| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: |
|
Well, this list just illustrates the difficulty of getting a classification system that can avoid redundancies. For example, I can see how the Viking Era swords differ from the Migration Era designs due to their more complex designs and higher quality, but I don't quite see where's the dividing line between them and some of the earliest arming-sword types. Somehow it sounds more natural for me to lump the Vikings together with things up to Type XIII or even XIV. And "Claymore" will bring questions about whether it's referring to the two-handed claymore or the broadsword claymore. And I still don't quite get the dividing line between Messer and falchion... Maybe it would be a good idea to restrict not just the geographical area, but also the time period--if you choose the 16th century, the 18th, or something like that, then you'll be more likely to find one sword to fit each niche in the classification scheme rather than having to figure out the relationships between types that historically never met each other whether in duels or on the battlefield. |
Very true - I am having this problem of swords with different backgrounds essentially being used in the same way. I think a single century would tie me down too much, but 16th-18th covers most of the interesting "extremes".