| Author |
Message |
Gordon Frye
|
 Posted: Fri 12 Nov, 2004 9:54 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Peter;
Thanks for the information! I figured that the Sture's were all closely related, just which generation was which was mystifying me. So then if I get this right, the Regent, Svante Nilsson Sture (who was the owner of the Sword being discussed here) was the Father of the Svante Sture, and Grandfather of Nils and Erik Sture who were murdered by Erik XVth? Boy, sounds like a really ugly situation, and I can see why it led to his overthrow. McBeth, Hamlet, Romeo&Juliet, you name that play about power and murder, sounds like this was a prototype.
Anyway, thanks! And I would LOVE to visit Uppsala Castle and Cathedral with you, thank you for the invitation! I have read about them, it would be nice to actually see them some day!
Cheers,
Gordon
"After God, we owe our victory to our Horses"
Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
http://www.renaissancesoldier.com/
http://historypundit.blogspot.com/
|
|
    |
 |
Jay Barron
|
| Posted: Sun 14 Nov, 2004 10:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That is as stunning a sword as has ever been forged (or ground in this case  ) I particularly like the leather rain guards. They seem a bit different on the Albion sword when compared to Peter's recreation. Was this a result of further study of the original sword?
Constant and true.
|
|
|
|
|
Björn Hellqvist
myArmoury Alumni
|
| Posted: Sun 14 Nov, 2004 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jay Barron wrote: | | That is as stunning a sword as has ever been forged (or ground in this case ) I particularly like the leather rain guards. They seem a bit different on the Albion sword when compared to Peter's recreation. Was this a result of further study of the original sword? |
The leather rain guards had rotted on the original sword; the traces had been undetected by scholars until Peter and fellow researcher Patrik Djurfeldt spotted them.
My sword site
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Johnsson
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Mon 15 Nov, 2004 1:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hey guys!
I am sorry that I have not answered your questions on this thread. Time is very pressed right now. 
I am trying to collect my wits to be able to respond sometime tonight or tomorrow.
Extend your pateince with me untill then, please!
Any opportunity to speak about or write about this sword is dear to me.  
Thank you!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Russ Ellis
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Mon 15 Nov, 2004 6:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Peter Johnsson wrote: | Hey guys!
I am sorry that I have not answered your questions on this thread. Time is very pressed right now.
I am trying to collect my wits to be able to respond sometime tonight or tomorrow.
Extend your pateince with me untill then, please!
Any opportunity to speak about or write about this sword is dear to me.
Thank you! |
 Peter, I think I speak for all of us perchasing the sword when I say "not a problem" take your time answer when you can. Your insights are invaluable.
TRITONWORKS Custom Scabbards
|
|
|
|
|
Jay Barron
|
| Posted: Mon 15 Nov, 2004 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Björn Hellqvist wrote: | | Jay Barron wrote: | | That is as stunning a sword as has ever been forged (or ground in this case ) I particularly like the leather rain guards. They seem a bit different on the Albion sword when compared to Peter's recreation. Was this a result of further study of the original sword? |
The leather rain guards had rotted on the original sword; the traces had been undetected by scholars until Peter and fellow researcher Patrik Djurfeldt spotted them. |
Interesting. I wonder how common leather rain guards were on swords. In artwork of the time it would be hard to tell if rainguards represented on swords were made of leather or metal.
Constant and true.
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
|
 |
|
Joachim Nilsson
|
| Posted: Mon 29 Nov, 2004 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nathan Robinson wrote: | | I can tell by all the discussions that the Svante might be a difficult one to fit neatly into the Oakeshott typology. I'm curious, is it a Type XVIIIe, XX, or what?? |
Since I am a huge fan of this sword I've asked this question myself. I've discussed it [the sword] quite a lot with Peter and I remember he told me he like to view it as an XVIIIe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Russ Ellis
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Mon 29 Nov, 2004 10:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
I tend to think of it as THE type XVIIIe but of course that is my particular predjudices showing. I've now owned three XVIIIes that were all different. I think it can be safely said that it is well within the parameters.
TRITONWORKS Custom Scabbards
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Johnsson
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Mon 29 Nov, 2004 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi guys,
Svante is rather a XVIIIb.
It is so similar to the Bayerisches sword that it should belong to the same group.
The XVIIIe-type has other significant features that puts them apart.
They are narrower in the blade, have longer grips and typically have a long sturdy ricasso.
Even if Svante have the edges ground away at the base of the blade, this does not make it into a typical XVIIIe, I think. Sorry for the confusion.
I am not so keen on exact typological placements when it comes to individual swords that are not following the norm perfectly.
As long as you can get an idea of the sword, the exact placement in the typology is less interesting, I think.
Others will disagree, I´m sure
|
|
|
|
|
Joachim Nilsson
|
| Posted: Mon 29 Nov, 2004 1:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Peter Johnsson wrote: | Hi guys,
Svante is rather a XVIIIb.
It is so similar to the Bayerisches sword that it should belong to the same group.
|
So you have re-evaluated your opinion? Interesting. Now I have to go luck up what the defining characteristics of type XVIIIb are.
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
| Posted: Mon 29 Nov, 2004 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Peter Johnsson wrote: |
Svante is rather a XVIIIb.
It is so similar to the Bayerisches sword that it should belong to the same group.
The XVIIIe-type has other significant features that puts them apart.
They are narrower in the blade, have longer grips and typically have a long sturdy ricasso.
Even if Svante have the edges ground away at the base of the blade, this does not make it into a typical XVIIIe, I think. Sorry for the confusion. |
Thank you, Peter. This is exactly the info I was hoping to get. The whole thing confused me and now I see why.
| Quote: | | I am not so keen on exact typological placements when it comes to individual swords that are not following the norm perfectly.As long as you can get an idea of the sword, the exact placement in the typology is less interesting, I think. |
This part I agree with 100%. Typologies can only serve to guide and assist us in our overall understanding of these things. They start to form a context in which to individualy judge pieces, but nothing more.
.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patrick Kelly
|
| Posted: Mon 29 Nov, 2004 1:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Over the past couple of years I've began to form a fairly negative view of typologies. Maybe not the typologies themselves, but rather it would be more accurate to say I'm pretty negative about how they've been over emphasized within our community.
Typologies should *never* be used as imperical data on anything. At best they should be used as a broad reference of evolution in design. When we try to pigeon hole a sword into a specific type or date based on a typology we're running down a slippery slope. There are just too many variables and exceptions.
"In valor there is hope.".................. Tacitus
|
|
 |
|
Timothy Gulics
|
| Posted: Mon 29 Nov, 2004 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Exquisite!
The sword is my companion.
|
|
  |
|
|
Russ Ellis
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Mon 29 Nov, 2004 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Peter Johnsson wrote: | Hi guys,
Svante is rather a XVIIIb.
It is so similar to the Bayerisches sword that it should belong to the same group.
The XVIIIe-type has other significant features that puts them apart.
They are narrower in the blade, have longer grips and typically have a long sturdy ricasso.
Even if Svante have the edges ground away at the base of the blade, this does not make it into a typical XVIIIe, I think. Sorry for the confusion.
I am not so keen on exact typological placements when it comes to individual swords that are not following the norm perfectly.
As long as you can get an idea of the sword, the exact placement in the typology is less interesting, I think.
Others will disagree, I´m sure |
I'm going to have to disagree with Peter on this one. I would argue that the defining characteristic of the XVIIIe is the narrowed ricasso. Additionally the handle specs out at something around 13 inches and the ricasso itself is something around 2 inches long and nearly half an inch thick. I suppose it could be argued that the handle is not "long enough" or that the ricasso isn't "sturdy enough" but by most objective measures I'd guess that we would say the handle is long and that the ricasso is long and sturdy. However to truly make my point I'll need to have my reference books in hand something I'll do tonight. It's a bit weird arguing with the guy that literally wrote the book on the Svante but there you have it.
TRITONWORKS Custom Scabbards
|
|
|
|
|
|
Russ Ellis
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Mon 29 Nov, 2004 2:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Kelly wrote: | Over the past couple of years I've began to form a fairly negative view of typologies. Maybe not the typologies themselves, but rather it would be more accurate to say I'm pretty negative about how they've been over emphasized within our community.
Typologies should *never* be used as imperical data on anything. At best they should be used as a broad reference of evolution in design. When we try to pigeon hole a sword into a specific type or date based on a typology we're running down a slippery slope. There are just too many variables and exceptions. |
and since I seem to be picking fights with everyone today I'm going to disagree with Patrick too. I would be the first to agree that typologies aren't the end all and be all of the sword world. There are many cases where they don't apply at all or only partially apply. However I would submit that this is simply because the typologies are not complete rather then that they are flawed for their intended purpose. That purpose is to allow people who study swords to convey the outline of a sword without having a picture in hand. If I say that a sword is a type XVIII with a G type pommel and a type 9 cross someone else who understands the typology knows roughly what I'm talking about. The typologies are simply a classification/communication device, and the best we've got.
As an evolutionary tool I think that the typologies are rather weak since some pommel and hilt styles were very enduring and cannot be pinned down to any particular era. Blades types can be dated a little more precisely but only a little, they are still only generalizations.
TRITONWORKS Custom Scabbards
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patrick Kelly
|
| Posted: Mon 29 Nov, 2004 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gee Russ if you're going to pick a fight try to be sure what you're picking at.
It sounds as if we pretty much agree
Read my post again and you'll see that I wasn't criticizing the typologies themselves, but rather how they're used by today's community.
"In valor there is hope.".................. Tacitus
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Johnsson
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Mon 29 Nov, 2004 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Russ Ellis wrote: | | Peter Johnsson wrote: | Hi guys,
Svante is rather a XVIIIb.
It is so similar to the Bayerisches sword that it should belong to the same group.
The XVIIIe-type has other significant features that puts them apart.
They are narrower in the blade, have longer grips and typically have a long sturdy ricasso.
Even if Svante have the edges ground away at the base of the blade, this does not make it into a typical XVIIIe, I think. Sorry for the confusion.
I am not so keen on exact typological placements when it comes to individual swords that are not following the norm perfectly.
As long as you can get an idea of the sword, the exact placement in the typology is less interesting, I think.
Others will disagree, I´m sure |
I'm going to have to disagree with Peter on this one. I would argue that the defining characteristic of the XVIIIe is the narrowed ricasso. Additionally the handle specs out at something around 13 inches and the ricasso itself is something around 2 inches long and nearly half an inch thick. I suppose it could be argued that the handle is not "long enough" or that the ricasso isn't "sturdy enough" but by most objective measures I'd guess that we would say the handle is long and that the ricasso is long and sturdy. However to truly make my point I'll need to have my reference books in hand something I'll do tonight. It's a bit weird arguing with the guy that literally wrote the book on the Svante but there you have it. |
Hey Russ!
This is a type XVIIIe:
 Attachment: 17.79 KB
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremiah Swanger
|
| Posted: Mon 29 Nov, 2004 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Peter Johnsson wrote: | | Russ Ellis wrote: |
I'm going to have to disagree with Peter on this one. I would argue that the defining characteristic of the XVIIIe is the narrowed ricasso. Additionally the handle specs out at something around 13 inches and the ricasso itself is something around 2 inches long and nearly half an inch thick. I suppose it could be argued that the handle is not "long enough" or that the ricasso isn't "sturdy enough" but by most objective measures I'd guess that we would say the handle is long and that the ricasso is long and sturdy. However to truly make my point I'll need to have my reference books in hand something I'll do tonight. It's a bit weird arguing with the guy that literally wrote the book on the Svante but there you have it. |
Hey Russ!
This is a type XVIIIe: |
Hey Peter,
... that wouldn't happen to be a forthcoming NexGen sword... would it?
"Rhaegar fought nobly.
Rhaegar fought valiantly.
Rhaegar fought honorably.
And Rhaegar died."
- G.R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire
|
|
|
|
|
|
Russ Ellis
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Mon 29 Nov, 2004 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Kelly wrote: | Gee Russ if you're going to pick a fight try to be sure what you're picking at.
It sounds as if we pretty much agree
Read my post again and you'll see that I wasn't criticizing the typologies themselves, but rather how they're used by today's community. |
Darnit Patrick that's really not fighting fair pointing out that I agree with you and all... sheesh... I'm going to take my sword and go home... er no I'm not!!!!
TRITONWORKS Custom Scabbards
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a standard topic