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

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

Sounds strange that Oakeshott forgotten.
Thanks for the quick and precise answers.
Ciao
Maurizio

I understand, perhaps expressed myself badly in English.
But it was all clear. :)
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.

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