| Considering all of this week's latest additions, please rate the quality of our efforts. |
| Excellent |
|
80% |
[ 42 ] |
| Very Good |
|
17% |
[ 9 ] |
| Good |
|
1% |
[ 1 ] |
| Fair |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 52 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
|
    |
 |
Thomas Hoogendam
|
 Posted: Mon 26 Dec, 2005 3:13 am Post subject: |
 |
|
|
Nice update guys, the two spotlight threads were a great read, and two very good new reviews. Great work guys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edward Hitchens
|
| Posted: Mon 26 Dec, 2005 7:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Great job on the updates! The Type XX is one of those that don't get spoken of very often. I got to hold a Viceroy at a Round Table event once (in fact, it may have been the one Chad and Doug reviewed). I remember I was just test-driving a Baron when I picked up a Viceroy; the latter didn't feel nearly as heavy yet it's only 2 ounces lighter. I wonder why that is. 
The Baron will quickly turn my forearms into jello, but I could fight on all day with the Viceroy. I know these two are vastly different in overall design, blade geometry, and especially balance. I was just surprised at how much "lighter" the Viceroy felt. I can say the same about the Regent.
Anyway, great job guys.  -Ted
"The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest." Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Grisetti
|
| Posted: Wed 28 Dec, 2005 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks to Chad, Gordon, Doug, Alexi and Nathan for your fine efforts. They are much appreciated!
"...dismount thy tuck, be yare in thy preparation, for thy assailant is quick, skilful, and deadly."
- Sir Toby Belch
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Wed 28 Dec, 2005 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Guys, thanks for the kind words on the spotlights. They weren't the easiest to write, since Oakeshott didn't give a ton of info for those Types. Nathan was able to find some great historical examples in the depths of his library, though, which really helped. I'm glad people like the final products.
Only one more installment to go in the Oakeshott Type spotlight series.... 
Kudos to the other authors, too, on a nice group of reviews. Gordon and Alexi always do nice work, and it was good to work with a new author/friend in Doug.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Gordon Clark
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Wed 28 Dec, 2005 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think so, the guard seems too long and not curved like many other examples. The fullers also seem too narrow on that repro.
But that's just a gut feeling/reaction.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Wed 28 Dec, 2005 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nathan Robinson wrote: | Is this the one you're discussing?
|
Yes, indeed. You don't have a pic of this original in the depths of your library, do you?
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Wed 28 Dec, 2005 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nathan Robinson wrote: |
Yes. It's discussed and shown In This Topic. Check it out. |
Indeed. Let me amend my statement, then. The repro I don't think fits the Type, but the original looks like it does.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
| Posted: Wed 28 Dec, 2005 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chad Arnow wrote: | | Nathan Robinson wrote: |
Yes. It's discussed and shown In This Topic. Check it out. |
Indeed. Let me amend my statement, then. The repro I don't think fits the Type, but the original looks like it does. |
That's my thought, too. I almost included the original in the article but without a full photo of the sword, I wasn't able to put it in there. The repro's blade details aren't quite fitting to the type.
.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Wed 28 Dec, 2005 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nathan Robinson wrote: | | That's my thought, too. I almost included the original in the article but without a full photo of the sword, I wasn't able to put it in there. The repro's blade details aren't quite fitting to the type. |
The repro doesn't taper quite right and the fullers are too narrow. The guard also lacks some subtlety of the original. I'd forgotten about that pic of the original (obviously). Cool stuff.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas Laible
|
| Posted: Thu 29 Dec, 2005 10:52 am Post subject: XIX or XXa ?? |
|
|
Great articles, but in my opinion MRLs longsword and the DT 2143 fits more to type XIX than into XXa.
The XIX-longswords which Oakeshott depicted in Records pg. 206 look very much the same like the longsword below and like http://www.myArmoury.com/review_dt2143.html
Thomas
 Attachment: 11.24 KB
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Thu 29 Dec, 2005 11:11 am Post subject: Re: XIX or XXa ?? |
|
|
| Thomas Laible wrote: | Great articles, but in my opinion MRLs longsword and the DT 2143 fits more to type XIX than into XXa.
The XIX-longswords which Oakeshott depicted in Records pg. 206 look very much the same like the longsword below and like http://www.myArmoury.com/review_dt2143.html
Thomas |
Thomas,
I'd have to disagree, but you'd expect that since I included those specifically . The defining features of Type XIX (from our spotlight) are:
| Quote: | | short ricasso, hexagonal blade cross-section, well-defined single fuller |
Those two you mentioned don't fit that definition of Type XIX, even with their other visual similarities. The ricassi are too long, the blades taper far too much, and they lack the well-defined hex section. Not every sword with narrow fullers on a ricasso fits Type XIX, nor do all type XIX's possess those fullers.
Of course, it's not always cut and dry and some of Oakeshott's classifications don't fit his own typology. For example, the River Thames sword listed as a Type XVII should probably be a Type XXa based on the fullered/hollowed ricasso and cross-section.
But the fact that we can discuss widely different swords with common terminology and a system of classification at all means his typology is working.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas Laible
|
| Posted: Thu 29 Dec, 2005 11:55 am Post subject: Re: XIX or XXa ?? |
|
|
| Chad Arnow wrote: | The defining features of Type XIX (from our spotlight) are:
| Quote: | | short ricasso, hexagonal blade cross-section, well-defined single fuller |
Those two you mentioned don't fit that definition of Type XIX, even with their other visual similarities. The ricassi are too long, the blades taper far too much, and they lack the well-defined hex section. Not every sword with narrow fullers on a ricasso fits Type XIX, nor do all type XIX's possess those fullers. |
Chad,
a teacher of mine used to say: "For discussing things, we first have to name them." 
I know, that the MRL and Del Tin don't fit into the written definition of XIX single handed swords, but they fit into the appearance of the XIX longswords on page 206 - although the Del Tin also could be a XXa.
(had to edit this)
My first thesis was, that the difference between XIX and XX was a ricasso, but then I found a ricasso at XXa.2 ...
Okay - so I have to admit, that I've got no Idea, whay Oakeshott put the swords on page 206 into XIX (in SAC he put this XIX and a XXa into XVII).
But these specific swords don't look like the other XXs or XXas in "records", they seem to be rather unique. They are less broader than XX, less tapering than XXa and have got a very strong ricasso (Seitz states that these special ricassos have riffled sides for better grasping).
So I don't know why, but the MRL longsword looks exactly like thes two XIX longswords.
Maybe Peter has an idea or explanation ...
Thomas
Thomas
Last edited by Thomas Laible on Thu 29 Dec, 2005 1:03 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Thu 29 Dec, 2005 12:33 pm Post subject: Re: XIX or XXa ?? |
|
|
| Thomas Laible wrote: | Chad,
a teacher of mine used to say: "For discussing things, we first have to name them."
Thomas |
Exactly. That's a main point of the typology: to give us a way to discuss these things. But, we don't have to agree on them either. The typology, in Oakeshott's view, was a starting point, not an ending one. Some pieces seem to have been given a designation for reasons that aren't easily fathomable. In one tale, Oakeshott picked up a sword and remarked that it "felt like" a Type XVII, even though it didn't look like it. Some items got moved from type to type to "Unclassified." In one case, he spoke of sword that he "had the sense not to classify" in an earlier work though he did later. Even to the creator of the typology, it wasn't an exact science.
The two Type XXa's we show in the spotlight have ricassi, but I wouldn't go so far as to call the ricasso a defining feature. The fuller arrangement (two short around one long) is more the key. The scent stoppers and guards tend more toward "typical" Type XX/XXa, but those aren't defining features either.
The amount of info on these late Types, the very few examples shown, and the contradictions make it hard to draw definitive conclusions. We looked at examples of things that could have been of Type XVII, XIX, XXa or something else entirely beyond the handful Oakeshott showed in Records when trying to decide what to include in the articles.
In the end, it'll be up to the reader to draw their own conclusions on where things fit, since we unfortunately can't ask Mr. Oakeshott to explain. I personally believe it's within the spirit of Oakeshott's intentions to say "It's a XIX with a long ricasso and atypical blade cross-section" or "It's a Type XXa" or "It's a longsword." 
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas Laible
|
| Posted: Thu 29 Dec, 2005 1:07 pm Post subject: Re: XIX or XXa ?? |
|
|
| Chad Arnow wrote: | | I personally believe it's within the spirit of Oakeshott's intentions to say "It's a XIX with a long ricasso and atypical blade cross-section" or "It's a Type XXa" or "It's a longsword." |
seem the best way for me too
Thomas
anyway: very nice features
|
|
|
|
|
|
Doug Gardner
|
| Posted: Thu 29 Dec, 2005 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Edward Hitchens wrote: | ...I got to hold a Viceroy at a Round Table event once (in fact, it may have been the one Chad and Doug reviewed). I remember I was just test-driving a Baron when I picked up a Viceroy; the latter didn't feel nearly as heavy yet it's only 2 ounces lighter. I wonder why that is.
|
Ted,
You are correct. That is the very same Viceroy. I share many of the same observations as you. Chad brought some of his toys up for our little cutting session, and I picked up his Baron. I remember thinking "this is how I THOUGHT the Viceroy would feel." My thoughts on the Viceroy were really surprisingly similar to how I feel about the Sovereign. You look at them both and think "that's going to be heavy". But if you pick either of those up, you realize that they are surprisingly nimble. A classic case where the numbers don't tell you the whole story. I can't say if the weight distribution would put the Viceroy at a disadvantage on the battlefield, since we didn't do any heavy cutting with it. I suspect not too much, but can't back up my impression very well. As I understand the picture historically, you're enemies would have most likely to been wearing:
1) Full plate, in which case you'd need to thrust into the soft bits if you're forced to use your sword
2) Half flate, which would have left some vulnerable areas you could cut up or
3) Varying types of softer armor, which the Viceroy would excel at
I think the Viceroy would give outstanding service for any of these cases, unless the situation demanded that you clang the guy on a closed salet. I think the Baron would be better for that, but still not as good as that mace (or a golf club).
I do have a question that I'd like to hear a few opinions on.
The ricasso on that Viceroy... it does have a very clear central fuller. But, what are your opinions on the others? Would you classify those as fullers, or would you say that the ricasso is hollow-ground with a central fuller, and that the blade changes shape to a diamond cross section where the ricasso ends? I guess there is really only one question there, as it is clear that the blade changes cross-section after the ricasso. So the question is: do you think the Viceroy has 3 fullers, one fuller and a hollow-ground ricasso, or would you call it something else?
Thanks in advance for your thoughts!
--Doug
PS: I just wanted to say what a pleasure it was to work with Chad! Don't let him fool you. He may be a musician in real-life, but he has a passion for this stuff, and with that goes motivation and curiosity. Combine that with a decent source for information, and you've got some insight. I thoroughly enjoyed it, Chad! Next time, I'll try to have some cucumber sandwiches and tea...
Doug Gardner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic
