[Michael S. Rivet]

Regarding the Type XVII sword, In The Sword in the Age of Chivalry, Oakeshott states that "They are much heavier than the earlier types; an ordinary XVII may weight as much as 5.5 lbs."

Does anyone know of any particular antiques that weigh that much?

[Chad Arnow]

[Michael S. Rivet]

Quite probably he would.

However, I don't think he would have put that in the original edition if he wasn't at least aware of some examples close to that weight. Peter Johnsson indicated that he'd seen some, but couldn't give specifics. I was wondering if we could pinpoint one or two, even if they are extreme for the type.

Is anyone familiar with museum examples that might qualify?

[Jeremiah Swanger]

[Peter Johnsson]

There is a good example of the lighter swords of type XVII in Wallace collection that weighs 932 grams. A nice single hand sword, but still fulfilling the chriteria for a type XVII.
Type XVII is a fairly common type to survive. Many are about single hand size with long grip. There are several surviving ones even lighter, like the one from Wallace collection but also in the Historical museum of Stockholm one in Castello Vecchio in Verona, one in Visby plus numerous others I cannot place just from memory. I would have to go back and check notes and dig through the books.
Really big XVII are not unusual, but to me it seems the medium and small examples dominate.
To me it seems that type XVII is special in that you will see swords spanning the whole scale from light single hand swords to heavier war swords sharing the same style and features.
There is one big XVII in Göteborg. I have not taken the weight of that one, but I would not be surpriced if it weighs around 2.2-2.5 kilos.
In Stockholm at the Historical museum, there is in storage one two hander of type XVII that would be in the same weight class even if it may be slightly longer in the blade than the Göteborg one. Both these swords have blades around one meter in length.
Type XVII swords need not be very long to be quite heavy. Some have really stout cross sections, so that a sword with a blade length of 80-90 cm still may weigh more than 2 kilo.

Perhaps this is why Oakeshott says that the type XVII stands out being heavier than previous types: their tendency to have stout cross sections and massive heft Not all are like these: some are very nimble and the type spreads widely across this spectrum from heavy and massive to nimble and quick. Ot6her types also come with a great variation in weight and size. You find pretty large and heavy XIIa and XIIIa. You do find type XVa in two handed size that come close to 2.5 kilo in weight.
Perhaps Oakeshott felt that those swords that most closely met his ideal of the typical XVII were the larger of the specimen?
It seems odd to me.

Using the definitions Oakeshott himself set down to determine the type of swords, you will find that Oakeshott is very much spot on when it comes to providing general background and feel, but often unreliable in specific details. This is especially true when he writes out measurements. Sometimes you see that earlier texts are not fully worked through and include ideas that he later abandoned. Later works can sometimes lack some details and it is hard to say wether this is intentional or a negligence.

[Michael S. Rivet]

My goal here is, somewhere down the line, to have a XVII reproduced. I'd prefer to reproduce one with significant weight, mainly to make it more distinct from the rest of the war swords in my collection. To do that, though, I need at least basic data on some specific examples: dimensions, weight, point of balance, pictures.

Peter, do you happen to remember anything more about those two examples you mentioned (Goteborg, Stockholm) such that I might be able to query the museums about them?

[Nathan Robinson]

[Peter Johnsson]

[Michael S. Rivet]