[Bryan Heff]

I was struck by the overall similarity according to Oakeshott's typology these 2 blade types have in terms of the blade and its main function, cutting.

Type X
Blade length - 31-33 inches
Fuller - Nearly full blade length
Cross section - Lenticular

Type XIIIb
Blade length - 30-31 inches
Fuller - 5/8 of blade length
Cross section - Lenticular

Both types also are blades with minimal profile taper and often times spatulate tips.

The most obvious difference is the length and width of the fullers, the X having a very pronounced wide fuller nearly the whole length and the XIIIb's being thinner and closer to half the length of the blade.

Both are cutting style blades. So if we eliminate hilt furniture and focus on the blade itself, why the difference in fuller design? Why not just go back to making Type X blades in the 13th and 14th centuries when the type XIIIb was popular. Does the lack of fuller on the second half of a type XIIIb blade make it a superior design, a better cutter perhaps? Does it help with weight distribution? Is it not related to performance but something else entirely?

Any thoughts?

[J.D. Crawford]

I think you can draw a direct functional lineage from the typical Viking sword, to X, to XIIIb, to some XIX swords.

One can regard the XIIIb as a beefed up version of the X. The lack of fuller toward the tip (and sometimes very wide blade) places more mass for a given blade thickness at the point of contact. Meaning, for a given velocity, more impact and/or a deeper cut.

One presumes this was an adaptation to face tougher armor.

-JD

[Daniel Wallace]

superior design, i don't think so. design depends on intended use of the sword.

i'll describe this the best way that i can. even though a fuller is added to a blade to remove its overall weight - or just to aid in balance there is a trade off. thinking in terms of mass, your removing material, and removing a bit of strength in the blade depending on how deep the fuller is cut and how wide. although a fuller is a better way to keep some strength in the blade rather than cutting right through it making a void. the more fuller, the less ridged the blade.

i don't think we notices it as much in swords because of other factors in geometry (profile and distal taper) to illustrate better, take a flat stock of steel. without profile and distal taper cut a fuller into one half of it, and you'll be able to bend the fullered half of the stock back on itself easier than the rest of the stock.

so - a Lenticular blade without a fuller should be more ridge than a fullered one overall, but cutting the fuller into one trades some of that rigidity for balance.

now a lenticular blade, I've heard discussions here that they are the most ridge of blade style, and that diamond cross section is even better. but again, in terms of mass, there is more mass in a lenticular structure rather than diamond. so what i see in the type XIII blade is a blade that has a decent thrusting tip, maybe a little bit better than the type X (not to say that it cannot but i'd think the blade would have a little more flex than the latter). but was that its over all intent when XIII was designed, the blade looks to favor a cut more than thrust. it may also be probable, that even though your cutting the fuller into 5/8th of the blade, due to profile and distal taper the mass of the 5/8 fullered section of blade may match (or be close to) the same mass of the rest of the blade. so the fuller may just be changing balance point. change in balance then changes the factors in which it was intended to be used.


this is my technical opinion on the matter, backed up by a few little experiments built in my shop. I'm sure others will chime in with some piratical handling experiences that can give you other discussions on the topic.

[Bryan Heff]

"Superior design" in my original post I suppose should read something more along the lines of "superior design for that period and the defenses it had to face"....

So perhaps that's the answer? Is a non fullered second half of a blade make for a heavier cutter against better protected opponents as J. D. pointed out?

[Roger Hooper]

It might be useful to compare the typical (if there is such a thing) distal taper of X's and XIIIb's. They have similar profile taper, but I wonder if there is a difference in their blade thickness strategy, or with other aspects of blade geometry.

By the way, I remember Peter Johnsson once saying something like, - Type XIII's are like executioner's swords modified for use on the battlefield. - The main difference between XIII's and XIIIb's is the grip length. My apologies, Peter if I memory-mangled what you said.

[Josh S]

I figured the shorter fullers on XIII's (and their sub-types) were a way to make the blades' business ends thinner, not more massive. A thinner blade (and consequently, more acute edge) makes for easier cutting. The smoother surface might help in reducing friction, too, though I imagine the actual in-usage difference would be miniscule.

[J.D. Crawford]

[Daniel Wallace]

[Ken Jay]

I only have Atrim blades for reference so... I'm not sure there is much of a difference in target effect between the X and XIIIb. Between similar sized blades any soft or minimally armored target should be successfully cut. Why do we assume that padding with maile is vulnerable to the XIIIb if it provided good protection from cutting style blades over the course of many centuries? Is there Any evidence of such maile cutting ability? My guess is that padding and maile provide a serious obstacle to the most determined cut although blunt force trauma is another issue. Perhaps the cutting sword is best used against lesser armored targets? How much of the anatomy can maile protect or how many men on the battlefield were only lightly armored?

[Daniel Wallace]

[Ken Jay]

We might be trying to judge "effectiveness" of the blade designs by a modern efficiency standards that didn't exist in the Middle Ages. There were no statistical studies compiled and tested as to the various blade type combat effectiveness. Perhaps style/fashion was more important or there was an unsubstantiated belief the XIIIb was more effective. It would be interesting to test the various cutting blade styles to see if there is a significant difference in abilities between them on both soft and maile protected targets. My limited experience with the various Atrims makes me doubt there is a significant difference in combat performance between similar sized blades.