Peter;

Thanks for the information! I figured that the Sture's were all closely related, just which generation was which was mystifying me. So then if I get this right, the Regent, Svante Nilsson Sture (who was the owner of the Sword being discussed here) was the Father of the Svante Sture, and Grandfather of Nils and Erik Sture who were murdered by Erik XVth? Boy, sounds like a really ugly situation, and I can see why it led to his overthrow. McBeth, Hamlet, Romeo&Juliet, you name that play about power and murder, sounds like this was a prototype.

Anyway, thanks! And I would LOVE to visit Uppsala Castle and Cathedral with you, thank you for the invitation! I have read about them, it would be nice to actually see them some day!

Cheers,

Gordon

That is as stunning a sword as has ever been forged (or ground in this case :) ) I particularly like the leather rain guards. They seem a bit different on the Albion sword when compared to Peter's recreation. Was this a result of further study of the original sword?

Hey guys!

I am sorry that I have not answered your questions on this thread. Time is very pressed right now. :eek:
I am trying to collect my wits to be able to respond sometime tonight or tomorrow.

Extend your pateince with me untill then, please!
Any opportunity to speak about or write about this sword is dear to me. ;) :D

Thank you!

I can tell by all the discussions that the Svante might be a difficult one to fit neatly into the Oakeshott typology. I'm curious, is it a Type XVIIIe, XX, or what??

I tend to think of it as THE type XVIIIe but of course that is my particular predjudices showing. I've now owned three XVIIIes that were all different. I think it can be safely said that it is well within the parameters.

Hi guys,

Svante is rather a XVIIIb.
It is so similar to the Bayerisches sword that it should belong to the same group.

The XVIIIe-type has other significant features that puts them apart.
They are narrower in the blade, have longer grips and typically have a long sturdy ricasso.

Even if Svante have the edges ground away at the base of the blade, this does not make it into a typical XVIIIe, I think. Sorry for the confusion.

I am not so keen on exact typological placements when it comes to individual swords that are not following the norm perfectly.
As long as you can get an idea of the sword, the exact placement in the typology is less interesting, I think.

Others will disagree, I´m sure ;) :)

Over the past couple of years I've began to form a fairly negative view of typologies. Maybe not the typologies themselves, but rather it would be more accurate to say I'm pretty negative about how they've been over emphasized within our community.

Typologies should *never* be used as imperical data on anything. At best they should be used as a broad reference of evolution in design. When we try to pigeon hole a sword into a specific type or date based on a typology we're running down a slippery slope. There are just too many variables and exceptions.

Exquisite! :eek:

Gee Russ if you're going to pick a fight try to be sure what you're picking at.

It sounds as if we pretty much agree :D

Read my post again and you'll see that I wasn't criticizing the typologies themselves, but rather how they're used by today's community.