Edge geometry is a very important part of any cutting instrument, be it sword, knife, axe, shear, saw, etc....

Swords however, is where I'm at.... and here, edge geometry is extremely important, but, its only part of the picture, and should depend a great deal on type of sword, and intended use {both in period and modern}.

For instance, one shouldn't expect the same edge geometry on a 17th century Italian rapier, as one would on an 11th century Scandinavian type X.

Lets just for a moment, discuss the edge of a modern repro type X, and the rest of the blade {take for example the AT1211}....

And, for the purpose of this post, lets ignore the other important aspects of a sword, the dynamic properties that get the sword into the position of delivering the cut. A total discussion of "the sword" should include things like harmonic and dynamic balance, but since there has been some recent controversy over edges, I'd like to stick with that for now....

First, in an attempt to reproduce a sword type accurately, one should have an idea what the period targets were, what the sword might encounter, and what period swords were like, edge, main bevel, fuller, and even though I said we'd ignore it, the dynamic properties of a sword. These should include measurements........

The edge itself is a rather complex thing. Looks simple, but there's sharpness, and there's sharpness. The thin line of the edge can be very sharp, or it can be just sharp. The angle of the edge is actually more important than the edge line, for both cutting purposes, and the durability of the edge. Then we have the main bevel angle... the distance the main bevel travels to the thickest portion of the blade at this crossectional point, and the distance between the edge and in this case the fuller........

These are all important, because these things to varying degree are key to how well a sword should cut, and/ or how durable an edge will be. No, I haven't forgotten mass or heat treat, these are important too....

Target for a period type X would likely be a lightly armored opponent. Possibly some maille, maybe a thin skinned iron helm. Likely should be able to stand up to striking a shield, and the helmet. Definitely should be able to cut off a limb.......

Should a period type X be able to handle cutting a limb off without any wear? I don't know frankly, and I don't really know how we can test that accurately either.

What we can do though, is have a main bevel geometry that allows an edge geometry {backs it up properly and supports the edge in cutting} that will optimize cutting, and have some durability. This becomes a balancing act, optimal cutting vs some durability..... and its the main bevel/ edge bevel angles and the "thickness" of the edge {meaning the thickness of the edge before the "edge" is actually put on, or the sword is sharpened}.....

So, designing something like the AT1211, means it should be a mean cutter [even at its mass], but should have a fairly durable edge. This doesn't mean however, that the edge will never have to be sharpened.......

Hardness [and other heat treat considerations] come into play a bit when considering the 'thickness" of the edge before sharpening. Hardness {assuming a fine grain structure} will allow a bit thinner edge before sharpening, but only a bit.....

Simply put, a sword's hardness should be fine, if its 45rc or better. Harder can be better at times, but the geometry is more important than hardness....... the 1211 would be the same sword if made of 1075, and hardened to 48 to 50rc, instead of 5160 at 51 to 53rc. The edge would be a bit thicker before sharpening, but it would still be a mean cutter.... and still need to be resharpened occassionally {as the 5160 sword would need}.........

Now lets take a 15th century "dueling longsword". Here, the sword is likely going to need to be able to cut cloth and meat..... Is it going to be necessary to be able to take off a limb? It might be......the sword might have been used for something like that in period....

Thing about these later swords, is we have surviving manuals that give us a pretty good clue as to their use. We also have several surviving pieces that give us a clue to the edge geometry........

My thought on this, is the edge geometry of the dueling sword likely would be very acute. After all, just lightly brushing an opponent with a sword's edge like this could deliver a nasty cut. An edge like this on an appropriate sword could also easily cut off a limb...... but with an edge like this, the edge would likely have to be retouched quite a bit after a heavy use.

How many duels would a typical 15th century gentleman have to face in a lifetime? A dozen? Five? One? How about none?

So.... how durable would this edge have to be? My thought is it likely wouldn't have to be that durable, as its likely that it wouldn't be used again anytime soon, so sending it to a cutler to have it repaired would likely not be life threatening.

But I'm just guessing here, I suppose its possible that the average 15th century Italian gentleman was dueling weekly.....*g*

But, now we have a problem. "In period", a sword like this might only be used seriously once a lifetime. In the 21st century a modern made repro could likely be used a lot........Cutting water filled pop bottles, mats, milk jugs, pool noodles etc.... These earlier targets could still wear a really acute edge prematurely....... and heavier targets can deform an edge.....

So, do we as modern swordmakers, make something that in period might have been extremely acute {edge wise} as acute as the period pieces were? Or do we make them just a wee bit more durable? Generally speaking they wind up a bit more durable than the finest edged period pieces........

I could go on and on, picking on various types of swords, and what one could expect in period.... but there is so much variety, even within types and "period" that one could go on forever.... Edge geometries could vary, and did vary drastically.... just as mass did......

Lots of variables, lots problems, and sometimes no right answer......

Hey Gus. Thanks for the post.

Since you're discussing historical swords and hey they performed with a given edge geometry, I think it's important to emphasize that a sword's performance and durability, as you mention, is affected by more than just its edge. I think it's also important to point that when discussing historical swords, we have to really have an apples to apples comparison.

For example, you mention Type X swords and their properties. For a sword to be accurately called a Type X, one thing (among many) it must have is a lenticular cross-section. This fundamental geometry of the blade creates a foundation on which the edge resides. We can't ignore this fact, because as you discuss the edge, you mention how it interacts with the rest of the blade. ("...the distance the main bevel travels to the thickest portion of the blade at this crossectional point, and the distance between the edge and in this case the fuller...").

So many modern replica swords calling themselves Type X are not lenticular, but are often flattened diamond or even hexagonal. I'm not sure what you're creating lately, but my own experience with your previous model Type X's showed them not to be lenticular cross-sectioned. They had great dynamic properties and were overall very, very good swords, but I would not call them Viking-period Type X replicas.

Is it fair to compare these modern interpretations that have such a drastic difference in design philosophy with those historical antiques? They seem like completely different animals to me.

I think it's very important, ahh, crucial, that we discuss these things in the context of the big picture and not as isolated features. Too long has the Internet fixated on specific features (edge, point of balance, grip length, etc.) and not looked at these things as the complex and diverse set of variables that they truly are.

In the case of comparing an antique sword's abilities with a modern one, we first have to produce a sword that is as like the original as we are able to do. From that point, a study of edge geometry can happen. It would be quite interesting to put different edge types on these swords and see how they perform given different tasks and targets. But doing this type of testing isn't telling us anything if the sword, as a whole, is drastically different from the comparative sample.

Hi Nathan

I agree heartily Nathan. It is very important to have a good idea what a historically correct blade crossection is like before discussing how modern replicas act in comparison.....

You know, I've handled and inspected two antique X's, and neither of them were lenticular. So, if I was a bit short sighted, I could say that based on what I've seen, lenticular crossections weren't historical when discussing type X's. One of them is actually documented, that would be X.10 {Records of the Medieval Sword, also part of the Oakeshott collection} a sword that was at WMAW Racine nearly three years ago. The crossection of that sword is definitely not lenticular. Actually, its more hex section than anything, kind of a double bevel affair {both sets of bevels are flat by the way, not convex}.

Before responding about this, I thought I would talk to Craig Johnson, renowned researcher. Since this was rather important, I asked him for permission to use him as a reference....

Its also very important to make sure the sword enthusiasts don't read misinformation, and keep repeating misinformation. Three years ago, most sword enthusiasts on these forums were aware of what I'm about to write......

Lenticular, or convex bevels are historical for type X's. So are flat bevels. So are concave, or hollow ground bevels . So are bevels that are very hard to tell what they are.... So are bevels that are difficult to gage because there are ridges surrounding the fuller. So, obviously are hex sided things like X.10.

There is so much variation in crossections of many historical types {including Oakeshott type X's} that to say that any particular type of crossection is the only correct one, cuts out a tremendous quantity of specimens that actually fit the typology. Just like X.10.

As it stands, I had a 1211 with me when I was at WMAW nearly three years ago. Craig had one of A&A's X's too. The crossections of both were very similar...... and Craig assured me this morning that A&A's is well within historical parameters.....

Since Oakeshott defined the specs for a Type X (his terminology), then what he says goes. He says a Type X has a lenticular cross-section, and so it does. He doesn't say that all "Viking-era" swords or whatever have them, however. That's the disconnect in terminology here.

Remember, according to Oakeshott, it's perfectly valid to say something like "a double-fullered Type X sword" or a "Type X sword with a hexagonal cross-section" to specifiy that it is outside the definition of a Type X. The typology is only used as a guide of description and it is fair to use modifers. Having said that, it's always important to not forget to use the modifiers when appropriate.

Gus, you kind of missed my whole point above. My point was that we have to look at the sword, its use, its purpose, its function, its dynamics, etc. etc. in the context of the whole sword and not merely look at any specific element. As an example, it's pointless to simply look at the edge geometry of a sword of slender and greatly tapering form and compare it to a sword with the same edge geometry but of a form with a completley different cross-section, different profile taper, and different mass. The results won't be the same with these two swords, despite their edge geometry. On the ARMA forum, somebody recently compared a sword to a machete and said that they should withstand the same rigors and "perform" in the same way on a cut. This type of statement is a clear indicator of a lack of looking at these things in the proper context: as a complex set of variables that create an equation. A sword will not work like a machete just as much as a machete won't work like a sword. And with that statement, you and I have landed in the same spot. :)

Also remember guys that the definition of a type X can vary a good bit depending on the writer and books. The original type X from Petersen was a hilt classification. If you read Oakeshott's AoW, I seems to recall he works the typology up from the Wheeler typology and the type X has one definition stated there. In later works Oakeshott seems to drop the Wheeler typology and say that his type X is more of an extension from Petersen's type X, or something along those lines. The newer definition then seems to open things up to an even broader number of swords.

The whole type X issuse is one of my big pet peeves. The idea of a typology is to give to give people a quick, clear, and reasonably accurate idea of what is being discussed. It certainly doesn't do that at this point in time. "Type X" is used all over the forums all to frequently and everyone seems to have an idea of what they think a type X is, but most of the time the user doesn't think about all the different ways it is interpreted. I know for a fact that some guys consider all swords of the viking age to be type X, the flip side then is the ones that see it only as a hilt type from the Petersen typology.

Ok, back to whatever your discussion...*G*

Shane

This is getting silly. I thought it was pretty clear that we're talking about Oakeshott's "Type X" here since we're discussing the blade specifically. I feel the context of all the statements made that clear. I'm sorry, Shane...

For others, some more information can be found in an excerpt from our Type X Spotlight article:

Quote:

In 1919 Dr. Jan Petersen developed a typology for swords used during the Viking Age. Petersen's work was exhaustive and every Viking typology developed since has been based on it. In 1927 Dr. R.E.M. Wheeler condensed Petersen's 26-member typology into a more streamlined 9-member group. When the late Ewart Oakeshott developed his typology of the medieval sword it was only natural that he begin where his fellow scholars had ended. Consequently, Oakeshott designated the first member of his system with the Roman numeral X as a means to illustrate a continuance from Wheeler's designations of I through IX.

Don't worry about it Nate, I wasn't focusing that towards you. Just trying to point out that even Oakeshott's type X doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. Some have read all the books, other a few, some just what they have picked up from the forums.

Its all good....

Shane

Whithout dwelling too much on what the definition of lenticular is; Might it be better to discuss what effect different main bevel geometries bring to the cutting plate? In general, do fullers aid in how a sword cuts?

Convex, flat and hollow ground. Ground with no secondary bevel, secondary bevel or complex grinds that share attributes of all. Does one method shine at some tasks, above the others?

Granted, blade profile and mass distribution do effect how well a sword cuts, or delivers energy.

If I'm reading Gus right, what he was getting at was different tools for different jobs. Different tuning for different targets.

Cheers

GC

Cheers

I have a distaste for typologies as well. The only way typologies work well is if people understand them and know their limitations. Sadly people look at typologies as absolutes rather than just something to help give people a quick idea of what they are talking about.

I don't think people are getting what I'm saying about the variances in the Oakeshott typology from book to book, so I'll do some quoting.

"The Vikings used a great variety of sword-hilt types, though their blades varied very little. These hilts have been most thoroughly classified into 26 types by Dr. Jan Petersen, but it will be more convenient if we use a simplified typology worked out by Sir Mortimer Wheeler in 1927. He reduced Petersen's 26 types and sub-types to 7 basic styles, to which I have added two more. This, much abbreviated, is adequate to cover the whole range of hilt styles in use during the period." The Archaeology of Weapons pages 132 and 133 (1996 edition)

"In numbering the sword types I shall go straight on from the nine Viking ones, for the sword's development was directly onward from these. Thus the first type for the later Middle Ages will be X. This is a development of Type VIII with slight modifications. It was in use from the late tenth century until perhaps the first quarter of the thirteenth. It had a wide brazil-nut shaped pommel, a rather wide-spreading cross which was nearly always straight (although there are a few curved examples) and a broad blade of the same shape as the Ulfberhts, with a wide and shallow fuller." The Archaeology of Weapons page 204 (1996 edition)

Now from Records of the Medieval Sword we have the following.

"Most swords of the Viking Age come into this category, and X(ten) has been chosen to define the type, rather than 1(one) because in the definitive analytical study of the swords of the Viking Period presented by Dr Jan Petersen in 1919. He classified the latest of the Viking hilt-styles (those with brazil-nut shaped pommels) as Type X(letter X). Since most of these Viking swords with brazil-nut pommels, as well as those which are rather vaguely called 'Pilzformige (mushroom-shaped)' by German archaeologist, all fall neatly into the first category of the typology of swords wich I presented in 1960. I began my typology where Petersen left off, with X-number Ten. "

"So, Type X is the 'typical", if there is such a thing, Viking sword with its great variety of hilt-forms and styles: and it goes on into the 12th century." page 23

My point is that both of those are Oakeshott's definitions of type X, and they are vastly different. I've been through all of this before a few years ago and quoted the Sword in the Age of chivalry, but these two make the point. It is a flawed, not just for this either. So depending on what books you have read, you can have a vastly different idea of what an Oakeshott type X is.

So I noticed two major guys in the community who seem to have different idea of what a type X is in their minds, and decided to make a point about the over use of "type X" being used and how it doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. I'm not trying to say Gus is right or Nathan is right about anything or either one is wrong about something. Just trying to get people to see something, sorry I'll drop it.

Shane

I totally agree with you Sean, and I don't think you should drop it. I was just trying to play devils advocate a bit by saying that if we're going to discuss the Type X (or whatever) we need to have a collective consensus on what a Type X is. In our work on the Oakeshott Spotlights we had quite a bit of discussion on deciding which "Oakeshott" we were going to go by.

Typologies are great for what they are but I really wish we would move past using them as our one and only reference in defining the medieval sword. For some of us this isn't possible due to experience and/or available resources, but we really need to make the attempt.

Trying to get this back onto Gus's original point and to explain why I thought I was augmenting his point. I did not intend to derail this topic, which I obviously have, but rather intended to further broaden its scope.

To that end, here is my attempt to explain my added info to Gus's original post:


Not everybody is concerned with historically-based swords. This goal, or interest, is likely to appeal to a very small part of the sword collecting community. Heck, it won't appeal to the entire myArmoury.com community, and we're generally into the history stuff and also happen to be a super small slice of the whole sword collecting community.

Some makers create as authentic and historical a replica as they can, studying originals and doing their best to get all the factors replicated to the best of their abilities. These products will appeal to those collectors and users who are trying to replicate a piece of history and rediscover how an antique might have looked or performed in history. These replicas are likely to be the most appropriate for comparison to historical antiques.

Other makers create more a performance-oriented sword that uses modern sensibilities to define characteristics for modern needs. These products utilize more modern materials and engineering principles to often "tweak" the sword to work well against the needs of a modern audience who might use them for modern (and repeated) cutting exercises, WMA, and the like. These products are going to appeal to an audience who isn't necessarily interested in rediscovering history, but are rather wanting to get the best out of their product as they can. These replicas are likely to be the least appropriate for comparison to historical antiques.

Other makers aim for a combination of the two philosophies and make concessions and compromises that "blend" these needs into a happy medium.

While this is all very interesting stuff for those of us who follow the markets (like me), in the context of this topic, it only matters when one is trying to compare a modern sword with a historical, antique sword and discuss how one would perform in given set of conditions as compared to a historical antique sword. As mentioned, some people don't care about this comparison. Some do.

But when the discussion comes up, and it does come up often lately as in this post, it's important that the two swords being discussed are are actually the same, or at least, very close to the same. It's been my experience that most discussions that are brought up are generally comparing a modern sword that is extremely unlike the antique sword and then they wonder why they don't act or respond the same. Further complicating it, they bring in a second modern sword to the discussion that is different from either of the other two and then make broad sweeping conclusions that muck up the whole comparison further.

The bottom line for me is this: perhaps we can all land on the idea that comparing a modern replica to a historical antique is extremely difficult, at best, and maybe even completely futile. It's possible that the real issue to be considered is how a modern replica meets the needs of the owner.

If said owner has a need to try to replicate a historical antique, he must consider the sword as a whole and the maker's design philosophy. If the sword as a whole has design attributes that are considerably different than the historical antique sword's design attributes, the results of any comparison are likely to create a very, very different set of data from one-another. This seems to be a reasonable and easily understandable conclusion.

The typologies have their uses as shorthand when trying to describe a sword in a few words but it sort of is useless to say that a sword is type X except for A,B,C,D,E ............... XYZ. Might as well then write a long description or show a few pictures of it.

Also it's good to remember that a swordsmith of the 10th century would be making what was generally believed to be a good sword by his customers, fellow smiths and conservative tradition: The last thing he would be doing is obsessing about typologies or even know what you were talking about if you told him that he couldn't do something because it would not conform to a typology. ( Or confuse and annoy sword collectors a thousand years later ..... LOL. )

So, with this in mind, do we want to talk endlessly about the typologie(s) or talk about the factors that affect the using qualities of the swords.

As Glen asked: Do fullers help make a sword a better cutter ? I would think that once the edge and bevel have started the cut the fuller, being empty space, would help by reducing drag that a flat, convex surface or ridge (Of a hollow ground blade )would produce.

I've read Oakeshott- studied it for the last 12 years actually. No where that I am able to find does he state that type X's have a lenticular blade. The definitions are listed above- note that there is not one word about the blade's cross-section. I just went back to the books and read the complete section on type X's in 'Sword in the Age of Chivalry.' Nothing there about cross section. I've also re-read the type X section in 'Records of the Medieval Sword.' Nothing there either. Where is this information of these swords needing a 'lenticular cross section' coming from- I am genuinely curious.

As neither Oakeshott himself, nor widely acknowedged sword researchers like Craig Johnson, nor even myself based on close examination of antique swords of this type hold that the lenticular cross section is a defining characteristic of Oakeshott's type X. In actual examples that fit the typology as written by Oakeshott (who invented it- remember?) we find different geometries of the bevels ranging from flat to nearly flat lenticular to hollow-ground (OK, that's sword is a Type Xa, but still...)- so why this insistance that it's 'not a X if it's not lenticular?'

Based on Oakeshott's own words and the examples that he has used to illustrate the type X in 'Records' it's pretty simple- A broad flat blade with a fuller roughly 1/3 to nearly 2/3 of the width of the blade extending more than 3/4 of the blades length with relatively little profile taper is a type X. No mention whatever of the blade's cross section. It really appears as if the only reason that we are having trouble with the typeology is that we're not following it. By Oakeshott's own statement we can only use the typology as a rough guide. We're simply making this more complicated than it needs to be.

If I make a sword that fits the above definition I am going to call it a type X- and I'm going to be correct whether it has a 'lenticular' section, is flat-ground with a beveled edge or whatever because it fits the definition as written in Oakeshott's 'Records of the Medieval Sword' (which is his latest word on the subject) and the examples that he himself chose to illustrate the type in that book.

After 2-1/2 decades of seriously studying swords (including antiques, mind you- not just reproductions) and making and using them for about half that time this is my not particularly humble opinion on the matter. [/i]

As far as I can tell, Tinker, you're absolutely right.

I also haven't been able to find where Oakeshott mentions cross-section for Type X and I'm really surprised by it. It's mentioned for Geibig's system of classification, but that's far more specific than Oakeshott's catch-all Type X. But because Oakeshott doesn't mention it in his typology, I can't see why it has any part of defining the type. I was wrong on that one for sure. I think it's agreed that the vast majority of documented swords of the Viking Age are, in fact, lenticular in cross-section and so I guess, in turn, it would be safe to say that the typical Type X is going to be of that cross-section, too. Again, discussing what is typical does not address any limits Oakeshott may have put on his Type X classification, though, as I had expressed it.

Having said that, it also had really very little to do with the point I was trying to make. I have admittedly been trying to skirt the issue due to the potential for opening a big can of worms (hell, if my skirting the issue version opened up a can of worms of typology, imagine what being more direct would have done).

I'm trying, in the most gentle way I can muster (:)), to say that many of the modern swords being compared to historical antique swords are significantly different to the antique historical swords (especially when considering typical examples). Going further, I submit that this fact makes the entire comparative exercise largely futile. When looked at a whole, these swords are signficantly different in many areas, creating a whole slew of variables that mucks up the whole process. I elaborated on this point, above, and started to discuss the expectations or consumers about a sword and how each feature, when combined, affects a sword. I hope to get some further discussion about that.

Yep Michael, you're absolutely right on the point of cross-section. When this thread started I looked back through my Oakeshott references and was honestly suprised at the lack of information on this issue. Like many I had assumed it was there for some reason. Thanks for bringing that up. I also agree that we're making the subject of typology far too complicated, more complicated than the authors themselves did.

I think Nathan's original point is much more important and relavent to our community so why don't we try to get this thread back on a productive track folks.

Patrick;

Exactly, lets talk about specific features and how in isolation and combination they have an effect on cutting in general and when specifically intended for different targets.

As in my previous post: How do fullers affect cutting ? As the thread stubbornly stayed stuck on a discussion of typology I am re-asking this specific question, but any other aspect of blade qualities affecting cutting would be welcome.


Michael:

As a side note: Bringing up the point that lenticular is not a defining quality of type X, WAS / IS, a useful point and I don't want what I mentioned above to be taken the wrong way as my intent is only to get to back to the original intent of the topic.