4 ms·
Would anthropometric modeling result in a better analysis than letting someone proficient in swordplay of the right size (i.e., tiny) handle the object and expo
by Freak_NL 2y ago
Would anthropometric modeling result in a better analysis than letting someone proficient in swordplay of the right size (i.e., tiny) handle the object and expound on the issues and feel of the weapon? The model would have to reason like a (skilled) swordsperson to be able to be of use beyond establishing the physical limits.
“Oh no, they could never have held them like that, because [jargon]. See? [demonstrate]”
- A_D_E_P_T 2y agoProbably, because with modeling you can test a wide range of different hand+limb sizes and motions; you're not limited to the feedback from one tester, which, as the OP notes in its discussion of the "German" grip, might have preconceived notions about swordplay not shared by the Greeks. Modeling can be informed by real-world use, though, certainly.
- t-3 2y agoThe assumption that many or most people using swords were skilled or had anything near formal training is probably wrong though. Most people who didn't make a living with weapons for generations probably learned to fight by wrestling and hitting each other with sticks like modern children still do, and learn the rest through practical experience.
- jjk166 2y agoIn the bronze age the only people who had swords were almost certainly making a living with the weapons. These were expensive items, comparable to a car in modern days - it wasn't astronomically out of reach but it would be a major purchase for anyone who wasn't rich. They were often intricately designed for aesthetics and were prized items. People who didn't fight for a living (and even many that did) would use much less expensive and skill intensive weapons.