Many thanks for the comparison. Once you've done some test cutting with it, I'd very much love to know how this blade performs in the thrust vs slicing cut vs hewing/chopping. Guessing that stiff push thrusts are particulary good with this? When cutting with a double edged Schweizerdegen, I had some difficulty getting clean cuts whereas with a broader and thinner falchion it was very easy. Now I'm wondering how well the combo of thick spine and aggressive profile taper of this type of Rugger performs at slicing and chopping. Never had a chance to cut with any blade of this type, would love to learn more about it.
Test-cutting is definitely on the menu. There are one or two things I want to try with this one before it gets sharpened, Glasgow play 11 for one, but seeing how it will cut compared to other sharps Messers I have will be interesting to see. - Peter
There definitely was a place for an impressively big knife in many cultures. A Khanjal/Qama is definitely we want to get as well. So many beautiful examples of them. _ Peter
I can't post links to make this easy. Do you know the "Nova Aetas : l'arte de armizar" video? That back and forward made me want to buy a langmesser and then slowly got an appreciation for it (even if I don't study it). For me it captures the romance of it. I'm curious if you have an opinion on the video, since it's quite old at this point. Do you like it? Or since you know technique better, you now can't enjoy it as you only parse it through a critical eye. Btw, I know that messer just means knife in German, and lang is long, and so on. But these days I am paying attention to the names: Rugger, Hauswehr, Bauernwehr. Would you find them useful in identifying particular messers? So shorter, longer, pointier, clipped-point, etc. And is there a possibility to establish an ethnographic classification type (I'm not talking about the Elmslie typology here), or there are not enough names to cover the variation?
I was not aware of this video, or if I was at one point, I forgot :). I like it, it is a very nice technical demonstration of techniques. It is idealized of course, thinks looks different in free play when your partner tries to constantly foil your plans, at least for me, but that is not what they try to. And even under ideal circumstances, making things look this smooth is no easy feat. I know I need more takes than I would like to admit for my part of the Glasgow videos at times. Regarding the names... they can be helpful to identify certain types of Messers, or swords in general, but I try not to be too strict. More often than not swords in their time were just called "sword". The names were not used as strictly as we would sometimes like today, so I try to use them broadly, like very rough categories. I think if you want to try and strictly categorize Messers, it is probably best to use things like the Elmslie typology, because that is what typologies are made for. - Peter
@@die.freifechter On the video... I'm so happy to have (re)introduced it to you then. It's the back and forward that I like. Blond guy wins by doing that, then blond guy does the same bit and is parried and countered by bearded guy who now is the winner, same chain of events but the blond guy parries the counter and wins, and so on. I like the theatrics, but it's also quite instructive as an approach. And since I can see for a change (some free plays are too fast, especially when you don't grasp the technique 😅), I love the aggressivity of the defence (i.e. when you parry, you do so in a way to place the point in the direction of your opponent, preferably his face; now this is obvious, but it's still nice to see it). This video ruined all sword fighting in movies for me (except Aragon in LOTR and The Princess Bride, cuz come on) since now I know we can have it better. If you haven't already, check part two (30 seconds in and 3m30s, in particular) for treatises approved, messer shenanigans. 😄 On names... it's more that I'm comfortable with the names of swords in general, and their classification on how they are used rather than shape (which typologies concentrate on). But when it comes to messers, I just called them messers, without thinking that they had their own particular place in the grand scheme of things (e.g. the pointy Rugger favouring the jab).
Sorry, but I think I'm missing the point (it wasn't a pun until I realised it; now it's a pun 😅)... would have you preferred to have the sharp and the trainer feel the same? My understanding is that this was not required, not that this would be impossible to achieve. And I 100% agree with you that one needs to handle sharp versions of the swords they would like to study. Going for reproduction of original swords is good, so is going for pieces made by smiths that have a good reputation of understanding the dynamics. But most importantly, experience as much as you can, since even in the period, swords of a type varied quite a lot. So as much as you need to adapt your technique to the real thing, you can also find that historical piece that would suit your technique better. P.S. Related to experiencing different examples: a few months ago, I switched between two good sidesword trainers (both with S-shape quillons; the newer one that I'm using has the quillon 1cm longer than the other). My forearm is black and blue from hitting it with the quillon during tramazzoni drills, wrist actions done forcefully and with intent in the idea of trying to put power into quick cuts. Why is my arm bruised? I thought I was rusty, so I kept at it (making my arm worse). Then I switched to the older sidesword, and I was perfect. So it wasn't me... well kinda... because my muscle memory was so engraved in how I perform the cuts, I didn't leave myself any leeway. I could not believe that 1cm made such a difference. So either I specialise in using only one trainer (I remember Robert Childs only uses one rapier; having multiple copies of the same piece; and he's No.1 in this category, so he must know something), or I learn to adapt by switching my trainers as much as possible. I like buying more trainer and collecting, so I'll go the latter route; it sounds like more fun😇. But this is related to the idea of experiencing different swords (trainer or sharps) and adapting your technique to them. That's my 2 cents on this, but again, I'm just having some fun, while Robert Childs is No.1 in the world. 😅
As a rule of thumb, I would indeed say that a training weapon should be as close as possible to the real thing. But, and that is a big “but” here, this “realness” needs to be balanced against safety. Staying with the Rugger from the video, simply rounding the tip a little and leaving it blunt would not have made for a very good training weapon because of the restraint it would require while using it in training. Like blunting an axe and calling that safe. That is why the fencing version looks the way it does. It is easier with other weapons where the trainers can pretty much feel 1:1 with originals and still be safe. Later light infantry sabres being an easy example. And I agree that finding the right trainer for you can be quite the journey (either rewarding of frustrating, depending on the path you take). Again, it is easier with later military swords, because then you often had regulations that give you an indication how the sword should be, and then you can adapt to that. We generally tell our newcomers that, as hard as it may be, a sword should be the last thing you buy. Safety gear is more important and if you wait with buying a sword until you have that, you have probably borrowed a good number of swords from your peers or teachers, and thus have a much better idea of what you actually want, minimizing the risk of having to buy twice. - Peter
@@die.freifechter I like the last advice. Since I went from collecting antiques and sharps to wanting to study HEMA, I guess this does not apply to me. Still like it as a general advice, though.
