[Gordon Clark]

A few things that sort of fit under the same heading -

The Viceroy (from Albion's Next Generation line) is listed as a Type XXa, but looking at the pictures in Records of the Medieval Sword and at Peter J's drawing, the Viceroy blade shape looks more like XX.3 or XX.4 than it does XXa.1 for example. Just fishing for comments from the Albion folk.

Then there is the matter of fullers / ricassos. As it states on the Viceroy page the XXa's in Records have fullered ricassos.
What about the "regular" XX's? Are they fullered and "edged" with 2 or 3 fullers or do they have fullered ricassos as well? The pictures in records are not really sufficient for me to tell.

Finally, as i have mentioned before, XX.4 is my favorite sword from Records. Anyone know of a chance of a reproduction of it coming in the future, perhaps in the Albion Museum or Hallmark lines (or is it too much like the Sture sword?), or A&A? BTW, if anyone has seen it or better pictures, do the fullers on that sword extend most of the length of the blade? It appears so from the picture in Records. Any info appreciated ...


Thanks.

Gordon

[Peter Johnsson]

Hey Gordon,

Thanks for thoughtfull observations. The XX class is problematic. I sometimes get the impression that Oakeshott himself did not feel the type was finally outlined or defined.
The subdivision of XXa from XX is not terribly clear and only illustrated with two swords in Records. These two swords are also very different from each other: useing them as example actually make the distinction even more confused. I have handeled and carefully documented the XXa.2 on p. 213, so I know that sword well. I have seen the XXa.1 but only as it is on display at the Byerishes Nationalmuseum in Münich.
It is clear that these are two drastically different swords.

Personaly I feel Oakeshott deviated from his principle to put swords together acording to function when he put these sword in the same group. Where does that put us? It is his system after all...
Oakeshot might also have had other originals in mind when he outlined this group that did not occur in "Records". That makes it even harder to interpret his intentions.

Compare XXa.1 with the swords XVII.12 on p.170and XVII.9 on p. 167 and you will se all three swords have very similar blades: all have ricassos with fullers or decorative groves, the same outline with wery pronounced points and are also very similar in length. Oakeshott has put them in two different classes...If we refer to "Chivalry" we even see one of these swords classified as an XVIIIa.
I´d say these three blades all belonging to the same family, but that is only me...
Perhaps they should even be seen as being of type XVa even if they have a ricasso.
-I know: that is heresy!

The typical XX does not have a ricasso, while a ricasso seems to be a signifying feature on a XXa according to Oakeshott (judging from his examples) Also, the point on XXa-swords is supposed to be more acute than on a typical XX.
This is something that s pretty relative, but has to be judged in contex to the whole blade.

A type XX swords typically has a set up of multiple fullers that merge together to two and one as they go from base to point. Oakeshott gives one example in "Chivalry" that has only one fuller, but he does not show that sword in "Records". I feel it is pretty safe to say a typical XX shall have multiple fullers.
The Viceroy has a fullered ricaso and a single fuller down the blade. Its point is on the "thrusty" side and all this taken together makes me think it is a XXa rather than a XX, despite the similarity in outline to some other XX-blades.

I have also a soft spot for the XX.4 on p 211. It is not only a very striking sword, it also happens to be one of a very small number of surviving siblings to the swords of Svante Nilsson Sture.
My feelings owards this sword can be likened to what you feel for a woman you are really attracted to without knowing if she feels the same for you. Some beautiful day something might happen but it takes some work, bold strategy and careful diplomacy to get there.
This original is in a private collection and its owner might not want to see a reconstruction on the market. That has to be respected. On the other hand I would very much like to document this sword just for my own research as it is a vital reference to the sword of Svante Nilsson Sture. Documenting this sword would bring valuable knowledge to the understanding of the sword of Svante Nilsson Sture.

We shall se. Pray for me

[Gordon Clark]

Thanks for all the information Peter.
Sounds like you had thought about the XX vs XXa question a bit.

I like the looks of the Viceroy a lot. I still have a hard time picturing the cross section of the triple fullered (with no ricasso) examples. How does one squeeze in three fullers and still get the edge in there. Hollow grinding near the edge?
Sounds like a very complex geometry - I do wish the pictures were a bit clearer. Maybe if you do get to document it, the present owner would allow you to publish...

That may be asking for too much - I could continue you analogy with something about "kiss and tell", but maybe we shouldn't go there.

Thanks again.

Gordon

[Craig Johnson]

Hello Gordon and Peter

Hope you are both doing well.

I would agree with Peter's description of the swords fully. The swords mentioned do present challenges to an absolute strict classification of pieces. I would venture to say this was part of Ewart's intention. An illustration would be to think of the types not as a linear progression at all. Think of them as spheres of type that overlap and have some time based shape to them, i.e. oval, elongated ovals and even kidney or hour glass shapes to the spheres. There may even be some types that would best be represented in two spheres interrupted by a gap when the style was out of favor. This overlap is excellently illustrated by Peter's example with the interesting similarities in the XVII.12, XIX.9-10, XXa.1 examples from the book and there brethren.

This of course tends to the messy on swords that occupy overlaps. Ewart's intention, I believe was to define by use and construction with those difficult pieces being able to live in more than one area as its nature dictated. He was very aware of the erratic humaness of these items and that was something he did not want to organize out of his study and in fact was something he would have allowed to make the typology less specific to include.

I know he felt that there was so much to learn, understand and discover in this field that he was constantly revising and refining in his own mind what things made a sword this type or that. This was a vital part of his system to allow it to grow with the knowledge base.

A note on RMS, I know Peter and I have discussed this before, but I do not remember if you and I have talked about this Gordon so I will comment here. Records should be seen as examples from Ewart's studies that he wanted to comment on and collect together to illustrate some important swords he had known and used in his studies. His intention was to detail some swords he loved, it was not meant to be the typology master as some have used it. It does not detail the typology as well as Chivalry and can sometimes lead people see the typology as very linear and without the nuances that are included in the other book and his articles. The typology barley comments on hilt types and sword families which are an important part of the overall system and for documenting swords are tools most overlook.

Best Craig

[Peter Johnsson]

Hey Craig,

It was good of you to chime in.
Thanks!

All best to you

[Gordon Clark]

Hi Craig!

Well, I tend to look at Records because it is the most recent thing I have. The typologies of Chivalry and Records are different - and Type XX is a good example. Type XX was broken into XX, XXI and XXII in Oakeshotts mind somewhere between the publication of Chivalry and that of Records. (right?) In the Chivalry typology, the Viceroy is certainly an XX, not an XXa - XXa is described as a "one handed weapon with a short grip" and contains those pretty XXI swords from Records.

Not trying to be argumentative, but I do think that this typology is an evolving thing, and was not frozen when we lost Oakeshott. These kinds of discussions help us think as a community about the way we want to describe things, which is not the the end-all of enjoying swords certainly, but somewhat important none the less.

[Craig Johnson]

Hello Gordon

You are not being argumentative in the least. It is this very process of discussion and contemplation that was the essence of Ewart's great joy in the study of swords. He was a soul of the old school and was at his happiest in front of the fire with a medieval sword across his knees contemplating the piece and its place in history. A luxury that is available to few scholars these days and a process that allows one to understand something about a piece that is hard to aquire in a few minutes or hours if one is lucky to handle an original.

I would assume Peter would agree that if one could handle a piece for several days or even weeks the item begins to really tell a story that can lead to new discoveries that a short "interview" may lack. This is why when we are allowed a short interview only we try to gain as much technical info as possible, but also get a sense of the weapons place in ones hand.
Do you agree Peter?

In the case of the XX and XXa you are correct that he states that XXa is a single handed item in Chivalry and in the RMS the XXa examples are a single handed sword and a hand and a half/long sword thus we must assume that XXa can have a longer handle then just a single handed sword.

I believe the "Viceroy" is a XXa but the width of the blade and the taper in the last half are probably the defining elements. I would of course defer to Peter on this as the architect and creator.

Best
Craig

PS After reading my response I wanted to add that I did not want to imply that you were in error using RMS as a reference. I guess my comments where intended more in the general sense that all his works need to be used inclusively and that in particular the last few types are ones that were in flux and development as you pointed out and may need much careful thought. I probably should have stated more exactly that the resources should be looked at as a whole in general as apposed to your specific case here. Sorry I intended no comment on your excellent observations and queries.

[Gordon Clark]

Craig - thanks for the thoughtful response.
The great thing about reading RMS or any of his other books is that you can tell that he did this stuff out of personal pleausure and that he was just sharing it with us a bit through his writing. The published works allow us to "look over his shoulder" and get a peek at a complicated and evolving system. The fact that we also have people like you and Peter (and the many other "industry professionals" around) who work what I am sure are very long days, and then share your observations shows that you guys must be doing this out of the same kind of pleasure, and makes it all the more fun for the rest of us. That in addition to the fact that you make it possible for me to hold someting darn close to a medieval sword in my hands!

Sorry - don't know what brought that on! :-)


Gordon