Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2009 8:35:38 GMT
I was reading a another discussion where someone was saying that they had no idea what the oakeshott typology was. That set me off thinking it would be useful to have on SBG forum a thread pictures of all types of swords listed by oakeshott.
It could be compiled from photo’s of members swords, so we could all submit examples and then compile them in order. It would be a useful reference source for future discussions and would be a fun way of seeing if the SBG community has the full range of oakeshott type swords.
I would be willing to start it of if there is general interest?
|
|
|
Post by kidcasanova on Jul 6, 2009 8:40:24 GMT
That would be great, but it's also useful to link people to the MyArmoury articles on the typology. I find those articles very engaging and informative, with plenty of museum examples.
Though I would like to see more educational content here, as well. We've definitely got a lot of very informative people here.
|
|
|
Post by hotspur on Jul 6, 2009 14:39:30 GMT
More the pity is that a good many operate their interests much like shopping for drive in food. What would be pretty apparent to a good many readers is that few own even one of the Oakeshott books. www.oakeshott.org/Typo.htmlA good bit of Paul's main pages either link to or have been "borrowed" from other sites. Nathan's myArmoury growth from Sword Forum was very much a splintering of effort, not at all unlike NetSword going a different road before that. Then you have a more recent attempt at a sword wiki that pretty much died on birth but at least gave it a go. No disrespect meant but SBG is always going to be that fast food drive through and quite superficial interest regarding stuff like Oakeshott's typology. If there is some sense of "we do it better here", I find the philosophy greatly flawed. The real shame is that some would feel all sites are not symbiotic. Someone needs a good sword cheap with no need for in depth research? Hey, there you go, SBG. Another really neat tool that Nathan had fooled around with was a sword comparison tool. www.myarmoury.com/compare.htmlSomeone paralelling that effort and going even futher could and would be recognized as a real effort. Others have done some interesting math based charts for handling that were more or less based on an existing formula discarded several years ago. The point is not really creating a new tool for anyone to follow, it is accepting that a good many opprtunities that have already been presented well go greatly ignored by those looking for the fast food service. Maybe as many as one in ten actually utilize tools offered. A great many more are simply going to be looking for the fast answer, even if they need a twenty page thread on "what sword should I buy" or even wondering what an Oakeshott typology is. The internet is anyone's opportunity to gather and understand information. One's own efforts will often be rewarded for taking some time to actually read what has already been written and offered gratis. Cheers Hotspur; ok, ok. maybe as much as 30% actually want to apply effort in research
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2009 14:43:34 GMT
Maybe as many as one in ten actually utilize tools offered. A great many more are simply going to be looking for the fast answer, even if they need a twenty page thread on "what sword should I buy" or even wondering what an Oakeshott typology is. The internet is anyone's opportunity to gather and understand information. One's own efforts will often be rewarded for taking some time to actually read what has already been written and offered gratis. Cheers Hotspur; ok, ok. maybe as much as 30% actually want to apply effort in researchHa ha, that sounds a lot like my thread. Although I have been doing my own research in addition to asking questions.
|
|
|
Post by ShooterMike on Jul 6, 2009 14:46:48 GMT
*GRIN* I love Glen's analysis. There's a HUGE amount of information on the Oakeshott Typologies on-line already. But still, there's really no substitute for actually buying the book(s) and getting the whole story. That said, I'm currently working on a "quick & dirty overview" of the typology for another of Paul's sites, that pays homage to Nathan's efforts at myArmoury, and redirects to there for full info...
|
|
|
Post by enkidu on Jul 6, 2009 14:52:31 GMT
Still think it would be a good idea, and i see no reason not to do it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2009 16:08:05 GMT
While I agree with Hotspur on many of his points there's something I'm not seeing.
Maybe I misread, but I took the original idea to post pictures of board members swords according to Oakeshott typology, not as a reference tool to replace any serious learning. I saw no mention of doing it better than anyone else. Kind of fits in with the whole "fast food drive through" reference.
I guess I'm just not sure what the point was.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2009 17:41:08 GMT
While I agree with Hotspur on many of his points there's something I'm not seeing. .... I saw no mention of doing it better than anyone else. ....I guess I'm just not sure what the point was. I think maybe Glenn is referring to the fact that there are a few people on this forum who eschew other sword forums, when in fact those forums and sites have a great wealth of information. The suggestion of putting an Oakeshott chart on this site when there's one a click away on another site; which generally takes a deeper look at the technical and historical sides of our hobby, may have offended his sensibilities. In a nutshell, while it can't hurt to have more resources available on SBG, it also can't hurt to branch out when searching for information.
|
|
|
Post by hotspur on Jul 6, 2009 17:41:54 GMT
While I agree with Hotspur on many of his points there's something I'm not seeing. Maybe I misread, but I took the original idea to post pictures of board members swords according to Oakeshott typology, not as a reference tool to replace any serious learning. I saw no mention of doing it better than anyone else. Kind of fits in with the whole "fast food drive through" reference. I guess I'm just not sure what the point was. It would be a useful reference source for future discussions and would be a fun way of seeing if the SBG community has the full range of oakeshott type swords.Maybe also that many don't view all the boards as symbiotic with each other and that is the real issue I was addressing. I was reading a another discussion where someone was saying that they had no idea what the oakeshott typology was.Offered as many times as asked but opportunities somehow dismissed as quickly as linked. I am not dismissing the proposal at all, simply underlining the superficial. Not that I am less superficial regarding knowledge myself at times. What I'm driving at is that if the information is of real interest to an individual, they'll take some time researching on their own. What that one single plate from Oakeshott (linked at the dot org site) offers is a quick and easy look at those sword types on which anyone can spark their own knowledge and understanding. Japanese swords? Well, then, one could have done worse than looking at Stein's pages before even wondering what a fuchi is. Cheers Hotspur; heck, I even spend hours over words like budiak once I get the simple answer
|
|
|
Post by ShooterMike on Jul 6, 2009 17:42:28 GMT
Ahhh... I see the intent after re-reading the OP. One drawback could be that most modern reproductions don't actually follow the Oakeshott Typologies very closely. So I could see it causing some misinformation. In fact, this is a whole 'nother topic of discussion. "How and why do modern reproductions look so unlike the famous historical artifacts that inspired the OakeshottTypologies? For instance, all the reproduction Type XIV swords are very wide at the guard. But only a small percentage of the ones Oakeshott identified as XIVs have this feature. Most are not nearly that wide." Just a li'l bit o' food for thought.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2009 18:04:43 GMT
I agree with Mike. It is like making a photocopy of a photocopy (or worse, depending on the maker).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2009 18:41:27 GMT
Hotspur,
It can be a source of information, but certainly not a replacement for other, more indepth sources. The readers would have to decide for themselves how much they want to learn. But, yes, I would think this should best be presented as a way to interest people into reading further sources and not a source of learning in and of itself.
Like I said, I agree with what you said. You are, without a doubt, one of the greatest resources of knowledge, and a source of where to find knowledge that I have seen on this site. I would hope, that everyone appreciates your contributions. I know I do.
Mike,
Good point. But it still can be useful to show us newbies how modern replicas fall into Oakeshott topology, not necessarily a historical learning tool. I guess it's all on how it is represented.
And yes! Think of the dicussions that can be had over the placement of some swords. To me, that would be interesting.
I am a big fan of things that get people to want to learn, not necessarily things that teach. If a forum listing forumites swords in their general topology, with links to sites where they can learn more, coaxes people to go to these sites,possibly buy the books and learn more...well, I think that could be a good thing.
The spreading of knowledge can't be forced. Sometimes letting people know the information is out there lights the desire to learn.
Edited: It's also pretty hard to find a copy of Records of the Medieval Sword. I checked a few places and they are out of stock.
|
|
|
Post by hotspur on Jul 6, 2009 20:06:43 GMT
I agree with Mike. It is like making a photocopy of a photocopy (or worse, depending on the maker). One (somewhat evolving) thread elsewhere was how students of spathology might well make further amendments to Oakeshott's maxims of typology. That, in that Oakeshott himself encouraged further development. Suggestions such as lumping XII and XIII together, lumping XVI with XIV, then XV with XVIII; stuff like that. I was one to be horrified of such a proposal but it would make it easier for the bulk of users to more broadly view such diversity of form. In moving forward, such admendments make some sense but while keeping in mind that simple pictorial from Oakeshott in 1991 as a basic reference to build on. I know Jonathan takes in stride that I really want to shred some old texts myself while offering a new view. In that though, the deeper I have looked, the more admiration I have for the original authors. I now beat my head against the monitor when I realize in trying to re-invent that wheel. I am better off appreciating work that has already been done for me. I know I may yet publish related articles but those notes will always be foundations based on the footnotes and biblioghraphies that grow with each author. Cheers Hotspur; content managment is a continuing struggle on any site
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2009 20:14:23 GMT
Edited: It's also pretty hard to find a copy of Records of the Medieval Sword. I checked a few places and they are out of stock. Here's a nice alternative by a fellow forumite www.tinkerswords.com/TinkrMakBukz.html
|
|
|
Post by shadowhowler on Jul 6, 2009 20:14:28 GMT
I for one find Glen's words just a bit condescending and rude. I think there is no reason not to do a project like this, if there is interest and energy from people willing to do so. We may well be the 'fast food' of swords as it were, but that does not mean we can not add-expand to that if we so chose. The iNtErWeBz are a big place, more then enough room for all of us to do whatever.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2009 20:54:35 GMT
Hotspur, It can be a source of information, but certainly not a replacement for other, more indepth sources. The readers would have to decide for themselves how much they want to learn. But, yes, I would think this should best be presented as a way to interest people into reading further sources and not a source of learning in and of itself. Like I said, I agree with what you said. You are, without a doubt, one of the greatest resources of knowledge, and a source of where to find knowledge that I have seen on this site. I would hope, that everyone appreciates your contributions. I know I do. Mike, Good point. But it still can be useful to show us newbies how modern replicas fall into Oakeshott topology, not necessarily a historical learning tool. I guess it's all on how it is represented. And yes! Think of the dicussions that can be had over the placement of some swords. To me, that would be interesting. I am a big fan of things that get people to want to learn, not necessarily things that teach. If a forum listing forumites swords in their general topology, with links to sites where they can learn more, coaxes people to go to these sites,possibly buy the books and learn more...well, I think that could be a good thing. The spreading of knowledge can't be forced. Sometimes letting people know the information is out there lights the desire to learn. Edited: It's also pretty hard to find a copy of Records of the Medieval Sword. I checked a few places and they are out of stock. Ha ha, I know, when I was trying to buy one there was none available in Europe and the bookstore had to order from US. It was quite a wait. And now even in US there are not many left.
|
|
|
Post by hotspur on Jul 6, 2009 20:55:41 GMT
Read, then understand.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2009 21:47:52 GMT
Firstly I never suggested the idea as a serious reference tool, really if you are looking for such then I doubt you would come to SBG. However as Chris a pointed out “It can be a source of information, but certainly not a replacement for other, more indepth sources”
I did feel that it would be a way of catching the people’s interest in the subject. People would have to do a little bit of research in to the swords they owned. They would need to work out what type of sword they owned and in so doing would need read up on Oakeshott’s typology. it could therefore be used to list links to other sources of info.
It would also just be a bit of fun. Surely that is the motivation for 90% of the posters who come to these boards. A few come looking for information, but I’m willing to bet that the majority are here for entertainment. If you were just looking for information then you would just go to myarmoury and read what’s there and then go away. Virtually every post on this board is here because people gain entertainment from it. and creating a SBG Oakeshott list would be no difference.
I also think that it would be a nice communal project something that as a group people could get involved with and contribute to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2009 22:14:37 GMT
Well, I think a topic where we would post our swords and say which type they would fit into, or why they don't fit perfectly in it could be a lot of fun. I'm ready to start. Should I post here or is it maybe better to start new topic? This one already has 2 pages and no pictures.
|
|
|
Post by hotspur on Jul 6, 2009 23:09:13 GMT
|
|