[Peter Johnsson]

[Gianluca Zanini]

[Maurizio D'Angelo]

[Gianluca Zanini]

[Maurizio D'Angelo]

I want the sword Albion exclude from this discussion.
For all of us, it is a good sword.
The debate is simply philological and historical.

I have studied, only two swords, the St. Maurice and the sword of Brescia, a little bit the XIII Oakeshott.
I collected lots of information about the two swords.
But I can say to know a little, only the two swords.
The type of wood, and configuration of the grip and the skin.

Other things, for truth, but prefer not to talk about this, now.
I am a fan of medieval swords. In other words, a beginner.
I read some books, but studying is a different thing.

This to me is an advantage. My cup of knowledge is empty.
I can think and change my opinion, much more quickly.
I do not have to filter, the new proposals, with thoughts already acquired.

That there is something controversial, in this section, it seems clear.
Lionello Boccia in his rare book, writes, section lenticular.
A note magazine, writes: lenticular section.
A prof. University writes: lenticular section.
Some friends oplology write: lenticular section.
It would be wrong to consider these people, simple compilers card catalog from the museum,
I know these people, I can ensure that students are serious and worthy of consideration.
Some of these have had in they hands the sword of brescia.

From the photos I have already said, that some reinforce the hypothesis of a diamond section.
More for a lenticular section, other photos show a flattened diamond for diamond, but a little round
to be lenticular.
This is for intellectual honesty.

Power of history. One fact, two views.
(I say this without wishing to be argumentative with anyone. I see only one reality).

I will guess that that section, we want to classify it right.
Here the thought of my dear friend, he saw very well this sword:
"A very unusuals section to say the least. First a sort of flat diamond, then almost "erased
diamond" shape. All in all it seems as if it has no clear shape".

Perhaps it's easier. You can not classify.
At least not with the normal ways in which we classify other sections.
Many swords are easily recognizable.

I try to make an argument.
I have a little knowledge of sharpening.
None sharpen, repeatedly a lenticular section following the round.
It follows an angle, it is easier.
Sharpening should be excluded, is not part of the section.

If the sharpening is not part of the section, then that section is or lenticular or diamond.
We establish a common rule to determine the section.
Those corners are part of the sides of the section or sharpening?
If they are sharpening, that section is simply a diamond, or just lenticular, or the two combined.
(But not a diamond section to 8 faces)

Another question.
Classification Oakeshott?
For me, it is already difficult to classify as XVIa, perhaps a hybrid with an Type XVIIIa , and now a hybrid section.

My conclusion: Not classifiable Oakeshott.
Am I a Freelance? is possible, maybe this happens when the cup of knowledge is empty.
I always say, if I write less, I am more likely to commit fewer errors.
Always very long posts. I apologize.
Maurizio.

here another one.

[Adam S.]

[Stephan Johansson]

I think there is an technical misunderstanding here or a question on how to define different sections.
I think that its obvious from the pictures shown that the sword was once grinded with the intention to have a midrib and a secondary bevel. Therefore it is right to say that the sword has a octagonal cross-section.
But, when you actually look at the sword of today the section do not have eight flat surfaces with well defined edges. The edges are rounded and the surfaces probably has a slightly convex shape to them. This may give a impression of a lenticular section.
To make it more complicated you could say that the sword grinder when grinding the sword to an octagonal section at the same time followed a lenticular overall shape of the svord (he encapsulated the octagonal section within an approximated lenticular section)
And to make it even more complicated this section was continously changed in size and shape along the blade ending in a point.

mvh
Steffe

[Chad Arnow]

[Maurizio D'Angelo]

Dear Adam,
I think I already expressed my views.
Perhaps with a poor English, but I hope that the meaning of my words has come to you!
For me, the sword can be classified as follows: LA LUPA. Stop.
On a similarity with Oakeshott XVII, I agree with Chad, for the reasons already given by Chad.
Regards
Maurizio

[JG Elmslie]

now, what I'm going to say may possibly be considered heretical by some...
but, reading this discussion, there seems to be a problem here in some ways, in that people are trying to nail the blade form down into one of oakeshott's typologies, as if everything must abide by the types he set down.
the reality is that those types are regularly simply generalisations of form, not some holy scriptures which all must abide by, not least given there are plenty of faults that I've observed in the notes in, for example Records, when compared to the actual peices under study (XVII.12 springs to mind as a woefully inaccurate description, which, on my first looking at it, with a copy of Records in my bag with me, I had to pull out the book and check if it really was the same blade being described...)

as Maurizio D'Angelo has said,

[Chad Arnow]

JG,
I don't think anyone will martyr you. I happen to agree with your sentiment about the typology system (after all, it is a system, not just a blade typology), though I disagree with your assertion that people are treating it as a sacred cow in this instance and even perhaps in general.

If people read our article on Oakeshott or many of the threads here, they'll see what Oakeshott himself said about his typology. I think many people appreciate the typology but know that it is a modern, artificial system for quantifying object whose makers were less interested in the quantification than we are.

I felt I had to respond to the Type XVII issue because an incorrect assertion was being put forward. The Brescia sword, as our review says and other posts have said, is not easily classifiable. It comes closest to XVIa but could also be called an atypical XVIIIa.

Some people do get stuck on the typology, though. But don't lump us all into that category.

[JG Elmslie]

[Adam S.]

[Maurizio D'Angelo]

hello Guys,
I would not want my message was misunderstood.
Many swords have a specific identification, section, shape, pommel and guard.
Oakeshott, a great master, as Lionello Giorgio Boccia, are my favorite authors.
Without them the way we would be drawn here to discuss all the swords.
I collected a lot of information on the sword of Brescia, my conclusion just about sword of Brescia.
Oakeshott, is and remains an invaluable guide.
A clarification unnecessary, but ... better defined.
Maurizio

[Maurizio D'Angelo]

[Maurizio D'Angelo]

Adam, I joke.
You write: Location: At the top of the hill, looking out to the world.

but ... if you were at the top of the hill, I think, I would not see your shade, not from a taller part........
my english sense of humour...

Maurizio

[Adam S.]

[Maurizio D'Angelo]

Hello,
I received this response late. Post here late, only for completeness of information.
"Museo Civico L. Marzoli, Brescia, Italy.
Sword called da una mano e mezza for a hand a half. The lenght of the handle allowed it to be handled either with one hand, while riding a horse, or with two (during a fight on foot) The lenticular section of the wide blade made fighting using the point impossible, while this was possible with the stocco or rapier. The one shown is a hybrid weapon: the blade in fact is inscribed, with bronze damascening, with the German insignia of Lupo di Passau (Solingen), while the sharpe, with downward points to the hilt, is certainly Italian."
Book: Autor Rossi - Mediaevel Arms and Armour - Enghlish translation by Jennifer Pearson and Susanna Perzolli - 1990 Lucchetti Editore, Bergamo , Italy - English edition published by Magna Book, Wigston, Leicester.
Ciao.
Maurizio

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

[Maurizio D'Angelo]