I got a new MRL catalogue in the mail today. On the back cover is a Type XIV sword, incorrectly called an "Oakeshott Type IV." :\ It appears to be a recreation of the sword shown as a drawing in Records of the Medieval Sword. That sword appears to be in the Musee de l'Armee in France these days. I haven't seen it yet on their website.

Manouchehr's pics of the sword:
[ Linked Image ]

[ Linked Image ]

[ Linked Image ]

It should be noted that Oakeshott's drawing has more flare of the blade's base, but the inscriptions match.

Incidentally this sword's hilt and blade profile (except the double fuller) seems to have been the major inspiration for Albion's Sovereign.

[ Linked Image ]

The MRL version doesn't look too bad, though I don't like the diamond cross-section tip. Some Type XIV's had it, of course, but almost every fullered MRL sword I've ever seen has some kind of diamond cross-section, often in place of a more appropriate lenticular section (like on this type).

They seem to grind everything to a diamond shape, then grind in the fuller by shaving off the mid-rib/spine. This often has the effect of making the tip thicker than fullered section, which is usually not appropriate. The Towton I owned had that. It tapered distally, then when the diamond section started after the fuller it was quite a bit thicker after the fuller and then tapered some more.

---

 Attachment: 25.28 KB

Hello all!

Hi Chad! :)

Oakeshott's drawing of the sword in the Musee de l'Armee in Paris, the one with the inscription "NULLA DE VIRTUTIBUS TUIS MAJOR CLEMENTIA EST", seems to show a central ridge, indicating a diamond cross section. He still classed this one, as well as the one in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, which also has a central ridge near the point, as a type XIV. There do seem to be a few examples that don't always fit neatly into the typology definitions. A lenticular cross section seems more appropriate for this type, but some may have had a more diamond shaped cross-section near the point. Perhaps MRL got it sort of right, even if a bit by accident.

I would actually like to see more of that one. I like type XIV's. :)

I've included the drawing of this sword from Records of the Medieval Sword. The drawing is probably what MRL used as their basis for thie replica.

---

 Attachment: 23.95 KB

Type XIV. 8 from Records of the Medieval Sword

Hello again!

I'm sure this sword in the Metropolitan Museum of Art has been shown here before (I think it may be shown in the review of the MRL Medieval Short Sword), but I'll show it again to emphasize the shape of its point.

Oakeshott described it as having a diamond section in the point. Here's what he said in Records of the Medieval Sword (where this sword is listed as Type XIV. 1):

Ewart Oakeshott wrote:

The point-end of the blade is of a pronounced flat diamond section, which according to the criteria I have set out for arranging my typology, ought to make this sword a Type XVI, not a XIV; but the general shape is so typical of a XIV that I have given it the benefit of the doubt.

I think we get a bit carried away with trying to place things in their nice neat little compartments, and forget that medieval swordsmiths and warriors would never have recognized "Type XIV" or "Type XVI", or "Type XIII", and so on. They did seem to differentiate between "small" and "big" and "really big" (arming swords, sword of war, two-handed swords), and they knew there was a difference between "pointy swords" and "the big German slashing swords", but I think we sometimes get carried away with our typologies and such. They are important to discussions, but we must realize that it didn't mean much to those who actually made and used these weapons. It can cloud the issue when there are swords that don't quite fit neatly into the typology, and these are just such examples.

Anyway, here's the information from the Metropolitan Museum of Art for their Oakeshott type XIV sword:

Metropolitan Museum of Art wrote:

Sword, ca. 1400 Western European The Giovanni P. Morosini Collection, Presented by his daughter Giulia P. Morosini, 1932 (32.75.225)

(Oakeshott dates the sword much earlier, circa 1325-50. He bases this in part on the style of the now-indecipherable etched letters in the fuller.)

In the photo below, note that the point does indeed have a central ridge, indicating a diamond cross-section as described by Oakeshott.

---

 Attachment: 11.28 KB

Sword, ca. 1400 (?)
Western European.
Copyright © 2000–2006 The Metropolitan Museum of Art

While Type XIVs are not my favourite, it's nice to see more variety in MRL productions. Thanks for posting, Chad!

Max

The A & A recreation of the Met. sword looks real good but hard to see if the tip is diamond section ? It looks like it might be.
http://www.arms-n-armor.com/heritage002.html

I don't mind a reinforced point except that by creating the fuller by grinding out the diamond section in front of the point the way MRL does it it might make the blade thinner and maybe too flexible ? Very much speculation though and depends a lot on if this was factored in in choosing the thickness of blade stock.

At the price point the MRL could be a good buy.

Richard,
I'm well aware that Type XIV blades sometimes had diamond sections. I mentioned it in my post and in the Type XIV spotlight. :) And again, I also know that our modern typologies are an attempt to classify something that wasn't classified in its heyday.

However.... :)

With MRL, this is a recurrent problem. Even if the sword had a clear lenticular section, it still would have ended up with a diamond section. The way the diamond section is done on this one (if it's like others I've owned/seen) will still likely be incorrect since it will thicken the blade dramatically after the fuller runs out. The original was probably not like that. I don't remember any of the good Type XVI repros I've handled having that kind of thing either. I'd rather see them get it right on purpose than get some characteristics sort-of-maybe-right by accident. :) They seem to put the same basic blade sections and amounts of flex on every sword, regardless of what it should have. I guess I'm just tired of seeing Viking swords and Type XII's, etc. with diamond section points...

By the way, the Met Type XIV is the first sword shown in that spotlight article. It's been seen here a few times, I think. :) It also goes to show that sometimes more than just the blade shape goes into classifying a sword. These Oakeshott blade types (X-XXII) are really one type of classification, part of a system. With Type XIV's, Oakeshott noted that these blades are typically mounted with short grips, curved guards and wheel pommels. So while the blades on these two might not be exactly to our super-imposed modern specs, the rest of the sword leans it to Type XIV. The Solingen/Leeds swords whose blades fall between Type XII and XIV are similar cases. Looking solely at the blade, it's hard to know what to call it. Factor in the rest (wheel pommels, short grips, curved guards) and it becomes more clear. Some continue to call them type XII. Does it really matter whether it's a "Type XII with too much taper" or a "Type XIV with not enough taper?" :) If you know the typology, it shouldn't matter.

This is the heart of Ewart's typologies. Getting too fixated on one aspect doesn't help. Using the typologies to have a common frame of reference for discussing the entire sword is the goal. The typologies aren't meant for pigeon-holing a weapon. The point is to be able to describe its parts using a defined system so that the understanding of its parts will lead to a better understanding of the whole piece.

Regardless of the above, I do think it's nice that MRL is expanding things. I like the flare at the base of the blade. The pommel seems to have some shaping we don't normally see them do.

Hello again!

I got to give the Metropolitan Museum of Art credit for having a magnificent web site. They have a zoom feature for the objects in their permanent collection that have images on-line. I was able to zoom in on the Type XIV in the Met right where the fuller gives way to the ridge. It definitely appears that the ridge is higher than the fuller. Now, the edges of the fuller may be the same height as the ridge. That may cause the whole blade near this point to have a smoother transition than what you tend to get with MRL swords. I wish there was a way to get a "side-view", but I think this view is still interesting:

---

 Attachment: 14.05 KB

Close-up of the Type XIV sword in Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Copyright © 2000–2006 The Metropolitan Museum of Art

Was there anything else new in the catalog? The MRL site is a mess at the moment, but I notice that many of their recent offerings are suddenly on closeout (a good thing, in my opinion). Hopefully, they're making room for more appealing designs.