myArmoury.com - Type XIV, XV and XVI side by side

Posts: 9,570 Location: Dayton, OH

Thu 25 Nov, 2004 7:33 pm

Type XIV, XV and XVI side by side

Hey folks,
I took this pic a while back and thought it might help to illustrate the differences between these three types. Pictured are my Sovereign (a XIV), my DT 2150 (a XV) and Albion's Prince (a XVI). All three blades taper for the thrust. XIV's are fullered and usually have a non-reinforced lenticular cross-section. XV's have a diamond cross-section but no fuller. XVI's are fullered and have a reinforced diamond cross-section tip.

Oakeshott puts Type XIV into his first group of swords (X-XIV): swords designed to defeat maille. Types XV and XVI are designed to oppose plate. In general, XIV's should cut better than the other types against lightly armoured targets. XV's will probably be the best thrusters. XVI's combines features of both.

For more info, we have spotlights on each type in the Features page.

Attachment: 25.58 KB

Sovereign, Visconti sword, Prince. (Sorry about the quality of the first pic. I tried to fix some crap in photoshop unsuccessfully)

Attachment: 31.5 KB

tip cross sections

Profile PM E-mail Website

Greyson Brown

Quote

Posts: 813 Location: Windsor, Colorado

Fri 26 Nov, 2004 1:40 am

Thanks for the pictures. While you are right that Oakeshott puts the XIV in his earlier category, I suspect that a man-at-arms or archer who had to make do with an older sword would still be sufficiently effective. I prefer the the XVI because I feel that it is better suited to both cutting and thrusting, but I would not hesitate to trust my life to a well made sword of either variety.

Since there is only one user browsing the forum at the moment, thus making that user me, I would like to take this [misplaced] opportunity to wish everyone a happy Thanksgiving! For those of us stationed in Iraq, Turkey Day was yesterday, but I still wish you a wonderful day, and a week's worth of left-overs.

-Grey

Profile PM

Steve Grisetti

Quote

Posts: 1,812 Location: Washington DC metro area, USA

Fri 26 Nov, 2004 4:51 am

Greyson Brown wrote:

Since there is only one user browsing the forum at the moment, thus making that user me, I would like to take this [misplaced] opportunity to wish everyone a happy Thanksgiving! For those of us stationed in Iraq, Turkey Day was yesterday, but I still wish you a wonderful day, and a week's worth of left-overs.

-Grey

Bless all of you in Iraq!

Profile PM

Chad Arnow

Quote

Posts: 9,570 Location: Dayton, OH

Fri 26 Nov, 2004 7:34 am

Greyson Brown wrote:

Thanks for the pictures. While you are right that Oakeshott puts the XIV in his earlier category, I suspect that a man-at-arms or archer who had to make do with an older sword would still be sufficiently effective. I prefer the the XVI because I feel that it is better suited to both cutting and thrusting, but I would not hesitate to trust my life to a well made sword of either variety.
-Grey

You're right: XIV's would be plenty reliable in many situations. Also, it is debateable how many people on a battlefield would be fully armoured, so a sword with an emphasis on cutting with some thrusting ability could still be quite effective. But then again, the Type XIV seems to have had a relatively short period of popularity since it was supplanted by other types. This doesn't mean people stopped using them of course, it just means that no one has found examples yet of a dateable Type XIV from after 1350 or so. I personally love the Type XIV's.

I was speaking in the most general terms just to try to illustrate the "typical" characteristics of each type.

Profile PM E-mail Website

Greyson Brown

Quote

Posts: 813 Location: Windsor, Colorado

Fri 26 Nov, 2004 4:08 pm

Chad Arnow wrote:

I was speaking in the most general terms just to try to illustrate the "typical" characteristics of each type.

Unfortunately, general terms and typical characteristics are all one can discuss, unless they are talking about a specific sword. I understood what you were saying and was not disagreeing with you at all. I find Oakeshott's habit of using 1350 to separate swords into early and late somewhat awkward since my main area of interest is the life of Sir John Chandos (roughly the same time as the life of Edward III). Since Chandos seems almost certainly to have been older than The Black Prince (born 1330, if memory serves), and did not die until 1370, there are a wide array of swords from both groups that could easily have been in use during his life time.

Oh well, Oakeshott had to pick some date, I suppose; there is no way to make it entirely convenient for everyone. :-)

-Grey

Profile PM

Jean Thibodeau

Quote

Posts: 8,310 Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada

Fri 26 Nov, 2004 5:45 pm

Chad;

Thanks for showing all three of these swords next to each other: We don't get enough of that, meaning that the eye and brain can flow from one to the next and imagine the evolution from one type to another. (Or appreciate their points in common and their differences.)

Not sure if I am explainning it clearly but side by side comparisons seem to enhance my comprehension and enjoyment of each.

Anyway it was a great idea to show these together and maybe you could think of other side by side comparisons?

Profile PM

Chad Arnow

Quote

Posts: 9,570 Location: Dayton, OH

Fri 26 Nov, 2004 6:07 pm

Jean Thibodeau wrote:

Chad;

Thanks for showing all three of these swords next to each other: We don't get enough of that, meaning that the eye and brain can flow from one to the next and imagine the evolution from one type to another. (Or appreciate their points in common and their differences.)

Not sure if I am explainning it clearly but side by side comparisons seem to enhance my comprehension and enjoyment of each.

Anyway it was a great idea to show these together and maybe you could think of other side by side comparisons?

Jean,
Glad you enjoyed it. I thought they might help define the types better. I have comparison pics of the Baron and Duke together. Looking at the tips of those two (like is shown in the Duke review: http://www.myArmoury.com/review_alb_duke.html ) shows the clear difference between Type XIIa and XIIIa.

You can check out these pics:

http://www.myArmoury.com/albums/photo/7265.html
http://www.myArmoury.com/albums/photo/7264.html
http://www.myArmoury.com/albums/photo/7263.html

Type XIIa tapers more, giving it more of a point. XIIIa is wider and more spatulate at the tip.

If you're looking for more, I have more XIV/XV/XVI shots in my user album (http://www.myArmoury.com/albums/index.php?cat=10011), plus more side by side pics of the Prince and Squire.

Profile PM E-mail Website