Well I've been spending some time (finally) reading up on the various typologies Oakeshott provided and while doing so came across something that caught my eye. In regards to the Type XVII I found this mentioned:

Type XVII characteristics: The blade of this type is long, slender and acutely tapering. The cross-section is generally hexagonal. Many examples have a shallow fuller in the upper quarter of the blade. The grip is always long, allowing two-handed use. It was in use between c. 1360 and the 1420's, and was probably designed for punching through armour. The swords of this type were generally very stout, and could weigh as much as 5.5 lbs. (compared to the 3.5 to 4 lbs. of the XIIIa). This makes Oakeshott believe that these swords were used for cracking plate armour.

My question, simply put, is how effective would this technique of "cracking armor" be? I have never had the luxury to handle or swing a blade of this size or proportions so I may very easily be missing something. Given the weight of the blade it certainly lends itself to having a significant amount of force and forward momentum when swung. What about control?

If the sword didn't effectively break a plate on the first swing you are now faced with hoping to land a second blow in relatively the same area (previously weakened). How realistic is this?

As always any insight is appreciated. :)


Dominic

I think you may be misinterpreting the description of the mechanics of using the Type XVII. It was not "swung" like a cutting sword, but was thrust along the axis of the blade to puncture the target. The mass of the blade was used to "poke through" whatever protection the opponent may have been wearing, point first, rather than striking a blow with the sword's edge.

Hi Dominic,

Type XVII swords are great thrusting swords. They are stiff, very slim and have reinforced point. In my opinion this is the strength of the type. These swords can deliver decent cuts, as well.

The edges are also robust, due to the hexagonal shape of the blade. This invites the speculation that the edges will be useful for "cracking" armour. I tend to disagree with this interpretation.

I own a XVII (Albion Sempach). This is a very fast, and agile sword, but it lacks the cutting authority (heft) of other war swords I have. Naively, if I were to "ring the bells" of someone wearing armour, I'd prefer a weapon that can deliver a lot of force with the blow like an axe, mace, or even a cutting-dedicated sword (type XIIa, XIIIa).

What Type XVII can do very well is to find openings in the armour and thrust there. The sword is great for half-swording and will have little problem getting in the small openings of the armour (visor, armpits, etc.). With a square trust, it might even penetrate plate, but I doubt it will penetrate enough to injure the opponent.

Another point that is usually left out is "why are the edges robust?" Is is because they were intended to be used against armour, or because this is a side effect of the stiff cross-section of the blade that is needed for efficient trusts? I'd lean towards the latter. Maybe the sword-smiths will chime in and correct me.

Now lets talk armour. In order to crack armour, it needs to be hardened, else it will simply dent and deform but not crack. Not to mention that armour was designed to have glancing surfaces, so that a blow will glance off and not deliver at full force.
The following is an over-simplification but it is mostly correct. Amourers first experimented successfully with hardening armour in the 14th c. Italian armorers seem to have been the first to to it, however their armour was carefully tempered so that it was not too hard and was not easy to crack. Germany lagged some in armor production technique and started experimenting with hardening armour later (mid 15th century?). this is after type XVII was largely popular. Germans did seem to have preferred very hard armour (easier to crack).

My point is that there is little benefit in trying to use a Type XVII sword to defeat plate directly when 1) it has a better mode of attack against armoured foes and 2) there are better suited weapons for the purpose. It does not mean that it could not be used in that manner, but that it would not have been efficient.

Hope that helps.

Alexi

The shape of the blade on the type XVII has lead me to wonder if it could be used in a cut, as the blade resembels vary much imho a cut and thrust type blade, similar to the type XVI. Any thoughts?

Types XVII's can cut better than one would normally assume. However, they are primarily dedicated to the thrust.

In regards to Oakeshott's comment on them being able to "crack" armor: I think he was using this more as a descriptive term rather than an absolute. I don't think any sword will "crack" armor per say. However, given the Type XVII's stout edge geometry and cross-section I do think they would serve as an impact weapon. It would be possible to dent your opponents armor with a XVII thereby stunning him.

Thanks for all the input everyone. It does seem to make more sense now that I understand that this sword in particular was designated as more of a thrust weapon. The wording from the passage I quoted earlier just threw me a bit.

Again thanks for the clarification.


Dominic