Swords are some of the most culturally important weapons in history.

File: Ancient Chinese Characters on the Goujian Sword 500 BC.jpg (375KB, 1465x1200px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 1465x1200px

>>61212

File: Sword of Gou Jian.jpg (179KB, 700x469px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 700x469px

>>61219

File: 1396596802453.jpg (86KB, 532x800px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 532x800px

>>61234

File: US Cavalry Model 1913 Saber.jpg (120KB, 1200x1126px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 1200x1126px

>>61244

File: British Cavalry Model 1908 Saber.jpg (141KB, 975x649px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 975x649px

>>61251

File: 74004.jpg (179KB, 668x2463px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 668x2463px

The Sword of State.

Used in coronations of British monarchs for about 200 years now.

File: Espada_Tizona.jpg (150KB, 375x500px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 375x500px

>>61346

Those are Jinetas arent they?

File: espada-ropera-pappenheimer-1620.jpg (145KB, 800x752px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 800x752px

>>61212
i am particularly fond of dueling swords

File: Foil.gif (10KB, 533x300px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 533x300px

>>63250
foils were created for fencing practice in the late 1600's

>>61244
sexy

File: 657012.jpg (44KB, 880x660px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 880x660px

>>63312
colichemardes were created to be a lighter version of the espada ropera designed for parrying.

File: image.jpg (167KB, 2035x2036px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 2035x2036px

The sword that conquered the world (that mattered)

File: SCA6.jpg (29KB, 1200x517px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 1200x517px

>>63327
epees evolved from colichmardes and small swords after the colichmarde was replaced by short swords.

people should go look on >>>/asp/ for hema discussion if they are interested. fencing, longswords etc, there is usually a few threads open about it.

File: 2.jpg (750KB, 3000x2514px) Image search: [Google]

750KB, 3000x2514px

Late 16th century German rapier and dagger.

File: 17.12.08. Säbel, 10.Jh. 7 kl.jpg (50KB, 189x1280px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 189x1280px

10th century Hunnic/Magyar sabre

File: special fencing.jpg (168KB, 990x558px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 990x558px

sabre fencing for lazy people

File: TZMIbaC.jpg (147KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1024x683px

Indian Talwaar, made of Damascus Steel

File: 27183.jpg (90KB, 528x2584px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 528x2584px

High medieval arming sword

File: 28267.jpg (94KB, 652x2590px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 652x2590px

Late medieval "Castillon" type arming sword

File: RDzvYKa.jpg (89KB, 683x1024px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 683x1024px

Another talwaar

File: 28291.jpg (105KB, 453x2645px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 453x2645px

Early modern Falchion

File: 28292.jpg (78KB, 695x2591px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 695x2591px

Early 16th century two-handed sword

File: 28305.jpg (62KB, 310x2673px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 310x2673px

16th century two-handed sword with a distinct 8-shaped guard

>>63619
Do love me some two-handers

File: 28305_c.jpg (91KB, 592x2735px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 592x2735px

>>63672
Better picture of the guard. Here the sharpness of the sword can also be estimated in case some people still hold the nonsensical believe that European swords - two handed swords in particular - weren't commonly sharpened.

File: 28307.jpg (94KB, 542x2582px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 542x2582px

16th century side-sword

File: 29775.jpg (80KB, 762x2721px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 762x2721px

16th century two-handed sword

File: 49436.jpg (111KB, 829x2700px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 829x2700px

16th century two-handed sword with a flamed edge; likely a bearing sword from the ceremonial guard of some bishop or something.

File: 202572.jpg (96KB, 703x2626px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 703x2626px

Distinctively Spanish cup-hilt rapier (16th century)

File: 194536.jpg (144KB, 765x2674px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 765x2674px

19th century epees, likely intended as duelling weapons

File: 202518.jpg (88KB, 560x2720px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 560x2720px

16th century side-sword

File: 203521.jpg (100KB, 619x2746px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 619x2746px

Bohemian Dussack type war knife, early 16th century

File: 202479.jpg (88KB, 646x2725px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 646x2725px

Late medieval longsword

File: 202957.jpg (88KB, 732x2836px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 732x2836px

Late 15th century arming sword

File: 204640.jpg (84KB, 713x2718px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 713x2718px

Cup hilted rapier, 16th century, possibly Spanish or Spanish-inspired

Perhaps a stupid question, but were close-hilted bastard swords a thing?

File: 202320.jpg (84KB, 610x2678px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 610x2678px

16th century rapier, possibly German or Low German

File: 3 (3).jpg (55KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 1200x800px

>>63894
People made all kinds of experiments. It depends on what you mean by "close-hilted".

File: Cagliari011a.jpg (143KB, 449x600px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 449x600px

Bronze swords from the Nuragic peoples on Sardinia.

File: 27192.jpg (63KB, 445x2650px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 445x2650px

Some odd two-handed estoc-like weapon with a rapier-like blade; probably early 16th century.

File: irishSwords.jpg (67KB, 613x418px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 613x418px

>>63969
Irish Bronze swords

File: Grosvenor Crescent Edinburgh.jpg (60KB, 800x528px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 800x528px

>>63978
Bronze swords from Scotland

File: 28304_b.jpg (77KB, 384x2732px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 384x2732px

Basket-hilted "Claymore" broadsword; very likely Scottish and 17th century.

File: replicaOfBoruSword.jpg (7KB, 196x525px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 196x525px

Replica of the Brian Boru sword of 1014AD

File: 1256437699087.jpg (15KB, 540x800px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 540x800px

War knife, possibly German/Bohemian; 16th century.

Give me some big fat two handers pl0x

File: pier.jpg (64KB, 672x910px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 672x910px

>>64038
The sword which supposedly belonged to the Frisian pirate Grutte Pier ("Tall Peter").

The blade bears the mark of the running wolf, which by law of the church was granted to the city of Passau, where the so called "Wolf Blades" were made, which among those of Toledo or Solingen were regarded among the finest of Europe. This makes it rather surprising, since the sword is obviously too large to be practically used. It is an expensive joke or was there actually a man tall and strong enough to use it?

>>61212
Why is that? I'd argue that the spear, in its many forms, has been more influential on the world history.

File: Wolfsklinge_(Huther-Titelbild).jpg (77KB, 833x1373px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 833x1373px

Here we have another Wolf Blade. Likely 14th, possibly early 15th century.

File: Spatha.jpg (251KB, 946x2000px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 946x2000px

>>64097
Spears were weapons of the hunt and weapons of war. They were cheaply to be made and in the form of the lance something that was disposed of after the successful attack, where it was likely to shatter.

Swords were expensive and required intricate knowledge of metalwork to be made. Swords could be carried around all the time. They were side-arms in battle and they would defend people in their daily lives. They were the last resort between a man and certain death, which would protect him after his lance broke and he was dismounted from horseback, that would aid him in an ambush, and protect his honour in a duel.

That's what made swords special. They were shiny things in a dull world where everything was earthen, brown and green and they were trusty companions that people would always have by their side. Other weapons were too large and impractical to be carried around all the time. They would be taken out of the closet for war. Swords were a constant.

File: antique_aa_swisssaber.jpg (35KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 600x800px

Swiss sabre, 16th century

File: d76b2ce1ace5056786db1619b6dc776f.jpg (40KB, 577x573px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 577x573px

Churchill presents Stalin with the ceremonial Sword of Stalingrad, with FDR present, to congratulate him on his victory.

File: 1399667003225.jpg (2MB, 2168x3092px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2168x3092px

Early 16th century longswords, German

The diamond shaped cross sections was supposed to make these weapons particularly rigid in order to give extra leverage when it came to thrusting into gaps between heavy armour, while these weapons still maintain formidable cutting edges.

File: 1382901466550.jpg (129KB, 609x3000px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 609x3000px

15th century longsword

File: 1349290650042.jpg (2MB, 1200x1800px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1200x1800px

German rapier with added wheellock arquebus, late 16th/early 17th century

File: 1337121587482.jpg (92KB, 528x984px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 528x984px

Flamed rapiers, possibly German, 16th century

File: 1324764388119.jpg (33KB, 520x800px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 520x800px

Distinctively Scandinavian two-handed swords, 15th century

>>64402
>>64415
I love those hand guards

File: 1310242192555.jpg (2MB, 3648x2736px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3648x2736px

Celtic Spatha-equivalent, Migration period

For some reason Celtic people often tended to bury swords in lakes; occasionally they got sealed air-tight and thus remained surprisingly well preserved. Why they bent them is unknown. Some suspect that it may have something to do with fearing that they would return to avenge their owners or something.

File: 1310240177989.jpg (153KB, 936x1862px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 936x1862px

The ceremonial sword of the Order of the Dragon.

File: 1310240089277.jpg (33KB, 492x1097px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 492x1097px

>>64506
Wrong picture. That's the ceremonial sword of Emperor Sigismund - who happened to be the founding member of the Order of the Dragon, which explains the dragons on the sheath. This sword here however, is the ceremonial sword of the Order of the Dragon.

File: 1290674991221.jpg (164KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 1000x750px

Yet another gun-blade.

>>64492
>Why they bent them is unknown.
Maybe they did that so no one would use them again, they were like extensions of themselves, would you let someone else joyride your car?

>>64492
It's fairly well established now that Celts held bodies of water, lakes and bogs etc sacred as a boundary between the living and dead

File: 1288074964706.jpg (42KB, 304x983px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 304x983px

Few people know that during the crusades, the swords of the Arabic world were predominantly straight - resembling the swords of the crusaders. Sabers only became popular when the crusades were already over. In modern movies it is common to portray Muslims with sabres, and crusaders with straight swords, likely because it portrays such a nice clash of iconography with those crescent moon shaped swords representing Islam and those cruciform swords representing Christianity. Factually, both parties would have used pretty much the same types of equipment though. Both were wearing mail for defence, using straight swords.

>>64571
>It's fairly well established now that Celts held bodies of water, lakes and bogs etc sacred as a boundary between the living and dead
While I don't doubt that it's possible that they believed that, I wonder what this hypothesis is based on when the Celts never wrote anything down.

File: 13608026.jpg (283KB, 800x1072px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 800x1072px

Remember not to play with swords. They'll cut you wide open.

File: ccs.jpg (3KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 480x360px

A classic

>>64681
If you keep posting, mate, I might even open the thread.

>>64681
the oldest known sword

File: reclaimingtheblade.jpg (320KB, 796x1146px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 796x1146px

The documentary "Reclaiming the Blade" is a very interesting watch for anyone interested in the cultural and societal significance of the sword through history.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0961079/

It's narrated by Gimli and has an interview with Bob motherfucking Anderson himself.

File: bronze dagger.png (94KB, 418x481px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 418x481px

>>64681

>>64617
It's not strictly true that they never wrote anything down. But yes, not about this

We can glean some information from Irish texts based on millennia old oral traditions though, and make educated guesses on the archaeological evidence. i.e. swords and (sometimes sacrificed) human remains placed in water/bogs, wooden pathways and podiums stretching into bogs and lakes with seemingly no destination, single combats happening in river fords, and so on

Can we all agree that sabres are the best type of swords there is?

File: Barbary-ape-skull-Navan-fort.jpg (103KB, 640x449px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 640x449px

>>64617

Romans got the alphabet from the Etruscans

The Etruscans got it from the Greeks

The Greeks got it from the Phoenicians

Where are the great writings of the Phoenicians?

Debunk this:

> PHOENICIAN OF PLAUTUS:
Byth lym mo thym nociothii nel ech an ti daisc machon
Ys i do iebrim thyfe lyth chy lya chon temlyph ula.

> EARLY IRISH-CELTIC:
Beth liom' mo thime nociaithe, niel ach an ti dairie mae coinne
Is i de leabhraim tafach leith, chi lis con teampluibh ulla.

> phoenicia.org/Phoenician_Celtic_connections.html#ixzz3qLSLV1ST


pic related is a 4th century skull of a Barbary Ape that was discovered in Northern Ireland dated to the 4th century BC. The ape comes from North Africa, a region colonized by the Carthaginians who were Phoenicians.

>>64815
If you search for Celticiberian you can find Celtic and Latin engraved on Bronze plaques in Spain.

File: IMG_0229.jpg (2MB, 2592x1936px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2592x1936px

Anyone own swords?
All I got is a replica Cavalry Sabre.

File: explozionz.gif (499KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

499KB, 200x200px

>>64853
Mind blown.

File: 5d7f125875a55b93413fef50e3fb0dbf.jpg (13KB, 700x334px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 700x334px

Here's the legendary and very often potrayed sword in Japanese fiction.

Kusanagi, one of the 3 legendary Imperial regalia of Japan.

File: Scottish_claymore_replica_(Albion_Chieftain)2.jpg (359KB, 1470x5598px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 1470x5598px

It's big boi season

>>64941
There's also some writing in a celtic language related to gallic and the insular celtic languages, but written in the phoenecian script. They were made in portugal and mentioned the god Lugh.

It was extremely early too btw, earlier than le Tene and maybe Hallstatt iirc. This was in a recent BBC documentary so I've got no linkable source

File: lugus.jpg (67KB, 450x321px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 450x321px

>>65098
>Lugh
I would like to study this and try and see if there is any possible connection to the most ancient Sumerian Lug/Lugal/Lugalbanda.

We know that the Sumerians traveled to Lebanon and built ships, then sailed into the Mediterranean.

>>64853
The ape ranged into spain though if I recall correctly and there were definitely trade links between Ireland and Iberia. I think that skull dated to around 100 BC when the fort was burnt down, so quite a bit after any phoenicians were about. But yeah, see >>65098

Celts definitely had links with phoenecians far earlier than this and there is written evidence to prove it

File: Rocam_durandal_082005.jpg (3MB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2560x1920px

Here's a replica of the sword used by one of Charlemange Paladins, Roland.

Durendal.

Legend says it is THE sharpest sword in existence and has all kinds of christian relic stuff inside of it like one tooth of saint peter, blood of saint basil, hair of saint denis and a piece of cloth from the virgin mary's raiment.

Roland used the sword to hold off a hundred thousand strong horde of Muslims to buy Charlemagne and his army enough time to retreat back to France.

Knowing he was gonna die for sure he decides to break the sword so the Muslims won't get their hands on it, but it proved impossible and he cut an entire mountain in half in the process. He then decided to hide it underneath his body instead.

In the picture its embedded in the mountain side of Rocamadour, France, instead. This is due to some monks claiming he threw the sword instead of hiding it in his last moments. Although it is listed as a replica.

>>65177
> irisharchaeology.ie/2014/05/a-barbary-ape-skull-from-navan-fort-co-armagh/
Radiocarbon dating put it between 390BC-20BC, so we cannot tell.

>>65195
Cool story, funny how something mythological can appear at that time in history.

>>64541
I know nothing about swords but are gun blades used in the way of stabbing one in the chest and firing?

Also, has there been any swords that are used back-handed, a la Ventus from Kingdom Hearts? I don't think so, but it's interesting to know strange designs.

>>65241
I have a relation who insists the Irish are actually "north african" (in his mind literally arabs) because of hypotheses like this

So this compels me to point out that there's no evidence that iberian celts are descended from phoenicians, and that the links were probably trade-based

>>65195
It's a replica- the guard and pommel are right for the 12th century, but not the 8th.

File: Sumer_Adab_Head01_full.jpg (13KB, 525x390px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 525x390px

>>65322
This is not the thread to discuss such thing in length, it is a sword thread after all, so I won't start posting unrelated images and text apart from pic related who was a Sumerian.

> According to the king list, Lugalannemundu receives the kingship following the fall of the Second Dynasty at Ur. He is credited with extending Sumer's control to include territory from the Persian Gulf right up to the Mediterranean, bordering the Taurus mountains in the north, and the Zagros mountains in the east, subjecting the Gutians. Going even further, he confronts the king of the Marhashi, and leaves an inscription to record the event.

> The empire dissolves upon Lugalannemundu's death and the kingship is taken to Mari.

>>61212

>>>/k/

File: images_POAH3529_2_l.jpg (173KB, 1482x594px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1482x594px

>>61212
Whats that i can hear you over my superior range

>>61244
What's the purpose of the tassel thing?

>>65762
wrapp/tie it around your arm
voila now its harder to lose your sword

>>64035
>War knife
... really?
you seriously just translated kreigsmesser?
Why not translate bidenhanders too?
Or if we are at it why not give new names for the others? Greatswords could became awesome swords and cutlass could be choppy

>>65318
>I know nothing about swords but are gun blades used in the way of stabbing one in the chest and firing?
The mechanisms found in these sword of weapons (usually wheel locks) were incredibly expensive, especially at such miniature size. They were more elaborate gimmicks than serious weapons for which there was a specific use. How exactly one would use such a weapon remains unknown; given the small size they probably weren't effective at longer ranges. Possibly something to distract an enemy at short range in order to get an opportunity to attack. However, these weapons were quite rare, so nothing all too common.

>Also, has there been any swords that are used back-handed, a la Ventus from Kingdom Hearts? I don't think so, but it's interesting to know strange designs.
Knives or daggers were occasionally held that way. For swords it was most unusual, after all, there's little reason to not make use of a long weapon by pointing the pointy end at the enemy.

>>64203
>Swords were expensive
>Swords could be carried around all the time.
>They were shiny things in a dull world where everything was earthen, brown and green
I don't even...

>>65922
First of all, it would be "Kriegsmesser", second - the Kriegsmesser type weapons of the late middle ages weren't the only war knives around. Saxes for example are war knives too. Dussacks are also war knives.

>>66002
What part do you disagree with?

>>61212
Holy Shit, these swords are fucking sexy. My penis stands ercet and true!

>>66030
all that I put in greentext

If only movies and shows started portraying swords and weapons in an authentic manner. I hate watching game of thrones and how they think the sword can even cut through armor and how stupidly they fight

>>66108
So you don't think a sword during the early middle ages which required intricate knowledge of metalwork as well as a lot of high quality steel was an expensive weapon?

You don't think that a sword was pretty much commonly worn by people's side, as indicated by the fact that we have countless depictions and texts from the middle ages describing how people did indeed commonly had swords, or sword-like weapons with them - especially on travels.

You don't think that polished, pattern-welded metal had quite the visual impact on people during the middle ages, as indicated by the fact how vivid the descriptions of swords like Hrunting, Mimung, Gram or Excalibur are in fiction?

>>66177
With that said, watching Alatriste was a fucking treat

>>64506
>>64523
>Wrong picture. That's the ceremonial sword of Emperor Sigismund

Not quite.

It was a sword given _in the name of_ the Emperor Sigismund, the father-in-law of Richard II, to the city of York in 1439 - two years after Sigismund's death.

its scabbard is decorated with the symbols of the Order of the Dragon (the same knightly order as Vlade tepes (AKA Dracula) was part of). The blade itself has no such markings, the blued and gilded decoration may be contemporary, or might be slightly later, its hard to teel as its very worn in places.

Its a surprisingly unwieldy presentation sword, very thick in the base, and extremely uncomfortable in the hand - not least because the silver locket on the grip is very loose and has a worrying habit of falling out of place when you pick it up. The pommel is distinctly oversized, too, making it feel extremely sluggish in the hand. A quick test of it in movement when I got to handle it was enough to instantly determine it is very much a parade sword, and not a weapon of war however.

File: Royal_armouries_Bearing_sword_ix-1024.jpg (21KB, 168x400px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 168x400px

>>64085
>The sword which supposedly belonged to the Frisian pirate Grutte Pier ("Tall Peter").

No.

It has absolutely _no_ connection to Piers Donia. That is a bearing sword from the 1400-1450's, and is one of a pair found in the attic of the city hall of Leuwaarden in 1791.

the only connection to Grute Piers is someone then said something like "oh, they're big, they must have belonged to...." There is absolutely no evidence at all that links it beyond the anecdotes that Piers was tall. This story has been thrown around dozens of times the last few years linked to that photo by shitty websites with no research, and its time the story was put down for good.

Here's a photo of one of the identical two swords in the Royal Armouries, where they are corectly identified as bearing swords, which have a clear history in the Tower records from the time of Henry V (c.1420)

these extra-large swords were used in the cities during parades to mark the holy days of saints, carried at the front of the procession for everyone to see. They are not, in any way, combat weapons

>>66189
I don't think that they were expensive through history, If we pick out early middle ages then maybe that was more of the case but for example in 1340 a cheap sword would be around the price of 6 pence (according to Standards of Living in the Later Middle Ages, Christopher Dyer, Cambridge University Press, 1989) around that time that's roughly 2 or threee days worth of wage for a low ranking infantry or archer

I don't think that EVERY people was ALLOWED to wield a sword, heavily depends of the actual time, the country the city and the current laws of what kind of weapons were allowed to what kind of people and in what situations.

I don't think that most swords were without a sheath, on ground that in some times at some cities that was outright illegal. But what I mostly don't think that "everything was earthen, brown and green" which is a bullshit on it's own tier.

Jesus, even /tg/ knows more about these stuff...

>>66352
>I don't think that they were expensive through history, If we pick out early middle ages then maybe that was more of the case
And you don't think that this sort of exclusiveness affected how people would view swords? You can buy swords quite cheaply today, yet they still retain their ceremonial status up to this day. Peoples' views don't change over night.

>but for example in 1340 a cheap sword would be around the price of 6 pence (according to Standards of Living in the Later Middle Ages, Christopher Dyer, Cambridge University Press, 1989) around that time that's roughly 2 or threee days worth of wage for a low ranking infantry or archer
By 1340 we're into the late middle ages already. Not to mention that this doesn't say anything about quality. Also, you have to think in relation: a sword is still cheaper than a spear or a club. More metal goes into it, more intricate craftsmanship is required. So no matter how cheap a sword is, it will still be more expensive than other weapons - assuming you don't put precious gems on them or have them gilded or something along those lines.

>I don't think that EVERY people was ALLOWED to wield a sword, heavily depends of the actual time, the country the city and the current laws of what kind of weapons were allowed to what kind of people and in what situations.
Are you going to repeat the myth that in "Germany" the usage of swords was banned for commoners next? I'd love to see some actual source for that. We have countless depictions from Germany where we see commoners wearing swords, or sword-equivalents like various war knife type weapons. Not to mention that the German longsword tradition was started by commoners.

>But what I mostly don't think that "everything was earthen, brown and green" which is a bullshit on it's own tier.
You do realise that I'm talking about the migration period and early middle ages here? When do you think did people come up with those myths around magic swords?

File: Szczerbiec_Wawel_crop[1].jpg (105KB, 1193x729px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1193x729px

Probably the most prized historical artifact in Poland is Szczerbiec (the notched one), the coronation sword of polish kings.

Forged in Rheinland sometime in the 12th century it was first used during the coronation of king Vladislav the Manlet (yep) and every king since then. Stolen several times it has been returned each time and spent WW2 safely tucked away in Canada.

There are many quasi-magical latin inscriptions on the hilt, for example

>FIERCE FAITH DO THE NAMES OF GOD SEDALAI AND EBREHEL INSPIRE

or

>Quicumque hec nomina Dei secum tulerit nullum periculum ei omnino nocebit
>Whoever carries these names of God with him shall not be harmed

The first and only historically documented wielder died 80 years before the sword was used in the first coronation so it was likely an actual weapon.

No one knows how it got notched, it probably happened sometime in the XV century.

please rate

>>66348
The part about it being made in Passau is still true though, as indicated by the marks. It would also explain why they had such high quality weapons, which were very likely quite expensive, made in such a ridiculous size.

>>63579
>Late medieval "Castillon" type arming sword

Is not from the castillon hoard. It is a type XV from the late 14th century with a hungarian or bohemian fashion hilt. at least 50 years before Castillon, and the opposite side of europe.

>>63672
>>63695
the figure of 8 hilts are distinctive types used by the Germanic Landsknecht mercenaries. Other examples of 2-h versions are found in the collections of Dresden and Lubeck museums.

>>63828
>Bohemian Dussack type war knife,

its not even remotely a war-knife. Its a Dussac/Tasak with a . calling it a war-knife is like calling a rifle a "trench shotgun"
Its a Dussack with a variant Norman type#38 hilt.


>>63867
2nd half of the 14th C, not late 15th C. These spined hollow-ground blades can be referenced against the better surviving example in Norwich Castle museum, known as the "fastolf" sword.

>>64035
Aside from the obvious, that its a kreigsmesser or grossmesser of austro-hungarian style, not a "war knife", (please, lets not muddy the already opaque nomenclature for messers any further!) its also very possibly a forgery.

(not that the rest of hermann-historica's stuff is much better. Some seriously ropey shit in among the verifiable originals. At least its better than Fricker's stuff.)

>>66574
Looks quite nice. Is that coat of arms on the blade and the hilt/guard also from the 12th century? It looks a bit off. Not that this was uncommon. Many older blades, e.g. Tizona (>>62078), Joyeuse, etc. that had some ceremonial purposes were regularly remounted and given often ill-fitting guards.

File: 4L_6Vzv47i0.jpg (101KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1280x720px

What is the best sword and why is it the rapier?

File: 49580_c.jpg (86KB, 600x398px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 600x398px

>>66680
>The part about it being made in Passau is still true though, as indicated by the marks

the same markings can be found on swords from solingen.

infact, solingen and passau seem to have had a long-running tit-for-tat spat of makers copying each other's marks well into the 15th C.

So though its most likely a passau running wolf, its always best to study them with caution.

File: 1369727168667.jpg (166KB, 555x809px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 555x809px

>>66717
>the figure of 8 hilts are distinctive types used by the Germanic Landsknecht mercenaries.
Though popular among them there was by no means any sort of exclusiveness. And many things that were initially popular among commoners later also ended up being used by nobility.

>>61212
>>61219
>>61234

damn, china has been making knockoffs for 2000 years

fuck off with ur chink blade

>>66717
>its not even remotely a war-knife. Its a Dussac/Tasak with a . calling it a war-knife is like calling a rifle a "trench shotgun"
A Dussack is a war knife type - just like a Sax is a war knife type.

>>62078

is that El Cid's sword?

Seeing a beautiful sword gets my dick erect
I wonder why

>>66727

the coat of arms used to be part of an intricately decorated scabbard that was lost when the Prussians took the sword in 1795 but apparently the coat was for some reason affixed to the sword.

One of the magnate families had themselves a copy made of the sword and an inventory report from their treasury dated 1740 says that this replica included the following inscription

>In the year 1105 this sword was forged by the order of Duke Boleslav to terrify his enemies

But this inscription is not on the original and there is no proof that they were exact copies.

>>66957
Same here. Is there some good sites to buy replicas? Cause I don't know

>>63604
I really like the handguard

>>66002
I mean, he's right about them being able to be carried all the time. Of you're legally allowed to, you can take it all around town, and they were immensely popular sidearms for war and travel for that reason. Your backup weapon for when your pollaxe fails isn't another pollaxe.

File: prices.png (128KB, 1902x1152px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1902x1152px

>>66528
>And you don't think that this sort of exclusiveness affected how people would view swords?
how is that have anything to do with the price in general?

>By 1340 we're into the late middle ages already. etc
No shit? and later they got more and more cheaper. Don't you think when you are talking in general about swords you should mention that there was a time when swords were kind of but not really expensive and then got cheaper?
Here, some source on prices on various stuff
http://www.luminarium.org/medlit/medprice.htm
and holy shit, yes lower quality or less decorated stuff was cheaper, who would have thought of that?
Please state the time at least and maybe locations too when you talk about these things because otherwise you are refering to hundreds of years of history and your argument will be just shit coming out of your mouth.

>Are you going to repeat the myth that in "Germany" the usage of swords was banned for commoners next? I'd love to see some actual source for that.
nice strawman, Although we have countless depicitions from Germany too where peasants doesn't have swords, only various knives, and war knife is still not a valid term just something you pulled out of your ass.

But forget that, here is an example

>8 Nov. 1327

>Writ to the same forbidding the carrying of swords, clubs, cross-bows, and bows for discharging stones and clay pellets (pelotas terreas) in the City. Offenders are to be committed to prison until further orders. This prohibition does not apply to the sergeants-at-arms of the King and Queen Isabella, nor to the servants (valettis) of earls and barons of the realm, viz. each earl and baron is allowed to have his servant carrying his sword in his presence. Dated at Nottingham, 8 Nov.

>From: 'Roll A 1b: (ii) Nov 1327 - July 1328', Calendar of the plea and memoranda rolls of the city of London: volume 1: 1323-1364 (1926), pp. 37-65.

Holy fucking shit, weapons were regulated! Who would have thought this?
cont.

File: falcata%20y%20daga1.jpg (25KB, 200x396px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 200x396px

>>66949
Yup. Tizona
>pic unrelated

>>67060
Kultofathena.com
Its fucking great. Pretty reasonable prices as well.

>>67157
How much is a Groschen

>>67157
I won't post more laws until I necessarily have to but I'm pretty sure you can find it on your own if you spend 10-20 seconds on it.

also
>Not to mention that the German longsword tradition was started by commoners.
WHAT. THE. ACTUAL. FUCK.
please define every fucking word in that sentence but stop taking drugs before it. But you know what? Just define what you mean by commoner but not taking drugs is mandatory regardless

>You do realise that I'm talking about the migration period and early middle ages here? When do you think did people come up with those myths around magic swords?
no, I did not realized that because until now you didn't said it, you just posted swords from early medieval times to not that early, going through late medieval, visiting early renaissance, etc.
So yeah I did not realized that, but nice save.

File: img_0261.jpg (59KB, 427x640px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 427x640px

The Suontaka sword, one of the most intriquely decorated iron age swords in Europe.

Fun piece of trivia: it was found on my grandparents property when they started to build on it.

>>67157
>how is that have anything to do with the price in general?
Do I really have to explain to you that a high price results in exclusiveness and that people are more likely to take good care of the item, hold it dear, etc.?

>No shit? and later they got more and more cheaper. Don't you think when you are talking in general about swords you should mention that there was a time when swords were kind of but not really expensive and then got cheaper?
People asked why swords had special status and I gave a reason for that. They were precious weapons in comparison with others - especially during the migration period and early middle ages and they were constant companions which people could carry around with them all the time.

>Although we have countless depicitions from Germany too where peasants doesn't have swords, only various knives, and war knife is still not a valid term just something you pulled out of your ass.
War knife is a perfectly valid term because that's what these weapons were called. If you think "Kriegsmesser" or "Langmesser" or something were rigid terms opposed to vague descriptions then you don't know what you're talking about.

>Writ to the same forbidding the carrying of swords, clubs, cross-bows, and bows for discharging stones and clay pellets (pelotas terreas) in the City.
First of all: it applies to people within the city wall, which wasn't uncommon. Within cities people would obviously be reasonably well defended by the authorities. How would they defend themselves on travels though? How would they defend themselves on a military campaign in case they were ambushed? The point remains: swords were common side-arms. Pretty much anyone had a sword-like weapon by his side.

>>66002
>>67127
>I mean, he's right about them being able to be carried all the time.


No.

that subject, is entirely subjective to the country or even the individual city.

Even knights were not permitted to carry swords inside the city limits in England. The Lords were permitted to have an esquire carry their sword, scabbarded, behind them, but not permitted to wear it:

>Proclamacio ne quis portat arma infra civitatem.
>Proclamation against any one carrying a sword or other arms unless he be an esquire or valet of a Knight, bearing a single sword only after his master; also against any one going as a "mummer" or playing any game with a mask or other strange guise, whereby his identity may be concealed.
>'Folios ccxxi - ccxxix: Oct 1387 -' Calendar of letter-books of the city of London: H: 1375-1399

German city-states have a mountain of laws pertaining to sumptuary wear, not just the carrying of swords, which sometimes allow carry, sometimes outlawed it. The whole "messers werent swords but knives and so allowed" thing, incidentally, is a myth. Research has shown there's not one piece of evidence to corroborate the story, so its very likely its a modern fabrication.

The ordinances of the city of Zwolle, in the nethelands, for instance had a blade chained beside the city gate, and the law stated:

> Dat niemand langer messen off ander wapene by hem dregene by dege dan der stadt mate ende is hangende voert meentehuys ende den poorten op een boete van vijf pond.
( A. Telting: Stadtboeken van Zwolle, Zwolle 1897, p302 )

>"That no man shall carry long knives or other weapons longer than the city measure that hangs in front of the city hall and at the gates, on penalty of a five pound fine"

A £5 fine, incidentally, being roughly equivalent to 3-6 months' wages for an average-earner nowadays.


The whole idea that swords could be carried "all the time" is utter bullshit for most of Europe, over the entire span of the middle ages.

>>65195
i read differently
Roland was on the rearguard and suffered Custer's syndrome when he was attacked by basque tribes on the army's retreat to the Pyrenees. when his whole squad started dying left and right he realized he was too prideful and blowed Charlemagne's horn, alerting the owner who turned back to help them, but arrived too late
the legend says that Roland was down by lots of arrows and held his sword below his body. when a basque tried to loot the sword off, he woke up and slashed him, then sunked the sword into the rock so it wouldn't be stolen

>>67266
roguhly as much as you can live from it for a week. I mean if one journeyman got 1 groschen for one week he probably could live from it for one week

>>67269
>WHAT. THE. ACTUAL. FUCK.
>please define every fucking word in that sentence but stop taking drugs before it. But you know what? Just define what you mean by commoner but not taking drugs is mandatory regardless
By commoner I mean someone who was not of noble birth. Do you think Johannes Liechtenauer, Hans Talhoffer, etc. were nobility? The vast majority - if not all - of these guys were not nobility. Or who do you think wrote all those fencing treatises?

>no, I did not realized that
The context should have given it away.

I'm thinking of investing in a sword-cane myself.

Suggestions?

>>67413
Don't.

>>67385
Okay so like $140?

File: ulfbrecht_sword_sites.jpg (77KB, 600x475px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 600x475px

Serious question here: Who made the Ulfberth?

>>67443
Ulfberht

>>66915
>A Dussack is a war knife type - just like a Sax is a war knife type.

The tasack/dussac is not a knife.

it is a sword-hilted, bladed weapon - that is, constructed with a guard (normally complex, ie, type 38 from AVB Norman's typology, sometimes type 28.) a hilt of wood, pierced longitudinally by a tang, which also pierces a pommel or end-cap piened over at the end.

They are a sword, or falchion-type bladed weapon.

A small number of dussac trainers, without guards or tangs exist, which may be classifiable as a knife-like construction technique.


Regardless, "War-knife" is not a valid typological classification going by any of the published classifications of arms: Petersen (1919), Wheeler(1927), Behmer (1939), Bruhn-Hoffmeyer (1954), Oakeshott (1964) , Norman (1980) Geibig (1991), or Elmslie (2015).

>>67338
>Do I really have to explain to you that a high price results in exclusiveness and that people are more likely to take good care of the item, hold it dear, etc.?
yes, but with relevant sources please

>People asked why swords had special status and I gave a reason for that.
your reason is that it was special because it was expensive? and it was expensive because it was special?

>War knife is a perfectly valid term because that's what these weapons were called.
need sources on that. Also a proper definitions of war knife. Source please

>First of all: it applies to people within the city wall
no shit? But it's strangely goes against the term of
>>64203
>could be carried around all the time
Strange, isn't it?

> Pretty much anyone had a sword-like weapon by his side.
I still can't decide if you are a very good troll or just clinically retarded...

>>67386
>By commoner I mean someone who was not of noble birth.
that's again, vague as fuck. there were an ant's dick little more levels of society than
>nobles
>NOT nobles
That's like saying "Programming was invented by people who aren't billionares in Africa" technically true but saying fuckall

>The context should have given it away.
which part? because you never mentioned any time, date, location or anything close to that until now

File: Suontakablack1.jpg (46KB, 538x714px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 538x714px

>>67289
It's a 11th century sword popularily thought to have belonged to a woman, but probably belonged to a man because durings its excavation the excavator digging the ground moved the sword from its original place near a man's grave closer to a woman's grave next to it.

>>67437
I'm not living in the US so I don't know, if you can live by there for a week counting rent, bills, food, etc and maybe left a little (but not much) then you are probably close. But again, this is a heavily time and location dependent thing.

File: images.jpg (9KB, 166x200px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 166x200px

>>61212
>>61219
>>61234
btw don't you guys think it's disappointing that real life broadswords are only 60 cm to 1 m long? where's my Dragonslayer nigga

>>67605
It belonging to a woman is not entirely impossible. Many of the most spectacular grave finds in Finland belonged to women. There is even a description by Roman historians that Finns had a matriarchy.

>>67374
That's cool, haven't heard about that one before.

>>67591
>yes, but with relevant sources please
You want a "relevant source" for the obviously perceivable fact that if someone makes a reasonably big investment into an object he's going to hold that object quite dear to him?

>your reason is that it was special because it was expensive? and it was expensive because it was special?
No, it was expensive because it required more elaborate craftsmanship than other weapons of the time. If you read more attentively you would have noticed that.

>need sources on that. Also a proper definitions of war knife. Source please
To a man in the middle ages, these weapons would have been war knives. That's all there is to it. You're applying modern, rigid terminology to something in hindsight which at that time was not so rigid at all.

>could be carried around all the time
>Strange, isn't it?
No, because someone who is capable of reasonable thinking would realise that there is a difference between not being allowed to carry and not being able to carry. When you're travelling, you're not going to carry a pollaxe on your shoulder all the time and you're not going to have it by your side on horseback. A sword is the longest weapon which you can wear by your side without encumbering you significantly. You can't do that with a mace. You can't do that with a spear, a crossbow or whatver. That is also the primary reason why swords had special status. If you fail to realise this simple fact, then I cannot help you.

Or rather tell me: what do you think gave swords their special status?

>that's again, vague as fuck. there were an ant's dick little more levels of society than
>nobles
>NOT nobles
There were more, but to bisect the set into nobles/not-nobles is perfectly valid. And the point remains: the founders of the German longsword tradition were not nobles.

>which part? because you never mentioned any time, date, location or anything close to that until now
The parts which I've described that didn't apply to different contexts.

>>67678
>It belonging to a woman is not entirely impossible.
The records precisely mention that the blade was moved during its excavation, I would put it as very unlikely.
>Many of the most spectacular grave finds in Finland belonged to women.
They didn't contain weapons.
>There is even a description by Roman historians that Finns had a matriarchy.
Those descriptions don't belong to suomalaiset by any stretch of the imagination. More like the Sami people north of North Germanics.

>>67289
oh shit, you're gonna get spooked by viking ghosts.

>>67541
Refer to the part about modern, rigid terminology that didn't exist within the historical context in >>67733.

>>67357
You are correct about city laws in England and the HRE. That was very much restricted, at least during the medieval period. That doesn't mean that lower classes didn't own them, of course. Even if their use was restricted in cities, there was no such restriction on travel. A sword CAN be carried all over the place on the road and especially on a battlefield.

>>67736
>"Upon the Suiones, border the people Sitones; and, agreeing with them in all other things, differ from them in one, that here the sovereignty is exercised by a woman. So notoriously do they degenerate not only from a state of liberty, but even below a state of bondage."

>>67826
This could also be connected to the story of king Agne, who killed a finnish chieftain and kidnapped his daudghter Skjalf. Skjalf later killed king Agne and is said to have sail back to Finland. The timing would also fit.

>>67745

That is utterly pointless, and completely incorrect.

typologies are used because we need them now.

Lets use the word "sword".

"I'm using a sword" I say... in 1905, waxing my officer's moustache.

"A duel! with swords!" I demand, in 1586, thrusting forth my codpiece.

"Bring me my sword" I say, closing the visor on my milanese harness in 1453.

"My Lord Bishop. I hereby present you with the sword that..." I say, placing my sword in the Bishop's hand in 1247.

"It is time for the sword!" I yell, leaping from the longship".

And yet, even though "sword" is the same word each time, each of those instance would be something radically different.

"war knife", aside from being a phrase virtually irrelevant in period, is utterly lacking in context. It does not mean anything. It does not define anything. Use of such phrases, when covering centuries of history results only in gross misunderstanding or confusion as to what you are talking about. Which is exactly why coherent classification systems and typologies have been developed over the last century, to discuss those 1000+ years of evolution and change.

What you are doing by using such terms is making already confusing names even more muddled.

>>67826
And?

None of the Roman sources seem to even recognize areas north of Lithuania or Sweden (Roslagen) with the exception of Samis.

Estonians, Karelians, Finns on the other side of the ocean were unknown to the Romans, or they must have thought it was the same Baltic cultural sphere stretching further north.

>>67605
> feminism strikes again.

>>67900
If they talk about Finnar, it almost certainly means Samis. To Norwegians for example Finns was Sami for a long time. Most of those shaman witch stories you hear about are Lapps, not farming, iron-producing suomalaiset, who were identical to Estonians pretty much until 500 AD.

>>67733
>You want a "relevant source" for the obviously perceivable fact that if someone makes a reasonably big investment into an object he's going to hold that object quite dear to him?
fragment of written source is enough, preferably dated, but it's good with 50 years of accuracy.

>No, it was expensive because it required more elaborate craftsmanship than other weapons of the time. If you read more attentively you would have noticed that.
so how expensive was it actually? like do you have something along of a source on it? because theories are all nice and dandy but you would have to put "I think" or "in my opinion" after them before saying them as the absolute truths.

>To a man in the middle ages, these weapons would have been war knives
I will definitely need source on this that people of that time refereed to these items as war knives. For the Kriegsmesser that's granted because that's what the name means, but I would need something on the dussack for example, because apart from your claim it has nothing to do with a knife. So source please.

> A sword is the longest weapon which you can wear by your side without encumbering you significantly.
even a two hander?
>You can't do that with a mace.
why not?
> You can't do that with a spear, a crossbow or whatver.
I can do it as much with a short spear as with a two hander.

> If you fail to realise this simple fact, then I cannot help you.
I feel the same.

>Or rather tell me: what do you think gave swords their special status?
special status where and when?

>There were more, but to bisect the set into nobles/not-nobles is perfectly valid.
it is vaild I didn't said it isn't. I'm saying it's retarded and doesn't say much in this subject.
With that you could even say that the German longsword traditions were not founded by dogs. It would be valid but no one ever said the contrary.

>The parts which I've described...
where?

>>67783
>A sword CAN be carried all over the place on the road and especially on a battlefield.
and the local law enforcement WILL fuck you up if you try that in the city if you aren't allowed to. And then you can't carry it around anymore...

>>68057
You were allowed to carry it to your place of residence within the city, or to your host's residence. You often needed a place to stay to be allowed in at all anyway, but if people were turned away at the door for holding swords you wouldn't see them all over the place as personal defense sidearms on the road as we do.

>>67992
>fragment of written source is enough, preferably dated, but it's good with 50 years of accuracy.
We're talking about human psychology here, not a historical event.

>so how expensive was it actually? like do you have something along of a source on it? because theories are all nice and dandy but you would have to put "I think" or "in my opinion" after them before saying them as the absolute truths.
I made an educated guess. If you disagree with my reasoning then tell me where you think I'm wrong.

>For the Kriegsmesser that's granted because that's what the name means
Again: Kriegsmesser is not a rigid term. It's something akin to "sword", which could be applied to pretty much anything that vaguely resembled a knife that wasn't exactly the type of knife you'd use for kitchen applications.

>even a two hander?
No, not a two-hander, but the majority of swords made throughout history.

>You can't do that with a mace.
>why not?
Because it's not balanced for that sort of thing. It would make you go crazy.

>special status where and when?
Special status throughout the middle ages up to the modern period. There are countless magic swords out there in fiction. Countless ceremonial swords. Coronation swords. Swords being a symbol of knighthood, etc. etc.

>With that you could even say that the German longsword traditions were not founded by dogs. It would be valid but no one ever said the contrary.
It would be valid but would it would have little to do with the discussion. The point is: commoners were allowed to own and carry swords.

>where?
In the earlier posts. You've addressed them and I've told you how they don't apply to later periods. The context could have given it away.

>>68057
Utter and complete nonsense. It was expected of you to arm yourself during travels, which were often dangerous. And swords were the common defence on such travels.

The German duelling traditions of student fraternities stemmed from the time periods when students had to travel far to universities often carrying their tuition fees with them, making them attractive targets to bandits. In order to counter-act that, students from the same geographic areas would gather and travel together. They would also practice fencing in order to defend themselves on their travels. Students were also allowed to carry arms within city walls, which then gave birth to a vivid duelling culture that lived right into the 18th century, when the use of smallswords and gruesome deaths from punctuated lungs resulted in too many accidents (after all, most duels weren't fought until one of the participants was dead, but they were meant to be fought to the first bleeding wound). From that point on the duel became more and more ritualistic, up to the Mensur ritual that is still practised today.

>>67920
As if there was the one rigid typology today and not every moron, from actual scholar to historical fencer is using whatever he feels like. It's confusing because there is not the one typology and because it's an unholy mixture of historical terms that never were meant to be rigidly applied, which changed meaning throughout history, and often even mixes languages making use of terms which the people using them don't natively understand and have no idea about their real meaning within the context of that language.

File: 1342702389003.jpg (21KB, 300x391px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 300x391px

>>68342
What the fuck are you even remotely talking about?

Do you seriously think there is going to be one typology that can cover Saxon ring-hilts, Late Medieval hand and a half longswords, 16th C Messers, 17th C complex-hilt rapiers, and 19th C cavalry sabres, all in one?

Good luck with that.

And the rest of your comment makes about as much sense as an amateur trepanning.

>>68420
>Do you seriously think there is going to be one typology that can cover Saxon ring-hilts, Late Medieval hand and a half longswords, 16th C Messers, 17th C complex-hilt rapiers, and 19th C cavalry sabres, all in one?
Real sciences do a pretty good job at coming up with classifications. I don't see why historians shouldn't be able to do it too.

File: 36rMn2jB5tgO73.jpg (95KB, 675x900px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 675x900px

pic replica of zulfiqar

belonged to ali

>>66348
HOLY SHIT REKT

File: Islamic Straight Sword.jpg (11KB, 650x650px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 650x650px

>>68503
Zulfiqar was most likely a native Ayyrab str8 sword.

Sabres came to the middle east thanks to Turks, who (sort of) invented it

>>64853
Can I get a source on the Pheonician writing?
I couldn't understand a single word desu.

>>64853
>>68607
oops just noticed

>>68581
you're right, the only thing unique with zulfiqar is the split end, couldn't find the authentic zulfiqar.

>>68674
I doubt anyone could. It was just "Ali's Sword."

Might as well try to look for Jesus' cross

>>68192
>We're talking about human psychology here, not a historical event.
which can be documented, documents can be sources. Go find some, at least you won't talk nonsense during that

> If you disagree with my reasoning then tell me where you think I'm wrong.
where you don't state what you mean by expensive just use it as a vague as fuck term. I pretty much disagree with that.

>which could be applied to pretty much anything that vaguely resembled a knife that wasn't exactly the type of knife you'd use for kitchen applications.
So... grosemessers can be called kriegsmesser? messers can be called kriegsmessers? According to you dussacks can be called kriegsmessers?

>No, not a two-hander, but the majority of swords made throughout history.
but you said swords, now it turns out NOT EVERY sword? HOW COULD THAT BE?!

>Because it's not balanced for that sort of thing. It would make you go crazy.
What sort of thing? putting it on your belt while you are walking? Because there are sources that people did that with warhammers and maces.

>Special status throughout the middle ages up to the modern period. There are countless magic swords out there in fiction. Countless ceremonial swords. Coronation swords. Swords being a symbol of knighthood, etc. etc.
soooooo... you think that FUCKING EVERYWHERE through roughly am illenia, in every different culuture it had the same reason why it had a special place? Even in the places and times when it wasn't?

>It would be valid but would it would have little to do with the discussion. The point is: commoners were allowed to own and carry swords.
The point is: I never said they weren't allowed . I said they weren't allowed in every case ever. There are cases when they were allowed and when they weren't. Please for fuck sake try to learn the difference. And stop being so vague as fuck. You just pulling out shit from your ass otherwise.

>In the earlier posts.
you mean the ones you wrote after I pointed this out?

File: Typologies.jpg (207KB, 2048x1182px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 2048x1182px

>>68473
Do you know why Nick Norman's typology is virtually unknown, when it "only" covers the rapier and small-sword?

Because it has 113 different types of cross. 39 types of inner guard. 93 types of pommel.

it doesnt even cover blade types.

Its so large, no-one in their right mind knows it from memory.

Know why Geibig's typology isnt used while Oakeshott's is? Because people can remember it, where Geibig's you need a tape measure and a calculator to work it out.

and you're trying to propose something for 5-6 times as wide a timespan, because "Real" sciences can do it? I'm struggling to decide if you are spectacularly ignorant, or just trying to be deliberately stupid to troll the thread.

>>68290
2 Dec. 1343
On Tuesday after the Feast of St Andrew [30 Nov.] Hugh de Dyngele, clerk, was committed to prison for carrying arms in the streets contrary to proclamation.


From: 'Roll A 5: (ii) 1341-45', Calendar of the plea and memoranda rolls of the city of London: volume 1: 1323-1364 (1926), pp. 198-223.

>>68725
>which can be documented, documents can be sources.
You mean how people in historical texts referred to expensive things with positive attributes, called them precious and such? I could look up something if you'd like, but I find it rather silly that you expect a "source" for people holding something they made a reasonably big investment in dear to them. That would be self-explanatory and I doubt you're even interested in a serious debate if you get stuck at this point already.

>where you don't state what you mean by expensive just use it as a vague as fuck term. I pretty much disagree with that.
If you can't read, then I can't help you but I can at least repeat what I wrote: swords required more intricate work and more high quality metal than other types of weapons such as spears, axes, clubs, etc. that made them more expensive.

Do you disagree with that reasoning?

>So... grosemessers can be called kriegsmesser? messers can be called kriegsmessers? According to you dussacks can be called kriegsmessers?
Grosses Messer merely means "big knife", it's not some fancy term. I'd be very surprised if it was a rigid term that only applied to a very specific type of weapon.

>but you said swords, now it turns out NOT EVERY sword? HOW COULD THAT BE?!
Because you're a moron who got argued into a corner and now you try to nitpick your way out of it haplessly making yourself look like an even bigger moron in the process? You want to seriously disagree with me that swords (and sword-like edged weapons) were probably the most common side-arm throughout the middle ages? That they could be easily carried around all the time, opposed to larger weapon such as polearms, bows, spears, crossbows? That they were shiny and nice to look at and thus held a special place in peoples' hearts?

File: pl_1_2_6009.jpg (19KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 800x800px

S p a d o n e
p
a
d
o
n
e

>>64005
Half a millennium to early lad.

>>68898
Was he a traveler entering the city? If he isn't, and was just a resident, then that has very little to do with the conversation apart from establishing that you generally cannot bear arms in a city which has already been acknowledged.

>>68725
>What sort of thing? putting it on your belt while you are walking? Because there are sources that people did that with warhammers and maces.
During campaigns they might have likely done that sword of thing. In civilian life? Not so much. The practicality of it aside, there are also very few depictions of people in civilian life carrying swords.

>soooooo... you think that FUCKING EVERYWHERE through roughly am illenia, in every different culuture it had the same reason why it had a special place? Even in the places and times when it wasn't?
It had a special place in Europe. Too Eurocentric for you?

>The point is: I never said they weren't allowed . I said they weren't allowed in every case ever. There are cases when they were allowed and when they weren't. Please for fuck sake try to learn the difference. And stop being so vague as fuck. You just pulling out shit from your ass otherwise.
They weren't allowed in every case ever, but usually under the circumstances where they weren't allowed anyone else - except for authority - wasn't allowed either. The point is: there is this myth that German commoners (read: people not of nobility) weren't allowed to use swords and that they used knives instead. In order to debunk that myth right away I told you about the German fencing tradition being founded by commoners. If you don't hold the belief that German commoners were banned from using swords you might as well ignore that point as it is unrelated to the rest of the debate.

>you mean the ones you wrote after I pointed this out?
I'm not going to repeat everything for you again simply because you can't read and ignore everything you don't like.

>>69076
>The practicality of it aside, there are also very few depictions of people in civilian life carrying swords.
By that I meant: very few depictions of people in civilian life carrying maces. Swords were carried all the time obviously.

>>68769
>and you're trying to propose something for 5-6 times as wide a timespan, because "Real" sciences can do it?
Biology can do it just fine and they cover much more than that.

>>68965
>You mean how people in historical texts referred to expensive things with positive attributes, called them precious and such?
try to get the price tag too while you are at it. Have fun!

> swords required more intricate work and more high quality metal than other types of weapons such as spears, axes, clubs, etc. that made them more expensive.
no, that made them more work demanding. Did it made them more expensive? that can be only found out if you find the price. Anyway more expensive can be said only in a relation to something. Of course it will be more expensive than a stick. BUT HOW MUCH? Get a fucking frame of reference here.

>Grosses Messer merely means "big knife", it's not some fancy term. I'd be very surprised if it was a rigid term that only applied to a very specific type of weapon.
soo... because tit's not a rigid term... you can call a gladius a grosses messer? I mean it's jsut a fancy term.

> the most common side-arm throughout the middle ages?
alright now we are just talking about the middle ages. Now we have to make it a little tighter for example to a 50 years time frame and choose a fucking country. Then we can finally start a meaningful argument and not just throw "universal truths" around

>That they could be easily carried around all the time
in a sense of "there is a possibility" yes

>opposed to larger weapon such as polearms, bows, spears, crossbows?
it's kind of strange that larger staffs were also carried around when traveling, isn't it?

>That they were shiny and nice to look at and thus held a special place in peoples' hearts?
daggers are shiny and nice too. You know what shiny and nice and holds a VERY special place in peoples heart? money.

>>69051
>cannot bear arms in a city which has already been acknowledged
no it wasn't. I brought up sources that in one specific city some specific people weren't allowed to carry some specific weapons. Which 5 years later probably changed in that city for those people.

>>69076
>The practicality of it aside, there are also very few depictions of people in civilian life carrying swords.
... Which country, when?

>It had a special place in Europe. Too Eurocentric for you?
good now we are only talking about a whole continent. That's sure tightens it. During fuck knows how many centuries. Piece of cake

> The point is: there is this myth that German commoners (read: people not of nobility) weren't allowed to use swords and that they used knives instead.
which you were the only one so far to bring up. There were a fuckton of laws that changed from city to city and from time year to year.

>If you don't hold the belief that German commoners were banned from using swords you might as well ignore that point
SOME commoners in SOME SPECIFIC years in SOME part of germany WERE banned from carrying swords. Then again a fuckton of others in other places at other times weren't.

File: Messer-Falchion-Venn-V1.jpg (282KB, 2048x1200px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 2048x1200px

>>68725
>So... grosemessers can be called kriegsmesser? messers can be called kriegsmessers? According to you dussacks can be called kriegsmessers?


Messer are knives - that's all the word means.
Messers, in the conext of weapons are knife-like bladed weapons, usually with asymmetric single-edged blades. They were also probably identified as such rather than swords, because they were made by different guild member than swords.

So, Messer are knives.
Langes messer, are long knives
Grossemesser are big knives.
Kriegsmesser are knives, used for war.

A Langes messer could be used for war. A big knife might be long.

these terms are, in themselves, not accurate descriptors of weapons, any more than "Van", "Car" "Hatchback" and "Saloon" and "4wd" are accurate descriptors of vehicles.

you drive a car. but your car might also be a hatchback. Alternately, it might be that your car is a van, for deliveries. Your saloon is probably not a hatchback, but it might be 4wd. it might not.

these terms are as vague in describing a vehicle, as use of messer names is for weapons.

First off, is the fact that these names overlap - a langes messer could also be a grossemesser. A Falchion is also a sword. And a rare few have details from both swords, and messers.
so you might say these are a Venn diagram, like this image:

(continued in the next reply.)

>>69250
>no, that made them more work demanding. Did it made them more expensive? that can be only found out if you find the price. Anyway more expensive can be said only in a relation to something. Of course it will be more expensive than a stick. BUT HOW MUCH? Get a fucking frame of reference here.
So suddenly they are more expensive after all? Good. We can move forward then.

>soo... because tit's not a rigid term... you can call a gladius a grosses messer? I mean it's jsut a fancy term.
It's certainly closer to being a Gladius than being a hammer, and someone writing in Latin might as well use the term Gladius to refer to a sword-like item.

>alright now we are just talking about the middle ages. Now we have to make it a little tighter for example to a 50 years time frame and choose a fucking country. Then we can finally start a meaningful argument and not just throw "universal truths" around
No, I don't think we should. The question was: what made swords special to people. You won't derive the cultural significance of the weapon from a 50 years time frame.

>opposed to larger weapon such as polearms, bows, spears, crossbows?
>it's kind of strange that larger staffs were also carried around when traveling, isn't it?
And they were used for self-defence too. But are they as effective as a sword against men who would likely not be wearing heavy armour? I don't think so. Not to mention that there is nothing to keep a sword by your side while you're travelling with your stick.

>That they were shiny and nice to look at and thus held a special place in peoples' hearts?
daggers are shiny and nice too. You know what shiny and nice and holds a VERY special place in peoples heart? money.
Daggers can be shiny, but swords are shinier due to their size. And money most certainly has a very special place in peoples' heart. Who would doubt that - besides you who would require a source for it.

File: Messer-Falchion-Venn-V2.jpg (237KB, 2048x1200px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 2048x1200px

>>69558
the reality is, not only do these descriptors overlap, but the delineations of what constitutes a grossmesser, or a kriegsmesser, or a langesmesser, or a bauernwehr, a rugger or a hauswehr all blur together. And then you have things like Maciejowski proto-messers that might be closely related, or might not, as there's no surviving examples.

and likewise, what is a falchion and a swiss sabre, or a wakefield hangar, all blur.

so your venn diagram actually turns into something like this....

File: Messer-Falchion-Venn-V3.jpg (222KB, 2048x1200px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 2048x1200px

>>69623
but it gets even better...

because we're looking at weapons where 90% of them no longer exist.

So what's left is often the bare bones of the corroded, rotted away remnants.

Entire types are missing from the archaeological record.


so, that blurry mess in fact ends up as this:

And that's what you're left with, to try to make any sense of - and why typologies are essential to detail what is known and classified.

>>69595
>Not to mention that there is nothing to keep a sword by your side while you're travelling with your stick.
By that I meant: Not to mention that there is nothing to keep YOU FROM WEARING a sword by your side while you're travelling with a stick.

Sorry about that.

>>61212

|-------->

(The blade of ASCII)

>>64853
Celtic languages are Indo-European m8, and Phoenician is a Semitic language. They aren't related at all.

>>69595
>So suddenly they are more expensive after all? Good. We can move forward then
yes, by you choose a nation, a time period, get source on how expensive were swords in general, then to get a reference, look up other weapons, look up how much that is compared to the average people's wage, etc.

>and someone writing in Latin might as well use the term Gladius to refer to a sword-like item.
but wasn't that a war knife? which is a knife like weapon instead of a sword like.

>You won't derive the cultural significance of the weapon from a 50 years time frame.
but you can look up sources to figure out if there was any and if was what was it

> But are they as effective as a sword against men who would likely not be wearing heavy armour? I don't think so. Not to mention that there is nothing to keep a sword by your side while you're travelling with your stick.
there were countries and time periods were even steel headed axe like things were banned from shepards.Which reminds me that some people just used those instead of swords even when swords weren't banned for them.

>Daggers can be shiny, but swords are shinier due to their size.
so it has nothing to do with how polished one?

>And money most certainly has a very special place in peoples' heart. Who would doubt that - besides you who would require a source for it.
Well there are people who would say money is the devils tool and hate it. That's what you stumble upon when you observe and not just pull things out of your ass.

I think I said it a lot of times now in various forms but again: the main problem with what you say is that you don't say it to specific things and try to use it as universal truths when there are a lot of very specific counterexamples to your claims.

>>69759
Only there is increasinly large amounts of evidence from portugal in particular that the celtic language was directly connected to Phoenician - including Phoenician alphabet inscriptions on stone carvings, that used an extremely closely associated but celtic language.

>>71070
>yes, by you choose a nation, a time period, get source on how expensive were swords in general, then to get a reference, look up other weapons, look up how much that is compared to the average people's wage, etc.
Which isn't important for the debate. The point is: it's more expensive than other weapons of the time period. To which extent - we can't tell. How about you try to find something on early medieval swords? If you find something about the price of Frankish or Anglo-Saxon swords, let me know. Until then, we'll have to use reasoning.

>but wasn't that a war knife? which is a knife like weapon instead of a sword like.
I'd say it resembles a knife more, but calling it a sword wouldn't be entirely out of place.

>but you can look up sources to figure out if there was any and if was what was it
Not from a 50 years time frame. Someone asked about the cultural significance of swords, and you're not going to cover that with a 50 years time frame.

>there were countries and time periods were even steel headed axe like things were banned from shepards.
Yes, some people used other weapons, still swords are more commonly depicted as side-arms, still swords carry greater cultural significance. I don't even know what you're trying to argue any more.

>so it has nothing to do with how polished one?
I'd say most people would argue that an unpolished sword is merely in a badly kept state. But that's besides the point.

>>71280
>Which isn't important for the debate. The point is: it's more expensive than other weapons of the time period
is it? And how much?

>To which extent - we can't tell. How about you try to find something on early medieval swords?
you have the burden to prove as you are the one who stating this

>I'd say it resembles a knife more, but calling it a sword wouldn't be entirely out of place.
so now we can just call war-knifes swords? Where does it end? What is the difference between a war knife and a sword?

>Not from a 50 years time frame. Someone asked about the cultural significance of swords, and you're not going to cover that with a 50 years time frame.
I totally can for that 50 years. OBVIOUSLY it won't cover it for anything outside of it. And that's the fucking point.

>Yes, some people used other weapons, still swords are more commonly depicted as side-arms, still swords carry greater cultural significance. I don't even know what you're trying to argue any more.
most probably because you don't read what I'm writing or just parts of it. Even when I'm repeating myself for the fifth time

>I'd say most people would argue that an unpolished sword is merely in a badly kept state. But that's besides the point.
nope, it's very important on the subject of shininess which you said is a crucial point on significance

>>63373
The Gladius is one of the finest weapons ever made.

>>71070
>I think I said it a lot of times now in various forms but again: the main problem with what you say is that you don't say it to specific things and try to use it as universal truths when there are a lot of very specific counterexamples to your claims.
Pro-tip: a singular counter-example does not disprove the general case outside of mathematical statements. If I say swords can and commonly were worn as side-arms opposed to weapons such as pollaxes, then citing two-handed swords as a counter-example to my statement doesn't make you smart but it makes you an autistic moron who is unable to implicitly read from the context that there might as well we some sword types - usually exceptions rather than the norm - for which the general case does not apply. Excluding these within such statements would be completely impractical however which is why it is not commonly done.

In fact, I haven't seen anything smart from you yet.

I made an educated guess why swords held cultural significance and instead of discussing the arguments, you go on about sources and terminology. There is nothing even remotely insightful in your posts and all you've done is completely derail the thread into some pointless debate.

File: Han Dao 3.jpg (644KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

644KB, 1600x1200px

You know, this was a sword thread
for swords
and swords only.

>>71417
>is it? And how much?
Do I need to remind you again that you have to read attentively? I told you precisely:

>To which extent - we can't tell. How about you try to find something on early medieval swords? If you find something about the price of Frankish or Anglo-Saxon swords, let me know. Until then, we'll have to use reasoning.

>you have the burden to prove as you are the one who stating this
I provided an argument why I believe that would be the case and I provided reasoning in favour of that argument. If people aren't allowed to make educated guesses then we could stop researching altogether because you won't find a source for everything. Some things are lost in time. Deal with it.

>so now we can just call war-knifes swords? Where does it end? What is the difference between a war knife and a sword?
As I said, if you were less of an autistic moron, you'd get over the terminology issue and to the actual topic at hand.

>I totally can for that 50 years. OBVIOUSLY it won't cover it for anything outside of it. And that's the fucking point.
What if that cultural significance already existed before that 50 year time frame you idiot? What are you going to do then? What is anything within that 50 year time frame going to tell you? Not to mention the further you go back in history, 50 years is nothing, and you'll barely have anything to work with.

>most probably because you don't read what I'm writing or just parts of it. Even when I'm repeating myself for the fifth time
Unlike you I read everything - not that there was anything worthwhile within your posts. You harp on about non-issues in your badly worded idiotic posts instead of actually getting somewhere.

>nope, it's very important on the subject of shininess which you said is a crucial point on significance
I said it's one aspect, whether it's crucial or not is something you added in yet another example of poor analytical reading skills on your side.

>>71454
>If I say swords can and commonly were worn as side-arms opposed to weapons such as pollaxes
the problem is you didn't said that. If you would have said commonly that would be fine.
Here is what you said
>Swords could be carried around all the time
>Swords were a constant.
>Pretty much anyone had a sword-like weapon by his side.
etc.
I think you can see the difference between "commonly were worn" and "all the time" or "constant" plus "pretty much anyone"
THATS the problem, that you speak in extremes and that can be actually invalidated by just a few examples.

>>71667
>I think you can see the difference between "commonly were worn" and "all the time" or "constant" plus "pretty much anyone"
>THATS the problem, that you speak in extremes and that can be actually invalidated by just a few examples.
So it's your autism at work again. You cannot deal with the fact that "all the time", "constant" and "pretty much anyone" would be figures of speech and you interpret everything literally?

>>71280
>Which isn't important for the debate. The point is: it's more expensive than other weapons of the time period.

that's sort of like saying that a car is more expensive than a horse, and then claiming that the time period isnt relevant to when.

Your argument there is fundamentally flawed, time period is utterly relevant - you have multiple references of valuations of a sword costing 1 penny, in wills and bequests, in the 15th C.
you also have references to a sword costing the equivalent for 40, even 50,000 dollars today, the price or an entire herd of cattle, in saxon records.

So time period is absolutely critical, and varies between extremes as industrial and socio-political pressures alter the manufacture of them.

>I'd say most people would argue that an unpolished sword is merely in a badly kept state.

You really need to actually study the subject, and the production processes, and understand why polishing cost a fortune, before you start talking about this stuff.

--
Also, regarding the social and cultural significance, that is something that entire doctorates have been written on, on specific points of date. It is very possible to make accurate statements on those subjects.

>>71643
>If people aren't allowed to make educated guesses then we could stop researching altogether because you won't find a source for everything. Some things are lost in time. Deal with it.
but then you can't say for sure, as I stated previously it would be only a theroy. And yes I agree that swords would be most probably more expensive than a dagger for example just as 2 is a bigger number than 1. The main question is, was it significantly expensive than the other weapons?
But then again there is a chance that would turn up that for example long axes were even more expensive. or that just high quality swords were more expensive.
That's the difference between something being a theory or guess work and absolute truth.

>As I said, if you were less of an autistic moron, you'd get over the terminology issue and to the actual topic at hand.
the actual point is that a messer is a sword or not. Because obviously if it's a war knife then there is a really high chance it isn't as culturally significant as a sword on grounds of being a knife.

>I said it's one aspect, whether it's crucial or not is something you added in yet another example of poor analytical reading skills on your side.
so it's not crucial?

>>71444
>The Gladius is one of the finest weapons ever made.

it really isnt.

metallurgically, it was significantly inferior to the spathae of the germanic celts, the dacian falx, or the iberian swords that the romans fought against.

In terms of weapon design, its extremely deficient, with a poor reach, and not particularly good in the cut.

the roman army did not win because of the sword. it won because of infrastructure, logistics, and organisation which outclassed those cultures around it, who made vastly superior weapons in terms of metallurgy, technology, and martial use.

>>71780
>So it's your autism at work again. You cannot deal with the fact that "all the time", "constant" and "pretty much anyone" would be figures of speech and you interpret everything literally?
It might be a language barrier but please confirm this:
Are you saying that when you speak in extremes I have to know that you mean "commonly" "kind of" "most probably" "most of the time" etc.?

File: 6517941425_8fb103a8d5_b.jpg (267KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 1024x768px

Indian Khanda

>>71829
>but then you can't say for sure, as I stated previously it would be only a theroy.
Who do you think I am? The guy with the time machine? It's not even a theory, barely a hypothesis. An idea posted on a board about Chinese cartoons. Of course I don't know "for sure". Pretty much nothing in history is known "for sure" unless you were actually there, and even then if you write it down someone who reads it who wasn't there has reason to doubt.

I don't claim absolute truth for my side.

I made a guess, you replied with greentext and I asked what you disagreed about in order to have a debate.

>But then again there is a chance that would turn up that for example long axes were even more expensive. or that just high quality swords were more expensive.
That's quite possible. But I'd have to ask you what makes you think so why that would be the case - and that's something that can be discussed rather than blindly asking for sources for each and every guess that is being made.

File: executioner's sword.jpg (21KB, 750x544px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 750x544px

I always found executioner's swords interesting.
Both design-wise, usage-wise and symbolically.

File: ph-0.jpg (16KB, 640x395px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 640x395px

>>71919
And another, sorry if it's small

bow>lance>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>sword

>>71938
>Pretty much nothing in history is known "for sure" unless you were actually there, and even then if you write it down someone who reads it who wasn't there has reason to doubt.


Oh, FFS, what sort of fucking GOBSHITE are you talking?
That is just plain WRONG. We have vast bodies of evidence, data backed up by archaeology, empirical evidence, eyewitness accounts, and 101 other sources for huge swathes of history. We have hundreds, thousands of doctorate papers that give us research on countless areas of milennia of history. Yes, some are tempered by the authors' points of view. Many are not.

trying to say that everything is in fact unknown is nothing but pure ignorance.

>>71909
>Are you saying that when you speak in extremes I have to know that you mean "commonly" "kind of" "most probably" "most of the time" etc.?
If I speak in extremes it is not necessarily to be taken literally. It is informal language that is being used here. In a mathematical text, this would be unusual but on a board about Chinese cartoons it is not.

When I say "commonly" I mean that swords were commonly used, in the sense that there are plenty of depictions and descriptions of people carrying swords (or sword-like weapons like knives) by their sides - especially in civilian life and significantly more commonly than maces, hammers, pollaxes, etc. at least in my experience.

When I say "pretty much anyone" I mean that swords were fairly common throughout all social classes. You have depictions of common (not-noble) men as well as nobility with swords. Clergy too. Ministerials, etc.

When I say "swords were a constant" I mean that swords accompanied people throughout their lives more than pollaxes did or war hammers. Simply because the latter were weapons of war, so they would be taken out of the closet for military campaigns, possibly training, but not so much on travels, or other civilian events.

I might add: I don't claim absolutes here, you're free to disagree with any of these points, but I'd like to know why rather than being greentexted and being asked for sources for a hypothetical argument that was developed through reasoning with the reasoning being laid out in the open where it can be addressed.

>>72069
Absolutely nothing in science has absolute verity. Scientific arguments can only be falsified by never be proven. I'm not a historian but if historians treat things differently, then they're clearly not proper scientists.

>>63533
>>63595
why was ancient India so rich and advanced and modern India is just designated shitting streets?

>>72136
>Scientific arguments can only be falsified by never be proven.
By that I meant "but" never be proven.

The "proof" only exists in mathematics. Science works empirically.

File: african swords.jpg (1MB, 3525x2858px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3525x2858px

Various swords from Africa.

>>72136
>, then they're clearly not proper scientists.

Newsflash:
This is why as a history student, you graduate with a MA in history, not an MSc in history.

Its not a science. Never has been.

So trying to say it is, shows how completely ignorant you are of what history entails.

>>71782
>You really need to actually study the subject, and the production processes, and understand why polishing cost a fortune, before you start talking about this stuff.
So it cost a fortune after all?

>Also, regarding the social and cultural significance, that is something that entire doctorates have been written on, on specific points of date. It is very possible to make accurate statements on those subjects.
Is that so? How about you provide something of your insight then.

>>72411
You mean a history student blindly believes in first-hand accounts because the one who wrote it down was there after all? Huh. I see why they're not handed MSc then.

File: HQEIyS8.jpg (37KB, 500x750px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 500x750px

>>72175
Depends what you consider 'ancient' I guess but those swords don't look older than 1300, and were probably made much later than that.

>>72557
Failed that gened, did you?

>>72232
>african
2nd from left is egyptian

the rest is subsaharan

File: urumi.jpg (15KB, 400x309px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 400x309px

Do you guys consider the urumi a sword in the broadest sense?

>>72656
I luckily never went to school in the US.

In any case, if you fail to realise why especially in history anything should be doubted, then there's no point in arguing. Obviously there are some things which are well substantiated by a lot of evidence making them more likely than others, but there's still absolutely no fucking guarantee that things happened as they appear. If that line of reasoning is foreign to you and you seriously believe that certain things are absolute truth, then I worry for American education and your academic discipline.

>>72077
MY problem not just the specific words it's the whole context. You say that swords by used everyone, I say no it wasn't depends on time period and place, then you keep using these words and always go for the argument that swords were VERY common. Which is true for most part of germany in some time periods.

But in more then one country, like England, France and Italy the norm was that commoners were banned from carrying swords, but again that's only for a few centuries and has a lot of local variables.

the "carry everywhere every time" thing was either the privilege of some high nobility or was the thing of renaissance times, and even then mileage might vary

File: main-qimg-cbf9ca2cb0493c7a9c22c1c3046f32db.jpg (23KB, 350x185px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 350x185px

>>72744
I'd argue it is, it's like a traditional Indian tulwar with a thin flexing blade. Of course its use is vastly different but it I believe it holds enough characteristics to be considered a sword.

File: seax0506ss.jpg (112KB, 636x211px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 636x211px

i came here to look at seax pictures.

File: 1450327_551433151591780_181809257_n.jpg (120KB, 960x483px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 960x483px

>>73015
you can never have enough hot seax pictures.

I make no apologies for posting this porn on a blue board:
rather lovely Honey Lane seax made by Leo Todeschini.

Working on a batch of seaxes right now as I type, in various stages of heat-treatment and being worked to shape on the bench.

>>73154
PLEASE
give me your thoughts on handles. Im working on a sort of 'half assed sax' project and handles are really tricking me out.

Lots of studying on MyArmory and such, but i THINK ive got it down now.
Generally, small saxes like handsax and broadsaxes would have a hidden tang and no metal fittings, right? Longsaxes is where i loose it.. were they still hidden tanged, or did they have rivets, or were the handles peened?

Ive seen some Scandinavian ones that had sword fittings but i figure those would only be on sword sized examples and nothing 27" total length and down.

>>72894
>You say that swords by used everyone, I say no it wasn't depends on time period and place, then you keep using these words and always go for the argument that swords were VERY common. Which is true for most part of germany in some time periods.
I don't think there ever were general bans on swords. There were specific places where weapons weren't allowed to be carried, e.g. within city walls, but I don't think there were general weapon bans. Not to mention that even if there were - it's also questionable to which extent they were enforced. For example, the pope literally banned archery, crossbows and tournament fighting during the second council of the lateran (I believe at least, might have to look it up) - yet nobody even cared about it a bit.

I would maintain the position, that at least in the western hemisphere, swords were the most common side-arm. I don't have any quantitative data but in my subjective experience I have seen swords (or sword-like weapons) in medieval art and texts mentioned and depicted more often than other types of weapons, especially in civilian contexts. It would be interesting if someone actually compiled some real data on it, evaluating various depictions just to see some numbers, but until we have something of that sort, I fear we'll have to live with this rather vague basis.

It's getting a bit late over here though so I'll have to leave now. I'm certain we'll have a similar thread in the future, and certainly similar debates will come up. Maybe then on a bit friendlier terms. Until then; good night.

File: 1443743664934.jpg (34KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 625x626px

>>63525
That's the paralympics fencing event. one of them is literally missing a leg.

the other probably can't walk either.

File: Langsax_Jesenwang_Germany.jpg (32KB, 858x140px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 858x140px

>>73265
>half-assed sax

so, you're making a trumpet?


ok, I'll shutup.

>would have a hidden tang and no metal fittings, right?

yup.
the real ones I've got my hands on - well, gloves - have been wood, with horn sections sort of where bolsters would be on later knives (horn is hard to split, so it makes sense that it was used) tangs are shortish, usually 2 - 2.5 inches, and are burned in. cutlers resin was used for attachment, modern epoxy will do the job better of course, and easier.

Materials? good wood - boxwood, in particular, maybe fruitwood. and horn. possibly moose antler. if you're trying to get the effect of walrus ivory, do a search for "elforyn" - its a fake ivory that's pretty damn good and carvable - would work ok for walrus tusk or oosic.

> Longsaxes is where i loose it.. were they still hidden tanged, or did they have rivets, or were the handles peened?

long tangs, with multiple sections of wood with metal plates between them, or shorter tangs with cutler's resin and very sturdy collars. A few are peined with a through tang to a back-plate though.

hard to generalise, there's 3-400 years of types, and many geographical areas.

Does anyone have any information on yatagans and other recurve sabres? Why did the yatagan go out of style?

>>73343
no, general bans wasn't a thing. It's always boils down to witch city, when, and to who it may concern. Well with the possible exception of slaves. Those are generally weren't allowed to carry weapons.
And yes it's only meaningful to talk about this in cities, because who the fuck cares what you do in the mountain between two sheep fucking when you are alone.

>the pope literally banned archery, crossbows and tournament fighting during the second council of the lateran
The pope did not literally banned archery, crossbows and tournament fighting.
It was the council, and only on crossbows and archery against christians, and tournaments restrcited to no death inducting ones.
And all of this is a pretty big allegedly. Because there are people who think the translations aren't that good among other things and it's kind of misunderstood.

>I would maintain the position, that at least in the western hemisphere, swords were the most common side-arm
I can agree to that, if we don't count daggers and knifes as side arms.

>but until we have something of that sort
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/

>>73787
>trumpet
lol'd

no, modifying a machete. might be fun, but considering ive never done anything like this before im just generally looking into it. I know machetes arent as thick as saxes but it should prove interesting nonetheless.

At most possibly doing a small one like you posted, a longer one similar to the Beagnoth one, and then a longer one (maybe 21" blade) for myself. the latter i would probably throw with my viking stuff so a more nordic pattern would be likely what i go for.


Ive never once worked with horn, other than sharpening a whitetail antler tip and gluing it onto a gunstock warclub i made.

File: Odachi.jpg (26KB, 236x538px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 236x538px

>>65755
I'm sorry, can you hear me now?

>>63373
That's by far my favorite sword.

File: Scharfrichterschwert-ffm001.jpg (2MB, 2848x2136px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2848x2136px

>>71988

>>72175
You gonna post that in every thread?

>>73962
machete's way too thin.

honey lane seax is 6mm thick, seax of beagnoth, almost 8mm, some of the big danish broadseax are about 6mm thick, and one or two of the saxon ones even thicker.

they're very stout blades, and that radically changes how they handle in use.

>>74180
therefore the 'half assed' part

>>71444
The gladius was pretty shit mate it was just easy to mass produce and got the job done.

>>74180
Surely a scramasax wasnt carried horizontally in front was it?

it couldnt have been because youd have like six inches hanging off either side of your hips or more

File: 921-2.jpg (338KB, 899x457px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 899x457px

>>74666
the really big ones seem to have been hung in the same way as a sword:

here's a c.9th C illumination from the WLB Cod.bibl.fol.23 Stuttgart Psalter