Of all the weapons devised by man in the long lapse of the centuries, the sword is the only one which combines effectiveness in defense with force in attack; and since its beginnings in the Bronze age, it has gathered around itself a mystique which sets it apart from any other artifact. Though its practical efficiency did not reach its peak until the development of the smallsword in 17th century France, its rich and mystical symbolism came to a full flowering in the late 11th century, at the beginning of the Age of Chivalry...

Surely the old boy didn't mean that how it sounds? Or more probably, he simply knew more about 17th century fencing than it's earlier counterparts?

"Do you agree with this statement?"

No.

I would have to say that a well-trained man with a rifle most closely matches your criteria.

Brian M

Sounds like Hutton, am I right?

I'd say it one of the cheif advantages of the sword is it's balance between offence and defense, certainly. But I'd say the same thing about most pole weapons. And I don't think anyone on these forums would agree that swordsmanship reached it's peak with the smallsword, rather that swords and consequently swordsmanship styles simply changed with the times.

Put me down with Patrick on this one. No. :)

Gotta join Patrick and Scott .


NO

I agree totally!! - The peak of sword development and swordsmanship through the ages came with the invention of the itty-bitty car antennae… Err… I meant to add a resounding NO-O-o-o-o….!!! :eek:

No.

(I wounder if the author of the statement have looked closely on old Longswordmanuals for example.)

Actually the quote comes from Oakeshott. Page 1 "Records of the Medieval Sword."

Actually I copied it verbatim out of the first page of The Sword in Hand. Now the followup question, what would possess Oakeshott to say such a thing? Was this his opinion early on when he wrote the original articles for the magazine or was this something he believed through his whole career? I think that this book is going to be a very interesting read, just because I will be arguing with him if nothing else.

I've gotta say that while I dissagree with that statement, I don't believe Oakeshott would agree with it either in the last years of his life. I think this needs some explaining for those on this forum who don't have ROTMS. If you do have that book, just read the whole page if you haven't yet, and you'll understand.

For those of you who don't have that book, that statement starts out, "I once wrote 'of all the...'" Then there is a paragraph of how the knightly sword of medieval Europe used to be looked at by historians. The paragraph after that then reads, "A glance through the following pages of photographs might seem to support this view but closer inspection will show how false, in fact, it is. These swords have an austere perfection of line and proportion... and though all these swords of the high middle ages in Europe are made upon the same basic design of blade, cross-guard and pommel, there is great diversity in all three elements."

Now, I never had the opportunity to meet him personally, but I'll bet he wrote that statement as a thesis for a college paper or something. I've read several books from the 20's in university libraries that are full of information that has since been disproven - and that could be where Oakeshott got his info when he made that statement. Just a guess though.

But I also believe that the owner of a sword in the 14th century would have been very careful to not use his sword in defense, but only as a matter of last resort. I believe that he would have been careful to not damage the cutting edge of the blade by banging it against another weapon. What do you guys think? Sword for defense? (not talking about the perry in fencing)

I think that in a lot of ways his willingness to change his opinion as illustrated here shows Oakeshott's true scholarship.

I couldn't agree more.

IMO it reached its peak of practical efficiency with early 16th century bastard swords.

I've puzzled over that statement of Oakeshott's championing the smallsword. Here is one possible reason he wrote it.

Before the 16th century, swords were primarilly offensive weapons. Incoming blows were taken care of by your shield, your armor, or your evasion. You used your sword to parry only when circumstances forced it. By the time of the smallsword, shield and armor were pretty much gone, and the sword had to function as a defensive as well as offensive weapon. As long as you were up against a similar weapon, the smallsword should function admirably in both capacities.

Nope, don't agree with that statement.......

In my view swordsmanship peaked in the early fifteenth century with the development of the longsword as used in arts like Fiore and Talhoffer.........

I would say that the peak lasted thru much of the 16th century as the arts developed and changed along with the swords.......by the 17th century with rapiers pretty much taking over the civilian sword arts, swordsmanship was in definite decline, though it still prospered for a while..........

Just my opinion though.........

The sword certainly has a great deal of mystiqe and symbolism, but so does the mace- the most basic symbol of power and authority. Also in the high middle ages the sword was usually wielded along with the shield- the primary mode of defense