Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Oakeshott careless ? Reply to topic
This is a standard topic  
Author Message
Maurizio D'Angelo




Location: Italy
Joined: 09 Feb 2009
Likes: 3 pages
Reading list: 3 books

Posts: 649

PostPosted: Mon 23 Nov, 2009 9:01 pm    Post subject: Oakeshott careless ?         Reply with quote

hi all,
I had a thought: someone tell me why Oakeshott does neglect a type of sword which was in use in the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries: the falchion.
Ciao
Maurizio
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin


myArmoury Admin

PostPosted: Mon 23 Nov, 2009 9:17 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

The falchion is discussed in European Weapons & Armour: From the Renaissance to the Industrial Revolution
.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

Location: Cincinnati, OH
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Likes: 21 pages
Reading list: 231 books

Spotlight topics: 15
Posts: 9,135

PostPosted: Mon 23 Nov, 2009 9:22 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Nathan Robinson wrote:
The falchion is discussed in European Weapons & Armour: From the Renaissance to the Industrial Revolution


As well as briefly in The Archeology of Weapons. In The Sword in the Age of Chivalry, Oakeshott says:

Quote:
The typology of swords may seem to have serious omissions, but these are deliberate. It is for the straight, two-edged, cross-hilted sword of the kind which is generally (and very rightly, if somewhat romantically) called "Knightly". Curved swords are a class on their own, needing their own separate typological analysis. Two-hand swords, before about 1520, are only very big examples of some of the ordinary types, and the short Italianate sword, of which the Cinquedea is the best-known form, are extremely hybrid; and since their use seems to have been mainly after the 16th century, they belong to the Renaissance rather than to the Age of Chivalry.


As Records of the Medieval Sword is largely a companion to The Sword in the Age of Chivalry, its scope follows and omits falchions.

He never intended his work to be comprehensive nor definitive. So I wouldn't call it careless. He cared enough to mention them in two works. He cared enough to mention in another book why he wasn't covering them. Happy

Happy

ChadA

http://chadarnow.com/
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Maurizio D'Angelo




Location: Italy
Joined: 09 Feb 2009
Likes: 3 pages
Reading list: 3 books

Posts: 649

PostPosted: Mon 23 Nov, 2009 9:47 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Sounds strange that Oakeshott forgotten.
Thanks for the quick and precise answers.
Ciao
Maurizio
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin


myArmoury Admin

PostPosted: Mon 23 Nov, 2009 9:50 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Maurizio D'Angelo wrote:
Sounds strange that Oakeshott forgotten.

He didn't forget. Please read above.

.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Maurizio D'Angelo




Location: Italy
Joined: 09 Feb 2009
Likes: 3 pages
Reading list: 3 books

Posts: 649

PostPosted: Mon 23 Nov, 2009 9:56 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I understand, perhaps expressed myself badly in English.
But it was all clear. Happy
Ciao
Maurizio


edit later:
seemed strange that he had forgotten this type of sword in the sense that I thought had given an explanation. That was my thought in the phrase translated badly. I hope this is more understandable.


Last edited by Maurizio D'Angelo on Tue 24 Nov, 2009 12:45 pm; edited 2 times in total
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Craig Johnson
Industry Professional



Location: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Likes: 16 pages
Reading list: 20 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,288

PostPosted: Tue 24 Nov, 2009 7:32 am    Post subject: Classifications         Reply with quote

Hi Maurizio

I am sure you know this due to your studies, but thought it would be good to use the opportunity to clarify the positive and negative aspects of using typology tools for the study of historical objects.

If you are reading this and have recently started studying the Medieval sword in detail it is a big advantage to realize that the sword typologies are designed to enhance communication and understanding of the changes that occur over time in general. They do not include all the nuisance and variety that period users and makers developed. Thus one can describe to another a sword even with out a picture and give a good description (in the digital age this is far less an absolute need than it was say 40 years ago). But the discipline in description that this promotes is still a valuable element of the practice.

Thus the ability to chart trends and fashion are facilitated by the use of a typology, what it does not do is limit the individuals of the past for making unique pieces and striving to innovate beyond the usual. As the example highlighted by Maurizio above boundaries of what one is classifying is crucial as there is so much variation that at some point each piece becomes its own type.

The Medieval sword has had a couple different typologies developed for it and some that have tried to tie the different typologies together (i.e. Giebig) all have value to some degree but all had different focuses and characteristics they felt where important. Some looked only at hilt form and ignored the blade others like Ewart tried to create a flexible and adjustable system that could handle new finds and structures as knowledge was gained. This is a great strength of his system but one that is sometimes difficult for those who want an absolute answer to what is this on a particular piece.

Could write a ton more but do not want to bore anyone and got to get the kid to school :-)

Best
Craig
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Maurizio D'Angelo




Location: Italy
Joined: 09 Feb 2009
Likes: 3 pages
Reading list: 3 books

Posts: 649

PostPosted: Tue 24 Nov, 2009 12:36 pm    Post subject: Re: Classifications         Reply with quote

Craig Johnson wrote:
Hi Maurizio
If you are reading this and have recently started studying the Medieval sword in detail it is a big advantage to realize that the sword typologies are designed to enhance communication and understanding of the changes that occur over time in general. They do not include all the nuisance and variety that period users and makers developed. Thus one can describe to another a sword even with out a picture and give a good description (in the digital age this is far less an absolute need than it was say 40 years ago). But the discipline in description that this promotes is still a valuable element of the practice.
Best
Craig


I am honored by your response.Happy
Put this in mind, I'm beginning to understand the various authors, to capture their vision of the swords ... a long way
Regards
Maurizio
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Oakeshott careless ?
Page 1 of 1 Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2018 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum