Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > What is 'historical accuracy'? Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3 
Author Message
John Cooksey




Usergroups: None

Location: NW Ark
Posts: 290
PostPosted: Wed 15 Nov, 2006 9:03 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jeff Pringle wrote:
Archaeologists use a statistics-based series of measurements and ratios of measurements to sort, type and date projectile points; a similar system for swords might not be necessary (for dating them), but if you could get a big enough grant it would be a really fun (for statistics) study to do.
Wink


That would be very, very hard to get (speaking from an academic archaeological perspective).
I once thought about doing a GIS-based (or other 3D spatial coordinate system) analysis of bladed weapons, but the support was just not there, in my academic institution.

I didn't surrender, but they took my horse and made him surrender.
View user's profile Send private message
Maurizio D'Angelo




PostPosted: Mon 06 Jul, 2009 11:55 am    Post subject: replicas of historical swords         Reply with quote

What we mean by replicas of historical swords?
1) Type of work, manual, cnc, casting.
2) Type of steel, only to carbon or other alloy elements.
3) type of finish, texture additives (leagues that draw the metal), hand-made texture. (Cast bronze and hand-crafted)
4) Type of grip, a sandvich or a single piece.
5) A website which sells swords, would be given that the techniques of manufacture?
6) Are you satisfied with the descriptions?
7) What are the ones that you think should be necessary?
Thoughts are appreciated.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

PostPosted: Mon 06 Jul, 2009 12:18 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

This idea has been discussed before:

What it historical accuracy?

The definition varies by person.

Happy

ChadA

http://chadarnow.com/
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Maurizio D'Angelo




PostPosted: Mon 06 Jul, 2009 1:05 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I did not think that there was already a topic on this.
I apologize for the redundancy. I read quickly. I think your first thought makes the concept.
You write: "Ask 15 people and you'll get 16 responses. This is a highly personal and subjective definition. Your question should provoke interesting debate."

To be honest, I am a bit disappointed.
The mechanics have rules. Physics has rules. History has rules. Otherwise, the Nazi concentration camps, never existed.
But no, we seek the historical truth in the lies.
Why here has to be subjective?
But it is only my personal opinion.
Regards
Maurizio
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Vincent Le Chevalier




Usergroups: None

Location: Paris, France
Reading list: 15 books
Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 790
PostPosted: Mon 06 Jul, 2009 1:23 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hi Maurizio,

Perhaps you can find some other information in this thread over at swordforum:
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=84212

It's only about a small part of what historical accuracy is, but it goes on to show that even on that people do not necessarily agree.

One of the facet of the matter is that historical accuracy is used for marketing purpose, keeping whole shops afloat, which can prevent the sort of academic consensus that you seek.

Regards,

--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Maurizio D'Angelo




PostPosted: Mon 06 Jul, 2009 1:39 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hi my friend,

You write in the post link:
I've been chewing on these questions for a long time now, so I have my own ideas about how to solve them... But I'd be interested to hear the opinions and experience of the members here.
We are two, now.

ciao Wink
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Michael Pikula




Usergroups: 
Industry Professionals
Upgraded Members

Location: Friendship, WI
Posts: 378
PostPosted: Mon 06 Jul, 2009 4:34 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Maurizio D'Angelo wrote:

To be honest, I am a bit disappointed.
The mechanics have rules. Physics has rules. History has rules. Otherwise, the Nazi concentration camps, never existed.
But no, we seek the historical truth in the lies.
Why here has to be subjective?
But it is only my personal opinion.
Regards
Maurizio


In this thread you stated that the Albion Brescia is historical : http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...25220727d9

So if you can judge what is historical then don't you have an idea already what is and what isn't?

* Note, I spent 8 hours in front of a forge today, these are just my first initial worn thoughts.

** As a maker** There are many factors to consider when you think about what goes into a "historical" sword, making rules to judge things by is very difficult. In the end as a consumer you have to judge the end product, and as a maker you have to strive to deliver the product that your customers want for a price that they can afford. In my mind when I make a blade I try to pack all of the information that I have into making a blade that a period person could grab and go into battle with and come out with a sword that served that individual well and that they would be happy to take into battle again. (Since there is no way of proving this then isn’t my gauge subjective in and of itself?) If it meets this purpose then factors like did I forge the fullers into period made steel, or did I CNC mill the blade out of a modern alloy matters more to the maker and the process in which they can produce something then the consumer.

Also a question you may have to ask is how many of the characteristics of historical swords would you like in a sword that you don't get in a modern replica? Do warps or sabers or the blade taking a set bother you? I don't know how many customers would be happy with taking there new viking blade out and doing some harder cutting with the blade and then straightening the blade on the ground under their feet? How much do you like that nice tight fit between the blade and fittings? From the images I've seen some of the swords are nice and tight, others have way more play then what I consider suitable to sale on the modern market.

I think everyone has to find a balance in what they are looking for and what is being made/offered. If you are looking for a sword made from homemade steel, fuller forged/scraped fuller and finished without the aid of a grinder, heat treated without thermocouples or salt baths, you got your makers. It you are looking for sick performance and a tight fit that would make a even the pickiest period warrior drool, you got your makers. In the end you have to decide what level of work you are looking for, and what you can afford. Historical blades can be offered by both, but today materials are cheap, labor is expensive, back in the day it was the other way around.

Now if we take a well preserved sword, study it in great detail and take detailed measurements and make a replica using as similar a steel as can be had or made, use methods that are documented in period art or texts, and end up with a sword that is identical to the original we are talking about a completely different game.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jared Smith




PostPosted: Mon 06 Jul, 2009 5:29 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Michael Pikula wrote:

* Note, I spent 8 hours in front of a forge today, these are just my first initial worn thoughts.


I envy your stamina. My elbow still hurts from the last 4 hours I spent on a simple railroad spike knife and trying to hand weld a pattern billet.

I think "traditional hand crafted" methods of manufacture (pattern welding, forged steel furniture and one of a kind castings of bronze fittings, inlays, etc) when appropriate to early period swords add lots of unique character to pieces. It is often either this, or outstanding preservation integrity that earns a historical sword a photograph spot in our more prized reference catalogues. If the market could afford to pay for it, and accept period mechanical properties, I'll bet many of the artisans would love the opportunity to do more hand made work. Currently, more of this type of thing seems to be done among some of the premier scabbard makers who can customized leather work and thin metal fittings without too much assistance or equipment/time investment. Eventually I will own (make or buy) a pattern welded "migration era" sword in addition to the few modern ornamental pattern welded knifes that I have.

All of that said, my intuition is that period sword manufacturers adopted advances in technology (mono steel, proliferation of grinding stones and belt grinding apparatus, etc.) as rapidly as possible to improve the economy of production (cost and speed of manufacture) of swords in medieval (11th - 13th century proliferation) period. The dilemma of economical cost versus exquisite uniqueness was probably very much the same back then as today.

Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
View user's profile Send private message
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

PostPosted: Mon 06 Jul, 2009 7:37 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I've merged two threads on the same topic as there is no reason to have two separate discussions of the same idea.

Let me describe a sword to you. Tell me if you want to buy it:

The blade has carbon content that's variable throughout the blade from .3 to .5
The blade has a hardness that varies from less than RC 23 to ~RC 50, with an average edge hardness of around 20 RC

Sound desirable? Happy Those are specs from a historical sword (from Craig Johnson's great article). Exclamation Most modern makers wouldn't even consider making something like that because most modern customers are not interested in something like that. By using modern homogenous steel alloys and consistent heat treat, a case can be made that the resultant sword is not historically accurate.

Not many smiths are willing to work without electricity or hydraulics. So does that make their product ahistorical in the most strict sense of the word? Sure.

Modern reproductions are generally a balance of historical look, feel, and construction with economic and technical realities. If a smith was to make something without any power tools and with the kind of steel/steely iron used back then without the benefit of quenching in a modern salt tank, etc., it would take more time to make and would require special tools, skills, and materials. Those cost money and most people don't want to pay for that.

A case can be made that 99% of replica swords are not accurate because some modern method or material was used in its construction. The level of inaccuracy varies and people's tolerance for modern methods/materials varies as well. When someone calls a replica "historically accurate" they generally are saying that it is correct visually and proportionally, made of solid materials with good construction and can stand up to its intended historical use, based on historical examples.

But unless period methods and materials are used exclusively in the making, you can still say that it is not truly historically accurate in the technical sense of the phrase.

But most people aren't that technical, as long as the product is as good as or better than its historical counterparts.

Happy

ChadA

http://chadarnow.com/
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jean Thibodeau




PostPosted: Mon 06 Jul, 2009 10:55 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Well one can have the form historically correct but prefer the best one can make using the best modern materials for as good as sword as one can make. ( Up to unobtanium or mythrill indestructible super sword capable of cutting a marble column in half with it's monomolecular vibro blade .... O.K. just joking here ! But it could still superficially look like a historically correct sword ).

Or one might want a sword as close to what an original would be like in looks and materials including the period weaknesses or flaws in symmetry and variations in quality.

In period skill or luck might produce and exceptional sword that would stand out as " legendary " compared to the average sword that might have a soft blade or a very variable quality blade depending on where on the blade one tested it.

What we might consider a really lousy sword might in period be just good enough to do the job it was intended to perform in it's historical environment.

We can try to get close to historical swords but the priorities can be very different from one collector or maker to another.

Reproduction will always be reproductions and what compromises are considered acceptable or event desirable will vary greatly depending on what one is using as criteria to judge historical accuracy.

You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
View user's profile Send private message
Maurizio D'Angelo




PostPosted: Tue 07 Jul, 2009 6:41 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Michael Pikula wrote:

In this thread you stated that the Albion Brescia is historical : http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...25220727d9
So if you can judge what is historical then don't you have an idea already what is and what isn't?

I premise to have read this topic after having written mine.
After having read it arrival to this conclusion.
That grips for the most greater part of the people it is historical.
If you ask me, if I agree, personally, my answer is no. This also having depth respect for Peter and the job of the Albion.


Jared Smith wrote:

All of that said, my intuition is that period sword manufacturers adopted advances in technology (mono steel, proliferation of grinding stones and belt grinding apparatus, etc.) as rapidly as possible to improve the economy of production (cost and speed of manufacture) of swords in medieval (11th - 13th century proliferation) period. The dilemma of economical cost versus exquisite uniqueness was probably very much the same back then as today.


Jared, I agree. this is the point.


Chad Arnow wrote:


Let me describe a sword to you. Tell me if you want to buy it:
The blade has carbon content that's variable throughout the blade from .3 to .5
The blade has a hardness that varies from less than RC 23 to ~RC 50, with an average edge hardness of around 20 RC


a steel with that content of carbon has a hardness 23 - 25 heart Rockwell and a hardness of 48-50 on the edges. I know that anciently they have been found swords that a 0.50 carbon content had, very next to how much they make modern builders. Not badly for an ancient steel. But it is not this the point.

Chad Arnow wrote:

Those are specs from a historical sword (from Craig Johnson's great article). Exclamation Most modern makers wouldn't even consider making something like that because most modern customers are not interested in something like that. By using modern homogenous steel alloys and consistent heat treat, a case can be made that the resultant sword is not historically accurate.
Not many smiths are willing to work without electricity or hydraulics. So does that make their product ahistorical in the most strict sense of the word? Sure.
Modern reproductions are generally a balance of historical look, feel, and construction with economic and technical realities. If a smith was to make something without any power tools and with the kind of steel/steely iron used back then without the benefit of quenching in a modern salt tank, etc., it would take more time to make and would require special tools, skills, and materials. Those cost money and most people don't want to pay for that.
When someone calls a replica "historically accurate" they generally are saying that it is correct visually and proportionally, made of solid materials with good construction and can stand up to its intended historical use, based on historical examples.


I don't want to be a paranoiac of the historicity.
I want only that there are rules to establish when it is correct and when it is not correct to call a sword a believer historical reproduction.
An old man told me: when the problem is great, divide it.
1) fight swords for students of WMA, material with many elements in league they are acceptable. Forms and approximate outlines are acceptable. Historicity anybody.
2) swords devoted to the most greater part of us, aware of to have a believable sword from a historical point of view, the grip it will be different, the different steel, some parts facts with the process of casting, some sorts of cnc, are all right.
3) faithful reproductions of museum swords. (I don't pretend the hydraulic energy and not even a steel pre Bessemer)
Here, who asks swords of the kind he knows that they have an elevated cost, if they are prepared to pay then the product it has to be worthy.
Here the discussion is open.
Manual workmanship? Cnc? Casting? Do I steel to the only carbon? Grip as the original ones?
Does the site have to say it?

Regards
Maurizio
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Maurizio D'Angelo




PostPosted: Tue 07 Jul, 2009 7:04 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jean Thibodeau wrote:
Well one can have the form historically correct but prefer the best one can make using the best modern materials for as good as sword as one can make. ( Up to unobtanium or mythrill indestructible super sword capable of cutting a marble column in half with it's monomolecular vibro blade .... O.K. just joking here ! But it could still superficially look like a historically correct sword ).


Dear Jean,
you are a person with a lot of irony.
I believe to be also it me. I have just started to build you that indestructible sword.
Joke.
An example that wants to be a provocation.
If I built a grip of polyurethane, and then I would grip it of skin, how much would you agree? The polyurethane is under it is not seen.
Here, this I want to say, for some swords this is possible for others no.
I don't know what sense has my words in English but everything less that polemics or offensive.
I look for only a method that we are reasonably approve as good.
Ciao
Maurizio
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

PostPosted: Tue 07 Jul, 2009 7:11 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Maurizio D'Angelo wrote:
I want only that there are rules to establish when it is correct and when it is not correct to call a sword a believer historical reproduction.


Good luck establishing a set of rules. Happy There currently aren't hard rules because people can't agree on them. Even if you could find a set of criteria that most people on this site would agree to, people on other sites and in other organizations will likely disagree, possibly vehemently. Consumers all have different needs and that creates many definitions of historical accuracy.

We can't let makers make the rules, either. For example, Museum Replicas' catalogue states "Historically accurate battle ready weapons and armor." Some people would agree, but many people wouldn't call many of their products historically accurate.

What governing body will establish, maintain, and enforce the rules, assuming people agree on them? Happy Will the marketplace and consumers submit to their authority? Happy

I think we, maker and customer, each have to decide what our goals are and who our target audience is. For many people on this site, "historically accurate" means it looks like a period piece, handles like a period piece, and is as durable as a period piece.

For me, I'd also add that I want it assembled like a period piece, with a peen. I'm not a fan of threads on swords that aren't supposed to be threaded. Happy Some makers and their customers disagree (often vehemently), and that's okay. I'm not their market and they aren't mine. Happy

As a maker you can't please everyone and shouldn't try. As a consumer, you have to realize that not every product fits your needs and buy accordingly.

Happy

ChadA

http://chadarnow.com/
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

PostPosted: Tue 07 Jul, 2009 7:17 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Maurizio D'Angelo wrote:
An example that wants to be a provocation.
If I built a grip of polyurethane, and then I would grip it of skin, how much would you agree? The polyurethane is under it is not seen.
Here, this I want to say, for some swords this is possible for others no.
I don't know what sense has my words in English but everything less that polemics or offensive.
I look for only a method that we are reasonably approve as good.


I would not want a sword with a polyurethane grip, even though some plastics can be stronger than wood and even though you can't see it. Paul Chen uses plastics on some of his stuff. Good for him. Happy

That's not my personal preference. Others may disagree. And that's fine.

I can see how a purpose-built training sword that would see a lot of pounding might benefit from such a grip, but I don't buy purpose-built training swords. Happy With modern training swords, we often see more compromises in accuracy because safety and durability are bigger concerns for buyer and seller than historical accuracy.

Albion uses stabilized wood for their grips. That's not necessarily "historically accurate", but it's a good compromise. I prefer that to plastic, but that's just me.

Happy

ChadA

http://chadarnow.com/
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Vincent Le Chevalier




Usergroups: None

Location: Paris, France
Reading list: 15 books
Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 790
PostPosted: Tue 07 Jul, 2009 8:01 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Here is another thread that discusses this topic:
On the terms "historical" and "fantasy."

--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Maurizio D'Angelo




PostPosted: Tue 07 Jul, 2009 8:09 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

hi all,
Thanks for the good luck, Chad. Razz
Apart the jokes.
I think that this site has the authoritativeness to dictate some rules, it also has the correct people that can do it.
Good builders, a person of the level of Peter, you, Nathan and a lot of others, but they are also there great consumers of swords, we can be arrived to a compromise.
Accepted by the most greater part of us. Utopia? Everything can be it to the beginning.
This site is a reference for a lot of people. You don't perhaps know how much you are appreciated.
To speak only of Museum reproductions, the other swords out. Rules, don't law to make to respect, who doesn't respect the rules he is punished by the consumer. This if the consumer knows the things.
To start from a single piece, the grip, the steel, the method of construction, doesn't matter, but to start.
To buy something having the awareness of thing buys, it is always correct.
To sell something knowing that your job is appreciated, is always correct.
Good luck Nathan, you can begin.
Good luck Peter, you can begin.
Of the rules put here, from some part, it is not then a bad idea.

Regards
Maurizio
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Kirk Lee Spencer




Usergroups: 
Premier Members

Location: Texas
Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 826
PostPosted: Tue 07 Jul, 2009 1:32 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Since swords are not used as weapons today, to speak of a swords “historical accuracy” seems somewhat redundant to me. In other words, a sword’s “accuracy” would in itself be a reference to a time when the sword was developing as a weapon. We would only need to make a distinction of “historical” accuracy, if we accept that swords have other purposes today… which I guess they do—Art Objects, Movie Props, Freudian Symbols, Jungian archetypes, etc. However I think most people would still see the sword as primarily a killing tool, however anachronistic.

As to “rules” for “historical accuracy” there are two possibilities:

1. “Rule” as a regulations of what must be followed and enforced. Though we might develop such rules there is no way they could, or should, be enforced.

2. “Rule” in a canonical sense as a standard of judgment.

In this second sense, I think that is may be worthwhile to begin to define categories, if nothing but to facilitate discussion.

Once the categories are defined as a standard of comparison or judgment, it will be possible for sword makers and sword collectors to determine which category they find appealing.

Here is an example of such categories:

1. Experimental Accuracy
Objective: Recreating Specific Archeological Finds to Learn About The Past
By using same or similar methods and materials as period craftsmen and producing as exact a recreation as possible in terms of known statistics such as lengths, widths, thicknesses, weight, point of balance, centers of percussion, vibration nodes, etc. etc.

Divisions:

Material Accuracy: using only materials found in the time period and geography of the artifact being recreated. (i.e. only steely bloomery iron rather than modern steels. Grip core only of wood available at the time. )

Manufacture Accuracy: using only procedure and tools existing or understood in the time period and geographic regions of the artifact being recreated. (i.e. bow drills, hand-made files, self propelled stone grinding wheels.)


2. Deep Accuracy
Objective: Reconstructing Specific Archeological Finds or Find Type
By using period materials or upgraded versions of period materials (i.e. spring steel) shaped with modern tools ending with a reconstruction that has the same appearance and basic statistical specification and thus handling characteristics of the artifact being replicated. However on completion not only will the reconstruction appear as an original finds on close examination, but also materials below the surface will also be of period materials or upgraded versions. (i.e. grip core below the leather would be real wood. Pattern-welded blade core is real pattern welding and not just an etched surface to appear identical to period finds.)

3. Surface Accuracy
Objective: Replicating Archeological Find Types
By using upgraded versions of period materials to optimize the efficiency of the replica to match or exceed the toughness and durability of the absolute best of period finds. All surface features, even on close examination would appear as the originals in pristine form. However, below the surface more durable and cheaper modern materials could be found. (i.e. Stabilized wood or plastic grip core, epoxy resin filler, etc)

4. Distance Accuracy
Objective: Producing a Facsimile of a Period Find Type for Modern Purposes.
By using the most efficient and most economical materials to achieve the specific purpose desired with little or no reference to period materials, methods or statistical specifications. This facsimile would appear as a period find from varying distances but not on close examinations by a knowledgeable observer.

Swords developed primarily as killing tools and at times fashionable prestige objects. With the advent of modern war with weapons that allow mass killing at distance, the sword no longer has this function. Yet in “postmodern” fashion, the sword has been appropriated for more modern “functions.”

Modern Purpose Divisions:

Cutting Accuracy
When you hold a sword, especially a well made sword, there is an innate desire to swing it. And after swinging it, it is natural to want to hit something with it. But because you have money invested and your life is not on the line, you are careful not to damage or break it. So over time cutting water filled plastic bottles has become popular. In this contexts a swords “accuracy” involves blades that are thin and long, with hollow ground edges that will slice easily through plastic bottles filled with water.

Movie Prop/Reenacting Accuracy
With the advent of cinema and especially the “Sword and Sandal Epics” which showcase swords and sword “play,” the needs of sword geometries changed. Thick edges were needed to take the abuse of edge to edge contact as blade smashes against blade. The sight and sound spectacle would require blade to smash against blade to convey the danger and add the clanging and sheering background “music” of the sound track. Constant parrying with your blade, even though you have a perfectly good shield in your other hand. With the thickened edges the blades would be heavy, to balance out the heavy blade, gigantic spiky guards and pommels are added as counter weight or the grip is extended (explaining why in recent big budget movies Vikings and Crusaders swords are all at least bastard sword length.)

Fantasy Accuracy
The rise of fantasy movies and video games and the tidal wave of cheap replica from these has become so ubiquitous that, to many people, this is what a sword should look like. These are the designs of dreams and visions… not functions. For this reason, and others, they are not only non-functional but dysfunctional—Often these swords are gigantic and massive with dangerous spikes all over the pommel and guards. If such a sword was actually used in battle, with all the spikes, you would probably do as much damage to yourself as your opponent. It has, in essence, a blatantly dysfunctional function. And while, apart from Freudian symbols and Jungian archetypes, this might seem absurd, it fits perfectly into postmodern modes in art over the last thirty years—“blatant dysfunction.”


While these categories were defined in a modern context, it is possible that similar concerns existed in the past. For instance:

Ancient Fantasy Swords—Presentation or ceremonial swords, covered in fine gold and inlayed with jewels with little regard for function made to show off wealth and prestige.

Ancient Movie Prop Swords—Swords made for dramatization or significance in burial… Wooden or diminished in size to better serve these purposes.

Ancient Cutting Swords—At times swords have developed very narrowly defined function, such as Bronze Age “rapiers” over a meter long with a hollow triangular blade for thrusting or blunt-end sword which could not thrust, even those designed for execution.

Ancient Surface Swords—At times surface decoration was applied to mimic something below the surface that was not there, such as etching, engraving and inlay on spears and swords to mimic pattern-welding.

Even Ancient Deep and Experimental Swords, if the ancients ever practiced reverse engineering.

As for myself… I tend to find myself working toward “Surface Accuracy” camp; however I have great respect for “Experimental and Deep Accuracy.”

Take care

ks

Two swords
Lit in Eden’s flame
One of iron and one of ink
To place within a bloody hand
One of God or one of man
Our souls to one of
Two eternities
View user's profile Send private message
Troy G L Williams




PostPosted: Thu 10 Sep, 2009 6:49 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I thought I would throw my two cents in.....

Weapons and armour: Historical accuracy to me is something VERY similar to an actual piece as possible using either modern or original methods and/or material. The item does not have to be really expensive to accomplish "historical accuracy" it just depends on where you get it and who you trust. Wink I do admit that I do not put as much emphasis or study into arms and armour as I should, that is why I come to this site. I read reviews here, etc. which led to me purchasing the Albion Knight, Arms and Armor Rondel Dagger, Arms and Armor King Edward III, and a Bullock Dagger from Arma Bohemia. Thank you myArmoury.com! Cool

Clothing and accessories: Historical accuracy in this department is the use of proper materials. For my 14th century attire that means, to me, the use of wool and linen. I do cheat and I do not mind the use of machine stitching if you do not see it. I put more research and thought into clothing and accessories because they define who you are, again in my own opinion, than just the sidearm you carry. Some, if not most, will argue that your weapon really defines your station not just your attire.

Anyway, that is my thoughts on the subject. As always, I'm open for critisism. Razz

v/r,
Troy Williams

"It’s merely a flesh wound." -Monty Python and the Holy Grail
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > What is 'historical accuracy'?
Page 3 of 3 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3 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 2003-2013 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum