Posts: 782 Location: Upstate New York
Tue 13 Feb, 2007 2:18 pm
Hello all!
Compare this sword to the one shown on the statue of Gattamelata by Donatello, as seen in the photos posted in this thread:
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=9227
I'm not saying they are exactly the same type of sword, but both are long, narrow-bladed thrusting swords. They both look perfectly fit for the job they had to do - give wicked thrusts. I thought it was an interesting comparison, anyway.
Thanks for the photo and info, Nathan! :)
By the way, as for the debate about "elegant" or "graceful", I believe in
Records of the Medieval Sword Oakeshott called the XVII's as a whole a rather "boring" type. He also said that not all were handsome. Terms like these are really all in the eye of the beholder, and perhaps Oakeshott's bias showed through when he wrote these descriptive terms.
As for the weight of type XVII's, in the same work Oakeshott pointed out that this could vary quite significantly. He stated that the type XVII in the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge was surprisingly light and beautifully balanced, while the one that had been in his possession was rather clumsy and a bit heavy at nearly four pounds. Granted, these are merely subjective observations, but it does hint at differences in weight and balance amongst swords of the same type. Different strokes for different folks, apparently.
I personally like their lines; I think their profiles can be quite elegant. Again, that's just my opinion. ;)
Stay safe!