Hypothetically?

kaotikross said:
I'm intrigued!! Is this an actual museum piece?
Click to expand...

That would be telling :p

j17skw.jpg
 
Last edited:
My point is that to reveal one's strength, undermines it.

Since I would not field it, I guess it is ok but don't bicker about who gets to carry it.
4t966w.jpg
 
horseclover said:
My point is that to reveal one's strength, undermines it.

Since I would not field it, I guess it is ok but don't bicker about who gets to carry it.
4t966w.jpg
Click to expand...
So you are saying you would attack this over a target which appears to have no weapons?
 
Jens Schuetz said:
So you are saying you would attack this over a target which appears to have no weapons?
Click to expand...
My strategy and weapons (within given parameters as outlined by the original poster) would prove invincible.

Again, I don't plan on offering what sword and what shield I would employ.

Cheers

GC
 
This is so subjective...

The sword a person would buy is entirely based on the skills they have with said sword. Not "telling" what sword you choose is just another way of saying you're not skilled in that particular sword or else one would be confident enough to display sword freely, letting the opponents wonder what skills you have to back it up with.

Men these days...
 
J W Bensinger said:
I think I'd go with some variant of George Silver's "shorte sharpe sworde"- decent cut & thrust with enough quillon work to keep playing "find the fingers" at a minimum. And maybe something a little bigger than the buckler, given crossbows/bows general mean spirited cobble-throwing.
Barring that a fechtmesser (single hand version of the großemesser-wide, tough single edged blade.
All of this goes out the window if I'm supposed to be in a shieldwall, mind...
Click to expand...
I have to amend this-if the original premise was expanded from "buy" one sword to "go get one out of the Subaru"...
This one.
 
LadyEarth said:
This is so subjective...
Click to expand...
Entirely so.

The sword a person would buy is entirely based on the skills they have with said sword.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. Consider though the unskilled, as mentioned in Paradoxes of Defence, by George Silver (1599).

Not "telling" what sword you choose is just another way of saying you're not skilled in that particular sword or else one would be confident enough to display sword freely, letting the opponents wonder what skills you have to back it up with.
Click to expand...
Conversely, we have no idea what skill your assailant has, nor their weapons. Mostly, we are troubling a lot of electrons in a hypothetical. Perhaps there is gratification in such mental masturbation. I must say though, your reply has created a frisson:eek: Plenty of swords and time here, c'mon down :)

Men these days...
Click to expand...
Real men aren't worried about what someone else's equipment looks like.

Cheers

GC
 
Mister Horse,
I laughed. Beautiful answers like Mental masturbation.

I still stand by what I said but I also stand corrected and add what you have said into my stance's equation. Much appreciated!
 
J W Bensinger said:
I think I'd go with some variant of George Silver's "shorte sharpe sworde"- decent cut & thrust with enough quillon work to keep playing "find the fingers" at a minimum. And maybe something a little bigger than the buckler, given crossbows/bows general mean spirited cobble-throwing.
Barring that a fechtmesser (single hand version of the großemesser-wide, tough single edged blade.
All of this goes out the window if I'm supposed to be in a shieldwall, mind...
Click to expand...

I like cutlass, and use William Hope's system as a guide, which became Angelo's system taught to the British Royal Navy.
Whilst looking around for historical cutlass, I came across http://www.antiqueweaponstore.com/R...s of the Ecole Royale Militaire, ca. 1775.htm

HRCCutlass-5.JPG


It is a cutlass from 1775, used by the French military school.
It has a 3/4 basket hilt on a bowie type blade - the whole thing is 25 inches long - which would put the blade at about 18".

Stabby : Slashy : very good hand protection:
Shame it is $9500.

So I made a copy :)
Not a swordsmith. Made using snips and hand drill and small hammer.

DSCF0375_zpshqrf1rb8.jpg


Showing leather liner in basket hilt.
Not really necessary, but you can rub knuckles etc, so to save wearing a glove I made a liner
out of old soft leather.



Originally a figure 8 hand guard as per royal navy cutlass. I added the metal straps to the fig 8 guard
whilst on the cutlass.



Blade length 18 inches : Handle length 5 inches inside the basket. Weight 920 grammes.
Good fun to play with, and practice in a confined space, which is what cutlass was originally intended for.
As a coincidence, it weighs the same as my 1750 - 1790 British Royal Navy Cutlass which is 34.5 inches total length,
the blade being 29 inches long.
 
Last edited:
I like the vag in the center of it....talk about masturbation!

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson
 
stickwhistler said:
I like cutlass, and use William Hope's system as a guide, which became Angelo's system taught to the British Royal Navy.
Whilst looking around for historical cutlass, I came across http://www.antiqueweaponstore.com/R...s of the Ecole Royale Militaire, ca. 1775.htm

HRCCutlass-5.JPG


It is a cutlass from 1775, used by the French military school.
It has a 3/4 basket hilt on a bowie type blade - the whole thing is 25 inches long - which would put the blade at about 18".

Stabby : Slashy : very good hand protection:
Shame it is $9500.

So I made a copy :)
Not a swordsmith. Made using snips and hand drill and small hammer.

DSCF0375_zpshqrf1rb8.jpg


Showing leather liner in basket hilt.
Not really necessary, but you can rub knuckles etc, so to save wearing a glove I made a liner
out of old soft leather.



Originally a figure 8 hand guard as per royal navy cutlass. I added the metal straps to the fig 8 guard
whilst on the cutlass.



Blade length 18 inches : Handle length 5 inches inside the basket. Weight 920 grammes.
Good fun to play with, and practice in a confined space, which is what cutlass was originally intended for.
As a coincidence, it weighs the same as my 1750 - 1790 British Royal Navy Cutlass which is 34.5 inches total length,
the blade being 29 inches long.
Click to expand...

I like it! If you had one in each hand, that'd be formidable as heck, also.
 
kaotikross said:
I like it! If you had one in each hand, that'd be formidable as heck, also.
Click to expand...

So you are amending the precepts once again. You initially asked what sword and shield one would purchase. Granted, dual wielding assumes one to block and one to attack (or result in a wide open stance). I am quite famliiar in a longer bladed context but that allows for purchasing two swords, not one, and excluding a shield. Or are we to assume the purchases are in addition to our pre-existing arsenal? You are now allowing both two handed swords and two single hand swords.

Why not start over and ask what (exactly) is allowable as far as implements go. You could go further to limit a time frame and culture but you seem to have already abandoned any hard set criteria.

I would employ tactics and weapons in reaction to a more specific context. Otherwise it is just a Coke or Pepsi challenge (which also devolves to anyone's preferred beverage).

That, in the end, goes back to what your favorite sword(s) is(are) and why.

There is a very good polearm vs dagger thread from eons ago that evolved from a favorite sword question. Guess what the professionals said, and agreed on. Toss in cut vs thrust :)

I was considered a bully and somewhat vain (many were just jealous) during my warehousing years and I often offered we meet in four ounce gloves at the local Y. I fully accepted (and said so) most would probably spank me pretty well, despite my size.

Getting jumped in a historical alley, set some firm parameters. I plan to have my army with me all the time ;) Or are we limiting this to solo encounters? Set the stage, ok?

FWIW, handgonnes go back a long way in history.

Have a memorable memorial weekend.

GC

fwiw, I am more familiar with the 16th century on as far as swordmanship goes but understand 1.33 pretty well, as little changed. I am not a trained professional and I love spadroons (a most despised weapon).

My rack at the doorway holds heavier single hand straight jobs with half baskets.
10mv2x4.gif

http://storm.alert.sk/swordsmanship/hutton/case.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top