| Author |
Message |
|
Jeremiah Swanger
|
 Posted: Fri 20 Feb, 2004 8:30 pm Post subject: A Tale of Two Oakeshott Types... |
 |
|
For those of you fortunate enough to handle them...
I have read several times (including Bjorn's nifty new article on this website) that the lighter type XVII's are often compared to XVa's. From what I can deduce, the differences are primarily in cross-sectional geometry, as both have slender, thick profiles. They're both very pointy. Because its cross-section is hexagonal, I'm guessing that the XVII will be a bit heavier, assuming the same length/width/distal taper.
I'm asking because it seems to me that the two types are simply different means to the same end- a stiff, slender sword that excels in the thrust but with reasonable cutting ability.
What is your take on it? Is there a distinct set of advantages and disadvantages to each?
"Rhaegar fought nobly.
Rhaegar fought valiantly.
Rhaegar fought honorably.
And Rhaegar died."
- G.R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire
|
|
   |
 |
Gordon Clark
|
| Posted: Sat 21 Feb, 2004 4:54 am Post subject: Re: A Tale of Two Oakeshott Types... |
|
|
I tend to think of XVa's as in between XVIIs and XVIIIas on the "cut and thrust" sliding scale.
Oakeshott describes XVIIs as having a hand and a half grip always (so they compare with the "a" variety of the other two types).
(edited)
| Jeremiah Swanger wrote: | For those of you fortunate enough to handle them...
I have read several times (including Bjorn's nifty new article on this website) that the lighter type XVII's are often compared to XVa's. From what I can deduce, the differences are primarily in cross-sectional geometry, as both have slender, thick profiles. They're both very pointy. Because its cross-section is hexagonal, I'm guessing that the XVII will be a bit heavier, assuming the same length/width/distal taper.
I'm asking because it seems to me that the two types are simply different means to the same end- a stiff, slender sword that excels in the thrust but with reasonable cutting ability.
What is your take on it? Is there a distinct set of advantages and disadvantages to each? |
Last edited by Gordon Clark on Sat 21 Feb, 2004 7:13 am; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sat 21 Feb, 2004 7:02 am Post subject: Re: A Tale of Two Oakeshott Types... |
|
|
| Gordon Clark wrote: | | Oakeshott describes XVIs as having a hand and a half grip always (so they compare with the "a" variety of the other two types). |
Do you mean XVII's instead of XVI's? XVI's are akin to XIV's and certainly do have single-handed grips.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
  |
|
Gordon Clark
|
| Posted: Sat 21 Feb, 2004 7:11 am Post subject: Re: A Tale of Two Oakeshott Types... |
|
|
| Chad Arnow wrote: | | Gordon Clark wrote: | | Oakeshott describes XVIs as having a hand and a half grip always (so they compare with the "a" variety of the other two types). |
Do you mean XVII's instead of XVI's? XVI's are akin to XIV's and certainly do have single-handed grips. |
yes - forgot an "I" and misplaced the "a" - too early for me this AM apparently!
I'll fix it..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremiah Swanger
|
| Posted: Sat 21 Feb, 2004 6:08 pm Post subject: Re: A Tale of Two Oakeshott Types... |
|
|
Interesting viewpoint. So, you consider XVII's to be more 'thrust-oriented' than the XVa's (which, until I read the article on XVII's, I considered the most "thrusty" of all the Oakeshott types)?
| Gordon Clark wrote: | I tend to think of XVa's as in between XVIIs and XVIIIas on the "cut and thrust" sliding scale.
Oakeshott describes XVIIs as having a hand and a half grip always (so they compare with the "a" variety of the other two types).
(edited)
|
"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: Sat 21 Feb, 2004 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In my opinion the XVIIs are the most thrust oriented swords in Oakeshott's typology. They are typically significantly heavier then many other sword types and seem to be almost an impact weapon in their own right. Their balance also tends to be make them more thrust oriented. Some period pieces I've seen are almost like long steel spikes with a crossguard added.
TRITONWORKS Custom Scabbards
|
|
|
|
|
Gordon Clark
|
| Posted: Sun 22 Feb, 2004 5:24 am Post subject: Re: A Tale of Two Oakeshott Types... |
|
|
| Jeremiah Swanger wrote: | Interesting viewpoint. So, you consider XVII's to be more 'thrust-oriented' than the XVa's (which, until I read the article on XVII's, I considered the most "thrusty" of all the Oakeshott types)?
|
To me, at least, the XV and XVIII classes blur right into each other. There some swords that you could easily place on either side. But yes, XVIIs are in general the ones most oriented toward thrusting, I think.
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sun 22 Feb, 2004 8:33 am Post subject: Re: A Tale of Two Oakeshott Types... |
|
|
| Gordon Clark wrote: | | To me, at least, the XV and XVIII classes blur right into each other. There some swords that you could easily place on either side. But yes, XVIIs are in general the ones most oriented toward thrusting, I think. |
XV's taper from the base to the tip. XVIII's are supposed to have at least a portion of the blade where the edges are parallel, intended to make them broad enough for a powerful cut. After the COP, the blade usually tapers to a lethal thrusting point. An over-honed XVIII may appear to be like a XV, though, and there are some XVIII's that taper for a while, then the edges go parallel, then they taper again. I think Oakeshott comments on that.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremiah Swanger
|
| Posted: Sun 22 Feb, 2004 8:45 am Post subject: Re: A Tale of Two Oakeshott Types... |
|
|
| Chad Arnow wrote: | | Gordon Clark wrote: | | To me, at least, the XV and XVIII classes blur right into each other. There some swords that you could easily place on either side. But yes, XVIIs are in general the ones most oriented toward thrusting, I think. |
XV's taper from the base to the tip. XVIII's are supposed to have at least a portion of the blade where the edges are parallel, intended to make them broad enough for a powerful cut. After the COP, the blade usually tapers to a lethal thrusting point. An over-honed XVIII may appear to be like a XV, though, and there are some XVIII's that taper for a while, then the edges go parallel, then they taper again. I think Oakeshott comments on that. |
I believe the original that A&A's French Medievel Sword is modeled after is a good example of the 'over-honed' XVIII's that you were talking about- this certainly doesn't look *intentionally* like a XV...
"Rhaegar fought nobly.
Rhaegar fought valiantly.
Rhaegar fought honorably.
And Rhaegar died."
- G.R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sun 22 Feb, 2004 10:40 am Post subject: Oakeshott's thoughts on XVIII vs XV |
|
|
From "The Sword in the Age of Chivalry" about type XVIII:
| Quote: | | This type is very hard to distinguish from Type XV. The difference, however, is clear, though subtle. In XV, the edges run quite straight to the acute point, giving a very narrow appearance to the lower part of the blade. In XVIII, the edges run in curves and the lower part of the blade looks broader. "The Sword in the Age of Chivalry" |
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a standard topic