Real swords?

[Jeremi S.]

Originally posted by Robert B. Marks


Um...

The SCA does not do any steel-on-steel combat. The closest they come is rapier fencing, and that is done with schlauger (sp?)blades. The WMA combat that the SCA practices is performed with a rattan sword covered in duct tape and padded on the end.

If you actually brought a steel sword into an SCA combat ring, they'd kick you out, and possibly even expel you from the group.

Best regards to all,

Robert Marks

You have a point there. I'd confused it with another organization, I believe. Yeah, SCA only does wasters. I haven't seen any padded on the end, though. If we get hit, it's gonna hurt, even with the armor. I always anticipate coming home with a few bruises, but hey, only gives me more stamina.

My apologies for the confusion.

[JD Charles]

>>>The best antiques of the past had distal taper, many of them much, much more than 50%. <<<

Sorry Gus, but I gotta toss a bucket of cold reality on this statement. How do you know these were the "best swords" of the past?
Best balanced maybe. Best finished maybe. But that's not exactly what rings true to my mind at least when I hear the term best.

Sturdiness, shock absorption and reliability are what I feel an ancient swordsman would have put a premium on. Not distal taper or point of balance or center of percussion.

What you mean is there are some examples left in museums that have extreme distal taper. For all that you know or I know they may have been lousy weapons that no swordsman in his right mind would have trusted his life to for fear of their being flimsy, and therfore survived intact when sturdier stuff or cheaper made stuff was taken into combat.

Nice balance may make them seem to be "best" to you. To a user, other traits may have been more highly thought of, such as sturdiness. Look at the extra wide blades, extra wide tangs and thick bladed examples of Migration era and Viking era swords which often had no distal taper. They were meant to last a long time, as opposed to the fighting needles of the rapier era when men stopped carrying real weapons into combat.
I think that objectively speaking, the "best" swords of the past were the ones that were actually used and served the user well without bending or folding or breaking in combat and saved the users life over and over repeatedly. Some of the Icelandic Sagas mention in a real way, not a mythical way, such swords, like one that Egil Skallagrimson was known to have carried into a holmganga, and a sword owned by a Thrall named Hall.
Like the real William Wallace sword, they may not exactly have been the most pleasing examples of the swordmakers art to the eye, but if they worked, worked well and did not get destroyed in battle, that would, in my mind, make them the best. Not just what features they had.
By the way, this is no insult to either yourself or Michael Pierce who make exceptionally good and sturdy modern swords that are, in my opinion probably superior to the vast majority of original authentic swords for two primary reasons. You have good sources of steel with regulated properties and you have accurately calibrated heat treating capabilities denied to smiths in the past. Many of them may have made exceptional swords, but I would almost bet that their consistancy was not as good, day in and day out.

[Angus Trim]

HI JD

Well we're agreed on one thing, that the ancient swordsman would use the best possible sword..... *g*

But, I have to point out, repectfully, that saying something like "It is trendy right now in the sword community" is insulting to all those like Peter Johnsson, Kevin Cashen, Vince Evans, Al Massey, Tinker Pearce, Craig Johnson, the Dawg who have labored to bring better swords to the current market. Its also an insult to people like Adrian Ko, PJ and others who have gone out of their way to learn, study, and educate the sword community in what swords really are......

Sorry JD, but I'm gonna have to toss some of your own words back at you ", but I gotta toss a bucket of cold reality on this statement".

"Sturdiness, shock absorption and reliability are what I feel an ancient swordsman " Agreed, along with cutting ability and weight. That's why you need distal taper, there is no shock absorption to a blade that has no distal taper. Likewise sturdiness, the handle would vibrate right out of the swordsman's hand. Assuming it was balanced such that he could handle that.... If you want a more sturdy blade, you start thicker, and distal taper such that you stay thicker.

"What you mean is there are some examples left in museums that have extreme distal taper" No JD, what I mean is every single antique I have seen has at least 30% distal taper, ussually with some profile taper. After all, we're talking about swords, not crowbars.

"Nice balance may make them seem to be "best" to you"

Actually JD, if a sword isn't mechanically balanced, with some of the small tangs I've seen on antiques, they'd bust on 1st use.

"I think that objectively speaking, the "best" swords of the past were the ones that were actually used and served the user well without bending or folding or breaking" Agreed, and without distal taper, they would have gotten the owner killed immediately because either he couldn't wield it, or it would have snapped at the tang........ You mentioned poor steel then, I didn't.......

I'm not trying to insult you either JD. I am trying to make a point, that maybe you need more experience with swords, before you try and muddy the waters this way. You've been around the Swordforum a couple of years. By now it would seem you would have learned something.

I hate to say this JD, but I've made swordlike objects with no distal taper to see how they would work. They don't. They cannot really balance that well, unless they have a tremendous lot of profile taper to make up for it. And mechanical balance is just really, really important for a real sword, that a real warrior would use. Not necessarily "feel balance", but the mechanical balance......

Adrian started this board for the purpose of education. Not passing off ignorance. Sorry JD, but if you want to make a case for lack of distal taper, I'd like to see some good documentation, or examples given. Thanks JD.............

[Eric Litton]

So if i understand you right, balance doesnt matter? and the thicker the better.

I am not very educated compared to some here but i noticed somethings.

First, all your examples of good swords seem to be older than other swords. Could it be that they hadnt discovered distal taper then? or that the steel was of a lesser quality and needed to be thicker?

What we do know is that not to long ago modern swords werent made with distal taper, and now they are. Many Users have switched to the newer swords as they like them better.

hmm, center of percusion has a lot to do with shock absorption. And very rarly do i think of cheaper and better going together

So, if all swords in meuseums are bad, how do you know what a "real" sword even looks like?

Hmm, a rapiers not a real weapon, how interesting. You also missed a huge time period of swords, not to mention other areas that developed swords as well.

Just some thinkings

Originally posted by JD Charles
>>>The best antiques of the past had distal taper, many of them much, much more than 50%. <<<

Sorry Gus, but I gotta toss a bucket of cold reality on this statement. How do you know these were the "best swords" of the past?
Best balanced maybe. Best finished maybe. But that's not exactly what rings true to my mind at least when I hear the term best.

Sturdiness, shock absorption and reliability are what I feel an ancient swordsman would have put a premium on. Not distal taper or point of balance or center of percussion.

What you mean is there are some examples left in museums that have extreme distal taper. For all that you know or I know they may have been lousy weapons that no swordsman in his right mind would have trusted his life to for fear of their being flimsy, and therfore survived intact when sturdier stuff or cheaper made stuff was taken into combat.

Nice balance may make them seem to be "best" to you. To a user, other traits may have been more highly thought of, such as sturdiness. Look at the extra wide blades, extra wide tangs and thick bladed examples of Migration era and Viking era swords which often had no distal taper. They were meant to last a long time, as opposed to the fighting needles of the rapier era when men stopped carrying real weapons into combat.
I think that objectively speaking, the "best" swords of the past were the ones that were actually used and served the user well without bending or folding or breaking in combat and saved the users life over and over repeatedly. Some of the Icelandic Sagas mention in a real way, not a mythical way, such swords, like one that Egil Skallagrimson was known to have carried into a holmganga, and a sword owned by a Thrall named Hall.
Like the real William Wallace sword, they may not exactly have been the most pleasing examples of the swordmakers art to the eye, but if they worked, worked well and did not get destroyed in battle, that would, in my mind, make them the best. Not just what features they had.
By the way, this is no insult to either yourself or Michael Pierce who make exceptionally good and sturdy modern swords that are, in my opinion probably superior to the vast majority of original authentic swords for two primary reasons. You have good sources of steel with regulated properties and you have accurately calibrated heat treating capabilities denied to smiths in the past. Many of them may have made exceptional swords, but I would almost bet that their consistancy was not as good, day in and day out.

[JD Charles]

Angus,
If you will check other posts made today, you will notice that I particularly stated somewhere or other that my opinion is meant as no disrespect to yourself, Mr. Pierce or other modern makers of high performance swords. In my opinion you and the other makers you mention as well as Fulvio Del Tin probably make a product superior to the originals if onlly because of better grade steel and better and more precise heat treatment. When I say that I dont mean to denigrate the ancient swordsmiths either. We both know they would have loved to have had access to modern high carbon steels and exacting heat treating processes.
That being the case, I still have to stick to my guns, based on what I have seen and my own experiences with cutting with swords and making swords going back ...lessee... to around 1981 or so.
I have snapped enough stuff at the tang (even fairly wide tangs of thick stock) to have an opinion on it, albiet not an expert opinion. I have seen something like 12 actual authentic medieval swords in museums up close(generally 10 -14 century peieces) and a few others in other places (like old castles and gilded era homes).
Not a one had any distal taper that I could notice. The thinnest appeared to be around 1/8 thick. Of the western medieval stuff, most of it was around 3/16 thick with no taper. The thinner blades pretty much had edges battered out of alignment too. I have swords in my collection that have edges battered out of alignment that are under 3/16 thick. ( The thickest "old" sword I ever saw was a Japanese Cutlass I almost bought that was at least 1/4 thick.)
Yes ancient swords were meant to cut. They were also meant to cut against opponants wearing chain mail and plate armour.
Somewhere today I saw a posting where you mentioned your newer swords have thinner edges and that you probably won't be testing them against steel barrells anymore.
Go back to 1066 and put yourself into the shoes of a sworsmith then...when some guy comes to you wanting something to take into the battle of Hastings
do you honestly think he wants a better balanced blade or a sturdier blade?
Remember, if the end snaps off and he survives he might return in a very foul mood.
As for authentic old blades with distal taper, how do we know that is a feature put in to improve balance? Is there any documentation?
For all we know the smiths pounded the metal out thinner to conserve on steel and iron, which were rare and valuable commodities back then, and the balance was just an added factor.
Most written records in Europe only go back to around the 11th century or so. I am not aware of any from swordsmiths or sword users commenting on distal taper.
There could be documentation, but I am not aware of it.
There's a shelf full of books at home that have pics of old Celtic swords that have what appear to be rat-tail tangs that somehow or other managed to survive 1,500 years. (probably the tangs are extremely thick, I dont know). From the battered and chipped edges they appear to have been used too.
When it comes to history, sometimes the best thing we can do is make educated guesses. Granted I defer to your expertise in metalworking. But until somebody goes back in time and talks to the guy who made Egil Skallagrimson's sword we will never know what ancient swordsmiths or swordsmen thought of Distal Taper.
I think existing ancient Viking swords are a good example of what I am saying here. Most of the ones I have seen are somewhat overbuilt compared to modern made swords, vis a vis the width of the tang, and even the width of the blade. That cultue most likely wanted a sturdy sword that could last from generation to generation, considering the actual ones we have left, and what Icelandic saga writers record of them. I have read of many a sturdy sword and many a sharp sword in the Icelandic sagas. I have yet to read of a well balanced one. Swords that cut well and did not break seem to get all the praise from Snorri Sturrlason and his contemporaries.

[Roger Hooper]

JD, you seem to have the idea that a sword that has distal taper cannot be sturdy. I remember a post by Randal Graham, where he tried his best to abuse an AT Swedish bastard to breakage. I don't remember if he finally succeeded, but it certainly held up to extreme usage without breaking.

your point about Gus' new edges is off the mark, as it has nothing to do with distal taper. ATrims with the former edge type, specifically the Slovenian cut quite nicely through those steel barrels. The Slovenian has a lot of distal taper.

Those medieval swords you saw that had no distal taper - did you actually measure them with some calipers?

[John M.]

As for authentic old blades with distal taper, how do we know that is a feature put in to improve balance? Is there any documentation?

I am not sure how much this argument really makes sense.
This brings up the question, "what is the documentation for sword-making in general?" I honestly do not know. However, I speculate that many if not all of "real" swordmaking techniques were passed down:
a) by word of mouth and
b) by examining antiques.

THis would be true until literacy became widespread among artisans, which probably did not happen until around the 12th c. at earliest and perhaps, depending on circumstances, not for a long while after that. You need to be skilled and smart to make a sword, but not necessarily literate. The lack of written documentation shouldn;t be seen as an argument that something *did not* exist or was not important.

Is there medieval or ancient documentation of how to make a fuller? I have never heard of any (suppose it could be out there). Clearly, however, fullers exist. The best way to learn how antiques were made is to consult the antiques themselves. There's enough debate over technical terminology in documentation in the HES forum when it exists in the first place. Smiths are in that sense luckier - real swords remain, but real sword fighters do not.

[JD Charles]

Actually Roger I am not implying that Gus stuff is not sturdy.I own a Gus Trim sword and it is probably the sturdiest thing in my collection due to the 1/4 thick blade at the base and the absolutely perfect heat treatment and good quality steel.

What I am saying is that 1000 years ago I really doubt sword users who bought swords for protection and defense (and offense) on the battlefield cared much about distal taper.
Simple as that.
I think they cared more about "sturdy."
I have my reasons and I have my references (Icelandic sagas, archeology books and so forth).
I really don't think the swords of 1,000 years ago were as well heat treated or made from as good materials as the ones Gus makes today.

I remember the Randal Graham test of Atrims Swedish sword. But thats just it, he tested a modern high performance sword, not an historical piece.

I'm gonna be blunt here, and John Clements would probably laugh his ass of if he saw what Im typing, but I honestly think that many modern swords like the Atrims, the Tinkers and so many others are a hell of a lot sturdier than historical era swords ever were, as I said, because of modern steels and modern heat treatment.
Also, Gus uses stock removal, which, in my own biased opinion and I may be wrong, would tend to make a more uniform grain structure to the steel.
There is no way to know though. Even if you found an identical old sword from 1402 to test against one Gus made last week of similar design, the old sword would most likely be suffering from metal fatigue.
There were some excellent swords made in the past that can equal and even exceed the best of the stuff being made today, I have no doubt.
But in general I think the run of the mill high quality production sword of today compares to the arsenal type sword of the middle ages the same way a Ford Taurus compares to a Model T. It will outperform the old one.
Gus, Randall and the other guys have better steels and better heat treating available to them. They can focus on things like distal taper because of that, and because most of the end users are not taking their wares into life or death battlefield situations.
I have test cut a hell of a lot of stuff with thick edged blades and thin edged blades. If I got sent back to the year 1066 I would prefer thick if my neck was on the line. Thats all I am saying. I don't know of any examples of statements by old swordsmiths or old swordsmen about the topic of distal taper, but there are many references to sturdy blades as well as sharp ones and the sagas are full of stories of swords that did not cut well. I wonder if it is because they were of the "sharpened crowbar" variety. Check out the Heimskringla or Sagas of the Icelanders for examples.
It is not an attack on the excellent work of Mr. Trim or other modern high performance sword makers. It is just my opinion on old swords based on what I have seen (in museums) and what I have done (in test cuts), and what I have read.
To be honest, my idea of a "dream sword" would be a simple Viking/Saxon type made by Gus but forgoing the distal taper completely. Some would call that a "sharpened crowbar" but then again there are historical examples of such "sharpened crowbars" out there, just as there are examples of distal taper in old swords.

[JD Charles]

>>>Is there medieval or ancient documentation of how to make a fuller? I have never heard of any (suppose it could be out there). Clearly, however, fullers exist.<<
Yes, fullers exist. Come with me to the library at Prestonsburg and I will show you old books about medieval weaponry and combat that state they were used as blood gutters or channels.
For many years that was what "experts" thought a fuller was.
Then, engineers pointed out it was a way to make the blade stiffer without adding a central raised rib.
Yes, Distal Taper exists. But do you have any way of knowing just exactly why it exists? One reason is that it makes a sword better balanced. That is the trendy answer on this forum. However, considering that in pre-industrial Europe how rare and valuable metals were, it could very well be because when the smith beat out the sword on the anvil he beat it out thinner near the last third to scrimp on materials.
Like I said, at one time the blood gutter idea was the accepted explanation of the fuller.
Didn't make it the right answer though.

[Eric Litton]

I think there is (hopefully) a comunication problem.

JD seems to only be talking about specific swords where as everyone else is talking about swords in general. maybe the specific 1000 year old sword he is talking about dont have distal taper however there are historical swords that do.

may I say, that if I went back 1000 years I would want a sword with distal taper. as i have a feeling that a better balanced sword would allow me to fight better, since no matter how sturdy the sword is, if the user is dead, the sword just lays there .

Originally posted by JD Charles
Actually Roger I am not implying that Gus stuff is not sturdy.I own a Gus Trim sword and it is probably the sturdiest thing in my collection due to the 1/4 thick blade at the base and the absolutely perfect heat treatment and good quality steel.

What I am saying is that 1000 years ago I really doubt sword users who bought swords for protection and defense (and offense) on the battlefield cared much about distal taper.
Simple as that.
I think they cared more about "sturdy."
I have my reasons and I have my references (Icelandic sagas, archeology books and so forth).
I really don't think the swords of 1,000 years ago were as well heat treated or made from as good materials as the ones Gus makes today.

I remember the Randal Graham test of Atrims Swedish sword. But thats just it, he tested a modern high performance sword, not an historical piece.

I'm gonna be blunt here, and John Clements would probably laugh his ass of if he saw what Im typing, but I honestly think that many modern swords like the Atrims, the Tinkers and so many others are a hell of a lot sturdier than historical era swords ever were, as I said, because of modern steels and modern heat treatment.
Also, Gus uses stock removal, which, in my own biased opinion and I may be wrong, would tend to make a more uniform grain structure to the steel.
There is no way to know though. Even if you found an identical old sword from 1402 to test against one Gus made last week of similar design, the old sword would most likely be suffering from metal fatigue.
There were some excellent swords made in the past that can equal and even exceed the best of the stuff being made today, I have no doubt.
But in general I think the run of the mill high quality production sword of today compares to the arsenal type sword of the middle ages the same way a Ford Taurus compares to a Model T. It will outperform the old one.
Gus, Randall and the other guys have better steels and better heat treating available to them. They can focus on things like distal taper because of that, and because most of the end users are not taking their wares into life or death battlefield situations.
I have test cut a hell of a lot of stuff with thick edged blades and thin edged blades. If I got sent back to the year 1066 I would prefer thick if my neck was on the line. Thats all I am saying. I don't know of any examples of statements by old swordsmiths or old swordsmen about the topic of distal taper, but there are many references to sturdy blades as well as sharp ones and the sagas are full of stories of swords that did not cut well. I wonder if it is because they were of the "sharpened crowbar" variety. Check out the Heimskringla or Sagas of the Icelanders for examples.
It is not an attack on the excellent work of Mr. Trim or other modern high performance sword makers. It is just my opinion on old swords based on what I have seen (in museums) and what I have done (in test cuts), and what I have read.
To be honest, my idea of a "dream sword" would be a simple Viking/Saxon type made by Gus but forgoing the distal taper completely. Some would call that a "sharpened crowbar" but then again there are historical examples of such "sharpened crowbars" out there, just as there are examples of distal taper in old swords.

[JD Charles]

If you check out the Ancient Weapons forum you will see some posted pics of old Celtic era swords that were ancient before the Viking era. Peter Johnsson says they have radical distal taper and some of them even have extremely thin (as in kitchen knife thin) blades.

If you read a lot of history, you will also read references about how some of the Celtic swords were prone to bend on the battlefield and had to be straigthened out with a foot and an oath. I may be wrong, but I have a feeling I know which variety they were talking about.

Ancient swordmakers appear to have tried everything under the sun. What makes for the very best in a modern high performance sword may or may not have been a good idea in the era of pounding it out on the anvil and heat treating it in a bed of coals.

[Eric Litton]

Im now confused, earlier you said distal taper didnt exist.

and earlier you said that a distal taper sword was for looks and more cheaply made but sturdier (i rarly find cheaper things as sturdier) swords were made for the battle field. Now you say that its cheaper on resources to make a sword with distal taper.

im confused

Originally posted by JD Charles
>>>Is there medieval or ancient documentation of how to make a fuller? I have never heard of any (suppose it could be out there). Clearly, however, fullers exist.<<
Yes, fullers exist. Come with me to the library at Prestonsburg and I will show you old books about medieval weaponry and combat that state they were used as blood gutters or channels.
For many years that was what "experts" thought a fuller was.
Then, engineers pointed out it was a way to make the blade stiffer without adding a central raised rib.
Yes, Distal Taper exists. But do you have any way of knowing just exactly why it exists? One reason is that it makes a sword better balanced. That is the trendy answer on this forum. However, considering that in pre-industrial Europe how rare and valuable metals were, it could very well be because when the smith beat out the sword on the anvil he beat it out thinner near the last third to scrimp on materials.
Like I said, at one time the blood gutter idea was the accepted explanation of the fuller.
Didn't make it the right answer though.

[T.L. Johnson]

We are debating the issue on two different fronts, which makes it hard to make progress in the discussion.

On one hand, the debate upon the prevelance of distal taper falls on a metallurgical front: the steel of ages past is nothing compared to modern steels used in modern swords. The existance (or lack thereof) of distal taper in this respect would fall on the idea that the lack of taper compensated for crummy steel, and that modern swords can make use of distal taper because they're made of the finest steel that an ancient smith could not even dream of.

Then we are attacking the issue as to the warrior's preference and his perceived idea of what would be a durable weapon in battle. That is not quite tightly tied to the metallurgy issue, since the "crummy" steel of an ancient sword had to contend with the equally "crummy" steel of their opponent's sword or armor.

I'm not gonna touch the metallurgy issue. That's being dealt with. What we have to address is the far more subjective issue of warrior mentality, whether or not what he sought in battlefield weapon was heirloom durability, or disposable practicality.

JD Charles presses the issue that a warrior would seek the most durable blade, forsaking the swifter swing and sharper edge of a light sword for the toughness of a heavier sword.

As a counterpoint, I would like to introduce the idea that a common warrior may not give a whit to the prolonged durability of a sword, just as long as it was fast enough, sharp enough, and balanced enough for him to defeat the enemy on the field and keep him alive, not so much as keeping the sword alive. The sword is ultimately replacable—the warrior's own life is not. In wholly pragmatic terms, the sword needs only be durable enough for the warrior to survive and win the battle and head back to the armoury for a new one. A faster, better balanced sword gives him a better chance of coming off the field alive.

[Angus Trim]

Okay guys, lets not pick on JD.

I jumped on him, because it seemed he was expressing his opinion as if it was fact, when in reality its his opinion. Its ok, we all have the right to our opinions.

JD mentioned Celtic blades with a lot of distal taper..... so we know that he is aware of ancient blades with distal taper.

A couple of English lads stopped by a few months ago, and mentioned they had seen a couple of early medieval swords in bad repair at the Park Lane Fair, which had very little distal taper. So I know stuff like that existed.

I will tell you though, that I have a book written by a Pole {can't recall his name now}, that documents several sabers, most around the 16th century. All have lots of distal taper. I have several measurements from several medieval swords of various different types. All have some distal taper, though it varies. All of the antiques that I have any personal hands on experience, have distal taper.......

That, and having experimented with distal taper and profile taper, to a large degree, here in the shop, and having test cut with same, is how I came up with my opinions. Have to admit though, as I learn something new, my opinions change.

JD mentioned a little of how he came up with his opinions. He's as entitled to his, as I am to mine............

[Björn Hellqvist]

I too would like to see documentation on the abscence of distal taper in quality swords. I've handled several swords, 500-1000 years old, and distal taper was evident in most of them. One was of a fairly uniform thickness, c. 3 mm (1/8"), and another was "sturdy" and handled terribly. Nowhere have I encountered swords that look like some re-enactment blades (3-4 mm thick slabs with no distal taper with large, heavy pommels acting as counterweights). By the logic that the favoured weapons were "sturdy", and the swords that ended up in museums "flimsy", it is strange that 1) the flimsy swords were made at all, as JD claims that steel was scarce, and 2) that so very few of the "sturdy" swords survived - a sort of Catch 22; the sturdy swords didn't survive to end up in musuems, as they were used in battle, but then they couldn't have been sturdy enough...



The sword in the pic, Wallace Collection A.459 (c. 1100 AD), has the following distal taper (edge of fuller): 7 mm at base; 4,5 mm at 400 mm (15.75”); 3,5 mm at 800 mm (31.5”); 2 mm at the point. It oozed quality, and handled beautifully. I cannot see that this was some sort of ersatz sword, and that the owner's other sword was a 4 lbs Starfire...

[John M.]

Originally posted by JD Charles
>>>Is there medieval or ancient documentation of how to make a fuller? I have never heard of any (suppose it could be out there). Clearly, however, fullers exist.<<
Yes, fullers exist. Come with me to the library at Prestonsburg and I will show you old books about medieval weaponry and combat that state they were used as blood gutters or channels.
For many years that was what "experts" thought a fuller was.
Then, engineers pointed out it was a way to make the blade stiffer without adding a central raised rib.
Yes, Distal Taper exists. But do you have any way of knowing just exactly why it exists? One reason is that it makes a sword better balanced. That is the trendy answer on this forum. However, considering that in pre-industrial Europe how rare and valuable metals were, it could very well be because when the smith beat out the sword on the anvil he beat it out thinner near the last third to scrimp on materials.
Like I said, at one time the blood gutter idea was the accepted explanation of the fuller.
Didn't make it the right answer though.

JD, Read my post again. I was not talking about "documentation" by antiquarians and archeologists and sword enthusiasts who lived after the time period in question (middle ages and earlier). I was talking about primary source materials that describe or eyewitness the creation of fullers or swords with deliberate distal taper.

How old are your sources?

Your mention of the "blood groove" thesis I think adds weight to my original point - it wasn;t what later interpreters thought about swords that matters, it is what makes a sword actually work that is important.

[A. Ko]

Jens, not a foolish question. Fools are those who scoff at the questions asked rather than taking the time to answer them.

Ah, "re-enactment grade" - that is so subjective a term. As the other fine forumites have pointed out, there are swords of the crowbar variety to swords that even though the edges are rounded and the blades a bit thicker they are exceptionally well balanced. Armour Class of Scotland, for example, refers to them as "munitions grade" and I had a chance to handle one. It has a kind of "munitions grade" look to it; not quite 100% like the antiques (Arms & Armour and Armart have a better look, and in many cases Del Tin) but the handling was absolutely excellent.

Now I've also handled something akin to some kind of roadside thick sheet metal (the kind with the "+" signs on there for texture) and the whole thing was just bandsawed out of the material, and given a leather wrap. That was probably the absolutely most horrid thing I had ever handled. No balance.

Another Ren Faire blade was one of 5160 steel, but no visible distal taper. Thick, heavy blade, and long hilt to counterbalance it, and a rediculously huge pommel too. Re-enactor grade? Yes. Heavy? Definitely.

So there are good re-enactor grade weapons and there are bad ones.

There are many who don't have the experience of making swords historically accurate given their lack of exposure to the real thing. That's not their fault, however. On the other hand, because the re-enactment community ranges from those who emphasize authenticity to those who are just playing around and being silly, it's hard to really say "this is the re-enactment standard". The worse case scenario is those who don't make things authentically but push their own design as a standard. If enough people want soemthing substandard, it becomes a standard, in the same way that if you repeat a lie long enough, it'll eventually become the truth. The big lie is that a sword that smashes concrete blocks is superior, so instead of working harder on making the sword lighter and better distal taper (something that requires more skill) they can leave the sword heavy and thick to smash the concrete block. But, as Michael "Tinker" Pearce demonstrated once, even his wooden mallet could smash the concrete blocks with a single blow.

I don't want this to come across as an attack on re-enactors or re-enactment props. This is merely to state that each source has a different degree of exposure to that which is authentic, and each source tailors to its own target audience, and if the target audience wants the crowbars, they get the crowbars. However, I'm noticing a great increase in interest in period authenticity - from a weapons standpoint to a swordsmanship application. Many are becoming aware of texts like "Medieval Swordsmanship" and the new books published by Chivalry Bookshelf by some of the instructors that hang out in our HES Forum. Information about real swords is becoming more readily available on the Internet. Manufacturers are becoming more in tune and have been tailoring their product lines to those who have demanded a higher level of quality and authenticity.

Here on SFI we give "real" swords higher status because of the amount of work that goes into them to achieve historical authenticity. As you've guessed, we're not about fantasy role-playing, and we're not Ren Faire knight wannabes of whatever northern emerald kingdom of Xarithania or whatever. We focus on education of period pieces and period-accuracy. However, we do have a Historical Re-enactment forum.

[A. Ko]

Originally posted by JD Charles
*SNIP*

I remember the Randal Graham test of Atrims Swedish sword. But thats just it, he tested a modern high performance sword, not an historical piece.

*SNIP*
I'm gonna be blunt here, and John Clements would probably laugh his ass of if he saw what Im typing, but I honestly think that many modern swords like the Atrims, the Tinkers and so many others are a hell of a lot sturdier than historical era swords ever were, as I said, because of modern steels and modern heat treatment.
Also, Gus uses stock removal, which, in my own biased opinion and I may be wrong, would tend to make a more uniform grain structure to the steel.
*SNIP*

Randal Graham had stated that what Gus is trying to do is take the best of modern materials and best of available manufacturing methods to make the best sword he can, and isn't that what the Medieval swordsmiths had tried to do?

John Clements does and has used a lot of Del Tins. Del Tin makes their stuff via the stock removal method as well. Windlass Steelcrafts may well be hand-forged, but the less qualitative heat treating and poor hilt assembly makes Del Tin the performance winner, and Gus Trim's work has more carefully ground distal taper into the blades, so you have the performance without the associated weight.

However, John's attacking Angus' swords, even conjuring up a new term for him - "Sword Fabricator" - is little more than a petty personal grudge, so don't worry about him laughing at you. If you hold yourself to upright and exempliary character and behavior, no-one should laugh at you.

[JD Charles]

Originally posted by Eric Litton
Im now confused, earlier you said distal taper didnt exist.

and earlier you said that a distal taper sword was for looks and more cheaply made but sturdier (i rarly find cheaper things as sturdier) swords were made for the battle field. Now you say that its cheaper on resources to make a sword with distal taper.

im confused

Actually Eric, if you will check my post, you will see I never said Distal Taper never existed. I said "Distal taper is not necessarily a good thing. It is trendy right now in the sword community, but think about it. It makes your blade better balanced but at the expense of weakening your blade where the blade section itself is at its weakest point, according to Sir Richard Francis Burton's Book of the Sword."
The words are right there, there's no reason to attribute something I never said. Trust me, I say enough things to embarrass myself without having to have things attributed I didn't say.
To make it simpler, I think that in the distant past, distal taper was not something sword users necessarily thought of as highly of as many people do today. I personally, and I know other forumites, who don't much care for distal taper on a blade.
There are lots of things said all the time on the forum that are accepted as "conventional wisdom" that I disagree with. Want some examples?
Stainless can't be used for a real sword. Adrian himself has documented good usable stainless swords by Barry Dawson. Long before Bud K gave it a bad name makers like Jody Samson and Gil Hibben used 440 C for usable swords.
Another example would be "all Marto products have rat tail tangs." A few weeks ago somebody took one apart and discovered a sturdy tang that only had a tiny rat tail rod added to the end to secure the pommel. You might use a drill press and turn that leaf blade shorty into a usable sword.
Then one day somebody posted "you can't use a Marto hilt with a real carbon steel blade, it won't hold up."
Later that night the prop people put the lie to that one on an episode of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" with a spanish made Viking hilt on an aluminum or steel prop blade.
My opinons may run counter to "conventional wisdom" but I have reasons for them. I'll give you a good example. Sword tangs generally snap at the juncture of the blade and the tang on the shoulder, right?
Not in the 15 or so that I had snap on me during destructive testing, fencing and plain ol' clanging away with them, nor on the dozen more that snapped in fencing class in college, or the dozen or so examples I have seen out of whack at ren-fairs.
In my experience the majority snap about one inch up from where the tang meets the shoulder of the blade. I don't know why, and Gus or Bjorn probably can explain it. But I have seen it.

[Eric Litton]

ok.

Then im still confused as to how a blade made with more material be cheaper than the blades made with less?

Distal taper doesn weaken the blade (I would assume at least) but it is like a fuller. It tries to weaken the blade as little as possible while enhancing the useability of the sword.

Yeah, i can understand how people wouldnt want to change, but in general, all the people i have talked to sya that fighting with a sword that has distal taper is much easier.

I agree stainless can be used as a good sword. (just like a forumite has made a sharpened wood blade). But in general stainless steel is not made well, so you should avoid it, unless you know the quality that has gone into it. I think that point needs to be made more often as the cheap makers are now making carbon steel swords that cant hold up to anything but are selling off of the high carbon(ated) steel buz words. However, it seems that it takes more work and skill to make a stainless steel sword that is equivilent to a carbon steel counterpart.

So the swords snap at what should be the thickest and thus strongest part of the blade? Not at the weaker area that would recive distal taper?

Out of all my swords i would have to say i like the ones with distal taper the best. I have some with some very thick spines and one european like sword with no distal taper. Its blade is only 28" but its still rather heavy and other swords could run circles around it.

Originally posted by JD Charles

Actually Eric, if you will check my post, you will see I never said Distal Taper never existed. I said "Distal taper is not necessarily a good thing. It is trendy right now in the sword community, but think about it. It makes your blade better balanced but at the expense of weakening your blade where the blade section itself is at its weakest point, according to Sir Richard Francis Burton's Book of the Sword."
The words are right there, there's no reason to attribute something I never said. Trust me, I say enough things to embarrass myself without having to have things attributed I didn't say.
To make it simpler, I think that in the distant past, distal taper was not something sword users necessarily thought of as highly of as many people do today. I personally, and I know other forumites, who don't much care for distal taper on a blade.
There are lots of things said all the time on the forum that are accepted as "conventional wisdom" that I disagree with. Want some examples?
Stainless can't be used for a real sword. Adrian himself has documented good usable stainless swords by Barry Dawson. Long before Bud K gave it a bad name makers like Jody Samson and Gil Hibben used 440 C for usable swords.
Another example would be "all Marto products have rat tail tangs." A few weeks ago somebody took one apart and discovered a sturdy tang that only had a tiny rat tail rod added to the end to secure the pommel. You might use a drill press and turn that leaf blade shorty into a usable sword.
Then one day somebody posted "you can't use a Marto hilt with a real carbon steel blade, it won't hold up."
Later that night the prop people put the lie to that one on an episode of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" with a spanish made Viking hilt on an aluminum or steel prop blade.
My opinons may run counter to "conventional wisdom" but I have reasons for them. I'll give you a good example. Sword tangs generally snap at the juncture of the blade and the tang on the shoulder, right?
Not in the 15 or so that I had snap on me during destructive testing, fencing and plain ol' clanging away with them, nor on the dozen more that snapped in fencing class in college, or the dozen or so examples I have seen out of whack at ren-fairs.
In my experience the majority snap about one inch up from where the tang meets the shoulder of the blade. I don't know why, and Gus or Bjorn probably can explain it. But I have seen it.

[JFults]

or an observation.

"Yes, Distal Taper exists. But do you have any way of knowing just exactly why it exists? One reason is that it makes a sword better balanced. That is the trendy answer on this forum. However, considering that in pre-industrial Europe how rare and valuable metals were, it could very well be because when the smith beat out the sword on the anvil he beat it out thinner near the last third to scrimp on materials."

Does this explaination preclude balance as part of the incentive to taper? I think (but do not know) that a smith working to preserve materials and finding better balance (accidently) would consider the whole thing a double win.

I'd imagine a smith using tapering for balance and finding he had to use less of his precious material would feel the same.

Sorry if I'm not adding value to the thread, I just think it would really be hard to designate either of these as "the reason" to use distal taper or not.

[Jack Collins]

Originally posted by John McKelvy
Re the "edge on edge" vs. "edge on flat" idea, I would simply direct you to the ongoing thread over on the HES forum. Suffice it to say, it isn;t a black and white issue.

Yes, but they certainly didn't bang the edges together ALL THE TIME the way you see in movies, stage combat and some re-enacting.

[JD Charles]

Just a few things that slipped my mind earlier today.
We have the tendancy today to think of swords the same way we think of guns or knives or other mass produced items. A millenium ago they were not mass produced. They were hand made, and not only were they hand made, the raw materials used to make them were considered incredibly valuable.
The material in a junk yard today would be worth the wealth of two or three kingdoms in ancient times, as steel and iron were very valuable.
Swords were not thought of as something you could use then run back to the armoury to get another one. With that type of thinking, we might as well just use Saturday Night Specials instead of Service Pistols in todays military forces, if you only need it once, right?
A good sword back in the Viking era could be worth a year's salary or even more.....
And you guys thing Vince Evans prices are steep.
Somewhere, and I can't remember where, I read where somebody made fun of Miyamoto Musashis' swords because the edges were chipped and ragged (probably like a sawtooth on the back of a Rambo rip-off knife.) Musashi's alleged reply "It does not matter what the weapon looks like, so long as it is sturdy."
I have used swords with "flesh agressive " edges for test cuts on meat and bone, and I can tell you, mild bone can damage steel edges that are thin enough. I would not want to take one into battle with any armoured opponent if a thicker "Del Tin" type blade with a rolled point edge were available.
If a blade which tapers from 1/4 inch to 1/8 inch is so good, wouldnt a sword that was only 1/8 thick to start with be even better? I have used them. The edges batter out of alignment fairly easy with test cutting on realistic targets (meat and bone).
By the way, I never meant to imply that flimsy swords survived and sturdy ones didn't. My point is that some of the "best" swords Gus referred to may have been swords left back at the castle when cruder fare was taken out to the battlefield.
Back in 1066 you just might have taken "old faithful" that proven thick edged beater to battle with you and left that ultimate example of the swordmakers art at home, considering your opponants were heavily armoured and you put a small fortune into it.
How many of us have beater swords that we use for cutting while petting our favorite blades? I can't be the only one.
As for Migration Era and Viking era blades, they are my particular favorite type of swords because they appeal to me. Gus seems to prefer 15th century weapons, and I will be the first person to admit the later, two handed weapons are superior in handling in some ways, but my preferences are my preferences.
Some people prefer the Colt 1911 and some people prefer the Beretta 92. Reams of paper have been written back and forth about how one is better than the other. The reality is that Its not so much one is better than the other, it is that sometimes one appeals to an individual more than the other does.
Thats my point with distal taper. Gus is a great swordmaker in my opinion and I have all the respect in the world for him and his products. I just have my preferences and opinions and he has his. I still wish that one day he would make a Viking sword, (or for that matter a Claymore) as it would be mythic perfection....

[John M.]

Originally posted by Jack Collins


Yes, but they certainly didn't bang the edges together ALL THE TIME the way you see in movies, stage combat and some re-enacting.

Whoa there, Nelly! Never said they did! I was just directing readers of this thread to the other thread, where the people who know what they are talking about have expended a great amount of bandwidth over it. I'm not qualified to comment on this issue because I am not a practicing martial artist.

It's a great thread btw even if some of the very knowledgeable folks tend to descend into arcana a lot.

[Eric Litton]

as far as against armour is concerned, there are other weapons that were used against armoured oppentents (wanted to type that like 30 minutes ago but it just poped into my head now )

Yeah, for knights i would assume they got good swords. However many of those in battle werent knights. They got cheaper Production like swords (remember, many of the cheap production swords today are made by hand, because labor can be found for cheap). Blacksmiths didnt have that great of health, so I would assume (this is only assumption right now) that there are always people in training and that quite a few people would be needed to keep the arms of an army up to snuff.

1/8th vs 1/4th. well, you said yourself that blades snape down by the tang, and that thicker is better. So wouldnt it make sense that you want a thicker blade at the hilt where there is more forces on the blade.

Originally posted by JD Charles
Just a few things that slipped my mind earlier today.
We have the tendancy today to think of swords the same way we think of guns or knives or other mass produced items. A millenium ago they were not mass produced. They were hand made, and not only were they hand made, the raw materials used to make them were considered incredibly valuable.
The material in a junk yard today would be worth the wealth of two or three kingdoms in ancient times, as steel and iron were very valuable.
Swords were not thought of as something you could use then run back to the armoury to get another one. With that type of thinking, we might as well just use Saturday Night Specials instead of Service Pistols in todays military forces, if you only need it once, right?
A good sword back in the Viking era could be worth a year's salary or even more.....
And you guys thing Vince Evans prices are steep.
Somewhere, and I can't remember where, I read where somebody made fun of Miyamoto Musashis' swords because the edges were chipped and ragged (probably like a sawtooth on the back of a Rambo rip-off knife.) Musashi's alleged reply "It does not matter what the weapon looks like, so long as it is sturdy."
I have used swords with "flesh agressive " edges for test cuts on meat and bone, and I can tell you, mild bone can damage steel edges that are thin enough. I would not want to take one into battle with any armoured opponent if a thicker "Del Tin" type blade with a rolled point edge were available.
If a blade which tapers from 1/4 inch to 1/8 inch is so good, wouldnt a sword that was only 1/8 thick to start with be even better? I have used them. The edges batter out of alignment fairly easy with test cutting on realistic targets (meat and bone).
By the way, I never meant to imply that flimsy swords survived and sturdy ones didn't. My point is that some of the "best" swords Gus referred to may have been swords left back at the castle when cruder fare was taken out to the battlefield.
Back in 1066 you just might have taken "old faithful" that proven thick edged beater to battle with you and left that ultimate example of the swordmakers art at home, considering your opponants were heavily armoured and you put a small fortune into it.
How many of us have beater swords that we use for cutting while petting our favorite blades? I can't be the only one.
As for Migration Era and Viking era blades, they are my particular favorite type of swords because they appeal to me. Gus seems to prefer 15th century weapons, and I will be the first person to admit the later, two handed weapons are superior in handling in some ways, but my preferences are my preferences.
Some people prefer the Colt 1911 and some people prefer the Beretta 92. Reams of paper have been written back and forth about how one is better than the other. The reality is that Its not so much one is better than the other, it is that sometimes one appeals to an individual more than the other does.
Thats my point with distal taper. Gus is a great swordmaker in my opinion and I have all the respect in the world for him and his products. I just have my preferences and opinions and he has his. I still wish that one day he would make a Viking sword, (or for that matter a Claymore) as it would be mythic perfection....