Posts: 1,757 Location: Storvreta, Sweden
Sun 10 Jun, 2012 3:00 pm
it is a good observation, but the type XVII does include some rather short swords, that are even smaller than some large single handers. The sword from the
Wallace Collection at the beginning of the thread is a good example. It is not alone. Quite a few XVII are rather small swords, while others are large two handers.
Oakeshott seems not have thought size mattered for this type.
The XIX(a) Roger posted above is based on an original that is kept in Museo Civico, Piacenza. Its blade is broken, but the ricasso remains and enough of the blade to show a typical type XIX cross section.
(Sorry for the bad quality of the snap shots)
So, again, grip length is not a diversifying factor within the group. There are many swords with long grips that have XIX type blades.
It is fairly common among later period two handers, but I do not think Oakeshott meant his typology to stretch that far in time.
Attachment: 61.23 KB

Attachment: 78.36 KB
