viking spatha tested on various things
- Thread starter dejawolf
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
No. I'm not sure why you think it would.Kobrag said:
uncreative
Sergeant
Kobrag said:
A. Metal quality matters little when it comes to cutting. Geometry, shape and edge is more important, especially when it comes to slicing something like tatami.
B. Spathas are swords used by the Roman Empire, derived from earlier Celtic swords. The Greeks used more leaf-like swords, and the Viking sword was again based the Spatha. Even purists won't flame someone for calling something a Viking spatha, as there was a time, during the early Migration Age, that they were virtually indistinguishable.
I'm surprised, from earlier threads I got the impression you were a upright fellow.
EDIT: Seems like Kissaki won the race.
fisheye
Grandmaster Knight
Err, wtf? Shouldn't any sword be able to cut through a tatami mat?
Yeah, I saw the part where he couldn't cut through the mat using a longsword... that's just ****ty cutting technique, he totally choked on the swing, watch his shoulders raise up and his elbows pull in.
Yeah, I saw the part where he couldn't cut through the mat using a longsword... that's just ****ty cutting technique, he totally choked on the swing, watch his shoulders raise up and his elbows pull in.
Yaaay!uncreative said:
I must comment, though, that "viking spatha" is something you get away with saying if you're Italian, where "spatha" simply means sword. However, there are crucial differences between the viking sword (or rather the Frankish sword) and the Roman spatha. Even though the viking sword may have descended in part from the spatha, the viking sword is most definitely not a spatha, any more than a Mauser rifle is a musket. Setting aside the differences in construction, the hilt of the viking blade requires you to use it in quite a different manner than you could a spatha. The snug viking hilts do, in fact, bear much closer resemblance to disc pommeled talwar hilts. Not so much in appearance, but definitely in function. It effectively locks your wrist, unless you palm the pommel or let the pommel slide. Gripping the viking sword firmly, though, attempting a flourish you might do with a different sword might cause great pain to your wrist. I have yet to be able to find a comfortable way of wielding such swords, but I have found that the awkwardness disappears when actually striking a target. But I wonder if viking/Frankish swordsmanship might have been similar to Gatka.
Nice vid!
And those mats are rather tough you know, but yeah, any good sword with a decent guy holding it should be able to cut through it.
And when he fails he use a double mat.
It is a good sword, but I it says little about how its made. But I assume its made with a hard core and a soft cover, like it should be.. But who knows. I've seen many really bad replica swords.
The hard inner core makes it harder to bend (and the core sticks out to form the cutting edge), and the soft cover makes it harder to break. You can see it more clearly if you have a really nice knife at home, there you can see the edge being a different metal then the cover.
But as long as he is happy with his sword : )
And those mats are rather tough you know, but yeah, any good sword with a decent guy holding it should be able to cut through it.
And when he fails he use a double mat.
It is a good sword, but I it says little about how its made. But I assume its made with a hard core and a soft cover, like it should be.. But who knows. I've seen many really bad replica swords.
The hard inner core makes it harder to bend (and the core sticks out to form the cutting edge), and the soft cover makes it harder to break. You can see it more clearly if you have a really nice knife at home, there you can see the edge being a different metal then the cover.
But as long as he is happy with his sword : )
Ehmm, you have that switched.
An inner lower carbon content softer core makes for a more flexible sword, while an outer layer of harder steel holds the edge better.
An inner lower carbon content softer core makes for a more flexible sword, while an outer layer of harder steel holds the edge better.
uncreative
Sergeant
Kissaki said:
Perhaps I am mistaken, but from what I know, before the Migration Age, various forms of the longseax were the first swords used by the Germanic tribes. When the first tribes came into contact with the Romans, and especially warred with them or went into serve with them as mercenaries etc, they quickly adopted the Spatha. It did not take long before the Germanic people changed it and got the mysterious, heavy pommels Viking swords are known for, but there was a period where Germanic warriors pretty much used the same kind of Spatha the Romans used. I agree calling something a Viking Spatha is a huge stretch, considering that the Viking Age was far later and by then the "Germanic sword" had developed into something quite different, even aesthetically, from the Spatha, but I believe I've seen a early Germanic sword from some museum photos called a "Germanic Spatha." You're pretty much right though.
Oops 
You might be very correct Zilberfrid, my knowledge on how blades are forged is based on something I head maybe 10 years ago. I hare a rather good memory but I sure do remember wrong sometimes.
I searched around to try and find out the answer, but I found nothing. Yes, I read about how to make tempered steel for swords, how the Japanese used a folding and welding technique, and what all the parts on a sword is called and what they're for, but not a single word about whether its a soft or hard core and opposite outer layer.
Do you have any reference? I'm not saying you are wrong, but I'd be happy to read it somewhere : )
You might be very correct Zilberfrid, my knowledge on how blades are forged is based on something I head maybe 10 years ago. I hare a rather good memory but I sure do remember wrong sometimes.
I searched around to try and find out the answer, but I found nothing. Yes, I read about how to make tempered steel for swords, how the Japanese used a folding and welding technique, and what all the parts on a sword is called and what they're for, but not a single word about whether its a soft or hard core and opposite outer layer.
Do you have any reference? I'm not saying you are wrong, but I'd be happy to read it somewhere : )
fisheye said:
Agree...plus, I think he forgot the purpose of that weapon: with later swords you aim at breaking bones more then cutting flesh, due to heavier armors...
No, you don't. Nobody cut at a man in armor. You'd halfsword and stab, or close to grapple.