Today's update:
[ Linked Image ]
Spotlight: Oakeshott Type XVIII Swords
An article by Sean A. Flynt
[ Linked Image ]
Angus Trim AT1592 Danish Two-hander
A hands-on review by Bill Grandy
[ Linked Image ]
Arms & Armor Schloss Erbach Sword
A hands-on review by Jason Elrod
As always, you can see our Complete History of Updates listed right from our home page.
| Considering all of the features for this week's site update, please rate the quality of our efforts. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Total Votes : 42 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I really liked the article on the Danish two-hander. Great stuff as always.
Ben
Ben
| Nathan Robinson wrote: |
| Today's update:
[ Linked Image ] Spotlight: Oakeshott Type XVIII Swords An article by Sean A. Flynt |
I would have liked to see some more examples of XVIIIc and XVIIId in this article, but, overall, I felt it was very well-done.
Sweet set of updates, guys. Keep 'em coming!
| Jeremiah Swanger wrote: |
| I would have liked to see some more examples of XVIIIc and XVIIId in this article, but, overall, I felt it was very well-done. |
Yeah. Me too. But where are they? They're exceedingly rare.
Refer to My plea for help for this very thing. The lack of help in this area is a good indication of the difficulty of the issue. Oakeshott himself considered folding XVIIIb, XVIIIc, XVIIId, and XVIIIe back into XVIII/XVIIIa. You may notice, in fact, that Records has no mention of these subtypes: one may consider that he, in fact, did just that.
| Jeremiah Swanger wrote: |
|
I would have liked to see some more examples of XVIIIc and XVIIId in this article, but, overall, I felt it was very well-done. Sweet set of updates, guys. Keep 'em coming! |
If you ever manage to get your hands on the 20th Park lane Arms catalogue there is a great article about few swords all of which are XVIIIc. It is a great read.
Thomas: A Distinctive Group of Swords from the Arsenal of Alexandria, The twentieth London Park Arms Fair Catalogue
Alexi
Thanks to Sean, Bill, Jason and Nathan for yet another fine set of reviews & articles.
Bill
Bill
I have always bee very keen on the Erbach.
But what attracts me most is the extrem "waist" of the handle. It's a pity, that the otherwise great AA reproduction doesn't match the original in this detail.
Thomas
Attachment: 15.92 KB
Attachment: 23.94 KB
But what attracts me most is the extrem "waist" of the handle. It's a pity, that the otherwise great AA reproduction doesn't match the original in this detail.
Thomas
Attachment: 15.92 KB Attachment: 23.94 KBI have a question concerning the description of the XVIIIb's. You say the grip length is 11 - 12 inches. Aren't there any "b's" with a grip length of 7 to 10 inches? Or would those be XVIIIa's?
Nice review on the 1592 Bill. Been looking forward to reading that for some time now. Still wish that i could have picked that sword up from you in The Marketplace, but alas it wasn't in the cards for me. Someday.
Good Job again.
Good Job again.
| Roger Hooper wrote: |
| I have a question concerning the description of the XVIIIb's. You say the grip length is 11 - 12 inches. Aren't there any "b's" with a grip length of 7 to 10 inches? Or would those be XVIIIa's? |
The entire context of any typology, including Oakeshott's, is about classifying average features of examples into overlapping boxes. If you are starting with individual swords and then attempting to strictly apply them into a typology category, your methodology is flawed. There are many times more examples of individual swords that do not fit neatly into a single and specific type than those that do. The idea is to look at a sword's properties, as a whole, and then use the system of typology to describe the sword. Using a statement such as, "this sword is a Type XVIIIb with an unusually short grip" is perfectly valid, just as much as saying, "This sword is a Type XIII with the uncommon feature of having three fullers."
Further, read my comment above about the subtypes that go beyond Type XVIIIa. Oakeshott himself had thought the type incompletely defined and needing work. The Type XVIII is full of inconsistencies for those wishing for hard and fast rules (again, a methodology for which the system of typology is not designed).
I loved Jason's review of the Erbach. In fact, I own an Arms&Armor Schloss Erbach and she's the pride of my collection!
But I did notice something fishy in Jason's conclusion: He stated that this sword has more in common with the Great Swords of the 13th and 14th centuries than those of the late 15th. But Ewart Oakeshott dates the original between 1480-1500 (as noted in Records of the Medieval Sword). Also, when I purchased mine at the Bristol Renn. festival in July of 2000, I asked the guys at the A&A booth about the original and they told me the same dates.
You're right, Jason, she's definitely a cutter (I once had the stitches to prove it, but that's another story :eek: ). Again, great review. Reading it makes me appreciate mine even more.
-Ted
But I did notice something fishy in Jason's conclusion: He stated that this sword has more in common with the Great Swords of the 13th and 14th centuries than those of the late 15th. But Ewart Oakeshott dates the original between 1480-1500 (as noted in Records of the Medieval Sword). Also, when I purchased mine at the Bristol Renn. festival in July of 2000, I asked the guys at the A&A booth about the original and they told me the same dates.
You're right, Jason, she's definitely a cutter (I once had the stitches to prove it, but that's another story :eek: ). Again, great review. Reading it makes me appreciate mine even more.
-Ted
Ted, I'm sorry I don't understand. Where is your confusion?
Jason says this is a recreation of a 15th century sword that has handling characteristics more in common with 13th and 14th century "Grete Swerdes" than with "true cut-and-thrust longswords" of the late 15th century.
Are you reading it as though he said this sword is from the 13-14th century? He's not.
(I suspect I'm misunderstanding you)
Jason says this is a recreation of a 15th century sword that has handling characteristics more in common with 13th and 14th century "Grete Swerdes" than with "true cut-and-thrust longswords" of the late 15th century.
Are you reading it as though he said this sword is from the 13-14th century? He's not.
(I suspect I'm misunderstanding you)
| Nathan Robinson wrote: |
|
Yeah. Me too. But where are they? They're exceedingly rare. Refer to My plea for help for this very thing. The lack of help in this area is a good indication of the difficulty of the issue. Oakeshott himself considered folding XVIIIb, XVIIIc, XVIIId, and XVIIIe back into XVIII/XVIIIa. You may notice, in fact, that Records has no mention of these subtypes: one may consider that he, in fact, did just that. |
XVIIIe has enough differences from the other sub-types to remain distinct, in my humble opinion. They're pretty hard to mistake for anything else, other than maybe a ricasso'd XVIIIb...
Otherwise, you make an excellent point, Nathan. I own a first edition Sword in the Age of Chivalry and in that, the riding sword that provided the inspiration for A&A's German Branch Sword was classified as an XVIIIa. In fact, the first descriptions of Oakeshott's XVIIIa amount to little more than cavalry-oriented variants of the base XVIII-- similar overall mass, but with a blade that is longer and slimmer, and a grip averaging about 5 inches in length. Needless to say, most current reproductions classified as XVIIIa don't fit this description.
| Nathan Robinson wrote: |
|
The entire context of any typology, including Oakeshott's, is about classifying average features of examples into overlapping boxes. If you are starting with individual swords and then attempting to strictly apply them into a typology category, your methodology is flawed. There are many times more examples of individual swords that do not fit neatly into a single and specific type than those that do. The idea is to look at a sword's properties, as a whole, and then use the system of typology to describe the sword. Using a statement such as, "this sword is a Type XVIIIb with an unusually short grip" is perfectly valid, just as much as saying, "This sword is a Type XIII with the uncommon feature of having three fullers." Further, read my comment above about the subtypes that go beyond Type XVIIIa. Oakeshott himself had thought the type incompletely defined and needing work. The Type XVIII is full of inconsistencies for those wishing for hard and fast rules (again, a methodology for which the system of typology is not designed). |
I whole-heartedly agree with Nathan on this. Oakeshott's typology is better-viewed as a measure of trend than as a set of absolute specifications.
What, exactly, separates XVIIIa from XVIIIc? What threshold must be crossed for a sword to be considered as an XVIIIb instead? In the reproduction market alone, we have a bunch of swords that can fit neatly in more than one Type.
Albion's Ritter can be classified as either an XI or a XIIIb. Their Regent can fit in either XVIIIa or XVIIIb. The Norman and Gaddhjalt walk the line between Xa and XI. ATrim's AT-1520 can also be classified as an XVIIIa or XVIIIb. Though the AT-1593 looks about as "XVIIIb-ish" as possible, it is officially classified as an XVIIIa.
BTW, Roger-- if you're looking for an XVIIIb with a shorter grip, check out A&A's "Durer Bastard Sword," which has an 8" long grip. It's on my "Top 5 things to buy from A&A" list...
| Nathan Robinson wrote: |
| Ted, I'm sorry I don't understand. Where is your confusion?
Jason says this is a recreation of a 15th century sword that has handling characteristics more in common with 13th and 14th century "Grete Swerdes" than with "true cut-and-thrust longswords" of the late 15th century. Are you reading it as though he said this sword is from the 13-14th century? He's not. (I suspect I'm misunderstanding you) |
Oops, yeah I see. After reading it again, he says it just handles like a 13th/14th century 'Grete Swerde,' though the sword itself is dated late-15th. I hope I read it correctly the second time. My bad. Oh, and another thing about my Erbach: it doesn't look exactly like the one Jason reviewed. I measured mine at 47.5" overall (blade 36.3"). Most noticable is the cross on mine; it's not quite as wide or as thin as the 'updated' version currently being made. In other words, A&A has since given their Schloss Erbach a slight redesign since I bought mine. -Ted
I understood that the late Oakeshott cancelled XVIIIe and XVIIIe.
Although in ,Records' only XVIII's and XVIIIa's are depicted Oakeshott states: "There are 3 sub-types for XVIII (...) XVIIIIa denotes a larger XVIII with a longer blade, often with a 1/3 length fuller, and a long grip, while XVIIIb is a very long-gripped Bastard sword, while XVIIIc is a shorter gripped one."
To me this means, that in the "actual " Oakeshott typology there are no more XVIIIe's and XVIIId's and that they have to put back in the other three sub-types - concrete that
XVIIId falls into XVIII and
XVIIIe into XVIIIb.
Unfortunately besides my conclusion there are still many open questions. One example: To my understanding the Erbach would fit very nice into XVIIIc, but in ,Records' he puts it into XVIIIa.
just a few ideas,
Thomas
Although in ,Records' only XVIII's and XVIIIa's are depicted Oakeshott states: "There are 3 sub-types for XVIII (...) XVIIIIa denotes a larger XVIII with a longer blade, often with a 1/3 length fuller, and a long grip, while XVIIIb is a very long-gripped Bastard sword, while XVIIIc is a shorter gripped one."
To me this means, that in the "actual " Oakeshott typology there are no more XVIIIe's and XVIIId's and that they have to put back in the other three sub-types - concrete that
XVIIId falls into XVIII and
XVIIIe into XVIIIb.
Unfortunately besides my conclusion there are still many open questions. One example: To my understanding the Erbach would fit very nice into XVIIIc, but in ,Records' he puts it into XVIIIa.
just a few ideas,
Thomas
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