[Mikko Kuusirati]

In the latest Spotlight article - http://www.myArmoury.com/feature_spotxviii.html - it says 'According to Oakeshott, Type XVIII and its subtypes were "the most widely used swords between c. 1410 and 1510 all over Europe". The basic type was in use as long ago as the second century B.C. and as recently as the 18th century, but, for the purposes of this article, we will examine only Type XVIII swords of the late medieval period.' (Emphasis mine.)

I'd be very interested in hearing about, and possibly seeing, some examples of those earlier XVIIIs. The blade design is quite aesthetically pleasing IMO, but late Medieval is not really my main era of interest (though honestly, I'm not even sure if I have such a thing) so...

Oh and the new Spotlight article is fascinating, as always. Great work, Mr. Flynt!

[Sean Flynt]

Thank you, Mikko!
Ancient arms are even farther afield for me than medieval, but if I remember correctly, Oakeshott considered some Celtic and Roman blade forms to be of general type XVIII (tapered cut & thrust blades of diamond section). I clearly remember that he singled out the spatha in his intro to the chapter on Type XVIII in Records. There are any number of folks here who will know this area well. Nate? Patrick? Kirk? Peter?

[Jean Thibodeau]

Sean;

Just curious, but do you think that the 15th century Twohander by A & A is a type XVIII of some sub-type ? The edges do taper in a rather strait line over most of the length of the blade althought the last 10" or so do gently curve to a semi spatulate point. ( Pointy but not needle like! )

Unless it's somewhere between a type XV and a type XVIII but in a very "giant" version of a war sword in style rather than the more specialysed 16th century Twohanders with more complex guard. ( Side rings etc... )

I have only been learning of Oakshott's classification system since getting on this Forum about a year ago, so my tendancy was and still is to look at each sword blade shape as a unique thing and use the classification system as a useful shorthand when discussing them without the benefit of having a picture of it: So, I usually don't obsess about type "this" or type "that"

Oh, almost forgot, good article. ( Edited because what I just said, I forgot, )

[Sean Flynt]

I would certainly call that a type XVIII blade, but I'd defer to the experts if they disagree. Perhaps the A&A folks will weigh in.

You'd be amazed (or not) how much discussion went on behind the scenes for this article. We roped lots of folks into this one to try to account for weapons that don't perfectly fit any of the described sub-types. Like you, I feel that Oakeshott's typology is only one tool among many for classification of sword types, and an imperfect one at that. I think its greatest value is in its ability to get all of us on roughly the same page--so that if I start talking about a blade of Oakeshott Type XVIII, people will immediately know that we're dealing with a diamond-section, convex-tapered c&t blade. Then we can fill in details not accounted for in the typology. Oakeshott is deceased, unfortunately. He can't continue to update his work as he did throughout his long career, but we're constantly learning more about his subject through discussions such as this one. I suspect he'd be pleased if we think of his work as the foundation of future scholarship rather than a rigid form into which all new learning must be stuffed. Maybe someone such as Peter J. will take on the task of defining new Oakeshott subtypes. Then, to show our appreciation, we can all go visit him in the "nervous hospital".

[Thomas Laible]

Hi,

this is a celtic sword, 2nd LaTene-Period.

Thomas

[Sean Flynt]

Thanks, Thomas!

[Mikko Kuusirati]

Ah yes, La Tene... Hah. For some reason, I always forget they also used other blade cross-sections besides the lenticular.

(By the by, slightly off-topic, the Albion Next Gen Kingmaker is not based on any one specific historical specimen, is it? Along with the Sovereign/Sherrif and the Viking swords it's one of my favorites from their current line-up...)

[Thomas Laible]

This is a roman spatha, reconstructed by Patrick Barta
http://www.templ.net/weapons/antiquity_and_early_middleage.php

The common opinion among histrorians is, that the roman spatha is based on ther celtic longsword.

Thomas

[Mikko Kuusirati]

[B. Stark]

I have the feeling that there is some Sarmatian influence (particularly in the eastern Empire) as well concerning the Spatha types used throughout the Imperial period. Though the extremely pointed, diamond crossectioned blades seem to be somewhat of an enigma to me. By the the time the later Spatha was introduced as an infantry sidearm during the final era of the Empire(s) the realtively parrallel sided blades with moderate points seem to lead towards the idea of ease of manufacture or possibly loss of skill in the smithing trades do to loss of fabrication centers. Who can really say.

[Kirk Lee Spencer]

[Mikko Kuusirati]

[Mikko Kuusirati]

[Thomas Laible]

[Thomas Laible]

striped damascus on a pugio-blade (1st Century)

The pattern welded rod is rather crude and bend to a ,V'.

regards,
Thomas