Schaukampfschwerter sind nicht historisch | Wiegand von Marburg

Two more pieces, if you would at least collect Ui figures or Pokemon cards. Just like other people, they wouldn't take up so much space. Hello and welcome to a new V-Grant video. It's been a few days, actually relatively at the beginning of the channel, I already made a video in which I explained what fighting swords are and what to look out for. And above all, it was about what you can do wrong as a beginner. In the video description you will find the link to it. You can take a look at it if you want. But today I just want to go into the fact that fighting swords often have little to do with the historical originals, as one might hope or as one would wish. And why that is so and when that may not be the case. So just briefly, what is a fighting sword? Let's take this as an example. Of course we have a steel sword that looks like a historical sword, but it is not sharpened sharply and therefore not considered a weapon, but a sports device. You can also call it a sword simulator. And that does not necessarily have to be used for a show fight, but for all kinds of sports fencing. Or you can just hang it on the wall, of course, or put it somewhere as a collection if you like. Or of course use it for a historical representation. Because, as I said, you can simply carry it with you across the market without any legal problems. And that's the exciting thing about it. Nevertheless, they do not feel like any plastic or wooden thing, but somehow like a real sword. Because, as I said, they are made of steel. If you are interested in the medieval hobby, you will probably own such a fighting sword relatively soon. Because, first of all, it looks pretty good. Second, it is not a weapon. And thirdly, and that is even more important, it is of course much cheaper than a real original sword or a replica. These swords, which are made by really renowned blacksmiths, can cost 4,000, 5,000, 6,000 euros. Or, of course, if you get an original, it can even be more expensive. And hardly anyone can afford that. So it is attractive if you get something like that. And it was the same for me. If you take a look, I have put together a few things from different eras. I do not know if you can see it. So you can already see a little bit. All fighting swords. Just a selection of early, high and late Middle Ages. But. And now I come to the topic. Are they really that close to the historical original? Or rather not? And I have to say very clearly. Actually, they are quite far away from the historical originals. For various reasons. Point 1. The material. Fighting swords, no matter from which blacksmith, are almost always made of spring steel. That is, they are made of a modern, highly polished steel, which can bend and spring. Similar to, for example, a steel spring in a car. So a leaf spring, for example. And such steels did not exist in the early or middle ages. In the late Middle Ages, one has already started to win monosteels in the melting. But compared to a modern steel, they are still not. Because these here are made according to highly modern scientific conditions. You have precise control over the alloys. You have precise control over the carbon content. And such swords are supposed to serve a very specific purpose. That is, they should not break as much as possible. Somehow not too soft in sports. So that it now comes to strong damage and the like. They are supposed to have a very specific purpose. And this steel is optimized for that. I even go so far. I would argue that most warriors would have paid a fortune for such a steel in the past. If they had such a steel. Yes, of course you can sharpen such a sword. Then that would have been worth a fortune. And today it is the other way around. Industrial steel is the cheaper steel, while manual work would be really expensive. But when it comes to manual work, I don't know exactly what's in it. And that's exactly the point. As I said, in terms of material, it is sometimes relatively difficult to say, yes, this is like the historical original. But I would say not in 99% of cases. Point 2. Swords must meet a very specific criterion. They must not be sharp and not too sharp. That is, so that this bevel here is 2 mm or even 3 mm. And so that the tip corresponds to a coin, there must of course also be a lot of material on the sword. And that means they are much, much thicker than the original. Just as far as the blade is concerned, but also as far as the handle is concerned. Or the parry. If you take a closer look at a historical blade in the museum, then you often notice how incredibly thin they are. So really much, much thinner. And also the handle is often much thinner than with such a show fighting sword. If you hold it like that, you don't see it. But if you hold it in profile, you can see the difference very clearly. This is not only true for such Viking swords. This also applies to later swords. Here, too, I have a relatively thick shape of the handle. And in the original they are often thinner. Point 3. Balance and focus of such modern show fighting blades are often optimized for modern sports. Most people who want to have such a show fighting sword in their hand today want to have the balance as close to the parry as possible. So this is already half a hand wide away. And that is just as acceptable, if you want to fight one-handed and buckler, for example. Some even like it even closer to the parry, because then it is more maneuverable, comes back easier. But the originals also like to have a balance point much further towards the tip. Because that gives me a better leverage. So especially with light swords it is not so good if the balance is too much on the parry. Then, of course, the leverage is not so great. And that's what the sword is there for. Yes, of course, it should also cause damage in the end and not just be easily maneuverable. This is especially true for early-middle-aged swords. If you read, for example, Swords of the Viking Age by Ian Pearce, there are also balance points in here. There are swords that have their balance point 10, 12, 14 centimeters in front of the parry. This is simply because you want to have a leverage effect, a damage effect on the leverage. And especially with the Viking style, it is not so much about that the sword can be maneuvered particularly easily. Of course, it is also a point, but I also want to have this leverage effect. And if we are already at early-middle-aged swords, I come to the next point. Show-fighting swords are simply far too profane. In other words, especially in the early-middle-ages, a lot of emphasis was placed on decorations. There are, of course, examples of show-fighting swords where this is done. Here, for example. Yes, I don't know if you can see it, but this sword is at least designed in such a way that the typical knot patterns that came about at this time are actually incorporated in here. And then, of course, it gets more and more elaborate and then it gets more and more expensive. By the way, the original for this sword was found in Sweden, in Valsgärde or Valsgärde, north of Stockholm. And there are plenty of graves with other great swords, and they come from a time before the Viking Age. This is also called the Wendel-Era. You can look it up if you want. Very often they are simply offered like this. Of course, that's perfectly okay for a show-fighting sword, but it's just without any decoration. And then I often make fun of it and change it a bit and make a few decorations myself, by either engraving it or wrapping a bronze wire around it or the like, so that it looks at least a little bit more like the original. Of course, this also applies to the High Middle Ages, but here there is a long phase where the swords no longer had such a decoration. What happens more often here are blade inscriptions, and they are not usually found on show-fighting swords. They are not even laid in with another metal, as it was sometimes done, or with elaborately driven gold or copper or the like. I don't think that's the case with show-fighting swords, logically. Because all of this would be manual effort and would make the thing much more expensive than it simply has to be. Logically. And on top of that, it would perhaps be damaged in the first, second, third fight and then such intarsia would fall out, or there might even be a risk of breaking at such a point. So that's why you don't do that, and even there the show-fighting sword deviates quite a bit from the original. With late Middle Ages swords like this one, of course, I can't avoid the effort, because here the vessels are especially special, and also the blade shapes in part. And then, of course, it becomes more expensive again. That's clear. So I can't get them for 150 euros. No chance. And if so, it would be a totally cheap and quickly made industrial part, probably from India or Pakistan. I would be careful whether I would buy something like that, because sometimes they are not properly degraded and sometimes they look like an industrial part. So I would be careful. If they are too cheap, they usually don't look particularly good either. Then I didn't win anything again. Yes, and then there is one last point. This is a special feature with show-fighting swords. I get the most of them without sword sheath. And for me, the sword sheath is always part of the sword. I don't just want to protect it. I also think that it makes the sword even more special when I have a sword sheath, which is also somewhat historically accurate, like this one here, which I made myself. Yes, there is also a video about that, which I link in the description. Yes, of course that makes a lot of money, but that usually makes the sword twice as expensive. Or it's just a poorly made sheath and then I might not want it again. That depends, of course. I don't want to put all swords that are sold with a sheath in the wrong corner in Bausch & Burgen. But you have to think about it. If both together cost € 120, where they saved money, something can't be right. So that's another effort, to cast a wooden core with leather, to sew it up, and the whole thing so that it fits. Logically, that costs money. And then I might have a place band, like here, or a mouthpiece or something similar. That also costs money. As I said, most people are not willing to spend so much money. But of course there are exceptions here too. Sometimes I also get offers that look surprisingly good and are also surprisingly close to the original. Possibly I'll have to make corrections on the steel again. You just have to be careful. One example that's not as bad as I think, also this one, was a relatively cheap sword. I changed the handle a little bit. And it came with a sheath, actually even with a wooden core. I modified it a little bit, because I made an attachment and, as I said, changed the handle. But I wouldn't use it in a really sporty way either. But as I said, the steel is probably not good enough. I don't really trust it either. But as I said, it's not that bad visually. So, logically, you always make compromises when it comes to swords. You always have to look at what you want to spend and for what purpose it is actually intended. Is it intended for a high-quality, sporty use or should it only be decorative? And if it's decorative, is it really decorated as in the original, so in time, or is it maybe made with a relatively modern material and if you look at it more closely, it doesn't look like a historical sword. I want to say it again very clearly. I don't want to criticize the manufacturers at all. They always go for the taste of the audience. They sell what they sell. It's clear. If I find out that no one will buy me a sword for 500, 600 euros, that it will break down in two or three years, then I won't make such a sword. And I won't just hang it on the wall. That's definitely too much money for most people. So I have to see how I can get a sword for around 200 euros as economically as possible. Of course, with as few craft steps as possible. And yet it should look like this to some extent. Well, what compromises you are willing to make, of course you have to decide for yourself. It's clear. Sometimes you're lucky and it's relatively close to the pound. And sometimes you say, oh no, better not. That's a too crude part. Then maybe it's better to leave it. As always, I'm happy about comments. Maybe you have a completely different opinion. Maybe you say to yourself, no, I also have shotgun swords that are pretty close to the historical original. For example, from this and that blacksmith. Then write it to me in the comments below. Or write it via Facebook or Instagram. Or just by mail. And then I would be very interested if I can learn something more. Or if I can answer a question. Or maybe you just wanted to add something else that I have forgotten now. Oh yes, don't forget to subscribe. If you haven't already done so anyway. I would be very happy about that. Next time it should be about an old legend again. And in this context about Carl the Great. And also about the question of whether children's books are actually always historically correct. I found something that I would like to show you. And I hope you are interested again. I would be happy if you were there. Thank you very much for watching this time. Take care.