Perhaps my friends from Albion Armorers will chime in here but I'd like to hear from anyone who's noticed this. Please remember that this is not criticizing but simply an observation. I own the Crecy and it has served me well for almost two years now, it's one of my favorites to be honest.
Albion has this sword classified as a type IIIa but according to Oakeshott's typology it seems to be more of a XIIa. IIIa's appear to have blades with very little profile taper and the Crecy has plenty. Is there some reason why this classification was chosen or am I missing something?
Gary
| Gary Grzybek wrote: |
| Perhaps my friends from Albion Armorers will chime in here but I'd like to hear from anyone who's noticed this. Please remember that this is not criticizing but simply an observation. I own the Crecy and it has served me well for almost two years now, it's one of my favorites to be honest.
Albion has this sword classified as a type IIIa but according to Oakeshott's typology it seems to be more of a XIIa. IIIa's appear to have blades with very little profile taper and the Crecy has plenty. Is there some reason why this classification was chosen or am I missing something? Gary |
Hey Gary,
When Randal designed the blade for the Crecy, we had a hard time pigeon-holing it into Oakeshott's typology, because it is such a "tweener" for three different categories. It has the stronger taper of the Type XIIa (12a), but not enough taper to be a Type XVIa (16a). The fuller is the right length for the Type XIIIa (13a), but is a little short for the XIIa, and some XVIa's but it could be forced in there.
We just eventually based the designation off of the strong fuller character, and the sword type that the hilt was a strong inspiration for. Like I said, it is such a tweener that you could call it whatever you wished.
Hope this didn't make the matter more confusing.
| Jason Dingledine wrote: | ||
Hey Gary, When Randal designed the blade for the Crecy, we had a hard time pigeon-holing it into Oakeshott's typology, because it is such a "tweener" for three different categories. It has the stronger taper of the Type XIIa (12a), but not enough taper to be a Type XVIa (16a). The fuller is the right length for the Type XIIIa (13a), but is a little short for the XIIa, and some XVIa's but it could be forced in there. We just eventually based the designation off of the strong fuller character, and the sword type that the hilt was a strong inspiration for. Like I said, it is such a tweener that you could call it whatever you wished. Hope this didn't make the matter more confusing. |
Hi Jason,
I got it now, so the descision was not based on the blade profile alone. Hey, that's good enough for me. It's not that importaint that it fits into a perfect niche anyway since the blade design is quite effective.
Thanks,
Jason is being really generous too me there truthfully...
to be honest, I never used and have never been particularly familiar with Oakeshotts classification system, i designed from the standpoints of time and place and culture, as I always have.
Too me it was a really straight-forward warsword, a work-horse, simple and solid. The typology thing came later and had lots of people at the shop scratching thier heads sayin stuff like " uh, i dunno, it could be..."
:)
to be honest, I never used and have never been particularly familiar with Oakeshotts classification system, i designed from the standpoints of time and place and culture, as I always have.
Too me it was a really straight-forward warsword, a work-horse, simple and solid. The typology thing came later and had lots of people at the shop scratching thier heads sayin stuff like " uh, i dunno, it could be..."
:)
| Randal Graham wrote: |
| Jason is being really generous too me there truthfully...
to be honest, I never used and have never been particularly familiar with Oakeshotts classification system, i designed from the standpoints of time and place and culture, as I always have. Too me it was a really straight-forward warsword, a work-horse, simple and solid. The typology thing came later and had lots of people at the shop scratching thier heads sayin stuff like " uh, i dunno, it could be..." :) |
Hi Randal,
Well, I'm sure it was very much the same way for the smiths back then. They designed blades based on function, intended use and quite possably the particular taste of the warriors who used them . Plus it's safe to say that feedback from the field must of had a lot to do with the success of many standard types, some of which we can now neatly classify and some we cannot.
Thanks!
| Gary Grzybek wrote: |
|
:) |
some of which we can now neatly classify and some we cannot.
Thanks![/quote]
Actually Gary
Anything can be classified, all you need is a large enough pigeon hole.
And for all of that "Unclassified" is a classification too......
Heck, we all have fun classifying things, but lets be honest. More fun than that is actually using the swords, and the only thing more fun than that is girls and swords........
Auld Dawg
| Angus Trim wrote: |
| Actually Gary
Anything can be classified, all you need is a large enough pigeon hole. And for all of that "Unclassified" is a classification too...... Heck, we all have fun classifying things, but lets be honest. More fun than that is actually using the swords, and the only thing more fun than that is girls and swords........ |
You do have a point Gus......especially about the Women :D
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