I'm a bit interested in Oakeshott Style 7 crosses, but I can't recall ever seeing any photos of them, be they originals or reproductions. Anyone here know of any?
Please help by gathering the info you do have and put it with your question so that others don't have to do the leg work for you.
To show what I mean, here is an Oakeshott Style 7 cross:
[ Linked Image ]
The Albion Solingen sword and the antique on which it is based has an Oakeshott Style 7 cross.
[ Linked Image ]
The Albion Poitiers sword has an Oakeshott Style 7 cross.
[ Linked Image ]
To show what I mean, here is an Oakeshott Style 7 cross:
[ Linked Image ]
The Albion Solingen sword and the antique on which it is based has an Oakeshott Style 7 cross.
[ Linked Image ]
The Albion Poitiers sword has an Oakeshott Style 7 cross.
[ Linked Image ]
| Nathan Robinson wrote: |
| Please help by gathering the info you do have and put it with your question so that others don't have to do the leg work for you. |
Well, the only info I have on them is the Oakeshott article in the Features section, pretty much.
It consists of the illustration you added and the brief description: "This style consists of a broad flat section (when viewed from the point or from the pommel) that is curved toward the blade. This style seems to have been popular mostly during the 14th century."
And that's basically it.
| Quote: |
| To show what I mean, here is an Oakeshott Style 7 cross:
[ Linked Image ] The Albion Solingen sword and the antique on which it is based has an Oakeshott Style 7 cross. [ Linked Image ] The Albion Poitiers sword has an Oakeshott Style 7 cross. [ Linked Image ] |
Are those really style 7, though? They don't seem to have that broad, flat shape of the illustration.
I did consider them before making this thread, but the Norman has a cross that looks even more Style 7, except Albion specifically describes it as a curved style 1.
So, yeah, color me confused.
| Anders Backlund wrote: |
| I did consider them before making this thread, but the Norman has a cross that looks even more Style 7, except Albion specifically describes it as a curved style 1. |
I dunno. :) The authors of the reviews specified them as such.
Hum, this all seems kinda fuzzy. Do we have any historical examples to go by?
Oakeshott lists type 7 crosses appearing with blades of type XIV, XV, and XVI. Here are some examples:
http://www.myArmoury.com/view.html?features/pic_spotxiv02.jpg
http://www.myArmoury.com/view.html?features/pic_spotxv03.jpg
http://www.myArmoury.com/view.html?features/pic_spotxv04.jpg
http://www.myArmoury.com/view.html?features/pic_spotxvi07.jpg
http://www.myArmoury.com/view.html?features/pic_spotxiv02.jpg
http://www.myArmoury.com/view.html?features/pic_spotxv03.jpg
http://www.myArmoury.com/view.html?features/pic_spotxv04.jpg
http://www.myArmoury.com/view.html?features/pic_spotxvi07.jpg
hi,
i believe the above given samples are crosses of oakeshott style 8, 9 en 10.
style 7 is flat, broad and ribbon like and has 4 faces. (style 8 has 6, style 9 has 5 and style 10 os round or octagonal round).
best,
Attachment: 148.76 KB
i believe the above given samples are crosses of oakeshott style 8, 9 en 10.
style 7 is flat, broad and ribbon like and has 4 faces. (style 8 has 6, style 9 has 5 and style 10 os round or octagonal round).
best,
Attachment: 148.76 KB| Cornelis Tromp wrote: |
| hi,
i believe the above given samples are crosses of oakeshott style 8, 9 en 10. style 7 is flat, broad and ribbon like and has 4 faces. (style 8 has 6, style 9 has 5 and style 10 os round or octagonal round). best, |
These are specific crosses that Oakeshott classified as type 7 in 'Records of the Medieval Sword'.
Hi,
Oakeshotts work is brilliant and I really love and enjoy his sword classification, however he was not so consistent in ROMS;
a good example is thew famous huge broad sword sword in the musee de lármee in Paris;
in records of the medieval sword the blade length of this sword given by Oakeshott is 39" 99cm (p230)
in Oakeshott publication Fire of Triumph, Oakeshott gives a blade length for this sword of 42" 106cm (sword in hand p82)
in swords of the viking age by Ian Pierce and Oakeshott the blade length given for this sword is 72cm en all over length 85cm. this is probably right.
I have numerous other examples.
I one follows his Theorie on cross types well described in the sword in the age of chivalry then the examples in this thread out of roms are not of cross style 7.
best,
Oakeshotts work is brilliant and I really love and enjoy his sword classification, however he was not so consistent in ROMS;
a good example is thew famous huge broad sword sword in the musee de lármee in Paris;
in records of the medieval sword the blade length of this sword given by Oakeshott is 39" 99cm (p230)
in Oakeshott publication Fire of Triumph, Oakeshott gives a blade length for this sword of 42" 106cm (sword in hand p82)
in swords of the viking age by Ian Pierce and Oakeshott the blade length given for this sword is 72cm en all over length 85cm. this is probably right.
I have numerous other examples.
I one follows his Theorie on cross types well described in the sword in the age of chivalry then the examples in this thread out of roms are not of cross style 7.
best,
Oh, I agree with you there Cornelis. On the other hand, something has gone wrong if we reject all of the crosses that Oakeshott called type 7, because they are not really Oakeshott 7s!
The problem here, as in much of Oakeshott's work, is that he was relatively vague and inconsistent about his classifications (as you say), so likewise we should not be too slavish about his idealized classification scheme. This has been said many times by many people. The drawing of type 7 is, after all, just a drawing. Perhaps by studying the actual crosses that Oakeshott called 7 one can get a better notion of what he intuitively meant. with this type.
I think many of us have gone through the intermediate stage of 'acolyte more fanatic than the priest' with Oakeshott's work, in between learning his schemes and finally accepting their limitations.
The problem here, as in much of Oakeshott's work, is that he was relatively vague and inconsistent about his classifications (as you say), so likewise we should not be too slavish about his idealized classification scheme. This has been said many times by many people. The drawing of type 7 is, after all, just a drawing. Perhaps by studying the actual crosses that Oakeshott called 7 one can get a better notion of what he intuitively meant. with this type.
I think many of us have gone through the intermediate stage of 'acolyte more fanatic than the priest' with Oakeshott's work, in between learning his schemes and finally accepting their limitations.
| J.D. Crawford wrote: |
| Oh, I agree with you there Cornelis. On the other hand, something has gone wrong if we reject all of the crosses that Oakeshott called type 7, because they are not really Oakeshott 7s!
The problem here, as in much of Oakeshott's work, is that he was relatively vague and inconsistent about his classifications (as you say), so likewise we should not be too slavish about his idealized classification scheme. This has been said many times by many people. The drawing of type 7 is, after all, just a drawing. Perhaps by studying the actual crosses that Oakeshott called 7 one can get a better notion of what he intuitively meant. with this type. I think many of us have gone through the intermediate stage of 'acolyte more fanatic than the priest' with Oakeshott's work, in between learning his schemes and finally accepting their limitations. |
So I guess the question then is: How do we define Style 7? If the defining characteristics are not "broad and flat, four faces and curved towards the blade", then what are they? :wtf:
It's still a classification system, after all.
| Anders Backlund wrote: |
| So I guess the question then is: How do we define Style 7? If the defining characteristics are not "broad and flat, four faces and curved towards the blade", then what are they? :wtf:
It's still a classification system, after all. |
All of Oakeshott's ideal categorizations (whether blades, pommels, crosses) were applied to divers real-world examples that usually departed from the ideal in one way or another. Perhaps its less of a problem here than it appears; we are trying to categorize these crosses based on two-dimensional pictures whereas Oakehsott likely viewed most of them in person and handled a good many of them. in other words, some or all of them may fit that description in the general sense when viewed in 3-D.
I'm not particularly knowledgeable about these cross types - they largely fall outside of my period of interest. I just happened to have my copy of ROMS next to me when I saw your post and thought I would help you out. Since you're particularly interested, why don't you continue gathering examples of crosses that Oakeshott or others have called 7 and then see how well they fit the ideal, in other words see how useful this category is?
There has been a lot of talk about Oakeshott's blade and pommel categories here; some more extensive talk about his cross categories could also be fun and educational. This deserves a different thread (if there is not one already).
The definitions are clear, but the execution in ROMS is not so clear.
it is also clear what criterion Oakeshott used in ROMS;
the cross styles of type 8 and 9, (without 4 sided flat section), which curve before the crossfinals toward the point, are classified as style 7.
The straight cross style 8 and 9 without curves before the cross finals are indicated as 8 and 9.
For example, compare and ROMS XV.1 crossstyle 7 and ROMS XV.8 cross style 8, two castillon swords and take look at the difference of those 2 crosses?!?
it is also clear what criterion Oakeshott used in ROMS;
the cross styles of type 8 and 9, (without 4 sided flat section), which curve before the crossfinals toward the point, are classified as style 7.
The straight cross style 8 and 9 without curves before the cross finals are indicated as 8 and 9.
For example, compare and ROMS XV.1 crossstyle 7 and ROMS XV.8 cross style 8, two castillon swords and take look at the difference of those 2 crosses?!?
Page 1 of 1
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum