Just a quick question can the XVa blade have a short fuller? I did look here I see that the XV sometimes has, any help would be great ,thanks.
Like you I've seen XV with short fullers but not XVa, however I don't see what would have stopped a man from commissioning that same blade with a longer grip - thus an XVa. It's one of those subtypes whose only distinction seems to be slight elongation, correct me if I'm wrong.
Completely off the top of my head here, so I could easily stand corrected, but I thought that the XV and XVa were normally of flattened diamond cross section. My Albion XVa is such, but I don't see why a short fuller couldn't be incorporated.
I just did a quick review of Nathan Robinson's Spotlight piece for myArmoury on the XV/XVa and he cites Oakeshott as saying these blades were of diamond section and toward the end of their use could also be found with hollow ground blades off a central ridge, so I guess that puts the fuller idea to bed.
Still though a fullered blade with a very broad shoulder would look cool I think. The type XVI is close to the XV but does have a shallow fuller if I recall and a less aggressive taper from shoulder to point, which was probably a bit of an improvement on the design since I'm dubious that I could half sword my XVa without it flying out of my hands when swung over hand in an ober hau uber dem kopf strike do to the acute taper. Not to mention it's wicked sharp.
Still though a fullered blade with a very broad shoulder would look cool I think. The type XVI is close to the XV but does have a shallow fuller if I recall and a less aggressive taper from shoulder to point, which was probably a bit of an improvement on the design since I'm dubious that I could half sword my XVa without it flying out of my hands when swung over hand in an ober hau uber dem kopf strike do to the acute taper. Not to mention it's wicked sharp.
If you read Oakeshott's work (including our article that discusses it), you'll note that his typology is intended to be used to form such descriptive sentences as, "... a Type XVa blade with a fuller extending one-half its length".
This is a completely appropriate use of the typology.
This is a completely appropriate use of the typology.
| Larry Bohnham wrote: |
| so I guess that puts the fuller idea to bed. |
Awww...let's stay up and play awhile!
Attachment: 159.07 KB
Attachment: 116.54 KB
Or like this?
Attachment: 141.75 KB
Attachment: 141.75 KBLike I said at the get go, I could stand corrected, thus; mea culpa, nolo contendiere. I just did a quick search late at night and went with something that sounded reasonably authoritative. I'll remember to put my helmet on next time I get in the lists. :D
No offense meant, Larry! These are questions I wrestle with all the time. There's huge variety in late 15th/early 16th c. blades, and it can be quite difficult to figure out what is and isn't historically plausible. I'm not even sure those paintings depict actual swords, and there's not enough detail to know if they're of diamond or hexagonal section. They're suggestive of fullered XVa, but that's all.
Ok here is where I get lost sometimes so if the XVa can have a short fuller , so can the pommel and guard look like i.e. on that of the Black Prince and still be historical correct ? As in Oakeshott 's Family D hilts. And are there any historic examples (photos) of a fullered XVa blade with a family D hilt?
| James Cunniffe wrote: |
| Ok here is where I get lost sometimes so if the XVa can have a short fuller , so can the pommel and guard look like i.e. on that of the Black Prince and still be historical correct ? As in Oakeshott 's Family D hilts. And are there any historic examples (photos) of a fullered XVa blade with a family D hilt? |
Here's a Type XV (not quite long enough in the grip to be a XVa) from our Spotlight with a fuller:
[ Linked Image ]
I don't know of any Family D swords with a fuller. That doesn't they don't exist, but I can't recall seeing in any of the books I have.
Someone else may have historical pictures of such, but if you're literally asking CAN an XVa have a short fuller and type D hilt then the answer is yes.
If Oakeshott created subtypes for every cross section, fuller, pommel, grip length, guard, etc combination, then nearly every sword in his collection would have been its own unique subtype.
The short fuller was present in surviving type XV as was the type D hilt. So its safe to say nobody would have raised an eyebrow if you were carrying a sword with both features and a slightly extended (XVa) handle or tip.
Since finished blades were often outsourced to be hilted to-taste or even re-hilted, as long as the centuries overlap, you can pretty much mix and match any common/standard assembly elements you want. The biggest risk wouldn't that no such sword could have existed, but rather that some combination may have been particularly popular in one kingdom or another (and not the one you intended to represent). But even then, rarely exclusive to.
If Oakeshott created subtypes for every cross section, fuller, pommel, grip length, guard, etc combination, then nearly every sword in his collection would have been its own unique subtype.
The short fuller was present in surviving type XV as was the type D hilt. So its safe to say nobody would have raised an eyebrow if you were carrying a sword with both features and a slightly extended (XVa) handle or tip.
Since finished blades were often outsourced to be hilted to-taste or even re-hilted, as long as the centuries overlap, you can pretty much mix and match any common/standard assembly elements you want. The biggest risk wouldn't that no such sword could have existed, but rather that some combination may have been particularly popular in one kingdom or another (and not the one you intended to represent). But even then, rarely exclusive to.
Last edited by A. Gallo on Wed 26 Jan, 2011 2:18 pm; edited 1 time in total
The Wallace collection sword ("Shrewsbury sword" A465) that has the short fuller that Chad showed fromt he feature article here looks proportionally like a XVa, but its not because the sword is "only" 84 cm in length if I recall correctly - although in the picture it looks proportionally like a XVa, the blade and sword length really make it a XV. That is how Oakeshott classified it I believe.
Having said that I see no reason why a diamond cross section, very straight profile taper, longer XVa blade couldn't have a short fuller. tr
edit - it is 87.3 cm in total length - the blade is approximately 69 cm or 27 inches
http://tinyurl.com/4dxp5yw
Having said that I see no reason why a diamond cross section, very straight profile taper, longer XVa blade couldn't have a short fuller. tr
edit - it is 87.3 cm in total length - the blade is approximately 69 cm or 27 inches
http://tinyurl.com/4dxp5yw
| A. Gallo wrote: |
| The short fuller was present in surviving type XV as was the type D hilt. So its safe to say nobody would have raised an eyebrow if you were carrying that same sword with a slightly extended (XVa) handle or tip.
Since finished blades were often outsourced to be hilted to-taste or even re-hilted, as long as the centuries overlap, you can pretty much mix and match any assembly elements you want. The biggest risk wouldn't that no such sword could have existed, but rather that some combination may have been particularly popular in one kingdom or another (and not the one you intended). But even then, rarely exclusive to. |
I don't think I agree with this. While there was a myriad of combinations in use, it was not a free for all in combining parts. After all, a lobated viking pommel on a 16th rapier blade and guard would be unusual, right? ;) Granted, that's an extreme (silly) example used to make a point.
The Type D hilt/family seems to have been more of a 14th century thing (though they may go into the beginning of the 15th), while the few examples of the XV family I know of with fullers may be more of a 15th century thing. The Type D family is pretty specific and uniform in its components, at least in the surviving examples we have.
Of course, it's possible to have a fullered sword from the D Family. It's also possible that Vikings used rayguns. :) We have to look at likelihoods and simply saying you can combine pretty much whatever you want as long as the centuries are close is a leap I prefer not to make. Why not stick with combinations we know existed?
The next great discovery might disprove all we "know" now, but until then, the choice is whether to go with what we can be pretty sure of or to start the justification game people often play when they try to combine features not seen in period pieces/art.
But that's just my opinion. :)
Chad,
I did add "..if the centuries overlap.." (admittedly worded poorly), meaning no viking/16th century hybrids, hopefully stuff within 100 years of each other.
But if a European hilt aesthetic was popular on any blade in production in for example, 14-15th centuries, it seems that it appeared on an array of cross blade sections, lengths, and profiles which were also popular during the period. Rarely confined to one or two. It makes sense to me that a swordsman would have chosen a blade via his functional preferences and a hilt based on aesthetic tastes of the period, rather than by an established method of pairing it with the blade he had selected (even down to acute details, afterthoughts even, like a short fuller).
There are a few combination which could appear very nearly type-exclusive due to quantity, off the top of my head, XVIII and its subtypes paired with large, scalloped V and T pommels, but there were enough scattered examples of the same pommels on XV, XVI, XVII, XX that it's more likely (to me at least) that there was no code of blade-hilt combos: Just both happening to be in vogue simultaneously. It was probably "OK" to put it on any blade still in production.
All any of these swords with dramatically different blades (most have no fuller, one XX a full-length triple fuller) but roughly the same hilts had otherwise in common was the estimated date of manufacture; almost all 1375-1475. The fact that many kingdoms had no unique domestic arms 'industry' and merely a preference for something out of the German, Spanish, etc. 'catalog' made it even more likely to me. While there were lots of custom/personal quirks on individual swords (as you would expect with such a passionate object), there isn't much of a traceable: "You could have this if you were Scottish, but if you carried it in France a few years later without a type 11 cross, people would think you were a time traveler and cut your hand off" " going on, warranting so much concern over using the wrong pommel with the wrong fuller, so long as both factually existed alongside each other.
Assuming these dates haven't changed: XV.9 in records has a short fuller and is dated as early as 1400. The ' Sword of the Black Prince' is dated 1370. It doesn't seem like a stretch to me that someone could have commissioned a sword with both elements within that 30-year gap, nothing really stopping them was there?
That's what I meant by "mix and match".
Just my opinion too :). In part, I suppose your view on just how long swords were used for would affect how tight your timeline becomes; whether they were frequently re-furnished then disregarded, or - with the exception of certain funeral traditions and noble figures - wielded til there was nothing left and influencing the aesthetics of newer swords by remaining visible. I'm of the latter, so I see a very gradual overlapping of components and styles.
I did add "..if the centuries overlap.." (admittedly worded poorly), meaning no viking/16th century hybrids, hopefully stuff within 100 years of each other.
But if a European hilt aesthetic was popular on any blade in production in for example, 14-15th centuries, it seems that it appeared on an array of cross blade sections, lengths, and profiles which were also popular during the period. Rarely confined to one or two. It makes sense to me that a swordsman would have chosen a blade via his functional preferences and a hilt based on aesthetic tastes of the period, rather than by an established method of pairing it with the blade he had selected (even down to acute details, afterthoughts even, like a short fuller).
There are a few combination which could appear very nearly type-exclusive due to quantity, off the top of my head, XVIII and its subtypes paired with large, scalloped V and T pommels, but there were enough scattered examples of the same pommels on XV, XVI, XVII, XX that it's more likely (to me at least) that there was no code of blade-hilt combos: Just both happening to be in vogue simultaneously. It was probably "OK" to put it on any blade still in production.
All any of these swords with dramatically different blades (most have no fuller, one XX a full-length triple fuller) but roughly the same hilts had otherwise in common was the estimated date of manufacture; almost all 1375-1475. The fact that many kingdoms had no unique domestic arms 'industry' and merely a preference for something out of the German, Spanish, etc. 'catalog' made it even more likely to me. While there were lots of custom/personal quirks on individual swords (as you would expect with such a passionate object), there isn't much of a traceable: "You could have this if you were Scottish, but if you carried it in France a few years later without a type 11 cross, people would think you were a time traveler and cut your hand off" " going on, warranting so much concern over using the wrong pommel with the wrong fuller, so long as both factually existed alongside each other.
Assuming these dates haven't changed: XV.9 in records has a short fuller and is dated as early as 1400. The ' Sword of the Black Prince' is dated 1370. It doesn't seem like a stretch to me that someone could have commissioned a sword with both elements within that 30-year gap, nothing really stopping them was there?
That's what I meant by "mix and match".
Just my opinion too :). In part, I suppose your view on just how long swords were used for would affect how tight your timeline becomes; whether they were frequently re-furnished then disregarded, or - with the exception of certain funeral traditions and noble figures - wielded til there was nothing left and influencing the aesthetics of newer swords by remaining visible. I'm of the latter, so I see a very gradual overlapping of components and styles.
I tend to agree with A.Gallo and after reading Patrick Kelly review on the Albion Brescia Spadona [quote]This sword also represents something of a conundrum for fans of the late Ewart Oakeshott's sword typology. The Brescia possesses features that allow it to be included as either a Type XVIa or a Type XVIIIa. As with many medieval swords, the Brescia is best considered as a hybrid design in regards to Oakeshott's typology.
.So if A blade can be a hybrid can the hilt family not be too of course from the same time period .
.So if A blade can be a hybrid can the hilt family not be too of course from the same time period .
| James Cunniffe wrote: |
| I tend to agree with A.Gallo and after reading Patrick Kelly review on the Albion Brescia Spadona "This sword also represents something of a conundrum for fans of the late Ewart Oakeshott's sword typology. The Brescia possesses features that allow it to be included as either a Type XVIa or a Type XVIIIa. As with many medieval swords, the Brescia is best considered as a hybrid design in regards to Oakeshott's typology. "
.So if A blade can be a hybrid can the hilt family not be too of course from the same time period . |
Lets just remember that the typology is mostly useful as a " shorthand " method of discussing swords and roughly knowing what the sword under discussion is like without having to see a pic of it.
The typology although extremely useful is not meant to judge a genuine period sword and dismiss it as " Not fitting " the typology as if the people at the time would have said to the maker " You can't do that it doesn't fit the Oakeshott's typology of the 20th century and might cause confusion 6 centuries from now ".
Tweeners or simply " unique " swords can be difficult to fit into any typology and if the Oakeshotts' was supposed to cover every possible sword them we would have type X to type MMMMMCCCXXXXXXXIIIa : Well the Roman numerals are a joke to make the point that every sword could be a " type " if one got ridiculous about it.
James: I don't think reading your post that you disagree with the above and I'm mostly recapping my understanding of the best way to use but not abuse the typology. ;) :cool:
| James Cunniffe wrote: | ||
I tend to agree with A.Gallo and after reading Patrick Kelly review on the Albion Brescia Spadona
.So if A blade can be a hybrid can the hilt family not be too of course from the same time period . |
The answer is largely "no." A hybrid design of a component is one thing. The Oakeshott typology didn't exist in the Middle Ages and smiths didn't make their designs to specs that didn't exist. :) So there are a plethora of examples that don't fit his typology.
The concept of sword families, though, relates to groups of swords with similar (or exactly the same in many cases) combinations of blades, guards, pommels, and sometimes grips. These represent swords that, for reasons often unkwown, are as alike as peas in a pod. They may have been a local flavor or part of a group commissioned all at once or something else. But they are very specific combinations of parts that don't see the same amount of variation within the family as is seen in the population of all swords as a whole.
It's almost like saying: pick-up truck beds occur in some automobiles as a class, therefore I should make a Ferrari with one. :) The Ferrari is a particular example of an automobile, with overall design and materials that make it what it is. Just because a feature (a pick-up truck bed in this case) occurs on some automobiles doesn't mean it's appropriate for all automobiles. (And yes, there may be a concept car version of a Ferrari truck or something, but you get the point) :)
I do see your point Chad and also what I have read here on The Man and his Legacy: Part V .quote:Oakeshott chose to illustrate only the major families in Records of the Medieval Sword. Indeed, many other families exist, as do many examples that do not quite fit a particular family. As with all his categorizations, this should be seen as "merely a scaffolding to bring some order into the otherwise amorphous and infinitely varied mass of medieval blade, cross, and pommel forms."
So if we were to leave the concept of Families aside what pommel type's and guard style's would be historic accurate for a XVIa and XVIIIa blade.
So if we were to leave the concept of Families aside what pommel type's and guard style's would be historic accurate for a XVIa and XVIIIa blade.
| James Cunniffe wrote: |
| I do see your point Chad and also what I have read here on The Man and his Legacy: Part V .quote:Oakeshott chose to illustrate only the major families in Records of the Medieval Sword. Indeed, many other families exist, as do many examples that do not quite fit a particular family. As with all his categorizations, this should be seen as "merely a scaffolding to bring some order into the otherwise amorphous and infinitely varied mass of medieval blade, cross, and pommel forms."
So if we were to leave the concept of Families aside what pommel type's and guard style's would be historic accurate for a XVIa and XVIIIa blade. |
James,
It's funny when people quote that article to me. I wrote the majority of the text in that article and compiled much of the rest. So I'm familiar with it. :)
Right, sword families do not encompass every sword made. Many don't have families. And there are more families than Oakeshott depicted. That doesn't change the fact that your post was asking about a specific example of a family (D) and whether having a fullered blade would be appropriate (in my opinion, it would not, but your mileage may vary). :) You could use Oakeshott's system to describe "a sword hilted like Family D but with a fullered blade" and that would be an appropriate use of his system--the most appropriate use, actually. But, in my opinion, the inclusion of a fuller makes the sword no longer a member of the family, which has a narrow set of characteristics that define it.
Now you're asking about hilt types for swords with blade types XVIa and XVIIIa in a thread entitled XVa Blades. :) My old brain is starting to get confused.
To find out what pommels and guards are accurate for the type, you could start by checking out the Spotlight articles for those two types. The combinations you see in there on historical swords would be historically accurate. The Oakeshott article also lists the most common guards and pommels in the chart by type. Those would be starting points. Obviously, the designation in the chart of "any type" for pommels and guards should be taken with a grain of salt. A Brazil nut on a Type XVIII would be weird. :) I'd look at historical examples and see what pops up and go from there.
Page 1 of 2
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