The Armour Archive

I'm not the smith that needs convincing, by the way.

I know properly shaping the cross section of a sword is important. I know a distal taper is essential to performace and handling. But off the top of my head... I can't explain why.

I need help explaining why properly shaping a sword blade is just as crucial to making a decent sword as propery heat-treating it.
Please, go into detail. I think I'm going to need a mountain of evidence...

A friend, (who should know better, he lurks here) who was influenced by the Highland Steel method of swordmaking, (grinding a cutting edge onto flat barstock) wants to make his own sword in the same manner. It's my job to convince him that 1/4" steel is too thick for swordblades without modification of *some* kind, and that a blade without a distal taper will handle like a club, before he makes an expensive and lengthy mistake.

P.S. -if aforementioned, unnamed friend is reading this, take notes.

Well, instead of telling your friend all of the technical reasons, how about concentrating on historical? There is no way to deny that folks who used these weapons as state-of-the-art instruments of warfare would have insisted on the best swords for their money. Lives depended on it. (Yes, some medieval swords were better than others, but I maintain that folks would get the best they could afford.)

Look at books like Oakeshott's Records of the Medieval Sword and also The Sword in Anglo Saxon England. There are others out there that are also good source material for the shape, weight, and design of historical swords, but those are the only ones I can think of at the moment. Oh, for post-SCA period, look at Swords and Blades of the American Revolution. Fine book.

Anyway, for high-performance blades, it is hard to go wrong by looking for the normal characteristics of actual, historical swords and imitating those. Do you want a proper sword that performs like the originals or do you want a sword-like object that weighs twice as much and has very tip-heavy balance? As long as a choice is made between the two, the maker is informed of what he is doing, not working out of ignorance. As a rule, just imitating a company that is all about cranking out lots of blades may be less useful than doing a couple of hours of research so you know what you are trying to emulate.

-Patrick

Thanks -I think...

What we have is a performance question: I need help explaining why a properly, historicaly formed blade will outperform sharp barstock with a spring temper. I could show him all kinds of historical designs, but if I can't explain why the historical designs WORK better than modern, mass-produced alternatives, I doubt I'll make a dent.

1 word : Balance.

A distal taper lightens the blade and moves the center of gravity back toward the user.
Used in conjunction with a fuller (bloodgroove) to further lighten the blade and a pommel to pull the center of gravety back further, you end up with an implement that can be moved quickly, still has a decent reach, and assuming you haven't overdone the weight/center thing will still hit with authority.

Let your friend shape the hilt of his 1/4" bar and spend some time on a pell.
Shortly after his forearm begins to scream in protest, have him use something with the same reach but with a proper balance.
You won't have to argue long.

Of course if he is lazy and only wants a wall-hanger....

oops forgot the reason why that's all important;
Skilled man with sword-shaped club will be quickly outmanouvered, exausted and killed by skilled man with sword-shaped sword.
See last fight scene in "Rob-Roy" to see what happens when the men are matched but the tools are not.
...ignore the fact that Rob won.

[This message has been edited by Vogeljager (edited 07-09-2002).]