[Gabriele Becattini]

hello all,

i would like to know your opinion about the best suited form of blade for a short, lightweight single handed sword both

suited for cut and thrust, taking a look to the oakeshotte tipology i have selected the type XV, XVI and XVIII

what do you think about it? just for add some other details the sword i have in mind it should be a footman weapon to

paired with a buckler, with a blade no longer than 80cm and not too wid emay be something 4-4,5 cm wide

tapering to 1,5- cm. i have not in mind a precise time frame but it should look like a mid late XVth century sword with an

hilt similar to the henry V sword or the albion kingmaker. Do you think that the sword i have illustarted is plausible?

thanks for help

[Romulus Stoica]

My personal choice would be a type XVI. It looks like the perfect blend between cutting and thrusting sowrds.
Type XV looks too long and narrow and XVIII could be too heavy.

[Craig Johnson]

Hi Gabriele

The three types you have identified would cover the range of what is usually described as a cut and thrust sword. I would say that any of them could work well in the size and design perimeters you have laid out. In this type of context the dynamics and blade architecture will be the defining factor. It will adjust in taper and thickness to make the shape, you decide on, work in these specs.

One factor to keep in mind is that there are many blades that would be appropriate that would be in transition from one of these types to another. One, can of course, choose to work on an archetype of any one of them but you do not have to be limited to one or the other. One can have a XV with a touch of belly or an XVIII that narrows a bit quicker than most. As long as it is pleasing to you and feels good it works

Best
Craig

[Toke Krebs Niclasen]

You could also take a look at the type XIV as executed by Albion.



http://www.albion-europe.com/imageroot/swords...O-FULL.jpg
As mentioned above there is a bit of overlap between types and/or variation within, and this example is made a lot "trustier" than the archetype.

[Chad Arnow]

I would think a Type XVI blade would be out of date in the mid-to-late 15th century. A Type XIV (mentioned by another poster) even moreso. That doesn't mean they weren't used, but I wouldn't call them typical of the time either.

A type XVIII blade would be what I would go with, personally.

[Thom R.]

I would think given the parameters you have set, XV or XVIII or XIX would be most appropriate in terms of function, extant examples and timeframe. Don't underestimate the cutting power of type XIX. Also there seems to have been a revival in short single edged swords for infantry in the mid to late 15th c. tr

[Markus A]

hello
i always stand bewildered in front of this oakeshott theorie
i am in doubt that while words where made such cathegories did exist.otherwise swords listed in such an pott and labeled as type x xi ect do look totally different from each other so how shall one decide this is that or that.
so one could quarell hours about an special sword and does it belong to type x or type xi
for me such rosters are simply the opinion of an special person without the slightest meaning to the different swords at all.
i have the book only because it shows nice swords
the roster is for my taste nothing i consider wort to think about.
i know today in scholarship everthing has put in an shelf and labeled as type ect ect
oakeshott had his theories about the certain dating of an sword-but again only guesswork like anything we do consider with swords.
i thionk it doe not matter is an sword is 1200 1300 1330 as long it is nice and an feats for the eye.
100-200 years are not to catch only because its rostered
clobber me because of this. i never was inspired by such grey theories.the had no menaing when those weapons where made
i someone says i have an sword oakeshott type X one still have no idea how it looks concrete nor which date it is.
all i know its an sword.i do not want offend anyone only write my oppinion.if i be blamed an ignorant fool i will live with it
best regards
i know this does not help in the special question which was asked
it may be off topic i could think

[Gregory J. Liebau]

[Gabriele Becattini]

Thanks to everyone for your answers:

Mr. Craig's post contain exactly the kind of imput i have wished to receive: the possibility of "mixing" the various style that is particularly interesting to me. In fact what i have in mind is not to re-create an archetype of a specific pattern or base it on a specific surviving examples, is much more my "ideal" fighting sword, also the similarities that my sword should have with the albion kingmaker is due to the fact that this pattern is my favourite rather than the desire to have a sword that fit a specific historycal period. Of course i like very much to riceive advices from people that are more "Historycal" oriented than me. About the Oakeshott tipology i believe that's an invaluable source, first and foremost because if i talk about a
specific tipology other people can immediately understand what i'm talking about, saving a lot of time wasted in posting examples and trying to let other people aware about what i'm looking for.

[Markus A]

hello gregory
no hard feelings from me
yes you are right
but iam not historian i am collector
so i can neglect things which do not make sense to me.
of course such behavior will be neglected by the sholars
but trust my word i have seen studied historians labeling with an big amount of books ancient iron completly wrong
and i know chaps which look at one item -they are not studied -and after some glimpse they can say you excatly what you have
only years in the hobby can bring you the right sense
books are nice but not anything
any roster which is made this day is damed to loose its worth after some time because always new item do appear which do not fit the roster at all
why shall anyone accept the oppinion of one single human
was Mr.O present at any swords birth he did label in his roster.?no he wrote his oppinion about and certain sword.
i have seen in german forums people which did quarrel about an single roman fibula over 20 sides in one thread is it an Almgren type 2b or an Almgren type 2c.......this seems an funny way to spent an evening....
maybe in 20 years an new guru in sword labeling appears and then we must rename any sword in Smith type 1a ect...may happen did happen before.let s think of the ancient town troy.here the naming of the different layers do chanche 3-4 time from the times of Schliemann till today...
not more or less
so iam not unhappyif one will call me ignorant ididot
iam in regards to certain historians try not to roster the whole ancient world,simply because any story told is at leat always 90 percent guesswork

[Markus A]

i think the finding of an sword on battle field associated with an date means nothing at all.because simply it may have laying there 300 years before or 200 years after the battle it was lost
so alone the aspect it has been found on the field of augincourt does not say its 1415 at all
can be before and even much time after
sorry made an mistake in quoting this
wanted to write to greg remark with swords datings because found on an battlefield location.
one thing is sure

[Gregory J. Liebau]

[Markus A]

dear greg
how many autthentic swords real one did you handle untill today?one two?
i try to keep my manners
you too??
is it so hard to bare that not any human being is so full of admiration to you Mr O????
i made myself clear and have no interest in repeating myself again and again
i was well aware that as soon i doubt the value of ths typologie Oakeshott at least one angry follower and admirer of this would jump on the scene
yes maybe one is happy if one claims this sword is 1200.so what and if ts 1100 what shall this single aspect change in the understanding of medieval life...you will Never be able to trace it exact because you where not present when it was made.if you find it in an tomb does not matter either maybe it was 200 years around before encased....
is it important that 1112 in poland the pommel numer K was present and 5 years later was replaced by the pommel J G H
maybe 1400 still this pommel did exist because the sword was worn over 200 years time and was handed over over generations.....but the outline of the hilt was not longer in fashion at this time maybe the owners where not dedicated followers of fashion.
this is ridicilous pea counting
you can go for that if you must......
i think tere are more interesting aspects to read about
well and if one reads an book what did happen exactly
did one work out an own Theorie
or did one read the Oppionion of somebody else and is now praying the sermon of this....................
theories there are so many like stars in the heaven
at least any historian theorie lives from 95 percent guesswork
ask the chaps from divided groups of german archaeolists which quarrel since 12 years if the battlefield located in Kalkriese is the famours varus battlefield or not.....
ok its their job and anyone wants to make his marks with an nice theorie in history book
well in the end they are as dead like those which did not left any

[Chad Arnow]

Markus,
Please take some time to re-read the prefatory material in Oakeshott's Records of the Medieval Sword (which I believe you said you own) or our article on Ewart Oakeshott: The Man and his Legacy.

You'll see that the person most aware of his typology system's limits, and other systems, was Oakeshott himself. People do indeed put too much emphasis on the typology, because they don't fully understand it. The point is not to assign a roman numeral to the blade and be done with it. The point is to look at all distinct characteristics of a sword, see how they compare to each other and to other swords thought to share those characteristics (whether in shape, era, locale, material, purpose,etc.). Using shorthand (a typology) for those characteristics simplifies the discussion and gives the discussers a common frame of reference.

Oakeshott took great pains to explain how dating is difficult in one of his books (Records?). Nevertheless enough is known about dating based on combinations of datable surviving pieces, period art, etc. that we can date some swords pretty firmly and others less so (maybe much less).

Knowing whether a sword is from 1100 or 1200 can lead to a huge change in understanding if we can find differences between swords from 1100 and 1200 that we can tie to cultural changes or changes in tactics and armour. Each weapon and bit of armour is a product of its time period: if made some other time, its characteristics would change wholly or in part. We need to have an understanding of where an item fits in a timeline to see how its characteristics fit that time period. It's called archeology.

[Felix R.]

[Gregory J. Liebau]

I tried to reply accordingly. Markus, you're not understanding the point. Please carefully read what Chad said, there is much truth in it and I concur with him on all points made. I never meant to say that through the work of men like Oakshott we have a definitive explanation for the composition of swords from particular eras, nor that we can rule out particular weapons being used at different times simply because they do not fit into his typology. I am saying that without such tools, a modern historian would be at a loss.

YOU might think there are more important things to read about, but each man is different. Many people think that swords are the most interesting things to read about, and for those people the the weapon identification that Oakshott and fellow archivists have done since is very important. I, particularly, am no great follower of Oakshott, as you would contend me to be. I have several of his books but none dedicated to swords. Swords are not my forte. I am a student of Bronze Age history, and work greatly with conjecture and theories that are often discredited with the rise of new information through archeological evidence or contemporary translation. I know better than many how the work of a historian may be completely falsified by minute details, and that we are workers in a field of guess-work. But it does not discourage me, nor make me feel less confident about those better-researched aspects of the field that I claim to be fortunate enough for in my "knowledge" of them. Compared to what I'm used to working with, Oakshott's system and the weapons he's classified is like walking into Wal-Mart and looking for groceries on a list. Easy stuff. Very clear, very concise.

-Gregory

[Markus A]

hello all
do not offend someone nor do i start any messaage with the words
you do not know anything ala greg.....
i have not the slightest problem in people which go for this typologie.but i will not
simply i had the priviledge to hold in 25 years so many items in hand which would not suit the roster at all.i have seen battledamages swordblades reworked to shortswords which would not suit this typologie in the slightest aspect
i agree that if one knows the ductus of this typologie and one refers to an type VII he may know he is speaking of an sword with long slender blade ect
but what does this say at all.there are long slender blades in 1300 as well in 1500.so what does the outline of an sword tell about the age-in my eyes nothing.
i discribe an sword as wheelpommel brazilnutpommel with blade of diamond shape or blade with fuller mutitude fullers ect
thats enough
if this sword dates 1100 or 1300 is not of importance.an sword is never an leading fossil.if you dug out one the sword gives only an rough overview.
one schould look for organic stuff imbedded in the same layer this can be analized then you know When the sword was lost and imbedded-but again not how old it is.it may hve been in use from 1100-1280 and then was lost 1281 here
so tell me what do 100 years count for?????????????
even oakeshott is not able to quote it exactly.even the sword from king sancho of castilles sarcophagus can not be exact dated because it may have belonged the father or grandfather of this king already.
where is the oakschott typologie for the axe???????????????
oakshott often wrote the dating of an certain sword would be wrong.this means that an other historian which did labeled it before was bloke with no knowlege of this matters.so mybe the other which labeled it before was right.
so in clear one historian say he knows better as the one he is after to correct.........
if you want the easy way to put swords in rosters-there is none.an whelpommel can be made from 1100-1500.
i go for this in an other way i visist churches and lock at the grave epithaves of knights this carry the date of death.then i look at the swordtype which is rendered and so i see what was used around that time.even if his sword rendered was again 200 years old.
the i visist museums an look on german and austrian religious paintings on wooden underground.here you see the soldiers pictured in religious drapery clad in uniform and armour and with edged weapons which where in fashion at date of painting
and then i see ok this is around this time.
and if i have an Langes Messer or big battle knife i do not care 1490 or 1550 because this simply does not matter.
there is never an easy way in judging antique weaponry you must be humble and get lot of experience and if you have luck and you have handled lots of them you may say i have an certain sense to see at first glance the timeframe from which it may be but only approximatly.so why this whish to trace any item to an certain year???
not more or less
there is no easy way in collecting never.its feeling knowlede instict.not more and the data one has gathered over the years.
but to take an book and say wonderfull now i can trace my sword is not the key.
if you say i use the typologie to name the outlibnes of an certain sword ok
if you say i use this typologie to date an sword exactly then i say not possible
so i explained myself as collector
not more
if historians call me an ignorant idiot does not matter to me
i have seen-sometime in person- so many idiots in museum either that i say the game stands 1 to 1
you are only heard if you have studied and ghave an framed certication
self tought knowlege does not count.but i think the knowledge i gathered is to an good avail mine.i do not quote only the oppinion of an certain mr Oakeshott.
thats all i have to write to this topic
if one feels offended he amy go for it
if one find misspellings and typing errors he might feel free to keep them

[Markus A]

hello chad
i have and had not the slightes interest in disturbing your forum.
i want not toss mr oakeshott from his pedestal.
i think having idols is nice but can be to easy
i like to do it my own way.
sience and this stuff is nice but its done mainly for the historian for the other historian
otherwise i can not explain myself why the museum stores are cramped
and even if you ask as collector to gain access and you would be willing to donate and sum for this
you still hear only NO not possible.thats normal in germany
such people even want not tolerate if an roman fibula is sold on ebay.....even if they have thousands of them simply because this has not in the possesion of an normal collector.so you do not get an rust nail on germany ebay any longer its forbidden because its pillaging of our cultural Legacy....hahhahaha
so what do have the human race of cramped cabinets in museums cellars and noone ever with the exeption of an historian will ever see it
i once tried to read an book about bronce swords here one is confraonted with this typologie terms in any line type cremona type vienna ect
such bokks are boring uninspired and as collector you have only one benefit
nice pics or drawings.

[Chad Arnow]

Markus,
Your attitude is unfortunate, but you are entitled to your opinion. Opinions which I happen to disagree with.

Wheel pommels were made for 400 years, true. But they varied quite widely. Some are regional variations. Some are temporal. Inlying they are not classifiable is ignoring obvious differences which are clues to the sword's origin. For someone who claims to have studied so much and handled so many, I'm suprise you don't care about obvious differences like that.

Oakeshott did put together simple typologies for warhammers, and maces possibly even for axes (I don't remember). But he wasn't trying to classify everything. His interest was in the high medieval straight two-edged sword and that was his focus. His typologies are not all-encompassing. Nor are anyone else's.

[Markus A]

yo greg i did knew from your first sentence that you are from the studied historian fraction
i smell it in the first phrase
understand this not as offending only as hint that your whole fraction of historians use always the same words