XXL - one size doesn't fit all

Ahriman · 14th September 2005, 01:35 PM

That's right, but I didn't even consider this possibility in this case (I mean, the topic-starter case) as the first oversized is simpler, more utilitarian than the small version, which removes the status-symbol variation. Of course, the westerners had huge paradenschwerter, but you can easily recognise one from the extreme decorations. The myarmoury.com twohander* is different, as it has no decorations, just as these swords. The next posted pic with the pair of dhas is different, as the big one has much more decor on it, if I'm right.

* the one with the 7" wide blade

VVV · 14th September 2005, 02:25 PM

Thanks all for the feedback so far.
I agree with Ahriman that status probably isn't the case with my two exampes.
But I see the point in them being intimidating (Fearn).
When discussing with a well known FMA Grandmaster he told me that traditionally;
the higher the rank/status, the smaller the personal blade.
I forgot to ask him if it was because of a smaller blade, vs a larger blade, reflected greater skill
of the user or if it was because he had bodyguards to take care of potential adversaries?
So one other possibility is perhaps that the examples I have were developed to compensate lack of martial skills?
Unless they are examples of completely other kind of weapons, not mentioned in the standard reference works?

Michael

Spunjer · 14th September 2005, 04:51 PM

here are a couple of XXL weapons from the Moroland.

Barung:
OAL: 31"
Blade: 25.25"
Blade width: 2.5"

Kris:
OAL: 32"
Blade: 28"
Blade width (avg): 1.75"
Gangya Wide point: 6"

i don't think these two has anything to do with status neither. they're very simple in form, nothing extravagant.

btw, i'm not disputing what the FMA Grandmaster said, but that's the first time i've heard that....

Ahriman · 14th September 2005, 05:15 PM

Using a smaller blade as a symbol is quite suicidical, I think. There's always something that goes wrong, and giving even MORE chance to the opponent is just crazy. So I'd bet the bodyguard version.

Btw, in my experience, with anything longer than 10", the longer-than-average form of a weapon is the more difficult to use. I mean, if the "average" is, say, 20", then it's average because most fighters chose those. Which means that it's a well-working form-lenght combination. Anything longer would be slower, and would need more calculation while fighting, as well as more power behind them to move as fast.
So, if the size is the symbol of skill, then longer-wider-heavier would mean better. It's easier to get someone with a longsword than with a huge greatsword which has a hilt only a bit longer than the longsword's, isn't it? (Btw, I love twohanders)
I don't like the "compensating for something"-part... it's just like as Clements wrote in the "politically correct way of learning swordsmanship". Back then, who would've cared about that?

14th September 2005, 02:25 PM	#2
VVV Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Sweden Posts: 1,637	Thanks all for the feedback so far. I agree with Ahriman that status probably isn't the case with my two exampes. But I see the point in them being intimidating (Fearn). When discussing with a well known FMA Grandmaster he told me that traditionally; the higher the rank/status, the smaller the personal blade. I forgot to ask him if it was because of a smaller blade, vs a larger blade, reflected greater skill of the user or if it was because he had bodyguards to take care of potential adversaries? So one other possibility is perhaps that the examples I have were developed to compensate lack of martial skills? Unless they are examples of completely other kind of weapons, not mentioned in the standard reference works? Michael Last edited by VVV; 14th September 2005 at 02:36 PM.

14th September 2005, 04:51 PM	#3
Spunjer Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Witness Protection Program Posts: 1,730	here are a couple of XXL weapons from the Moroland. Barung: OAL: 31" Blade: 25.25" Blade width: 2.5" Kris: OAL: 32" Blade: 28" Blade width (avg): 1.75" Gangya Wide point: 6" i don't think these two has anything to do with status neither. they're very simple in form, nothing extravagant. btw, i'm not disputing what the FMA Grandmaster said, but that's the first time i've heard that.... Attached Images

14th September 2005, 01:35 PM	#1
Ahriman Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Hungary Posts: 72	That's right, but I didn't even consider this possibility in this case (I mean, the topic-starter case) as the first oversized is simpler, more utilitarian than the small version, which removes the status-symbol variation. Of course, the westerners had huge paradenschwerter, but you can easily recognise one from the extreme decorations. The myarmoury.com twohander* is different, as it has no decorations, just as these swords. The next posted pic with the pair of dhas is different, as the big one has much more decor on it, if I'm right. * the one with the 7" wide blade

14th September 2005, 05:15 PM	#4
Ahriman Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Hungary Posts: 72	Using a smaller blade as a symbol is quite suicidical, I think. There's always something that goes wrong, and giving even MORE chance to the opponent is just crazy. So I'd bet the bodyguard version. Btw, in my experience, with anything longer than 10", the longer-than-average form of a weapon is the more difficult to use. I mean, if the "average" is, say, 20", then it's average because most fighters chose those. Which means that it's a well-working form-lenght combination. Anything longer would be slower, and would need more calculation while fighting, as well as more power behind them to move as fast. So, if the size is the symbol of skill, then longer-wider-heavier would mean better. It's easier to get someone with a longsword than with a huge greatsword which has a hilt only a bit longer than the longsword's, isn't it? (Btw, I love twohanders) I don't like the "compensating for something"-part... it's just like as Clements wrote in the "politically correct way of learning swordsmanship". Back then, who would've cared about that?