For those of you fortunate enough to handle them...

I have read several times (including Bjorn's nifty new article on this website) that the lighter type XVII's are often compared to XVa's. From what I can deduce, the differences are primarily in cross-sectional geometry, as both have slender, thick profiles. They're both very pointy. Because its cross-section is hexagonal, I'm guessing that the XVII will be a bit heavier, assuming the same length/width/distal taper.

I'm asking because it seems to me that the two types are simply different means to the same end- a stiff, slender sword that excels in the thrust but with reasonable cutting ability.

What is your take on it? Is there a distinct set of advantages and disadvantages to each?

I tend to think of XVa's as in between XVIIs and XVIIIas on the "cut and thrust" sliding scale.
Oakeshott describes XVIIs as having a hand and a half grip always (so they compare with the "a" variety of the other two types).

(edited)

Jeremiah Swanger wrote:

For those of you fortunate enough to handle them... I have read several times (including Bjorn's nifty new article on this website) that the lighter type XVII's are often compared to XVa's. From what I can deduce, the differences are primarily in cross-sectional geometry, as both have slender, thick profiles. They're both very pointy. Because its cross-section is hexagonal, I'm guessing that the XVII will be a bit heavier, assuming the same length/width/distal taper. I'm asking because it seems to me that the two types are simply different means to the same end- a stiff, slender sword that excels in the thrust but with reasonable cutting ability. What is your take on it? Is there a distinct set of advantages and disadvantages to each?

Interesting viewpoint. So, you consider XVII's to be more 'thrust-oriented' than the XVa's (which, until I read the article on XVII's, I considered the most "thrusty" of all the Oakeshott types)?

Gordon Clark wrote:

I tend to think of XVa's as in between XVIIs and XVIIIas on the "cut and thrust" sliding scale. Oakeshott describes XVIIs as having a hand and a half grip always (so they compare with the "a" variety of the other two types). (edited)

In my opinion the XVIIs are the most thrust oriented swords in Oakeshott's typology. They are typically significantly heavier then many other sword types and seem to be almost an impact weapon in their own right. Their balance also tends to be make them more thrust oriented. Some period pieces I've seen are almost like long steel spikes with a crossguard added.

From "The Sword in the Age of Chivalry" about type XVIII:

Quote:

This type is very hard to distinguish from Type XV. The difference, however, is clear, though subtle. In XV, the edges run quite straight to the acute point, giving a very narrow appearance to the lower part of the blade. In XVIII, the edges run in curves and the lower part of the blade looks broader. "The Sword in the Age of Chivalry"