Chad Arnow wrote: |
Now that we've established we're talking about the Type XVII (:)), I feel the need to point out a couple things. The Type XVII's lifespan was much shorter than that of the Type XV (and its subtype). If Type XVII were better suited to armoured combat, wouldn't it have seen a longer period of popular use than the circa 75 years it had? |
Who says suitability to armored combat, for what was essentially a sidearm, should have resulted in a long lifespan? Most of the XVII I've seen are thick, narrow and wouldn't have been much good at anything other than armored combat. Maybe that is exactly why they had a short lifespan.
Quote: |
I get the points people are trying to make, but some of the generalizations about a given type and its effectiveness seem overly broad in my opinion. |
I agree, and this is, to me, part of the problem with Oakeshott's typology. Oakeshott didn't know very much about using swords. Therefore he categorized these things based on appearance. Similar looking profiles, cross sections, etc. I would have preferred a categorization based on function first, appearance second (e.g. a XVa that is narrow and thick and one that is wide and flat shold not be the same type). Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful that the typology exists and it is very useful, but it could be better.