Weapons Art Thread

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

Ohh look, goon weapons.

i GoT this

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

Ah, you were at my side, all along!...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

What metal is that?

*badabumtss*

this is retarded

You're a weird guy

Steel, looks like a railroad spike specifically. The rainbow effect comes from very careful heat "bluing".

interesting

in what way?

That sword design is 120% retarded. The handle is way too long for a one handed, viking-period sword, and the crossguard is virtually non-existent for a longsword (and the blade is too short for that).

But nevermind the longsword, which it clearly isn't. If the hilt was half the length, this would be a perfectly viable sword. As it is - it's just horrible.

>But nevermind the longsword, which it clearly isn't.

So why the comparisons to one?

It fits the "lengthen the grip of a single handed arming sword" logic in the ancestry of warswords and longswords, and the Chinese have some two handed jian (and room for two hands on many of the regular too it seems), so we can probably manage the guard issue too as long as we don't insist on sticking to a fencing form created with the assumption of a large cross being present.

It probably isn't an ideal shape, but if that's just horrible then I fear we'll have little left but chug lye and cry blood in response to the actually horrible stuff. You know, the thing the spam-spotter-bot here won't even let me link to, the curious can google "sagan om fulsvärdets återkomst".

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

that's me done

only the jian is a completely different weapon.

Check out Roland Warzecha's explanation of how to strike with a viking period sword. Having a longer guard is a huge liability for that, because it gives the pommel extra leverage, adding to the torque created when striking, and makes the whole thing a lot more sluggish, than it needs to be.

And I compared it to a longsword, because how else would you justify the lengthened grip?

Even modern viking sword repros, with enlarged grips (for using heavy padded gloves) handle poorly compared to a proper hilt viking period swords.

The weapon may be well described as a "Viking longsword", but that doesn't mean we have to use it in the manner of Viking age sword&shield or normal European longsword fencing. As you've pointed out it is different form the weapons used for such, and as such it will not be terribly useful for those practices. But that doesn't mean we have to categorically dismiss it, when it may simply be that we should find another way of using it. As people have managed to find use for straight, double edged swords with room on the handle of two hands an not a terrible lot of guard around, I don't think that's outright impossible.

Perhaps this specific sword is poorly balanced for whatever ideas we come up with, but as we don't know how it's balanced at all I'd say anything's fair game here as long as it isn't clearly impossible for a sword of this type to be balanced that way.

Pic for OP, unrelated to this.

that's just it. That design has no purpose.

Viking period swords had minimal guards, because they were not used for fencing - the shield was the main "weapon", and the sword was simply used to deliver the blow to an opening. Having a longer handle on such a weapon is bad, because it makes the weapon handle poorly.

Having a longer handle "just in case" you want to use it two handed is again - stupid. A bastard sword is a longsword that can be used one handed, not the other way round. And that's mostly for grappling, not for shields.

If you are going to use a two handed weapon with no crossguard, like those silly Japanese, that's a very niche application. At best, that could be some kind of ceremonial weapon or some such.

And as for balance - it's a question of leverage, and torque. When you swing a sword, that pommel is going to want to twist the handle out of your hand The more leverage it has, the worse the effect.

Why not a in built handguard? like those cavalry sabres that protect the hand?

Also, about gauntlets, why they didn't protect the palm?and there are any gauntlets that forsake mobility for protection? and I am not talking about mittens

turns out you don't need a heavy hilt with a cavalry saber - a simple knucklebow is enough. And the purpose of the quillons is greater than just protecting the hand - you can actively use them in a bind.

...

...

>like those silly Japanese

To simply dismiss any method of use other than the few forms of European fencing (yes, Viking sword and shield is fencing too, you don't need to work primarily from crossed swords for that) and with that every sword not built for those styles is far too narrow an approach. As is shown when it leads you to claims like a decently sized disc guard being nothing, or when you end up calling at the very least an entire Oakeshott type (XIII) stupid. By and alrge adding a bit extra grip just in case appears to have been how Europe transitioned form just single handers to also having greatswords and longswords lying around.

Holding a weapon should keep the palm well out of harms way. Armouring it whoever would make it very hard to hold on to things, such as your weapon. The articulation may be a bit of a nightmare to create as well.

Along similar lines, a lot of full plate armour doesn't cover the back of your thighs, because that's highly unlikely to be hit when you're mounted, and having armour there gives you less contact with the horse, making riding harder. Some armour is meant mostly for use of foot, and then you can see complete enclosed thighs. This is mostly an English thing, while the Italians are the other end of the spectrum.

Mitten gauntlets would fit the idea of forsaking some mobility for protection, as they greatly reduce the risk of a finger being crushed between gauntlet and handle as someone hits it, spreading the impact between all four fingers. Further sacrifice than that would probably quickly result in your ability to fight being too diminished, after all if you can't wield your weapon properly you're pretty much dead no matter what your armour is.

There are some duelling gloves though that have the left palm covered in fine mail, for use with purely one-handed weapons like rapiers. These would make it a bit safer to try and grab the opponents blade.

...

...

...

...

>Holding a weapon should keep the palm well out of harms way. Armouring it whoever would make it very hard to hold on to things, such as your weapon. The articulation may be a bit of a nightmare to create as well.

Fug. Even 21th century folks can't come up with something? I can see it would be a bit detrimental, but im sure there could be a least a way to deal with it. It just irks me that armor protects everything but the palms, its rather silly.

>Along similar lines, a lot of full plate armour doesn't cover the back of your thighs, because that's highly unlikely to be hit when you're mounted, and having armour there gives you less contact with the horse, making riding harder. Some armour is meant mostly for use of foot, and then you can see complete enclosed thighs. This is mostly an English thing, while the Italians are the other end of the spectrum.

I see, reminds me of series of question about armor I made on /v/, cool thread

Well, your palm is highly unlikely to be completely unprotected with western-style gauntlets, because those tend to have leather gloves sewn in to them. And if not then you really want to wear some gloves inside them anyway, or it'll most likely go from chafing to bleeding in a hurry. Even my rubber HEMA gauntlets would go for marrow if given the chance.

This in itself will protect quite a bit (relative bare skin) against accidental contact with edges and points. Maybe some kevlar fibres or similar could improve it a bit further without too serious a loss of handling. I wouldn't hold out for articulated hard plate though.

>I see, reminds me of series of question about armor I made on /v/, cool thread

I think I saw it linked to from around here. The one looking into architecture at the end? You can build quite high with wood ( sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160930145847.htm ), but it's hard and expensive. So while they made some impressive wooden churches for example back in the day, so for everyday urban buildings and the like they probably didn't have economic reason to do so, and attempts would likely have resulted in houses falling down a bit more frequently than acceptable.

...

Oh, wooden is expensive to build taller? the more you know.

What a small world, to thnk people remember that sort of stuff

Second one is literally a skin for unholy dk artifact

I rather meant that building taller is more expensive. Thus we only get skyscrapers where land is extremely expensive. As for wood specifically I don't really know, but odds are that the price runs away a bit when you start hitting the limit for what engineering with your chosen materials can do.

I see, its that I rarely see buildings in medieval art that are more than 3 story tall, jettying is almost everywhere, so I was wondering why, but thanks.

Best Nasushit sword and best boy always and forever.

...