Posts: 1,757 Location: Storvreta, Sweden
Thu 26 Jan, 2012 1:14 am
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.