[Paul Watson]

[Johan Gemvik]

A worthy topic indeed!

In my experience a hollow ground sword is by far the best cutter for soft targets (i.e. tatami) and is also the highest stiffness for weight ratio. I believe it's because for the same cut separation resistance force it reaches deeper into the target than a flat ground blade. Reaching the ridge may also open the cut material for less resistive cutting while there is little or no drag in the hollow. Same as when you cut thick leather or linoleum floor matting. You cut, get stuck in the gap with the blade and bend open the cut to reach the bottom and then you can cut the rest with ease.

For thick meat and bone or better yet armoured surfaces, I'd probably go with the diamond or hexagonal even for a stout blade that won't snap easily and can deliver a very heavy blow.

So both extremes would have their uses, well all this has already been said really.

[Chad Arnow]

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Hi Chad,

Another concern along these lines is the divide between how reproduction swords have represented the Oakeshott typology, and the reality of the extant pieces.

For instance, we've 'stereotyped' type XII/XIIIa's as being quite flexible, but they weren't all like that. I've handled ones ones in museums and private collections that were all but inflexible tanks, despite their appearance at a distance. The same can be said of our (modern) ideals regarding balance points - some extant medieval swords defy such sensibilities and are tip weighted in the extreme. Clearly, personal preferences varied wildly.

I've handled several pieces in the last few years that were familiar to me from books for decades. Some of them really surprised me in how they handled.

Generalities are useful, of course, particularly in giving the potential buyer at least a rough idea of what they're in for. But we should be careful in not confusing the modern reproduction (some of which hit the mark, others which do not, despite overall quality) with how a historic sword type necessarily performed.

Cheers,

Christian

[Chad Arnow]

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Hi Chad,

Yes, and I suspect personal preference, and even body type, were really important concerns.

A big, powerful guy looking for a good battlefield sidearm might, in the 15th c., want a heavier sword for sheer "knock down power", given the huge number of soldiers with substantial body armours on the average battlefield: "I want it to cut some, but I want hardiness and power to take some archer in sallet and breastplate off his feet".

An interesting thing about all this: it's likely impossible to lucratively reproduce some medieval swords simply because they "would be wrong" to today's sword buyer, calibrated on a certain kind of handling. One of the heavier type XI's I've handled would be very hard to sell, if reproduced accurately, in our market - 'experts' would be complaining how "the balance is all wrong..."

Yours,

CHT

[Chad Arnow]

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Michael Edelson]

[Peter Johnsson]

Some very good points have been made in this thread.

Cutting performance cannot be defined by cross section alone. Any attempt to simplify the situation so that this is the deciding factor will create misunderstandings.
Cutting power alone is not the best way to define the effectiveness of a sword. A better cutter may not be a better sword. Seems like a paradox, but I think it is true all the same.
If we set up strict rules for what is a good sword to moderns standards, we will fail to develop a good understanding of what swords were like and how they were used. We may miss what really comes together in a good sword.

One thing that is often ignored or misunderstood is that the typologies we use to describe swords are developed to define *historical* swords, not modern ones.

Typologies are not design concepts you can base modern designs of swords on. They fail to define many crucial aspects a maker needs to know to be able to make a sword of the type. They cannot really be used to define a modern sword (unless it is carefully made after the example of original swords).

A modern sword may incorporate some characteristics that are listed in the definition of a historical type, but that does not make it a representative of this historical type of swords. Oakeshott was not a designer of swords. He never intended his typology to be a complete description of the swords. It s a guide for us to learn about historical weapons. That is all. A maker of swords need to study the real thing to learn what makes swords into what they are.

For a sword smith, the typology of Oakeshott may serve as an inspiration, but it cannot serve as a blueprint. A contemporary maker has to study historical swords if his work is to express any of the qualities of traditional weapons.

Too often we see the qualities of Strongest, Sharpest or Best Cutter being propagated. "Best Balance" seems to be understood as an absolute thing that can be measured on a scale.
In reality, these things must be seen in a context. To hit your enemy first or hardest is often more important than how deep or clean your cut might be. Sometimes acute sharpness and a very fine edge will give you a fighting chance of survival. This is why there are so many different types of swords. They all work. But differently. By intention, not mistake. There is a variation of quality in historical swords, that is true. But very few of modern made swords can live up to the reality and quality of ancient ones. Those swords were made by people who had an understanding on what matters in a way that is difficult for us today to grasp.

We often get trapped by neat definitions.
We want clean cuts.
I like clean cuts.
But there are other things worth to consider that makes the sword *really* interesting.

[Johan Gemvik]

Peter, that's not just all true and humbling to us modern day sword enthusiasts but almost poetic the way you phrase it.

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Hi Peter!

It's always a pleasure to see a post from you...it seems a million years ago when I met you at WMAW!

In applauding your sentiments, I'll say there's a tendency in our area of interest (or any specialized interest) to 'fetishize' certain aspects, whether that be cutting, stoutness of the blade, or balance.

I've actually seen self-appointed experts, balancing the forte on their finger, declare that a really up-scale reproduction is "poorly balanced...it should balance X inches from the hilt..." But then, these sorts of things become sub-cultural tropes, don't they?

As for typology, I think what happens is that we end up with a high-quality (and accurate) reproduction of a member of a given type, which is then used by the general populace as evidence that they all must've handled that way. It's an understandable, though unfortunate, mistake.

Yours,

Christian

[Michael Edelson]

[Christian Henry Tobler]

High-end reproduction swords are closer to select historic swords, but often still involve compromises: CNC fabrication vs. forging, for instance. These differences may create little distinction, but in any scientific analysis "things that are not the same are different".

But on the whole, they're what most people can hope to have access to for testing.

There are rare collectors who test or have allowed some of their pieces to be tested: Lee Jones let us test out his spectacular 16th century bill, for instance. But this is the rare exception. And of course, even if this were more generally available, it raises other issues: is the edge original or has it been re-sharpened, perhaps in a way not reflective of its original edge?

Circling back, the take home message is this: don't assume that the Oakeshott typology fully defines the handling/cutting/thrusting dynamics of any of its defined types. That's more than can reasonably be expected of it, and far more than Mr. Oakeshott promised.

Cheers,

Christian