I just finished reading through the article on Type XX swords. Is it just me, or would anyone else love to see this Type XX reproduced by Albion Armorers or Arms & Armor?
[ Linked Image ]
| Craig Peters wrote: |
| I just finished reading through the article on Type XX swords. Is it just me, or would anyone else love to see this Type XX reproduced by Albion Armorers or Arms & Armor? |
I love that sword too. In fact I actually have a custom order w/Manning Imperial for a sword based on that XXa. They should start it some time in mid '06.
This is really a beauty of a sword.
If you ask me it shares more similarities with type XVII and XVa swords than with XX's.
Just like the XVII's the sword changes into a stiff thrusting-blade of diamond cross-section as soon as the fullers end. The only difference I see is that the XVII's are of Hexagonal cross section while this XX features a multi-fullered blade before turning into a diamond one.
I think this one would do a very good job in half-swording.
If you ask me it shares more similarities with type XVII and XVa swords than with XX's.
Just like the XVII's the sword changes into a stiff thrusting-blade of diamond cross-section as soon as the fullers end. The only difference I see is that the XVII's are of Hexagonal cross section while this XX features a multi-fullered blade before turning into a diamond one.
I think this one would do a very good job in half-swording.
Yes, this is one of the *nice* ones :D :cool:
To me it is a mystery that the sword was classified as a XX. It is really a XVII witha ricasso. The "multiple fuller" is limited to the ricasso area only. The rest of the blade is a pretty classic XVII even if perhaps on the pointy side.
If you look through "Records" you will see other swords with exactly the same type of blade, but they are classified differently.
Look at p. 167: XVII.9 That sword from the Themse is an almost identical sword to this one.
Also at p. 170: XVII.12 is another sword with exatly the same blade configuration, only perhaps made by another maker.
This only goes to show that there are some irregularities n the classification and that some swords straddle the types rahter evenly.
My personal impression is that the last types, XX, XXI and XXII are rather too vague to work really well, although there is a large group of important swords that beg to be classified and so must belong somewhere in those types.
All that aside, it is a splendid sword. It sits in the same vitrine as the famous long gripped type XVIIIb with the tooled grip. A nice pair!
To me it is a mystery that the sword was classified as a XX. It is really a XVII witha ricasso. The "multiple fuller" is limited to the ricasso area only. The rest of the blade is a pretty classic XVII even if perhaps on the pointy side.
If you look through "Records" you will see other swords with exactly the same type of blade, but they are classified differently.
Look at p. 167: XVII.9 That sword from the Themse is an almost identical sword to this one.
Also at p. 170: XVII.12 is another sword with exatly the same blade configuration, only perhaps made by another maker.
This only goes to show that there are some irregularities n the classification and that some swords straddle the types rahter evenly.
My personal impression is that the last types, XX, XXI and XXII are rather too vague to work really well, although there is a large group of important swords that beg to be classified and so must belong somewhere in those types.
All that aside, it is a splendid sword. It sits in the same vitrine as the famous long gripped type XVIIIb with the tooled grip. A nice pair!
Thx a lot for these infos :) (I knew I was right *g*)
Is it just my imagination or are these swords highly underrated? To me that's one of the nicest sword-blades I've seen.
I'm sure this sword would be able to inflict some serious cutting wounds despite its ice-pick appearance. I wouldn't want my throat to get cut by that nasty tip :eek:
That fullered ricasso is just too beautiful to be true.
Is it just my imagination or are these swords highly underrated? To me that's one of the nicest sword-blades I've seen.
I'm sure this sword would be able to inflict some serious cutting wounds despite its ice-pick appearance. I wouldn't want my throat to get cut by that nasty tip :eek:
That fullered ricasso is just too beautiful to be true.
| Peter Johnsson wrote: |
| To me it is a mystery that the sword was classified as a XX. It is really a XVII witha ricasso. The "multiple fuller" is limited to the ricasso area only. The rest of the blade is a pretty classic XVII even if perhaps on the pointy side.
If you look through "Records" you will see other swords with exactly the same type of blade, but they are classified differently. Look at p. 167: XVII.9 That sword from the Themse is an almost identical sword to this one. Also at p. 170: XVII.12 is another sword with exatly the same blade configuration, only perhaps made by another maker. This only goes to show that there are some irregularities n the classification and that some swords straddle the types rahter evenly. My personal impression is that the last types, XX, XXI and XXII are rather too vague to work really well, although there is a large group of important swords that beg to be classified and so must belong somewhere in those types. All that aside, it is a splendid sword. It sits in the same vitrine as the famous long gripped type XVIIIb with the tooled grip. A nice pair! |
Personally, I think those belong elsewhere in the classification: the first should be a Type XXa; the second probably XXa, or "unclassified." The difference between the one Craig showed and the sword from the Thames lie in the blade cross-section, I believe, though the pics make it hard to tell. Actually, the one Craig showed looks like it has a better-defined hex section, which would make it more a Type XVII than the Thames sword, if you use blade cross-section as a primary delineator. XVII.9 and XVII.12 both seem to have more of a diamond section in the post-fuller area, which would make them atypical of Type XVII. Of course, Oakeshott put so many atypical examples into his typology that the lines get blurred. His classification of the Thames sword as a Type XVII has always stumped me, since it seems to me to fit better (on paper at least) in Type XXa.
I will say, though, that since Peter has seen and handled a lot more antique swords than I ever will, I respect his judgment in these matters.
I do agree as well that some of these straddle the line and that the last few types aren't easily and thoroughly defined. For me, it's becoming more and more obvious that we are often trying to define the undefinable. There are so many examples that just don't neatly fit a modern typology, which shouldn't be surprising. No medieval smith said "I'm going to make an Oakeshott Type XX today." :)
By the way, I'm sure some people will be appalled that I'd voice disagreement with Peter on these swords (or anything sword-related for that matter). Peter, obviously, has much more experience and knowledge in these matters than I do (or ever will).
Personally, I think that the purpose of Oakeshott's typology is being served and these minor disagreements over classification occur naturally when trying to assign a category to something that wasn't necessarily intended to have one. The typology is a "scaffolding," as Oakeshott called it: a tool with which to build other things. It is not, by itself, an end-all-be-all system. The fact that two people from different parts of the world and with different backgrounds can discuss an item intelligently, with common frames of reference, means Oakeshott's system is working and is still valid.
Just my two cents. :)
Personally, I think that the purpose of Oakeshott's typology is being served and these minor disagreements over classification occur naturally when trying to assign a category to something that wasn't necessarily intended to have one. The typology is a "scaffolding," as Oakeshott called it: a tool with which to build other things. It is not, by itself, an end-all-be-all system. The fact that two people from different parts of the world and with different backgrounds can discuss an item intelligently, with common frames of reference, means Oakeshott's system is working and is still valid.
Just my two cents. :)
In "the Sword in the age of Chivalry", It's classified as a type XVII.
Hope this helps
Hope this helps
| Michael F. wrote: |
| In "the Sword in the age of Chivalry", It's classified as a type XVII.
Hope this helps |
In Records of the Medieval Sword, it's classified as a XXa. :) Why it would have been moved from Type XVII while XVII.9 and 12 weren't is mysterious to me. Records was published later, so is it more definitive than SAC? Who knows... :)
In the end, we really don't have to agree on what it is or isn't to enjoy the sword and talk about it. The typology is merely a starting point for discussing these swords. Assigning a type shouldn't be the end of most discussions, but the beginning.
The sword Craig posted and the River Thames sword are both exquisite, regardless of what you call them. I'd love to see quality replicas made of each.
That's a nice-looking blade, but for me the asthetics are marred by that long crossguard. Of course, my opinion is constantly changing, so I could learn to like it. :D
There's my "contribution".
There's my "contribution".
It struck me that this sword is rather unlike most of the other type XX swords. Indeed, save for the fullers, it struck me that it could easily be placed in another category. I agree that a XVII classification seems to be appropriate for it, which is perhaps in part why I liked it; I currently have the Sempach on order from Albion since it's a style of sword that appeals to me.
Chad- Perhaps this is an indication that the Oakeshott system is insuffucient on its own. I don't think it should be entirely dismissed, because it is fairly useful as a broad classification guideline for various swords. Rather, it seems that if there was another method for classifying swords, it should be complimentary, rather than in opposition, to Oakshott's system.
Here's what I was thinking. Any sword in question could be identified based upon the type(s) that it fits into within the Oakeshott's classification, as they currently are. Then, a secondary classification could be created with more details specific to the sword. This secondary classification could list various features of swords (ricasso, degree of distal taper, profile taper, pommel type, guard type, etc). Each of these features could have a set of numerals. Every number in this set of numerals would indicate the individual characteristics of that particular feature of the sword.
For an example of what the classification would look like:
Oakeshott type XII
Pommel: 1
Guard: 5
Ricasso: 0
Profile Taper: 3
etc.
Each particular number, as I've stated, represents a particular style of the feature in question. In the ricasso section, for instance, "0" would probably indicate no ricasso, while a "1" would indicate one type of ricasso, a "2" another type, a "3" yet another type, and so forth. The distinguishing factor between each of these numerals could be a number of things; for instance, it could be based upon the ricasso's width in porportion to the tip of the blade, or the thickness of the ricasso versus the part of the forte of the blade that is directly connected to the ricasso but not actually part of the ricasso, or whatever one wanted. Rather than have people memorize the numerals for each part of the sword, one could simply refer to them in the back of a book or online as needed. And, if there was any aspects of the sword that could not be adequately indicated by these two identification system, they could appear in a short paragraph on their own.
The advantage to this system is its flexibility. If you want, you can just look at the Oakeshott type to get a general idea of what sort of blade the sword has. However, you could also look at the various sword parts and associated numerals of the second system, which would serve to individuate the sword within its general Oakeshott typology. If done well, this secondary system would also save space in books or online, since one would not require numerous lengthy paragraphs to adequately describe the sword's general features.
Just a thought.
Peter- Even if you can't do a Museum line copy of this sword, a Next Generation sword that is faithful to the original would be awesome. I hope you'll seriously consider it.
Chad- Perhaps this is an indication that the Oakeshott system is insuffucient on its own. I don't think it should be entirely dismissed, because it is fairly useful as a broad classification guideline for various swords. Rather, it seems that if there was another method for classifying swords, it should be complimentary, rather than in opposition, to Oakshott's system.
Here's what I was thinking. Any sword in question could be identified based upon the type(s) that it fits into within the Oakeshott's classification, as they currently are. Then, a secondary classification could be created with more details specific to the sword. This secondary classification could list various features of swords (ricasso, degree of distal taper, profile taper, pommel type, guard type, etc). Each of these features could have a set of numerals. Every number in this set of numerals would indicate the individual characteristics of that particular feature of the sword.
For an example of what the classification would look like:
Oakeshott type XII
Pommel: 1
Guard: 5
Ricasso: 0
Profile Taper: 3
etc.
Each particular number, as I've stated, represents a particular style of the feature in question. In the ricasso section, for instance, "0" would probably indicate no ricasso, while a "1" would indicate one type of ricasso, a "2" another type, a "3" yet another type, and so forth. The distinguishing factor between each of these numerals could be a number of things; for instance, it could be based upon the ricasso's width in porportion to the tip of the blade, or the thickness of the ricasso versus the part of the forte of the blade that is directly connected to the ricasso but not actually part of the ricasso, or whatever one wanted. Rather than have people memorize the numerals for each part of the sword, one could simply refer to them in the back of a book or online as needed. And, if there was any aspects of the sword that could not be adequately indicated by these two identification system, they could appear in a short paragraph on their own.
The advantage to this system is its flexibility. If you want, you can just look at the Oakeshott type to get a general idea of what sort of blade the sword has. However, you could also look at the various sword parts and associated numerals of the second system, which would serve to individuate the sword within its general Oakeshott typology. If done well, this secondary system would also save space in books or online, since one would not require numerous lengthy paragraphs to adequately describe the sword's general features.
Just a thought.
Peter- Even if you can't do a Museum line copy of this sword, a Next Generation sword that is faithful to the original would be awesome. I hope you'll seriously consider it.
Why complicate things? Oakeshott's system of typology is already flexible. If you read his books, you'll learn that it's quite common, and appropriate, to call something a "Type XVI with three fullers" or a "Type XVII with an atypical diamond cross-section". Typology is only a starting point on which to start one's discussion. It's not a system of concise containers.
| Nathan Robinson wrote: |
| Why complicate things? Oakeshott's system of typology is already flexible. If you read his books, you'll learn that it's quite common, and appropriate, to call something a "Type XVI with three fullers" or a "Type XVII with an atypical diamond cross-section". Typology is only a starting point on which to start one's discussion. It's not a system of concise containers. |
Well, as I indicated, I don't think this system necessarily complicates things. There's no reason that one necessarily has to pay attention to the second set of information. And, "Type XVI with three fullers" is only a partial indicator of what the sword is like, whereas further specifications would provide much greater details. Moreover, what about swords that don't nicely fit into the Oakeshott classification? A system such as the one I proposed would be excellent for clarifying details about a blade, if one was so inclined to know more, in a way that Oakeshott's system could not.
Besides, too many ideas have been rejected without even trying them out. ;)
Craig,
It's not like any other Type XX because it's a Type XXa. ;) I'd hope Oakeshott had a good reason for removing it from Type XVII, but he only gives us a few examples of Type XXa (perhaps only 2, if memory serves, and they're not too similar to each other) which is hardly enough for definitive classification in many cases. He neglects to mention why he moved it from one type to another. He also leaves at least one sibling sword in Type XVII (XVII.9). I really don't see it as a Type XVII, but that's just me. It doesn't easily fit Type XVII, though it fits better than the sword from the Thames, XVII.9. Why would the sword above, with a better hex section, be moved from the Type defined by a hex section while a sword with a diamond section (XVII.9) isn't? Clear as mud, right? :)
Being a Sempach owner, which hardly makes me a Type XVII expert, I'm not sure that there are a ton of similarities between the Sempach and the sword pictured above visually, apart from perhaps the blade silhouette. But the Sempach is a heck of a sword. You'll love it.
As for typologies, check out what Oakeshott says about sword families in Records. The individual typologies are merely components of that larger concept. Fascinating stuff.
It's not like any other Type XX because it's a Type XXa. ;) I'd hope Oakeshott had a good reason for removing it from Type XVII, but he only gives us a few examples of Type XXa (perhaps only 2, if memory serves, and they're not too similar to each other) which is hardly enough for definitive classification in many cases. He neglects to mention why he moved it from one type to another. He also leaves at least one sibling sword in Type XVII (XVII.9). I really don't see it as a Type XVII, but that's just me. It doesn't easily fit Type XVII, though it fits better than the sword from the Thames, XVII.9. Why would the sword above, with a better hex section, be moved from the Type defined by a hex section while a sword with a diamond section (XVII.9) isn't? Clear as mud, right? :)
Being a Sempach owner, which hardly makes me a Type XVII expert, I'm not sure that there are a ton of similarities between the Sempach and the sword pictured above visually, apart from perhaps the blade silhouette. But the Sempach is a heck of a sword. You'll love it.
As for typologies, check out what Oakeshott says about sword families in Records. The individual typologies are merely components of that larger concept. Fascinating stuff.
Addison,
The purpose of that long crossguard is for when you are fighting in harness and manage to get that needle like point into your opponent's voider, you can brace it against your pauldron and drive it home.
The purpose of that long crossguard is for when you are fighting in harness and manage to get that needle like point into your opponent's voider, you can brace it against your pauldron and drive it home.
To me the crossguard doesn't appear too long, I think the sword wouldn't look as good if the guard was shorter.
It's a very simple design though, just a long metal-bar of round cross-section. Maybe a more complex guard would make the sword look even better. What about a guard with knobbed ends? :)
On the other hand, this simple design looks great on this particular sword - straight forward, simple, no fancy ornamentation, yet elegant - just what you can expect from a war sword.
The purpose of that long crossguard is for when you are fighting in harness and manage to get that needle like point into your opponent's voider, you can brace it against your pauldron and drive it home.
That's news to me, but it makes sense :D
Are there any references in the known fencing manuals?
It's a very simple design though, just a long metal-bar of round cross-section. Maybe a more complex guard would make the sword look even better. What about a guard with knobbed ends? :)
On the other hand, this simple design looks great on this particular sword - straight forward, simple, no fancy ornamentation, yet elegant - just what you can expect from a war sword.
The purpose of that long crossguard is for when you are fighting in harness and manage to get that needle like point into your opponent's voider, you can brace it against your pauldron and drive it home.
That's news to me, but it makes sense :D
Are there any references in the known fencing manuals?
In my opinion, making adjustments to the appearance of the guard irrevocably changes the elegance of the sword in its current state. In fact, much of this sword's character is found in the shape and the length of the guard. So I'd agree that the simple design looks great with this sword; why tamper with it?
| W. R. Reynolds wrote: |
| Addison,
The purpose of that long crossguard is for when you are fighting in harness and manage to get that needle like point into your opponent's voider, you can brace it against your pauldron and drive it home. |
Aha, I figured there had to be a technique developed around it. Thanks!
The sword being discussed here is shown below, alongside the "other" famous sword from the Bayerisches museum and a nice "gothic" sword with a pierced cross-guard and rock crystal pommel:
Attachment: 57.63 KB
Swords from München-Bayerisches Nationalmuseum
Attachment: 57.63 KBSwords from München-Bayerisches Nationalmuseum
| Nathan Robinson wrote: |
| The sword being discussed here is shown below, alongside the "other" famous sword from the Bayerisches museum and a nice "gothic" sword with a pierced cross-guard and rock crystal pommel: |
Thx a lot for the picture. :)
That sword is steadily growing on me, That fullered thrusting blade is simply breathtaking :cool:
Is that a rainguard? Didn't see it on the other pic.
Page 1 of 3
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