Mikko Kuusirati
|
 Posted: Wed 29 Apr, 2020 5:55 am Post subject: |
 |
|
The first thing to keep in mind is that the Oakeshott typology is, like any typology, nothing more than a system of shorthands for describing historical items. Very few actual items fit any single type perfectly, and many fit none as-is, so a lot of the time using the typology is a matter of picking the closest fit and specifying the deviations present, e.g. a Type XIV with an atypical diamond cross-section, or a Type XVI with an atypically long fuller, and so on. Also, since it's a system for describing specific historical items from a specific region and time period (i.e. straight double-edged swords from Medieval Europe), it doesn't necessarily apply to modern approximations of them!
The posted swords are a good example: the ones in the photographs are blunt practice weapons, so they have rounded, spatulate tips and cross-sections unlike anything you'd ever find on a "live" blade; their purpose is to enable safe practice without producing serious injury, the exact opposite of any actual weapon. But imagining for a moment that they had sharp edges and points, they're still somewhat weird - the linear profile taper is very much like the Type XV (rather than the more convex tapers seen on XVI or XVIII, or the more complex profile of Type XIV) but one definitive feature of Type XV blades is the absence of fullers, and these fullers are unusually wide and long even for XVI (or XIV). So they don't fit any Oakeshott type precisely, but IMO you could describe them as fullered practice versions of Type XV swords and get your point across more or less accurately.
PS. Also note the rectangular ricassos on two of them, either extremely rare or nonexistent on historical swords of this style but used here for the sake of convenience with modern manufacturing methods.
"And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."
— Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum
|
|
This is a standard topic
