The Tritonia was one of the five swords Albion sent me for the Round Table party last weekend. This is such an interesting sword. Patrick did a great review of this sword a while back http://www.myArmoury.com/review_alb_tritonia.html, but I thought I'd throw my observations out there.

Visually, this sword is a bit of an odd duck, but it grew on me over time. At first glance the cross and pommel are very simple. Indeed the pommel is, but the rosette really adds a different dimension to it. The cross is square in cross-section, but narrows between the grip and the trumpeted end on either side: a nice touch. The blade's top half has interesting features as well: the blade tapers at the base, then not much at all to the point. Some people have remarked that the blade's end (between the fuller and the tip) looks unfinished. At first it looked strange to me, too. I think this stems from the fact that Albion is one of the few makers out there getting cutting early cutting swords right. Oakeshott describes these types as having a light, flat blade. Many makers give their cutting blades a diamond or hexagonal cross-section between the fuller and the tip. It took some time for me to get used to a blade tip with no central or side ridges, but I believe it is not only period-correct, but a preferred way of making a cutting sword designed to go against soldiers clad in mail.

How does it perform? Like a beast. At 3 pounds, 9 ounces it's no lightweight. It handles easily, though, and with a lot of authority. The grip swells toward the pommel, where your smaller fingers go, creating a secure grip. The cord risers also add to the security of the sword in hand.

This sword is unlike anything else on the market, though it may not appeal to everybody. It's not flashy, but it does have an understated elegance to it. As a cutter, it would be devastating in battle.

---

 Attachment: 44.9 KB



 Attachment: 29.71 KB



 Attachment: 49.8 KB



 Attachment: 35.28 KB

Man, I used to drool over that sword. It has sort of become overshadowed by the steady stream of next gens but it's still very impressive. The round pommel is real stylish to my eyes.

Thanks for the photos Chad.

I personally love this sword. It has a huge amount of presence and character when handled in person. If I hadn't bought my own Big Johnsson http://www.myArmoury.com/review_pj_bj.html from Peter, I probably would have ordered one of these. I still may.

This sword, and my discussions with Peter concerning it, really opened my eyes to the aspect of mass distribution. Of how important it is in a swords construction, and how ignored it is in most modern replicas.

I find the Tritonia to be a fascinating design.

The Tritonia is one impressive little beast of a sword. "Little" being relative of course. Living not too far from Stockholm I have the pleasure to go visit the Medieval Museum whenever my economy permits, and go and drool over PJ's original reconstruction hanging side by side with the excavated original. So, although never having seen the Museum Line Tritionia IRL, I am still quite aware of how stunning that sword is. At least in appearance. And judgning from the pictures, however tricky that might be, the only thing that sets Albion's Tritonia apart from PJ's is the maker's stamp or mark on the blade. Would love to handle it though.

If I was working at the Medieval Museum I would have to use every ounce of selfcontrol I have not to go open the display case after opening hours and play around with PJ's reconstruction. :lol:

It's a beautiful sword and, I'm certain, a quite devastating cutter too and definately one sword I'll be oogling over at Albion's website for quite some time.

. . . the devil is in the details. . .

i just thought i would like to point out the peened area of the tang on Tritonia. i've seen some pretty mangled looking (very sturdy, mind you, but horribly mangled) peening jobs and some that were close but not quite right (smooth and well finished but geometrically off somehow). Tritonia shows in this often scrutinized but just as overlooked area of the sword that care and probably a great deal of time smoothing and contouring the tang can all but make or break a sword's aesthetics - if this one isn't done smooth, complete, perfectly round, and following the curve of the pommel, the whole effect of the rosette would be lost.

kudos again to the Albion fit and finish department :)

For me- it seems that critiques of the Museum Line have come from a different place than critiques of modern sword designs and handling characteristics.
I just think it's wonderful that Albion is showing such exacting detail on an ACTUAL medieval sword. So when we look at the uniqueness and even seeming strangeness of the Tritonia's design we are seeing a REAL medieval sword design and have the pleasure of experiencing it's handling characteristics and that's quite cool. Looking through Records, it seems to me, that many of the swords look a little different than the typical modern design, even among the Next Gen's. I believe that this lies, to a certain degree, in Albions desire to make swords that appeal to the widest audience. I want to stress that Albion is not compromising the authentic design, only choosing among historical designs to produce a beautiful sword that people will look at and say, "man that cool."
The great thing about the Museum Line is that any attempt to please the perspective audience is dispenced with at the service of producing the EXACT reproduction of the historical sword.
So, for me, and I am sure for others, we say, "Albion, keep making great Next Gen designs and continue to choose great examples from history to produce in the Museum Line." Thanks, Jeremy

Just don't base your view of the medieval sword only on the examples found in Records. Oakeshotts books aren't a be-all/end-all of design, and there are many many examples in european museums and collections that have never been documented. As good as Oakeshotts work is people really need to move past it's narrow scope.

Thanks Patrick,
At this stage in my hobby I don't know where to go next. I love traveling but do not have the funds of a globetrotter. Are there other authors I need to be ollking into, especially related to my historical interest in the high Middle Ages (1050-1300) Any leads would be most welcome. Thanks, Jeremy[/i]

Unfortunately for we english speaking sword lovers Oakeshott is about it. Jan Petersen did an excellent typology of Viking hilts in the early part of the 20th century. Alfred Geibig went a step further and included a blade typology. Ian Peirce's book Swords of the Viking Age (which covers the aforementioned typologies) is an excellent resource for that particular period, and is also superior to Oakeshott in terms of accuracy. Quite a few of the vital statistics in Oakeshotts books are in error. Lengths and weights were often an estimation made while the sword was in hand.

There are quite a few books written in other languages by Oakeshotts european counterparts. Nathan has had pretty good success finding these on e-bay. The huge book on Italian renaissance arms that he recently sold on the Marketplace is a good example.

My point is that many of us tend to look at Oakeshott as the sword bible when we first start in this hobby. I'm not trying to take anything away from Mr. O's accomplishments. He certainly changed the way I viewed the medieval sword. However, his work should be viewed as simply a good general reference, nothing more. Just because a sword is pictured in Records (or one of his other books) doesn't neccesarily mean that it was typical, or the basic pattern of that type. Just because a sword isn't included doesn't mean that it isn't accurate for the type either.

In the case of the Next Gen swords every aspect of the swords designs illustrate a compilation of features that Peter has documented across a spectrum of swords of that given type. Peter's intention was to create a sword that embodies those general features. The different components of blade, guard, pommel, and etc., aren't put together simply because they look nice, or because it's what the mass audience may want. They're used because Peter feels that they are the "standard" for the type. In that sense I'd say that the Next Gen designs may be a more accurate illustration of a sword type than any one sword shown in Oakeshotts books.

We often see collectors arguing over whether a sword is a type X, type XII, or whatever. Many, if not most, of these arguments tend to be fruitless because many swords don't represent a specific Oakeshott type. Many are combinations, or hybrids, of features. A medieval single handed sword that was found in the River Witham, and now housed in the British Museum is an excellent example.

My Vince Evans made sword based on the Witham sword: http://www.myArmoury.com/review_ve_milestone.html

In The Archeology of Weapons Oakeshott classified this sword as a type XII. Later, in Records, he reclassified it as a type X. This sword doesn't really fit firmly into either classification, but is really a hybrid of the two. Does that make it a "typical" example of a medieval sword or not?

I guess my point to this long and rambling post is that we shouldn't use Oakeshott, good as he is, as our one and only source of information in terms of type and development. Other sources may be hard to find, and expensive, but they're out there.