Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Chad Arnow wrote:
Here is a very (very) crude graphic I threw together to illustrate the section. It's nowhere near to scale and is very (very) crude. The lines don't line up, etc. It's crude and crappy, quick and dirty.

The real cross-section is likely somewhat (or very) different, but I put this together to illustrate what is meant when people call this blade eight-sided.


Chad, pretty much spot on actually!
Only important difference is that the fuller is not cut out from the thickness of the mid rib: the blade does not become thinner where the fuller is formed. A small thing perhaps...
Thanks for posting the drawing. I think it helps for people to get the idea clearly.
Peter Johnsson wrote:
Gianluca,

Thank you very much for your words.
I especially appreciate your views as a swordsman, confirming we can get some things pretty much on target sometimes at least :)


Well, honestly there is little need of confimation, expecially through my appreciation, to see the quality of your work. ;)

Swordmen point of view should be quite relevant considering the quality of a sword.
Brescia Spadona can be enjoyed at solo drills, or taste her section at the cutting test.

Hope to have a trining version one day, that would be a great servise for historical fencing.

GZ
Peter Johnsson wrote:
Gianluca,

Thank you very much for your words.
I especially appreciate your views as a swordsman, confirming we can get some things pretty much on target sometimes at least :)

I would love to visit Brescia again: it is very nice to invite me. There are many things I would like to see more of in this area. To see the Marzoli collection again is something I´ve long looked forward to. Last time I only got to spend a day and a half in the city. Wonderful, but much too short.
It would also be very valuable for me to have an opportunity to make a side-by-side comparison between the original and the reconstruction.


Remember to bring your sword is not sharpened. Risks jail, here in Italy it is prohibited by law. ;)

Gianluca Zanini wrote:

Next month we had a seminar on the green of the keep, and I took the baby to her mum. We were with the direction of the museum, and we certainly miss the presence of Peter Johnson. I want to invite him and you all for the next year summer seminar at the keep where we can even celebrate the musem city.


Gianluca, even if calls me, the lunch will be paid by me. This is for you and Peter. :)
I like to joke a bit. :D
The night is more serious. Later friends. :p
Maurizio D'Angelo wrote:
Hello, Gianluca.
Even here, in a hoplology environment, there are rumors that the blade of Brescia, is not German.
For a certain, Bresciano armorer had that mark. But look official publications, which certainly will follow, with the evidence of what was said. The tradition of Brescian weapons can not be questioned, it would go against the story.


Hello Maurizio,

I hope to have those evidences for september. Even about the court of arm which mark the other side of the blade.
Moreover " la spada crocefissa"found by Paolo Pinti at Penna San.Giovanni in his book, might be the sister of the she wolf but her very bad condition does not help at this stage of study to give something more than an hipotesis.

Gianluca
PS
I want the sword Albion exclude from this discussion.
For all of us, it is a good sword.
The debate is simply philological and historical.

I have studied, only two swords, the St. Maurice and the sword of Brescia, a little bit the XIII Oakeshott.
I collected lots of information about the two swords.
But I can say to know a little, only the two swords.
The type of wood, and configuration of the grip and the skin.

Other things, for truth, but prefer not to talk about this, now.
I am a fan of medieval swords. In other words, a beginner.
I read some books, but studying is a different thing.

This to me is an advantage. My cup of knowledge is empty.
I can think and change my opinion, much more quickly.
I do not have to filter, the new proposals, with thoughts already acquired.

That there is something controversial, in this section, it seems clear.
Lionello Boccia in his rare book, writes, section lenticular.
A note magazine, writes: lenticular section.
A prof. University writes: lenticular section.
Some friends oplology write: lenticular section.
It would be wrong to consider these people, simple compilers card catalog from the museum,
I know these people, I can ensure that students are serious and worthy of consideration.
Some of these have had in they hands the sword of brescia.

From the photos I have already said, that some reinforce the hypothesis of a diamond section.
More for a lenticular section, other photos show a flattened diamond for diamond, but a little round
to be lenticular.
This is for intellectual honesty.

Power of history. One fact, two views.
(I say this without wishing to be argumentative with anyone. I see only one reality).

I will guess that that section, we want to classify it right.
Here the thought of my dear friend, he saw very well this sword:
"A very unusuals section to say the least. First a sort of flat diamond, then almost "erased
diamond" shape. All in all it seems as if it has no clear shape".

Perhaps it's easier. You can not classify.
At least not with the normal ways in which we classify other sections.
Many swords are easily recognizable.

I try to make an argument.
I have a little knowledge of sharpening.
None sharpen, repeatedly a lenticular section following the round.
It follows an angle, it is easier.
Sharpening should be excluded, is not part of the section.

If the sharpening is not part of the section, then that section is or lenticular or diamond.
We establish a common rule to determine the section.
Those corners are part of the sides of the section or sharpening?
If they are sharpening, that section is simply a diamond, or just lenticular, or the two combined.
(But not a diamond section to 8 faces)

Another question.
Classification Oakeshott?
For me, it is already difficult to classify as XVIa, perhaps a hybrid with an Type XVIIIa , and now a hybrid section.

My conclusion: Not classifiable Oakeshott.
Am I a Freelance? is possible, maybe this happens when the cup of knowledge is empty.
I always say, if I write less, I am more likely to commit fewer errors.
Always very long posts. I apologize.
Maurizio.

here another one.


 Attachment: 114.03 KB
lenticolaresection.jpg
copyright Museo Balzoli - Brescia
Maurizio D'Angelo wrote:

Another question.
Classification Oakeshott?
For me, it is already difficult to classify as XVIa, perhaps a hybrid with an Type XVIIIa , and now a hybrid section.

My conclusion: Not classifiable Oakeshott.
Am I a Freelance? is possible, maybe this happens when the cup of knowledge is empty.
I always say, if I write less, I am more likely to commit fewer errors.
Always very long posts. I apologize.
Maurizio.


Maurizio,

From your photograph the section looks almost like a flattened diamond, like an Oakeshott type XVII. I agree that the blade always looked like a type XVIa to me before, but that photo changes things a bit.

Interesting food for thought, thank you.

~A
I think there is an technical misunderstanding here or a question on how to define different sections.
I think that its obvious from the pictures shown that the sword was once grinded with the intention to have a midrib and a secondary bevel. Therefore it is right to say that the sword has a octagonal cross-section.
But, when you actually look at the sword of today the section do not have eight flat surfaces with well defined edges. The edges are rounded and the surfaces probably has a slightly convex shape to them. This may give a impression of a lenticular section.
To make it more complicated you could say that the sword grinder when grinding the sword to an octagonal section at the same time followed a lenticular overall shape of the svord (he encapsulated the octagonal section within an approximated lenticular section)
And to make it even more complicated this section was continously changed in size and shape along the blade ending in a point.

mvh
Steffe
Adam S. wrote:
Maurizio,

From your photograph the section looks almost like a flattened diamond, like an Oakeshott type XVII. I agree that the blade always looked like a type XVIa to me before, but that photo changes things a bit.

Interesting food for thought, thank you.

~A


A Type XVII would be hexagonal for most or all of its length. Some examples get a diamond section nearer the point, but a hexagonal section is a defining characteristic of a Type XVII.
Dear Adam,
I think I already expressed my views.
Perhaps with a poor English, but I hope that the meaning of my words has come to you!
For me, the sword can be classified as follows: LA LUPA. Stop. :eek:
On a similarity with Oakeshott XVII, I agree with Chad, for the reasons already given by Chad.
Regards :)
Maurizio
now, what I'm going to say may possibly be considered heretical by some...
but, reading this discussion, there seems to be a problem here in some ways, in that people are trying to nail the blade form down into one of oakeshott's typologies, as if everything must abide by the types he set down.
the reality is that those types are regularly simply generalisations of form, not some holy scriptures which all must abide by, not least given there are plenty of faults that I've observed in the notes in, for example Records, when compared to the actual peices under study (XVII.12 springs to mind as a woefully inaccurate description, which, on my first looking at it, with a copy of Records in my bag with me, I had to pull out the book and check if it really was the same blade being described...)

as Maurizio D'Angelo has said,
Quote:
"the sword can be classified as follows: LA LUPA"


not all weapons neatly drop into classifications which are often generalised and exhibit the average of a form. Trying to hammer the square peg into a round hole of a classification that does'nt suit is an exercise in futility, given the vast numbers of surviving artefacts and the inevitable organic process of evolution of one form to another. no form is developed wholly isolated from other forms, after all.

And yes, I have just said that oakeshott's typologies are sometimes overrated.... I regret nothing! you may prepare the stake and kindling... *prepares to lynched* :)

(edit for slight formatting glitches)
JG,
I don't think anyone will martyr you. I happen to agree with your sentiment about the typology system (after all, it is a system, not just a blade typology), though I disagree with your assertion that people are treating it as a sacred cow in this instance and even perhaps in general.

If people read our article on Oakeshott or many of the threads here, they'll see what Oakeshott himself said about his typology. I think many people appreciate the typology but know that it is a modern, artificial system for quantifying object whose makers were less interested in the quantification than we are. :)

I felt I had to respond to the Type XVII issue because an incorrect assertion was being put forward. The Brescia sword, as our review says and other posts have said, is not easily classifiable. It comes closest to XVIa but could also be called an atypical XVIIIa.

Some people do get stuck on the typology, though. But don't lump us all into that category. :)
Chad Arnow wrote:
though I disagree with your assertion that people are treating it as a sacred cow in this instance and even perhaps in general.


oh, I wouldnt assert the idea... that's a little too strong a term.
more "sometimes think", than assert it. :)

its that fine line between respecting the academic study, and revering it.... and in some ways, the man was the Darwin of our field, with the result that sometimes, there is the potential for ideas to become institutionalised, instead of being challenged by further generations of academics...

if that makes any sense whatsoever. :)
Maurizio D'Angelo wrote:
Dear Adam,
I think I already expressed my views.
Perhaps with a poor English, but I hope that the meaning of my words has come to you!
For me, the sword can be classified as follows: LA LUPA. Stop. :eek:
On a similarity with Oakeshott XVII, I agree with Chad, for the reasons already given by Chad.
Regards :)
Maurizio


Sorry, I wrote my post while half asleep and left out the part where I agree that the blade of "La Lupa" is undefinable.

I was attempting to agree with you, and failed. *sigh*

~Adam (Who will try and remember to type replies AFTER sleeping, not before! :D )
hello Guys,
I would not want my message was misunderstood.
Many swords have a specific identification, section, shape, pommel and guard.
Oakeshott, a great master, as Lionello Giorgio Boccia, are my favorite authors.
Without them the way we would be drawn here to discuss all the swords.
I collected a lot of information on the sword of Brescia, my conclusion just about sword of Brescia.
Oakeshott, is and remains an invaluable guide.
A clarification unnecessary, but ... better defined.
Maurizio
Adam S. wrote:


Sorry, I wrote my post while half asleep and left out the part where I agree that the blade of "La Lupa" is undefinable.

I was attempting to agree with you, and failed. *sigh*

~Adam (Who will try and remember to type replies AFTER sleeping, not before! :D )


Adam, your sympathy is exceptional. :D
You do not have to apologize.
This forum, I like a lot, you learn many things, the outcome is always amicable. It is not always necessary to agree on everything.
Thanks for your support failed. :)
I'm kidding, Adam. ;)
Ciao :)
Maurizio
Adam, I joke.
You write: Location: At the top of the hill, looking out to the world.

but ... if you were at the top of the hill, I think, I would not see your shade, not from a taller part........ :cool: :lol:
my english sense of humour...

Maurizio
Maurizio D'Angelo wrote:
Adam, I joke.
You write: Location: At the top of the hill, looking out to the world.

but ... if you were at the top of the hill, I think, I would not see your shade, not from a taller part........ :cool: :lol:
my english sense of humour...

Maurizio


HA! Maurizio, you are right. I am too far up to see my own shadow. It is why I never know what time it is. ;)
Hello,
I received this response late. Post here late, only for completeness of information.
"Museo Civico L. Marzoli, Brescia, Italy.
Sword called da una mano e mezza for a hand a half. The lenght of the handle allowed it to be handled either with one hand, while riding a horse, or with two (during a fight on foot) The lenticular section of the wide blade made fighting using the point impossible, while this was possible with the stocco or rapier. The one shown is a hybrid weapon: the blade in fact is inscribed, with bronze damascening, with the German insignia of Lupo di Passau (Solingen), while the sharpe, with downward points to the hilt, is certainly Italian."
Book: Autor Rossi - Mediaevel Arms and Armour - Enghlish translation by Jennifer Pearson and Susanna Perzolli - 1990 Lucchetti Editore, Bergamo , Italy - English edition published by Magna Book, Wigston, Leicester.
Ciao.
Maurizio
Maurizio D'Angelo wrote:
The lenticular section of the wide blade made fighting using the point impossible, while this was possible with the stocco or rapier.

Impossible? The reproduction at least seems to allow for devastating thrusts...
Vincent Le Chevalier wrote:
Maurizio D'Angelo wrote:
The lenticular section of the wide blade made fighting using the point impossible, while this was possible with the stocco or rapier.

Impossible? The reproduction at least seems to allow for devastating thrusts...



Dear Vincent,
not within the substance of the matter. This is written.
Ciao.
Maurizio


 Attachment: 31.88 KB
Senza titolo-2.jpg

Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Page 2 of 3

Jump to:  
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 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum