Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2009 16:26:56 GMT
This is a bee in my bonnet... This is an exciting time for collectors, what with the surge of new swords from reputable dealers, and the overall increase in quality lately; there's so much good stuff to choose from. I've noticed something though, reading over the comment sections in the reviews, or when a manufacturer posts a new sword: There seem to be a few sticklers who seem to make value judgments on the sword, based on how well it adheres to a certain typology. I'm talking about comments like "the fuller is all wrong for the type" or "the pommel is way too big for this period", things along those lines. Now, this raises some questions for me, mainly about the purpose of the Oakeshott and Peterson typologies. Here's a scenario: let's say I'm visiting the Metropolitan Museum of Art, in NYC, and I'm looking at a collection of Van Goghs. Suppose then, someone else comes in and starts critiquing a particular piece, saying things along the lines of "the use of chiaroscuro is off" and "this piece is all wrong for Van Gogh". He's making value judgments based on how well the artwork conforms to a certain style. This imaginary critic has it backwards, he is using the style and time period to define the artist, when it is in fact, the other way around, it's the artist who defines the style. Imaginary scenario, sure, but I think it fits with what I'm talking about, he's not judging the piece on its own merits, but by how it conforms to a set of arbitrary rules. I understand that some of us are passionate about the typologies, but in my mind, when we make value judgments of a reproduction based on whether or not it's a good example of its type, I think we're putting the cart before the horse. The way I've always seen it, the Oakeshott and Peterson typologies were meant as a handy classification tool rather than canon, or binding law; useful, but entirely arbitrary. Less of a set of rules, and more of a filing system. I may be way off-base here, but didn't Oakeshott himself say that some blades didn't quite fall in any category? Anyhew, those are just my thoughts, and I absolutely don't mean to call anyone out or start drama. I'm also kind of a neophyte, compared to plenty of others here. Am I right? Am I wrong? Your thoughts?
|
|
SlayerofDarkness
Member
Review Points: 65
"Always give everyone the benefit of the doubt."
Posts: 3,067
|
Post by SlayerofDarkness on Nov 26, 2009 17:35:17 GMT
Wow... well said, my friend. ;D
You get a serious +1 for that!
-Slayer
|
|
|
Post by shadowhowler on Nov 26, 2009 18:27:48 GMT
I agree with you 100% Pete... but then, I collect from a different perspective then those that tend to get their undies in a bunch about typologies. I collect what I like... what I think apeals to me both in appearnce and in use/feel... not what I think more acuritly represents what would have been made in a certain time period. For those who collect from more of a historian perspective, I suspect the typologies become much more important. Too each their own, I say.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2009 18:35:52 GMT
True enough Shadow, I think it all boils down to how you look at it, and what you're looking for. No disrespect to the sticklers, I just felt like it could stand to be said. Slayer, thanks for the cookie!
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Nov 26, 2009 18:42:52 GMT
I think you have it pretty right except for one thing: we are talking about historic replicas here. it wasn't long ago that any hack could file down a slab of steel slap a cross-bar on it call it a sword and pretty much everybody called it good despite the fact it bore no resemblance to the swords of history. Oakeshott typology IS a filing system when you are talking about historic swords but today when we don't understand swords as well as once upon a time we need a guidline to help us so we don't fall off the path and start making things that aren't swords again. you see, if we understood the use of swords as a people who use them in combat to defend ourselves. if we were making swords for modern military use then the oakeshott typology would be hardly useful to us at all, but since we are making swords to recreate or study history then we need to understand the filing system and why certain swords fit where they do so we can make swords that are historically plausible and perform the way they should.
I hope this isn't to jumbled and makes sense.
in an effort to summerize: yes Oakeshott typology is a filing system, understanding the system helps those of use who have not studied as extensively as Mr. Oakeshott understand what s word should be. we can work outside of the typology but we need to be very careful and have a lot of knowledge when we do so.
|
|
|
Post by enkidu on Nov 26, 2009 19:06:02 GMT
I agree with you, but as Tom stated when a maker says : i have build a 70's american muscle car ( which leaves some space at artistic interpretation ) and that it looks a bit like an hybrid between an 80's german sedan and a 60's roadster you can state your concern regarding what was going on during the creation process. Maybe the car created is fine by the way, maybe even its one of the best, but it ask for explanation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2009 20:38:33 GMT
For me it's quite important that the sword gives me the feeling it's a real and authentic sword that binds me somehow with the past times and generations. This feeling helps me with the task of saving me from rootlesness that could make my life feel worthless.
This is quite a hard to describe, but somehow the sword (or any object that is supposed to represent a historic object) feels better if I can imagine my ancestors could love, trust, accept and understand it and consider it beautiful. Only then I can think the same things about the object by myself. Of course I can't teach my ancestors to accept anything completely new as they are dead and can not learn new things. So things I can imagine them accepting are such things that I think they could instantly have accepted in their own living time and culture without me having to civilize or corrupt them with my modern thoughts. I dont want to force my ancestors to my modern mold and put a totally unsuitable fantasy sword on their hand.
Of course I dont really know what exactly they would have liked, so I must imagine and quess things. These my quesses sometimes change over time depending on various things like my theories of their world view and my own knownledge of history.
The feeling of authenticy can sometimes be produced by a sword that I know has no known historic equivalent, if it still feels right in the way I explained.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2009 21:08:51 GMT
I understand that some of us are passionate about the typologies, but in my mind, when we make value judgments of a reproduction based on whether or not it's a good example of its type, I think we're putting the cart before the horse. The way I've always seen it, the Oakeshott and Peterson typologies were meant as a handy classification tool rather than canon, or binding law; useful, but entirely arbitrary. Less of a set of rules, and more of a filing system. I may be way off-base here, but didn't Oakeshott himself say that some blades didn't quite fall in any category? Anyhew, those are just my thoughts, and I absolutely don't mean to call anyone out or start drama. I'm also kind of a neophyte, compared to plenty of others here. Am I right? Am I wrong? Your thoughts? You're preaching to the converted mate. However a sermon now and then doesn't hurt . I understand COMPLETELY what you're saying and I think I may have brought it up briefly in another thread. You've highlighted the dangers of reification. What is reification? Turning an abstract idea i.e. Oakeshott's typology or something like concepts of race etc and making them a real 'thing' or as you've said, a binding law. Reification can be a dangerous thing. + 1 for a good discussion
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2009 22:13:41 GMT
This: I collect what I like... what I think appeals to me both in appearance and in use/feel... not what I think more accurately represents what would have been made in a certain time period. For those who collect from more of a historian perspective, I suspect the typologies become much more important. + This: Understanding the system helps those of use who have not studied as extensively as Mr. Oakeshott understand what a sword should be. We can work outside of the typology but we need to be very careful and have a lot of knowledge when we do so. 'Bout sums it up for me. I think the typology helps us to understand what WORKS in a sword, and the most efficient and elegant methods of execution in blade shapes, but I don't need a perfect adherence to a model in a museum to appreciate a sword. Yet..... I've seen very few high-performing Euros that work extremely well that AREN'T closely matched to an Oakeshott type.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2009 0:48:18 GMT
Good thoughts here! Tom and Rauta, I think I gotcha, the typologies are useful as a set of guidelines and references, they help us match up styles, time periods and uses when we can't witness them firsthand, is that what you guys mean? I wouldn't discount their importance, my only beef is when guys make value judgements based on typology conformity. It's like Chris B says, turning an abstract idea into a canon. Also, Tom, here's a thought that occurs to me: plenty of the swords on the market are historical replicas, but some are historic interpretations, based only loosely on the historical originals. I wonder where the line is between the two?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2009 3:33:48 GMT
A couple of things...if the maker says it´s a type XII, then it should be a type XII...not almost a type XII except that it has a diamond cross section. If the maker uses the typology, then they are fair game for not adhering to it. Secondly, about the pommel that´s too big...that is quite the valid complaint as that will quite throw off the mass distribution of a sword.
|
|
|
Post by ShooterMike on Nov 27, 2009 3:47:58 GMT
Pete, I have to both agree and respectfully disagree with your original posted thoughts. I agree that the typologies are, and were originally intended to be, a loose set of guidelines. Looking at the "sword canon", i.e. Oakeshott's Records of the Medieval Sword, you see a whole section in the back devoted to "Unclassified Swords." Oakeshott stressed that there were a plethora of medieval swords that didn't fit neatly into his typology. He also stressed that anyone trying to rigidly apply his typology was bound to make significant errors. However, where I disagree is that we are talking about "historic reproductions" of actual medieval swords. I believe a sword's merits, with respect to historical plausibility, should be judged loosely based on the typologies, especially when the maker states that it is an example of a certain historic type of sword. It's all fine and good for a maker to make a generic sword and just call it a "medieval sword." If it works well, then it's a good performing sword, but probably not a good historic reproduction. As for your analogy, I think this situation might be more like a case of an art critic coming into a gallery and making comments about paintings made by modern artists who are claiming to be reproducing the works of Michelangelo or various other Renaissance painters. I want to stress that I don't think there's anything wrong with loving swords that are ahistoric. I loves my ATrim tactical sword. And just about any ATrim or Valiant Armoury sword is ahistoric due to the hex nut hilt assembly. But the blades, hilt types and performance are clearly sticking to historic ideas. Not sure I'm being clear. But that's the best way I can think of to explain my thoughts... Not to change the subject, but this reminds be of a previous discussion along these lines. To wit: There are three swords sitting on a table. Sword #1 is the actual sword that hung in Westminster Abbey over Henry V's grave slab. The genuine article. THE Henry V sword.
Sword #2 is a reproduction of the Henry V sword. In profile and from just about any angle it looks almost exactly like Sword #1. But it weighs a full pound more and handles like a crow bar.
Sword #3 is also a reproduction of the Henry V sword. But it uses hex nut assembly for the hilt. The pommel is smaller (to get the same balance since the real Henry V sword has a hollow pommel). And the blade is not deeply hollow ground like the original Henry V sword. However, in blindfolded handling and fighting performance, Sword #1 and Sword #3 are exactly identical in every respect. Which sword is the best reproduction of Sword #1?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2009 4:24:12 GMT
Well what you mean is quite clear to me and I do agree with you . Your sword repro question is the classic what do you intend to do with your sword...look at it or fight with it...or do you pay albion to have both .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2009 6:41:38 GMT
If you pay for the Albion than you can have your cake and eat it too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2009 10:30:17 GMT
I'll bite and I'll disagree with you. I don't think you should lose any sleep over this, because it probably will not change:
I love and collect many types of swords: fantasy, wallhangers, tactical swords, beaters, and historical replicas. But, when it comes to historical replicas; I am a stickler myself and for good reason. It helps to draw the line between what is authentic and what is fantasy. If you lose the ability to tell which is which, then you lose a huge part of history and knowledge. Whereas the typology is not a rigid set of rules, it does give us guidelines on identifying historical swords. If you are marketing your products to people as representations of a certian type and form from the typology - it is your duty to make sure it is of that type and form, nay?
If you are a manufacturer and you tell me you are selling a Type XIII sword and it's really a Type XV; I'm going to ask you about it. But, then again, if you are calling a Type XIII a Type XV, I'd also think that perhaps you that you needed to educate yourself a little better before you earn my hard-earned dollars; because quite frankly, you just insulted the whole forum's intelligence as well as my own. Don't call a duck a goose and expect me to buy it, I have my own standards for collecting that must be met for me to spend my cash.
It could be that you absolutely don't care about typology or how something looks or functions. That is completely your own business. Since you are spending money on what you feel is a value or what enhances your collection by your own set guidelines, it does not matter what anyone else thinks. Likewise, you really cannot bag on people who are critical of the typology either. They will be critical of what they want to because they are spending their money and you are spending yours.
And that is just the way it is, wheather you are collecting swords, cars, guns, or anything else. Some people are critical, others are not, some complain, others compliment, some are fanboys, others are haters, so on and so forth. Any collectible seller has to deal with collectors, which can be either easy or hard to please in nature; and that is a challenge unto itself.
And that just happens to be how the world of collecting is...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2009 22:47:05 GMT
What irritates me is when a sword does not completely fall under one of Oakeshott's categories and people start to say that it is not historically accurate. I don't mean calling an XVIII a norse sword or celtic sword, I am talking about when, for the sake of my message, a manufacturer makes a sword and labels it a viking sword, although the blade may resemble something between a type XII and type X. In my mind that is simply a unique norse sword, and Mr. Oakeshott even listed several norse swords as unclassified due to the fact that they fell under a category from a later period or no category at all. However, there are those who will not hesitate to say that for a sword like that to have existed is impossible just because it isn't a type X, and type XII swords existed later than the "viking age". I am trying to convey a message that using "black and white" methods of labelling are often ineffective with swords, and there is a difference between what was generally used during certain eras and what was almost certainly not used. Anyways, this is only loosely related to the original post, but it brought up some very well-said points.
|
|
|
Post by ShooterMike on Nov 29, 2009 2:02:24 GMT
That's a good point and a good example. It's pretty well documented that older blades were refitted centuries later with hilts that were fashionable in that time. So it's not unheard of to see earlier cutting-style blades of types X thru XIII with 15th century hilts. Heck, some of them even got fitted to basket-hilts as late as the 1700s. If folks rag on a sword just because the blade and the hilt don't match, well that's just taking it in the wrong direction. A lot has to do with how the manufacturer tries to market the piece.
However, what really puts me off is when the features of different blade styles get mixed in a single blade. Like making a straight non-tapered cutting blade that looks like a Type XIIIb, but with a flattened diamond cross section. It seems that the whole point of going to the trouble, in period, of making a blade with a reinforced central rib was solely to make a stiff blade with a reinforced "pointy" point. To incorporate that feature in a blade with no appreciable thrusting tip just shows a manufacturer doesn't really understand blade properties.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2009 9:27:01 GMT
Jon, if the sword is marketed as a historical plausible viking sword...no issue. When your marketing it as a historically accurate viking sword...you need either documented examples of a blade that differs in the same ways as yours...or you need to follow the typology...otherwise it´s not historically accurate...just plausible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2009 13:26:44 GMT
Correct, and correct.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2009 22:21:04 GMT
As I see it, the typologies are just that: various types of swords. There may be some room for variation, but if you diviate too much from one type you end up with a different type of sword - not unlikely one that isn't covered by the typology.
I mean, it's probably possible to put together a typology of common fantasy swords as well, if you have the time and ambition. The idea is the same, after all, and no one has ever said it only applies to historical swords. In the end, it's just a way of telling one sword from another.
Also, this thread reminds me of the Albion Discerner, which is a recreation of the so-called Lindsay Sword.
Quoted from the Albion website:
So here we have a sword that experts consider "strange" for the period it's supposedly from, and that doesn't quite fit into the typology because it has features from multiple types.
I think that illustrates what these typologies are: a documentation of trends throughout the ages, representing what we know for sure existed as historical reality.
The fact that a sword doesn't fit into a type doesn't mean it's not historical per definition; it might just be a rare anomaly. But if you are going to claim your not-quite-Type Xa is an accurate historical recreation, you need to be able to show an actual historical artifact to prove it.
|
|