@shadow_dragon Yes and no. Overall the blade is too thick for a historically accurate viking blade. The ~7mm at the base should be more like 4-5mm and it should taper to around 2-3mm towards the tip, which this one doesn't. So yes, it is significantly more chunky than the real deal. Four times more? Nope.
Truth is, I never intended to make a super accurate Viking Sword with this piece, so my research was surely not completely on point. I called it "Viking Style Sword" and not "Viking Sword" for a reason. Getting really good and accurate measurements for certain types of swords is generally not easy, blade thickness is the one that is missing most of the time even on otherwise well-documented museum pieces.
2 comments
@shadow_dragon Yes and no. Overall the blade is too thick for a historically accurate viking blade. The ~7mm at the base should be more like 4-5mm and it should taper to around 2-3mm towards the tip, which this one doesn't. So yes, it is significantly more chunky than the real deal. Four times more? Nope.
Truth is, I never intended to make a super accurate Viking Sword with this piece, so my research was surely not completely on point. I called it "Viking Style Sword" and not "Viking Sword" for a reason. Getting really good and accurate measurements for certain types of swords is generally not easy, blade thickness is the one that is missing most of the time even on otherwise well-documented museum pieces.
Why do people always make the blades on Viking swords so damn chunky... real ones aren't even a quarter of that thickness...