|
It goes well with a tricorne and kneesocks.  Edit: I'm not really into the "standard" shell hilts, but loop hilts on the other hand...   More pics. Siivola fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Jul 7, 2016 |
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 02:49 |
|
|
While you're posting nice steel, I'm wrestling with this lady here   Battery was low. She has a really bad temper. There's still a little twist in one limb that needs to be corrected. The narrow limbs (26mm) and the acute angles make it a bit unstable because of the twist. The bow will need string bridges just to be sure, and I'll need to reduce reflex in the transition from the limb to the triangular section.  Here after unstringing. Very aggressive angle in the transition and the tip. It's not so strong, but stringing and balancing was quite hard. Not something that you could do without experience. Needs some more work to make it safe. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Siivola posted:It goes well with a tricorne and kneesocks. This is by far the best looking smallsword I've ever seen. It almost makes me want to get one...
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Someone sell me on the smallsword. I know it's fast, it just looks pathetic. Rapiers can kill people and also look like something that can kill people. Why walk around with a tiny little blade on your hip? Not sure how you can sell someone on it if you are using killing people as the measuring stick, its a specialized dueling weapon designed so people did not have to carry rapiers around everywhere. but it can still kill someone, especially if they also have a smallsword. There is a reason they were never used in any large amount of the battlefield, with spadroons trying to emulate them instead, and eventually getting replaced by sabers that were way more effective.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
Crossposting from the fencing thread, here is the sword I got for 30W re-enactment. The type was ordered en masse from the Dutch by Sweden when they needed to outfit their army for the war.  
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
it's ok to swede
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Not sure how you can sell someone on it if you are using killing people as the measuring stick, its a specialized dueling weapon designed so people did not have to carry rapiers around everywhere. but it can still kill someone, especially if they also have a smallsword. There is a reason they were never used in any large amount of the battlefield, with spadroons trying to emulate them instead, and eventually getting replaced by sabers that were way more effective. Maybe a bit like modern self-defence pistols, actually? It's not like a tiny pocket pistol is the best gun, it's just what people carry because they don't want to made fun of for open carrying a huge military Colt or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 07:27
|
|
|
also when i'm carrying my rapier i'll be wearing kneesocks already and the rapier goes ok with those edit: in fact, i just sent you a picture of me wearing both 
HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 10:07 on Jul 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 10:00
|
|
|
Grenrow posted:This is by far the best looking smallsword I've ever seen. It almost makes me want to get one... 
HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 15:53 on Jul 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 11:31
|
|
|
Ssssssswordsss
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 13:15
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:How prevalent was slave ownership in the Kingdom of Jerusalem? I'm sure the title of the blog implies a less than unbiased source on the subject, but some interesting commentary here: http://defendingcrusaderkingdoms.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/slavery-in-crusader-kingdoms.html Also, certain quotes like the Ibn Jubayr one that essentially describes Muslims as better off under Crusader rule than under the rule of other Muslims would suggest that the condition of slavery was not common enough to earn his notice. It could mean that slaves were simply not a visible or observable presence in the kingdom when Ibn Jubayr was travelling through (not immediately identifiable as such). The only suggestion that slavery was at all common or “standard” in the Crusader States from what I can find comes from David Nicolle, Knights of Jersualem: The Crusading Order of the Hospitallers – though it seems an offhand comment that isn't given exploration, and I remember from my Bachelor's dissertation coming across Nicolle and finding him generally pretty unreliable in the past. I don't remember the exact thing that made me distrust Nicolle, however. Riley-Smith mentions that Italian merchants were sometimes accused of selling local Christians as Muslim slaves, and Yvonne Friedman suggests that normally ransom rather than slavery was the way to deal with prisoners. A quick look finds a “very large slave market in Acre” being mentioned on some webpages, but no real details on it (although I'm not looking too deeply because I'm tired). Overall, I get the impression that slavery in the Kingdom of Jerusalem was not standard operating procedure, the kind of thing that existed but didn't seem to play a large role in any aspect of the kingdom. If Muslims kept as slaves was commonplace, I would expect it to reflect in Jubayr's commentary – either slave ownership was not prevalent or slaves were not easily distinguishable from the free Muslims who Jubayr describes as so well-treated. I'd be hesitant to assume that slaves were so well-off, so I'd lean towards concluding that slave ownership was rare. Siivola posted:I sort tangentially disagree. To me the smallsword is only a dueling weapon in the sense that it's a civilian weapon, and dueling just happens to be a thing civilians do. I mean, if you really look at the thing, it's actually kind of bad to duel with: The hilt doesn't protect anything, the blade is so short you end up in wrestling range, and the sword is so quick in general it's super hard to control the opponent's blade long enough to stab them without getting stabbed back. And indeed, dedicated dueling swords went on to reinvent big cup hilts and longer blades once people stopped carrying swords as fashion statements. I see the smallsword as a fashion statement as well, where it is expected to carry a sword while minimising the inconvenience of carrying a sword. I know a quick google repeatedly bludgeons me with the phrase "no man was properly dressed without his sword." http://www.encasedinsteel.co.uk/2015/09/11/a-brief-introduction-to-the-smallsword/ - this lists an interesting observation under "Two-tempo fencing", suggesting that the smallsword might be a little more novice-friendly? I'm not sure how much merit there is to that, but assuming it is perhaps as people carried swords as fashion accessories more and as serious weapons less they might find themselves leaning towards the weapon that requires less of a commitment to learn?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
Were late medieval knights expected to equip a lance of troops by themselves as a feudal duty?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:trip report: most of you will probably not carry your swords outdoors, nor are you in the habit of assaulting small German towns by wading the moat, which is what I did this morning. But for those of you who are worried about weather and water, I don't think the rayskin Danelli uses for grips is colorfast; in areas it's faded from black to a sort of bluish grey after six months of use. I like this, but you guys might not.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Were late medieval knights expected to equip a lance of troops by themselves as a feudal duty? I have actually wondered about this myself and I've been trying to come up with a satisfactory answer for years. To the best of my knowledge , I believe that every man-at-arms equipped himself. Here are my reasons for thinking as much. 1) Documents like the assize of arms from England (which admittedly isn't "late feudal", but they do establish a precedent) describe the equipment that fighting men as lowly as spearmen and archers are expected to provide when showing up for a muster. Therefore it seems logical that if the dirt-farming underlings are on the hook for their gear (padded armor, an "iron cap", sometimes sword and shield and either spear or longbow) then the nobility would do likewise. 2) Ranks of fighting men were often literally determined by yearly income. One could rise to the status of knighthood in certain contexts simply by obtaining the prerequisite financial means to own several horses and the required weaponry of the era. (This is a sticky thing to pin down with any precision because the status implied by the word "knighthood" varies wildly over the course of the middle ages, and naturally between regions as well). Given, then, that a level of income pegged to the price of military gear determined one's status (a person worth X must serve as an archer, worth Y as a man-at-arms etc) it seems logical that one was expected to actually apply that income and purchase said equipment, not just have the theoretical capability. Weapons and armor were major investments, representing months of income and requiring relatively slow and expert work to make, and I imagine that (especially among poorer people) a lot of men probably carried their father's or grandfather's equipment. To muddy the waters even further, by the time that 'lances' are being strictly codified- as in the ordonnances of Charles VII in France, wars are being fought increasingly by semi-professional companies of fighting men led by captains who were kept on retainer by kings, dukes and other powerful nobles. So they were almost obsolete by the time they were on the books in any detail.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
I've got a question about painted helmets.   I was reading around a Reddit discussion on medieval society and found a post with the following (from here): quote:Regarding the painted helmet, paint is a uniquely 'common' decoration - it is much cheaper than velvet or gold or peacock feathers. Painting armour also allows armour that is unpolished to be better protected from rust. Unpolished armour is cheaper because as much as 80% of the work in making armour is polishing it - which is difficult in a time before modern polishing wheels etc. Thus, we see a large number of painted helmets from the later 15th century that were worn by decidedly non-elite soldiers - medium cavalryman and infantry. In one cause there are a group of sallets with monster faces painted on from Nuremberg where the decoration may have been a kind of 'unit identifier' for a squadron of cavalry, according to Tobias Capwell. Which I think is a really cool image. I also found a blog post which discusses something similar (also from Nuremberg), where a painting depicts cavalry units with matching painted/fabric-covered helmets:  My question is: Does this sort of "uniform" appear elsewhere in medieval Europe, or was it a specifically German thing?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 10:24
|
|
|
Ghost of Babyhead posted:
Hard to say, partly because the archaeological evidence is so sketchy and the literary evidence is so scanty about these kinds of details, but there is evidence that some kind of uniforms existed. Archers from Chesire are recorded wearing green and white tunics (maybe just a regional fashion?) and there's a mention of Flemish urban shooting guilds having distinctive clothing. English soldiers started sewing the cross of St George on the uniforms from the time of Edward I onwards and of course the crusader orders had their own uniforms.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
I wanna know how far apart "hey let's paint our helmets" and "let's specifically paint monster faces" were as ideas. I'm betting it was a pretty quick development. Cause, I mean, c'mon, motherfucking monster faces, yo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:I wanna know how far apart "hey let's paint our helmets" and "let's specifically paint monster faces" were as ideas. I want to know how long until the first dickface helmet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Somewhere around 800 BC.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
so, people who don't actually know how to swordfight at reenactments. All these bullshit little twirls and stage fighting. I want to hurt those guys in specific, tell me how.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 09:54
|
|
|
Why, stab them to death, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 09:57
|
|
|
Kicking them in the balls or knee will work fine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 11:27
|
|
|
Knock them over as they twirl.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 13:20
|
|
|
VoteTedJameson posted:I have actually wondered about this myself and I've been trying to come up with a satisfactory answer for years. To the best of my knowledge , I believe that every man-at-arms equipped himself. Here are my reasons for thinking as much. 1) Documents like the assize of arms from England (which admittedly isn't "late feudal", but they do establish a precedent) describe the equipment that fighting men as lowly as spearmen and archers are expected to provide when showing up for a muster. Therefore it seems logical that if the dirt-farming underlings are on the hook for their gear (padded armor, an "iron cap", sometimes sword and shield and either spear or longbow) then the nobility would do likewise. 2) Ranks of fighting men were often literally determined by yearly income. One could rise to the status of knighthood in certain contexts simply by obtaining the prerequisite financial means to own several horses and the required weaponry of the era. (This is a sticky thing to pin down with any precision because the status implied by the word "knighthood" varies wildly over the course of the middle ages, and naturally between regions as well). Given, then, that a level of income pegged to the price of military gear determined one's status (a person worth X must serve as an archer, worth Y as a man-at-arms etc) it seems logical that one was expected to actually apply that income and purchase said equipment, not just have the theoretical capability.  Yeah, that's what I've concluded too. So it would make sense for a poorer soldier to reject an offered knighthood if it came without land, because he couldn't afford to pay for all that stuff. Or how easily could your knighthood be debased? Quick googling says that it was extremely rare in England, but what about eg. France?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 13:25
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:so, people who don't actually know how to swordfight at reenactments. All these bullshit little twirls and stage fighting. I want to hurt those guys in specific, tell me how. Educate them in proper techniques?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
Pommel bash
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:so, people who don't actually know how to swordfight at reenactments. All these bullshit little twirls and stage fighting. I want to hurt those guys in specific, tell me how. You've seen Indiana Jones, right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:so, people who don't actually know how to swordfight at reenactments. All these bullshit little twirls and stage fighting. I want to hurt those guys in specific, tell me how. Parry a blow, then keep their blade controlled while you pommel them in the face.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:so, people who don't actually know how to swordfight at reenactments. All these bullshit little twirls and stage fighting. I want to hurt those guys in specific, tell me how. overbind and push their blade out of the way, move in close, osoto gari
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Parry a blow, then keep their blade controlled while you pommel them in the face. Rabhadh posted:overbind and push their blade out of the way, move in close, osoto gari
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:my sword doesn't have a super huge amount of blade presence, so i'll have to use positioning for that Roughly, when you parry and move closer, let their blade slide towards the hilt of your sword, and then reverse the sword and pommel pommel. Should work. Harder to explain in text than actually doing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Can't you just shoot them with a wheellock or something?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:Can't you just shoot them with a wheellock or something? Or bash them with it. You have two hands, use one for punching.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Grenrow posted:This is by far the best looking smallsword I've ever seen. It almost makes me want to get one... https://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=132&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=660
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:Or bash them with it. A spare foot, too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:ok, i found one that kicks rear end. look at this thing, top of the page: That is very nice as well. Very robust-looking blade, too. Personally, I can't imagine going into combat with a smallsword, especially when the options for Napoleonic cavalry officers were the 1796 light and heavy sabres. People like to talk poo poo about the heavy cav sword, but at least you could imagine someone taking on a bayonet or a color-sergeant's halberd with one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:so, people who don't actually know how to swordfight at reenactments. All these bullshit little twirls and stage fighting. I want to hurt those guys in specific, tell me how. Hit them hard just above the knee when they leave their legs exposed. If you hit the peroneal nerve just right It hurts quite a bit for several minutes and and will cause them to fall over but it is very unlikely to do any permanent damage. This is the go to method for disabling someone using for baton wielding police. At least for the last 40 or so years after someone figured out that knocking people over the head with a cosh was a very good way to smash skulls, cause internal bleeding and occasionally straight up kill them. FreudianSlippers fucked around with this message at 04:33 on Jul 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
Grenrow posted:That is very nice as well. Very robust-looking blade, too. Personally, I can't imagine going into combat with a smallsword, especially when the options for Napoleonic cavalry officers were the 1796 light and heavy sabres. People like to talk poo poo about the heavy cav sword, but at least you could imagine someone taking on a bayonet or a color-sergeant's halberd with one. according to one of the posters in that thread you can see some marks on the forte where it parried a larger, heavier blade 
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 08:06
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:Hit them hard just above the knee when they leave their legs exposed. If you hit the peroneal nerve just right It hurts quite a bit for several minutes and and will cause them to fall over but it is very unlikely to do any permanent damage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 08:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 02:49 |
|
|
HEY GAL posted:
I just looked at the rest of the post. It would be fascinating to know whether the blade actually had been sharpened. I've ever heard of a smallsword blade of that shape being sharpened before,b but anything's possible, I suppose. The variance in personal equipment is something I find really fascinating about pre-20th century officers. I've seen a custom Wilkinson sword for an officer going to India that was basically a backsword blade mounted on a more typical 19th century saber hilt. I assume that one was ordered by someone who wanted a better cut-and-thrust weapon for fighting lances and tulwars.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 15:12
|
|