hand made it happen........
If you have a little space to store stock, it doesn't cost any more to stock more than a couple sizes......
If something smaller than 1/4 inch is needed, well I'm a machinist, and machining stock down from 1/4 inch to say, 3/16 is quite doable..........I believe that I now have something like 5 or six models that measure in the neighborhood of .18 thick at the base...............
For myself, the reason for not doing concave bevels, is time........... In the last few months, I've introduced new longswords, sparring sideswords, sparring rapiers, teastrainers {have more compound hilted stuff in December}, finished up a backblade {fuller and false edge}, several wide body fullered swords {Xa, XII, XIV, XVI}, double and quad fullered swords, and more..... Am now "engineering" the hilt of my first greatsword........... haven't had time to try the concave stuff again...........and probably won't for several months.......
Albion is doing a super job of this on the upper end, and I really don't see any real reason to get involved doing what Albion is already doing a great job of..........
swords are fun
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geoff Wood
|
| Posted: Thu 20 Nov, 2003 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Harlan and Gus
Thanks for the additional information. Speaking practically again, I suppose for the same thickness of spine the hollow ground would also tend to be lighter and so could be accelerated more readily for higher velocity at the start of the cut (although the lower mass would also mean less momentum to carry on in the cut, at any particular velocity).
A further question; for cuts other than at the CoP, would the relatively greater stiffness of the hollow ground blade result in less loss of energy to vibrations, leaving more to be deposited in the wound?
Geoff
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Johnsson
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Thu 20 Nov, 2003 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Geoff Wood wrote: | Harlan and Gus
Thanks for the additional information. Speaking practically again, I suppose for the same thickness of spine the hollow ground would also tend to be lighter and so could be accelerated more readily for higher velocity at the start of the cut (although the lower mass would also mean less momentum to carry on in the cut, at any particular velocity).
A further question; for cuts other than at the CoP, would the relatively greater stiffness of the hollow ground blade result in less loss of energy to vibrations, leaving more to be deposited in the wound?
Geoff |
There are numerous things that can be varied in any design, obviously. Hollowgrinding as opposed to diamond or lenticular section is one of these.
As far as cutting goes, IŽd guess that the shaping of the very sharpness of the edge and the overall distribution of mass and balance of the sword are more important factors in the performance of the weapon.
All cross sections have their strong points. There are reasons why youŽd want to use any and all of them. I wonŽt go into all that, because this post would then become a very long one... 
My take on this fascinating topic:
One benefit of hollowgrinding, apart from promoting a stark and crisp looking blade, is that it reduces mass to a bare minimum. All "dead meat" is taken away. The very edge (the last two milimeters or so) can still have the same strength and geometry as on a lenticular or diamond sectioned blade, but the sides are hollowed out which reduces weight dramatically. The raised midrib establishes a higher degree of stiffness with same amount of material as that of an equally broad blade that is thinner. Stiffer is better for cutting. The question of added friction is not a real issue as most targets that are meant to be cut by a sword are not very homogenous or dense to begin with.
Hollow ground cross section is almost always found on blades with prominent points. This section is good in combining good cutting and superior penetration performance.
Hollow grinding is good for making blades with relatively lighter points, that still are stiff and strong enough for efficient thrusting. This might be one of the hidden reasons why the extra work is a good idea: A light point helps pulling the pivot point forward! A sword with a light point area can have a pivot point that is located just behind the very point. This is good for at least two things. Frist, it helps keeping the point locked on target while "fencing". Secondly, it makes the point area of the sword becoming more efficient in cutting, as the corresponding pivot points in blade and grip are what creates shock dampening.
Finally, a light point takes little effort to accellerate; such a sword will be faster and more responsive.
...But then again, there are other ways to achieve that as welll...
IŽm sure there are other things IŽve left out...
|
|
 |
|
|
Angus Trim
|
| Posted: Thu 20 Nov, 2003 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Geoff Wood wrote: | Harlan and Gus
Thanks for the additional information. Speaking practically again, I suppose for the same thickness of spine the hollow ground would also tend to be lighter and so could be accelerated more readily for higher velocity at the start of the cut (although the lower mass would also mean less momentum to carry on in the cut, at any particular velocity).
A further question; for cuts other than at the CoP, would the relatively greater stiffness of the hollow ground blade result in less loss of energy to vibrations, leaving more to be deposited in the wound?
Geoff |
Hi Geoff
The thing is, that hollow ground blades tend to be a bit thicker from the base thru at most of the blade than a lenticular or flattened diamond crossection. This may not always be true, but from my limited experience it is, so that the different blade types just don't compare apples to apples.
So.... I'm not sure that I would go along with the thought that the hollow ground blade is necessarily stiffer than, say a hex section blade. Actually, for the same thickness, the hex section would be stiffer, and stronger.
But, then, they're not likely to be the same thickness.......
*g*
My preference..........
I prefer a hex section blade at the cop, for heavy cutting. For a given amount width, it ussually offers a smaller thickness, and more mass, thus is stiffer and stronger. And is the best for cutting some of our modern cutting media.........
Where combined cutting and thrusting is needed, I like the flattened diamond crossection..............
swords are fun
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patrick Kelly
|
| Posted: Thu 20 Nov, 2003 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Harlan,
You beat me to the punch as that was pretty much the response I was going to make 
swords are like anything else. Sooner or later you reach a point of diminishing returns. I believe that there would, of course, be a difference. However, that difference would be so negligible that it would be irrelevant to the end result.
"In valor there is hope.".................. Tacitus
|
|
 |
|
|
Charles E.
Location: Columbus, OH, USA Joined: 20 Nov 2003
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Fri 21 Nov, 2003 5:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Peter Johnsson wrote: | All cross sections have their strong points. There are reasons why youŽd want to use any and all of them. I wonŽt go into all that, because this post would then become a very long one...
... |
Mr. Johnsson,
I (and hopefully others) would love to read an article on that subject, if you ever have the time to write one.
|
|
 |
|
|
Joe Fults
|
| Posted: Fri 21 Nov, 2003 7:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Charles E. wrote: | | Peter Johnsson wrote: | All cross sections have their strong points. There are reasons why youŽd want to use any and all of them. I wonŽt go into all that, because this post would then become a very long one...
... |
Mr. Johnsson,
I (and hopefully others) would love to read an article on that subject, if you ever have the time to write one. |
I also would like to see something like this. I'm sure the information is out there and I think it would make a nice myArmoury.com article that would be very informative to many of us, regardless who writes it.
"The goal shouldnt be to avoid being evil; it should be to actively do good." - Danah Boyd
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geoff Wood
|
| Posted: Fri 21 Nov, 2003 9:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I'll third that request for such an article by one or more of you experts. I find the technicalities fascinating.
|
|
|
|
|
David McElrea
|
| Posted: Wed 26 Nov, 2003 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi,
I'm hoping someone is still reading this, although it hasn't been responded to for almost a week.
I've found everyone's comments enormously helpful-- I wonder whether I could ask for some clarification on one point, though.
Jason Dingledine wrote:
"Edge strength and durability was mentioned. It is another case of proper tool for the job. You would not use a straight-razor for woodcarving, any more than you would you use a sword designed to cut flesh and cloth only, against armor. I have seen documention (as well as swords in hand) that were designed to fillet muscle from bone, but would be useless against an armored foe."
Does this mean that the hollow ground blade may not be as suitable against armour as the other more "traditional" blades were?
Thank you for your responses,
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geoff Wood
|
| Posted: Wed 26 Nov, 2003 11:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi David
Given that plate armour could not usually be deafeated by a sword cut, the concentration (as I understand it) was on use of the point to find weak joints, gaps etc.. Thus a thrusting sword would be best and the hollow grind would give greater stiffness for thrusting for the same weight (all other things being equal, which they rarely are). This would fit with the relatively greater proportion of hollow ground swords as plate armour became better. I would also assume that the edge would be strong enough to survive (accidental?) contact with armour (whih may be more to do with what you were asking).
Just guessing.
Geoff
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Johnsson
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Thu 27 Nov, 2003 3:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| David McElrea wrote: | Hi,
I'm hoping someone is still reading this, although it hasn't been responded to for almost a week.
I've found everyone's comments enormously helpful-- I wonder whether I could ask for some clarification on one point, though.
Jason Dingledine wrote:
"Edge strength and durability was mentioned. It is another case of proper tool for the job. You would not use a straight-razor for woodcarving, any more than you would you use a sword designed to cut flesh and cloth only, against armor. I have seen documention (as well as swords in hand) that were designed to fillet muscle from bone, but would be useless against an armored foe."
Does this mean that the hollow ground blade may not be as suitable against armour as the other more "traditional" blades were?
Thank you for your responses,
David |
Good that you brought that one up.
I understand what you mean. Let me just first say that hollow ground is one of the most traditional features there is to see of the sword. It was one of the first to be put in use and we find it already during the bronze age. I guess this is for good reason.
It is not so often seen today in contemporary swords, as it poses certain problems in the manufacture. If not understood fully it will not even result in a good blade. It can result in edges that are both too thin or too blunt and a blade that is weak and wobbly. To use the hollow ground cross section it is necessary keep in mind the overall character and function of the sword.
One thing that needs to be stressed is that the geometry of the cutting edge can be varied as much on a hollowground blade as it can be varied on a blade with any other cross section.
The cutting sharpness of the edge is usually shaped with an appe seed cross section. Depending on how "fat" the apple seed is the angle and acuteness of the cutting sharpness will vary.
Different cross sections have different strong points, though. And this is what we make use of in different designs. Imagine the prerequisites of sword design, the various facts such as size, mass, mass distribution, capacity for thrusting, cutting or both, lenght, cross section, edge geometry, balance, stiffness...(I could go on), Imagine all these aspects as marks on a sliding scale. Shift one of them and the resulting function of the sword will change. Shift several and you will end up making a sword of a different type. The shifting of specific sets of prereqiuisites is what differentiates various sword types.
You see hollow ground blades mostly on swords that emphasize stiffness with a light and quick character. This is because this cross section allowes us to make blades that have an agressive edge geometry, combined with a stff midrib and a strong point.
If you want a sword that is heavier for same width, length and thickness, then diamond or hexagonal s a good choice. (Yes, blades can become too light to do what they are intended to do)
Swords with hollowground blades can also be big and massive (only they are not so heavy as they would have been without the hollowgrinding). One example of this that is very familiar to me is the sword of Svante Nilsson Sture. This has a very deep hollw grind, but still a strong and robust edge. This is not to allow it to cut thorugh armour, but to survive harsh conditions on the battle field. If the sword is indeed used to bash on someones armour it wont crumble, even if it does not cut the breast plate open. A strong hit on someones head will hurt even if the helmet is not cleft in two. This is a sword that is incredibly stiff and it cuts very well. This miht come as a surprice as it is unusually thick and has a prominent midrib. An unusual aplication of the functional aspects that make up a sword.
If you want a blade with superior resilience and stiffness, an obvious solution is to make it narrow and thick: hexagonal, diamond, square or triangular are good for this. This might have an impact on cutting performance. It does not have to be detrimental on blades with hexagonal or diamond section, but you can use these sections when extra mass and stiffness is something good.
Again, it is possible to do this with a holow ground blade as well, just make it unusually thick and sturdy.
If you want a blade that is superior in cutting/cleaving you might want to go for something that is very wide and thin, but then you sacrifice stiffness and thrusting performance in tougher targets. Wide and thin blades can be made with any of the above mentioned cross sections (except square and triangular of course). You can see wide and thin blades with hexagonal sections as well as diamond or hollow ground and lenticular. The lenticular section is very popular on wide and thin blades as it lends itself well for that. (But you can se narrow and thick blades with lenticular section as well.) See beheading swords as an illustration to this.
If a combination of thrusting and cutting is wanted, then some sort of "compromise" or combination in shapes is needed.
Diamond, lenticular, hexagonal and hollowground can all be made into good cut and thrust blades.
Size and massdistribution of the weapon will also have a big influence on the function: handling characteristics will be a factor when deciding what cross section might be best for the task in mind.
The handling characteristics are something more than merely how ince a sword is balanced. The ease of its wielding, the precisions wherby the sword can deliver attacks are equally or even more important than how deep the sword will cut in a certain test medium (as long as a blow or thrust results in damage that is lethal or incapacitating).
What cross section we choose to work with will give us a slightly varied set up of conditions. A hollow ground blade will excell in certain ways that combine both handling and perfomance.
It is not so much that one specific detail that makes or breaks a design, it is how the different aspects are put together. There is a relation and a reason for the shapes and proportions of a sword. This is the toolbox we get to work with.
The various shapes the european sword has had during the ages are excellent examples to learn from. from the earliest times these weapons have been made by craftsmen that had a deep understanding of their tools, materials and cutting edges.
To make the most of some sword types we can use a hollow ground cross section. Look at historical swors to see examples of this. Type XVII blades are often hollowground. Also XV blades are found with hollow ground section. when handling oiginals of these types it becomes clear that the cutlers and smiths that made those excellent pieces knew how to best put to use their materials, methods and concepts. It is a study in masterful application and insight.
We can debate the best reasions why or why not include a certain featue that is eveident in historical swords. By familiarizing ourseves with the various possibilities, we build a better understanding of what the medieval european sword was.
The hollow ground cross section is a feature that is fascinating in its possibilities. when used right it can lead to very rewarding results, both visually and performance wise.
|
|
|
|
|
David McElrea
|
| Posted: Thu 27 Nov, 2003 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dear Geoff and Peter,
Geoff, apologies if my question wasn't as clear as it could be-- it was late and the end of a long day.
While I didn't expect these swords to "crack plate", the article I had quoted from had left me wondering if the blade integrity of a hollow-ground sword was less reliable in an armoured conflict (versus a civilian conflict/duel for example).
I had an idea that the hollow-ground might come into its own as a thrusting sword, but found it interesting how much time was spent on discussing cutting ability (which interests me too-- so its not a criticism). How important is cutting ability when facing an enemy clothed in plate?
Peter, your posting was a seven course meal-- very helpful. I will be revisiting it quite a few times, I think. As you say, blades like that of the "Sword of Svante Nilsson Sture" are the best argument for the hardiness of these blades. The swordsmiths of medieval Europe knew their craft well.
Yours,
David McElrea
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geoff Wood
|
| Posted: Thu 27 Nov, 2003 12:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| David McElrea wrote: |
I had an idea that the hollow-ground might come into its own as a thrusting sword, but found it interesting how much time was spent on discussing cutting ability (which interests me too-- so its not a criticism). How important is cutting ability when facing an enemy clothed in plate?
|
I must share some of the blame for dragging the thread more towards spending time on discussion of cutting. However, if thrust was the only aspect of importance you'd go for an estoc. I imagine if facing an enemy clothed entirely in plate you not worry about cutting at all (and probably wouldn't use a sword if you had any choice), but if they were only partially plated or if they had lots of poorer support troops, cutting would still be very useful. As usual, Peter says it much better.
|
|
|
|
|
David McElrea
|
| Posted: Thu 27 Nov, 2003 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LOL
Don't worry Geoff-- I don't think you "dragged it down"-- your posts have been very helpful. My area of knowledge has been fairly restricted to Type 1 swords. I am just beginning to appreciate the Type 2 blades (particularly the acutely tapered and pointed blades) for what they are and how they function.
I feel a bit embarrassed with some of my questions, but if the learning curve is steep, at least there are some knowledgeable people to help smooth the way.
David
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
|
 |
|
|
Peter Johnsson
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Fri 28 Nov, 2003 1:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| David McElrea wrote: | Dear Geoff and Peter,
Geoff, apologies if my question wasn't as clear as it could be-- it was late and the end of a long day.
While I didn't expect these swords to "crack plate", the article I had quoted from had left me wondering if the blade integrity of a hollow-ground sword was less reliable in an armoured conflict (versus a civilian conflict/duel for example).
I had an idea that the hollow-ground might come into its own as a thrusting sword, but found it interesting how much time was spent on discussing cutting ability (which interests me too-- so its not a criticism). How important is cutting ability when facing an enemy clothed in plate?
Peter, your posting was a seven course meal-- very helpful. I will be revisiting it quite a few times, I think. As you say, blades like that of the "Sword of Svante Nilsson Sture" are the best argument for the hardiness of these blades. The swordsmiths of medieval Europe knew their craft well.
Yours,
David McElrea |
I agree with Nathan above: no need to apologise for your questions. They are to the point and rasies interesting matters for a discussion. Thats why we come to this place.
You are right that the hollow ground blades are generally found on swords with thrusting as a stong point. But, you will usually find that hollow ground blades have been made with cutting in mind as well.
How important is cutting ability when facing plate...well it would seem that this would not be the best way to get ot an opponent if he is covered by steel or iron plate cap à pied. In art we see knights on horseback swinging their type XVII swords full force with the intent on *cutting* or at least striking their oponents from above (These have narrow blades with hexagonal cross section and are very pointy, btw). YouŽll see thrusts as well, but it is interesting to see how often these kninghts in full armour used swords, believed by modern scholars to be thrusting swords, as cutting/striking weapons.
This is food for thought for us. We cannot hardly imagine what the situation on a medieval battlefiald was. What do you need to do to take down or stun an opponent? What is your motive in a cavalry charge? Kill you opponents or just stun and unhorse them? Others may perhaps illuminate this.
Something we need to keep in mind is that there were plenty of combatants during the era of full plate armour that did not have much in the way of plate as protection. Most that do have some sort of plate armour will probably have parts that are not so protected. Limbs could be exposed with little or no protection. Faces unprotected in open bacinets.
A sword needs to be a precisiton tool: you must be able to place a killing or incapactiating blow or thrust at an exposed or not so well protected area. And do this in an instant.
A sword that strikes an arm or a leg that is protected by mail and/or padding, might not cut through the armour but it could still crush muscle and bones. This is not saying that swords are blunt impact weapons, (swords are sharp, period) just that they can have that effect. The force of the blow is concentrated in a wery narrow area and so will be devastating in its results.
A cut can have effective stopping power, even if it does not kill outright. Therefore we see military swords through the ages most often being more or less dedicated to the cut. There are specialized weapons that are pure thrusters, but they are just that: specialized weapons for specific use or specific situations. The majority of battlefield weapons will most usually be a cut or cut&thrust weapon.
So, the hollow ground swords that became common mostly during the 15th C. are good thrusters capable of strong cutting as well. The Castillion group of swords are good examples of this. Most are quite short, around 75 cm in blade length. They have wide blades that taper to very acute and strong points. Perfect tools for the unimaginable brutal brawling on a battlefield between foot soldiers and mounted men-at-arms alike. Something short and poky that can sever a hand or a foot if carelessly exposed, or bash in teeth or take off a nose when you opponent looks away for a second.
-Sorry for the graphic explanation...
When trying to understan the sword it is important to keep in mind there is no single best sword or any one simple solution to get the best functional results. All we have is variations on a theme. There are certain aspects that needs to be fullfilled to make the most of any design, though. To learn about this it is necessary to study (historical) swords with a critical eye to discern what it is that makes them what they are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
This is a standard topic